WEBVTT 00:00:00.560 --> 00:00:03.020 - Okay, good evening, let me call to order this 00:00:03.020 --> 00:00:07.120 - Meeting of the city of Bloomington Playing Commission for October 6th 00:00:07.120 --> 00:00:09.480 - 2025 00:00:09.480 --> 00:00:12.800 - Let me just give a quick overview of our agenda this evening 00:00:12.800 --> 00:00:15.920 - We really only have one 00:00:15.920 --> 00:00:21.480 - Petition to hear this evening. There are a few petitions that 00:00:21.480 --> 00:00:24.360 - have been 00:00:24.360 --> 00:00:28.680 - tabled and remain tabled those are SP 24 - 22 00:00:29.400 --> 00:00:31.640 - zio 34 - 23 00:00:31.640 --> 00:00:35.520 - and zio 0 1 - 25 00:00:35.520 --> 00:00:42.640 - We also have SP 28 25 that was continued none of those will be 00:00:42.640 --> 00:00:48.520 - Heard this evening. The only petition we have to hear this evening is zio - 33 25 00:00:48.520 --> 00:00:51.240 - which are 00:00:51.240 --> 00:00:56.880 - text amendments to the ud o related to the City Council resolution on 00:00:58.160 --> 00:01:00.160 - affordable housing incentives 00:01:00.160 --> 00:01:07.680 - So we will get to that as quickly as we can let's let's start by calling the roll 00:01:07.680 --> 00:01:18.680 - Seabor here homes here Kenzie here 00:01:18.680 --> 00:01:26.840 - Stossburg here Whistler here. So we do have a quorum but just 00:01:27.000 --> 00:01:29.000 - Oh 00:01:29.000 --> 00:01:38.680 - Here thank you, thank you and sorry, I didn't realize I didn't see the only screen is behind me 00:01:38.680 --> 00:01:40.680 - so I didn't see that we have a 00:01:40.680 --> 00:01:44.120 - Commissioner joining remotely tonight 00:01:44.120 --> 00:01:51.640 - But so that still means we have we have five voting members present which is just barely a quorum 00:01:51.640 --> 00:01:51.840 - so 00:01:54.800 --> 00:02:01.080 - You know we can proceed with with the agenda tonight, but I think given that 00:02:01.080 --> 00:02:07.620 - About half of our colleagues are not here. We're probably going to want to provide an opportunity 00:02:07.620 --> 00:02:10.400 - for for their input on this as well 00:02:10.400 --> 00:02:16.960 - But before we get to that petition, let's we do have a couple of housekeeping items to take care of 00:02:16.960 --> 00:02:17.440 - we have 00:02:17.440 --> 00:02:23.940 - We have minutes to be approved from both the August 11th meeting and the September 8th meeting 00:02:24.080 --> 00:02:30.000 - Are there any questions about those minutes or any corrections to those minutes? 00:02:30.000 --> 00:02:39.980 - Commissioner Stossberg, I will embarrassingly say I didn't notice that those minutes were there I 00:02:39.980 --> 00:02:41.640 - didn't read them 00:02:41.640 --> 00:02:48.960 - Despite your admission I would motion to approve these 00:02:49.560 --> 00:02:55.200 - Pretty straightforward minutes from August 11th and September 8th, but if we want to do them 00:02:55.200 --> 00:02:55.640 - separately 00:02:55.640 --> 00:02:58.800 - I'll just do August 11th first because we have seen that one 00:02:58.800 --> 00:03:01.120 - twice now 00:03:01.120 --> 00:03:03.120 - August 11th 00:03:03.120 --> 00:03:08.840 - So, why don't we do that one at least so there's a motion to approve the August 11th minutes, is 00:03:08.840 --> 00:03:09.820 - there a second second? 00:03:09.820 --> 00:03:14.920 - All right, let's call the roll on the approval of the August 11th meeting 00:03:14.920 --> 00:03:19.040 - Yes, Kinsey, yes 00:03:19.760 --> 00:03:21.760 - Stossburg 00:03:21.760 --> 00:03:27.050 - Yes, because I just look at the thing that changed which is what I requested to be changed so, 00:03:27.050 --> 00:03:27.760 - thank you 00:03:27.760 --> 00:03:30.840 - Whistler, yes 00:03:30.840 --> 00:03:36.820 - Seymour, yes. Okay the August 11th minutes are approved 00:03:36.820 --> 00:03:41.080 - Commissioner Stossburg, would you like to 00:03:41.080 --> 00:03:43.800 - Move to 00:03:43.800 --> 00:03:48.390 - Continue the September 8th meeting minutes till our till our next meeting so you've got a chance to 00:03:48.390 --> 00:03:49.120 - review those 00:03:49.120 --> 00:03:51.940 - Well, or I could skim them real quick and you all could go slow 00:03:51.940 --> 00:03:56.440 - I'm sorry. I said or I could skim them real quick and you all could go slow 00:03:56.440 --> 00:04:12.760 - Are there any other questions or comments related to those minutes 00:04:12.760 --> 00:04:14.760 - I 00:04:14.760 --> 00:04:23.360 - I'll motion very slowly to approve the September 8th minutes 00:04:23.360 --> 00:04:30.880 - All right, there's a motion to approve the September 8th minutes 00:04:30.880 --> 00:04:34.920 - Is there a second for that motion? 00:04:34.920 --> 00:04:42.120 - I'll second it. Those were really short 00:04:42.600 --> 00:04:44.600 - All right any discussion 00:04:44.600 --> 00:04:51.040 - Seeing none. Let's go to calling the roll on the approval of the September 8th minutes 00:04:51.040 --> 00:04:58.040 - Yes 00:04:58.040 --> 00:05:02.040 - Yes 00:05:02.040 --> 00:05:04.600 - Yes 00:05:04.600 --> 00:05:08.560 - Seabor yes Holmes. Yes 00:05:08.560 --> 00:05:10.560 - Okay 00:05:10.560 --> 00:05:22.720 - Leave the minutes are approved. Do we have any reports resolutions or communications from? 00:05:22.720 --> 00:05:26.640 - Commissioners first 00:05:26.640 --> 00:05:33.000 - All right seeing none do we have any from staff looks like we do 00:05:34.160 --> 00:05:39.410 - Yes, I'll be real quick for you. I just wanted to give everybody. Oh, sorry Ryan Roebling planning 00:05:39.410 --> 00:05:40.440 - services manager 00:05:40.440 --> 00:05:42.440 - I wanted to give everyone an update 00:05:42.440 --> 00:05:47.580 - We've been in the works for a long time the college and walnut corridor study 00:05:47.580 --> 00:05:51.240 - It's kind of been dormant or in the background for a while 00:05:51.240 --> 00:05:55.500 - But we've still been working on it and we're going to have some public meetings that I wanted to 00:05:55.500 --> 00:05:56.440 - alert everyone to 00:05:56.440 --> 00:06:02.640 - So there will be a more formal announcement, but this meeting happened first that we expect that 00:06:02.640 --> 00:06:03.640 - sometime next week 00:06:04.160 --> 00:06:05.360 - but 00:06:05.360 --> 00:06:10.720 - Tuesday October 28th will be a meeting a public meeting and then Thursday October 30th 00:06:10.720 --> 00:06:13.160 - We'll have to there'll be the essentially the same meeting twice 00:06:13.160 --> 00:06:19.670 - Will do it open house here in council chambers. So if you could come to one or both, that'd be 00:06:19.670 --> 00:06:20.200 - great 00:06:20.200 --> 00:06:24.360 - there will also be an online form for feedback from the public and 00:06:24.360 --> 00:06:30.250 - We'll do the the whole nine yards. We'll do some pop-up pop-ups during that in the next week as 00:06:30.250 --> 00:06:30.560 - well 00:06:30.560 --> 00:06:34.440 - so we'll be out on the corridor asking for feedback from members of the public and 00:06:34.440 --> 00:06:40.850 - Yeah, so we're excited. We have two designs narrowed down that we've talked about all those years 00:06:40.850 --> 00:06:41.080 - ago 00:06:41.080 --> 00:06:44.560 - and we'll hopefully get everybody to weigh in and 00:06:44.560 --> 00:06:50.290 - Get something to you. The another reason I'm bringing it up is I need everyone to be aware that we'll 00:06:50.290 --> 00:06:52.160 - probably ask to have a 00:06:52.160 --> 00:06:57.920 - special meeting of the planning and trade or planning commission. I'll get there eventually 00:06:58.600 --> 00:07:02.620 - in potentially late November early December 00:07:02.620 --> 00:07:06.520 - We don't want to put it on your regular agenda because it might be a large 00:07:06.520 --> 00:07:10.200 - topic to cover with all of your other topics, so 00:07:10.200 --> 00:07:16.200 - We'll reach out to you in the next couple days about organizing a date when everybody's available 00:07:16.200 --> 00:07:20.260 - So keep that in mind if there are any complete blackout dates 00:07:20.260 --> 00:07:24.480 - But yeah, happy to answer any questions if anybody has any or you can reach out and email me 00:07:24.480 --> 00:07:26.880 - But yeah, we'll see you in a couple weeks 00:07:26.880 --> 00:07:28.880 - I 00:07:28.880 --> 00:07:34.960 - Do have a question Ryan on this one, maybe 00:07:34.960 --> 00:07:38.160 - certainly a question first is 00:07:38.160 --> 00:07:44.880 - Is some of the information the two designs are those already publicly available or posted? 00:07:44.880 --> 00:07:51.800 - So yeah, we if you recall from way back when we did a presentation on the feedback that we received 00:07:51.800 --> 00:07:52.080 - from 00:07:52.080 --> 00:07:54.880 - stakeholders and members of the public during our 00:07:55.680 --> 00:07:59.880 - Engagement week. So we've moved forward with the two designs that kind of came out of that 00:07:59.880 --> 00:08:07.880 - You can find those on the studies website. This will be a line drawing. So it'll be a map or 00:08:07.880 --> 00:08:12.920 - Ortho imagery of the corridor and then what we're proposing 00:08:12.920 --> 00:08:18.140 - Similar to what you see on other corridor designs. Okay good 00:08:18.140 --> 00:08:21.560 - Yeah, and this is you know a little bit of a comment 00:08:21.560 --> 00:08:26.000 - But I do think that because whenever these kind of large public 00:08:26.000 --> 00:08:30.560 - Where the public is pretty interested at the get-go and then there's some gap 00:08:30.560 --> 00:08:36.850 - You know, this is where we always hear people will complain or say oh, I didn't know that was still 00:08:36.850 --> 00:08:38.080 - going or I had no idea 00:08:38.080 --> 00:08:43.980 - That project was still viable. So I just would urge that you know, there'd be some indication on 00:08:43.980 --> 00:08:46.280 - there that these aren't just sitting here as 00:08:46.280 --> 00:08:49.680 - dead or 00:08:49.720 --> 00:08:56.480 - Decaying projects, but they actually are being reconsidered and and are actively being considered 00:08:56.480 --> 00:08:59.520 - So that we don't run into that same complaint 00:08:59.520 --> 00:09:02.400 - So yes, that's great feedback. Yeah 00:09:02.400 --> 00:09:06.980 - Unfortunately that kind of happened here, but we'll be better about it in the future and we'll make 00:09:06.980 --> 00:09:08.040 - sure to include 00:09:08.040 --> 00:09:11.800 - It's not meant to be a criticism. No, I just the reality 00:09:11.800 --> 00:09:17.760 - Did not take it as such but yes acknowledging that that did kind of happened here and 00:09:18.460 --> 00:09:20.380 - We are hopeful that it won't happen again 00:09:20.380 --> 00:09:25.120 - But we'll also include that information that we've been working on at the whole time and things 00:09:25.120 --> 00:09:25.660 - like that 00:09:25.660 --> 00:09:35.560 - If you said it I missed it what time were those meetings on Tuesday and Thursday 00:09:35.560 --> 00:09:39.280 - They both will start at 530 right here in council chambers 00:09:39.280 --> 00:09:42.080 - Great. Thank you 00:09:42.080 --> 00:09:45.640 - Any other questions 00:09:45.920 --> 00:09:51.840 - Any other reports resolutions or communications from staff? Thank you assistant director Jackie 00:09:51.840 --> 00:09:52.740 - Scanlon 00:09:52.740 --> 00:09:59.740 - We are hearing officer bad backup appointment Karina Pasos took a position with the city of Chicago 00:09:59.740 --> 00:10:00.820 - a number of weeks ago 00:10:00.820 --> 00:10:02.920 - So we need to replace her 00:10:02.920 --> 00:10:05.200 - and so we are 00:10:05.200 --> 00:10:11.050 - Asking you to appoint Kendall Kenoki. He is an engineer on the engineering in the engineering 00:10:11.050 --> 00:10:11.600 - department 00:10:12.640 --> 00:10:16.620 - The rules of procedure allow you to appoint someone from planning commission or engineering 00:10:16.620 --> 00:10:22.680 - he was previously worked at a private civil firm and so has quite a bit of experience with the UDO 00:10:22.680 --> 00:10:23.400 - as well, so 00:10:23.400 --> 00:10:28.800 - Though Ryan who is our regular hearing officer rarely misses if we think 00:10:28.800 --> 00:10:33.640 - Kendall would be a good replacement. So we have to vote to change that 00:10:33.640 --> 00:10:38.440 - All right, is there a 00:10:38.440 --> 00:10:41.760 - Motion to appoint a new 00:10:42.760 --> 00:10:44.480 - Backup 00:10:44.480 --> 00:10:46.480 - hearing officer 00:10:46.480 --> 00:10:50.880 - I'll motion to appoint Kendall Kenoki as the backup hearing officer 00:10:50.880 --> 00:10:53.560 - Is there a second? 00:10:53.560 --> 00:10:57.800 - Second is there any discussion? 00:10:57.800 --> 00:11:06.270 - All right seeing none, let's call the roll on the motion to appoint Kendall Kenoki as the backup 00:11:06.270 --> 00:11:07.840 - hearing officer 00:11:11.200 --> 00:11:13.200 - Stossburg, yes 00:11:13.200 --> 00:11:16.000 - Whistler, yes 00:11:16.000 --> 00:11:21.140 - Seaborg yes Holmes. Yes Kinsey. Yes 00:11:21.140 --> 00:11:27.760 - All right motion carries the only other item I wanted to mention was we have three items tabled on 00:11:27.760 --> 00:11:28.320 - the agenda 00:11:28.320 --> 00:11:30.280 - and 00:11:30.280 --> 00:11:31.560 - the first 00:11:31.560 --> 00:11:36.000 - You'll recognize the address as a as the address of a site plan you approved this year 00:11:36.000 --> 00:11:40.160 - So we have asked the petitioner to formally withdraw that so we can take it off the agenda 00:11:40.400 --> 00:11:42.400 - So hopefully that will be gone before next month 00:11:42.400 --> 00:11:44.920 - They had a BZA case as well and that came off 00:11:44.920 --> 00:11:48.360 - But I think they just forgot about the plan Commission one and then the next two are 00:11:48.360 --> 00:11:53.560 - Text amendments so we're working with legal to see how to either move those forward or be able to 00:11:53.560 --> 00:11:54.640 - take those off 00:11:54.640 --> 00:11:59.080 - So we'll report back to you next month. Thanks. Okay. Thanks 00:11:59.080 --> 00:12:08.280 - Any other reports resolutions or communications from anyone else 00:12:08.320 --> 00:12:10.320 - All 00:12:10.320 --> 00:12:18.880 - Right, we are on then to our petition for the evening zio 33 - 25 I 00:12:18.880 --> 00:12:23.360 - Believe Jackie is going to present. Yes. Thank you 00:12:23.360 --> 00:12:30.880 - Zio 33 - 25 in our new system. It's zio 20 25 0 9 0 0 13 00:12:30.880 --> 00:12:28.570 - This is text amendments to the unified development ordinance title 20 in the Bloomington Municipal 00:12:28.570 --> 00:12:37.320 - Code 00:12:37.800 --> 00:12:39.800 - in response to resolution 00:12:39.800 --> 00:12:43.000 - 2512 from the common council 00:12:43.000 --> 00:12:51.040 - So the resolution is asking the Plan Commission to prepare a proposal that accomplishes two things 00:12:51.040 --> 00:12:54.840 - And so those are listed here. Let's see if I can 00:12:54.840 --> 00:12:58.400 - Love that to be more visible 00:12:58.400 --> 00:13:05.320 - so to amend a particular section in the UDO in order to assess the incentive structure and consider 00:13:05.320 --> 00:13:07.720 - creating additional incentives for affordable housing and 00:13:07.960 --> 00:13:13.680 - including but not limited to expected owner occupied unit development and the second item is a 00:13:13.680 --> 00:13:19.470 - separate particular section of the UDO in order to assess the payment in lieu option and consider 00:13:19.470 --> 00:13:22.180 - an increase in the qualifying standard for 00:13:22.180 --> 00:13:24.840 - developments utilizing a payment in lieu procedure 00:13:24.840 --> 00:13:29.040 - We discussed this along with a third item related to 00:13:29.040 --> 00:13:34.480 - incentives at the February 20 25 Plan Commission hearing but because of errors in 00:13:35.760 --> 00:13:42.130 - When that ear hearing was held the Common Council passed a new resolution. And so that is what we 00:13:42.130 --> 00:13:43.200 - are hearing today 00:13:43.200 --> 00:13:46.560 - Today is the last day 00:13:46.560 --> 00:13:48.800 - Today we are meeting the first requirement 00:13:48.800 --> 00:13:53.480 - That we hear the petition within 60 days and then the Planning Commission will have to make a 00:13:53.480 --> 00:13:56.160 - recommendation to counsel within 60 days of today 00:13:56.160 --> 00:13:59.280 - So you will definitely hear it in November 00:13:59.280 --> 00:14:03.780 - I will check here shortly to see if the December meeting is within that 60 days 00:14:03.880 --> 00:14:08.080 - Otherwise, if you wanted to have more than one additional hearing we could have a special hearing 00:14:08.080 --> 00:14:11.040 - Okay. So in response to this resolution 00:14:11.040 --> 00:14:14.120 - the department hosted a 00:14:14.120 --> 00:14:20.650 - discussion we had talked here in February and then with the office of the mayor and housing and 00:14:20.650 --> 00:14:21.480 - neighborhood development 00:14:21.480 --> 00:14:27.680 - about potentially having some sort of working group for this topic and that kind of 00:14:28.600 --> 00:14:34.720 - Evolved into a discussion session held by Planning and Transportation Department staff with local 00:14:34.720 --> 00:14:36.080 - developers realty 00:14:36.080 --> 00:14:40.890 - Representatives build builders some plan Commission members and other stakeholders. We had that at 00:14:40.890 --> 00:14:41.680 - the end of August 00:14:41.680 --> 00:14:47.200 - In order to address these two questions. So the four questions we supplied to them 00:14:47.200 --> 00:14:51.720 - Are here and they were again focused on the two 00:14:51.720 --> 00:14:54.280 - kind of incentive questions that the 00:14:54.280 --> 00:14:56.960 - Council was looking for us to address 00:14:58.400 --> 00:15:01.240 - As you can imagine we did get a lot of feedback 00:15:01.240 --> 00:15:07.000 - It wasn't really all related to incentives, but some of it was and so we tried to use that feedback 00:15:07.000 --> 00:15:12.950 - To inform some proposed amendments. So the feedback that we received is kind of summarized there in 00:15:12.950 --> 00:15:13.600 - the packet 00:15:13.600 --> 00:15:16.640 - But more particularly for tonight 00:15:16.640 --> 00:15:19.080 - we 00:15:19.080 --> 00:15:20.160 - included 00:15:20.160 --> 00:15:27.560 - Redline proposals for the specific sections outlined in the resolution in order to address those 00:15:27.560 --> 00:15:28.200 - directives 00:15:28.440 --> 00:15:30.360 - so for the first one 00:15:30.360 --> 00:15:34.360 - Again, the first one is asking us to assess the incentive structure and consider creating 00:15:34.360 --> 00:15:36.560 - additional incentives for affordable housing 00:15:36.560 --> 00:15:39.040 - including 00:15:39.040 --> 00:15:41.240 - expected owner occupied unit development 00:15:41.240 --> 00:15:47.880 - So one of the this is the section that was called to be looked at in the resolution. It's a 00:15:47.880 --> 00:15:54.560 - 2004 110 c5 it's the affordable housing incentives section in particular and 00:15:54.560 --> 00:15:57.320 - One of the things that we looked at 00:15:58.160 --> 00:16:01.320 - We have a reduced reduced bulk requirements 00:16:01.320 --> 00:16:08.010 - Incentive section that is largely for obviously where you can see there smaller developments. It's 00:16:08.010 --> 00:16:10.000 - in the r1 through r4 and 00:16:10.000 --> 00:16:16.940 - It's related to single-family or duplex developments. So we already have that in the code where you 00:16:16.940 --> 00:16:17.800 - can make some 00:16:17.800 --> 00:16:21.680 - Reductions in lot area or lot width if you're doing a subdivision 00:16:21.680 --> 00:16:25.320 - Having reduced side set side and rear setbacks 00:16:25.920 --> 00:16:30.460 - And so one of the things we we are proposing here to kind of address 00:16:30.460 --> 00:16:37.640 - Incentives related to expected owner occupied unit development is that the maximum impervious 00:16:37.640 --> 00:16:38.880 - surface coverage 00:16:38.880 --> 00:16:44.440 - For lots that are also intended for owner occupancy may be reduced to 20% 00:16:44.440 --> 00:16:48.040 - so actually I emailed I think today with 00:16:49.920 --> 00:16:56.120 - Commissioner Holmes about this. This is so the way you'll see later. We reduce some of the 00:16:56.120 --> 00:17:03.400 - Maximums by certain percentages, but in this case, this would just be reducing your maximum to 20% 00:17:03.400 --> 00:17:05.840 - so you could 00:17:05.840 --> 00:17:09.020 - So I think it should be 00:17:09.020 --> 00:17:11.760 - increasing 00:17:11.760 --> 00:17:18.200 - So these always trip me up. So the maximum impervious surface coverage that are going to have 00:17:18.800 --> 00:17:23.280 - affordable housing and be intended for owner occupancy the 00:17:23.280 --> 00:17:26.800 - maximum impervious surface coverage is 00:17:26.800 --> 00:17:34.920 - Why I'm having some time with this is that's not right. Why am I saying that wrong increased to 20% 00:17:34.920 --> 00:17:38.440 - That's not right 00:17:38.440 --> 00:17:42.040 - Reduced to 20% the idea was okay 00:17:42.040 --> 00:17:45.540 - So I'll tell you what the idea was and then you can tell me why I'm having our time 00:17:45.540 --> 00:17:48.320 - That you would only have to have 20% open space 00:17:48.760 --> 00:17:54.310 - We don't have open space in these four districts. So I think this should say it may be increased to 00:17:54.310 --> 00:17:54.920 - 80% 00:17:54.920 --> 00:18:01.220 - So you could cover 80% of your lot. None of our districts between the r1 through the r4 allow 00:18:01.220 --> 00:18:02.560 - anything that high 00:18:02.560 --> 00:18:05.440 - so this would say if you're 00:18:05.440 --> 00:18:08.520 - meeting the affordable housing 00:18:08.520 --> 00:18:13.570 - Some of one of the tiers of affordable housing as well as and then we can talk about what does 00:18:13.570 --> 00:18:15.780 - intended for owner occupancy mean 00:18:16.000 --> 00:18:20.980 - That then you could cover 80% of your lot. So I will change that for next month. That's the 00:18:20.980 --> 00:18:21.600 - intended 00:18:21.600 --> 00:18:24.640 - Should be increased 00:18:24.640 --> 00:18:26.680 - to 80% 00:18:26.680 --> 00:18:28.680 - Coverage 00:18:28.680 --> 00:18:30.680 - Does that make sense to everyone? 00:18:30.680 --> 00:18:37.320 - Okay, sorry, what is it? What is it now again? Well, it depends on the district. So they're like 00:18:37.320 --> 00:18:39.100 - between 30 and 50. Okay 00:18:43.480 --> 00:18:49.040 - Right is reduced to 20% or the maximum impervious. So I think I'm yes is increased 00:18:49.040 --> 00:18:53.880 - To 80 to 80 because in these districts, so, you know in our mixed-use districts 00:18:53.880 --> 00:18:59.400 - We have both numbers of open a landscape area requirement and an impervious surface coverage max 00:18:59.400 --> 00:19:04.070 - But in the r1 through r4 you only have the impervious surface coverage max will just increase it to 00:19:04.070 --> 00:19:05.440 - 80 is the proposal 00:19:05.440 --> 00:19:12.080 - so the idea would be for example, if you are a developer such as habitat or another developer that 00:19:12.080 --> 00:19:14.200 - you 00:19:14.200 --> 00:19:20.110 - Know focuses on single-family detached or duplex units on their own lots that you would be doing a 00:19:20.110 --> 00:19:21.680 - subdivision and you would be able to 00:19:21.680 --> 00:19:28.480 - Have the lots be smaller because you would be able to cover more. I looked at the lots at 00:19:28.480 --> 00:19:36.440 - Osage place the ones that have already been built and the ones that I think it's called trail view 00:19:36.440 --> 00:19:40.440 - It looks like a football. It's like up here northwest of town. We look at it on an aerial 00:19:40.960 --> 00:19:46.480 - Near the beeline and they are both lower than 80. They're both closer to 50 00:19:46.480 --> 00:19:51.560 - So I think it could be kind of an interesting give that even the ones we've done 00:19:51.560 --> 00:19:56.800 - Those were both done the one northwest of town was done as a PD and a few decades ago a couple of 00:19:56.800 --> 00:19:57.560 - decades ago 00:19:57.560 --> 00:20:05.340 - That even when they were going to develop that they kind of kept it lower that if we increased it 00:20:05.340 --> 00:20:08.360 - Maybe that could be beneficial to those developers 00:20:08.360 --> 00:20:11.120 - so that's something to think about because we're trying to 00:20:11.120 --> 00:20:13.840 - It's hard because the owner occupancy 00:20:13.840 --> 00:20:17.760 - Is also a goal and so the affordable housing is a goal 00:20:17.760 --> 00:20:20.360 - Owner occupancy is a goal 00:20:20.360 --> 00:20:26.650 - So how to include the owner occupancy in this section that is for the affordable housing incentives 00:20:26.650 --> 00:20:27.740 - as another goal 00:20:27.740 --> 00:20:32.980 - So we are just kind of here saying like we're layering them if you're doing both then you can 00:20:34.080 --> 00:20:38.900 - Do this so this may be something for you all to think about in the next month and we'll continue to 00:20:38.900 --> 00:20:39.520 - think about it as 00:20:39.520 --> 00:20:43.120 - well, like how does that work with the other requirements and 00:20:43.120 --> 00:20:45.840 - Would we need to include? 00:20:45.840 --> 00:20:52.020 - More than what is already here related to the reduced lot area lot width and setback standards 00:20:52.020 --> 00:20:58.840 - Okay, so we included that portion there and then 00:20:58.840 --> 00:21:02.520 - In describing 00:21:03.240 --> 00:21:06.800 - Sorry, so we are still in the affordable housing incentive section 00:21:06.800 --> 00:21:09.680 - We're leaving the reduced bulk requirements section 00:21:09.680 --> 00:21:14.920 - Which again is only applicable to single-family and duplex in those four districts and going to 00:21:14.920 --> 00:21:16.480 - primary structure height 00:21:16.480 --> 00:21:19.760 - Which is 00:21:19.760 --> 00:21:24.740 - What we primarily see multifamily and they use the primary structure. They use the incentives to 00:21:24.740 --> 00:21:26.000 - build taller buildings 00:21:26.000 --> 00:21:28.880 - so in tier two projects 00:21:30.800 --> 00:21:33.540 - You can that's when you're doing 00:21:33.540 --> 00:21:40.590 - Currently that's when you're doing 15% of your units seven a seven and a half at 120 seven and a 00:21:40.590 --> 00:21:41.480 - half at 80% 00:21:41.480 --> 00:21:43.600 - of area median income 00:21:43.600 --> 00:21:47.620 - So you're giving you're offering some low 00:21:47.620 --> 00:21:52.970 - lower income than some of our other projects by including the second the second portion there as 00:21:52.970 --> 00:21:55.880 - opposed to the entirety being 120% and 00:21:55.880 --> 00:21:59.420 - So then you can receive up to two additional floors 00:22:00.040 --> 00:22:05.560 - So we have included here that projects that meet the tier two affordability standards 00:22:05.560 --> 00:22:11.990 - can also increase their impervious surface coverage allowance by 10% and then as I mentioned for 00:22:11.990 --> 00:22:13.420 - the mixed-use districts 00:22:13.420 --> 00:22:16.720 - Decreasing their landscape area by 10% so that those will still match 00:22:16.720 --> 00:22:21.360 - So for example, if you're in a district that allows 70% coverage 00:22:21.360 --> 00:22:27.720 - And requires 30% landscape area if you do the tier two 00:22:27.720 --> 00:22:31.560 - Which means you're providing units on site and some of them are at 80% 00:22:31.560 --> 00:22:40.260 - Then your building can then you can cover 10% more of your lot than you previously could with impervious 00:22:40.260 --> 00:22:44.120 - And I you know, obviously building 00:22:44.120 --> 00:22:51.290 - Want one building more bigger buildings or building bigger buildings as opposed to a lot of smaller 00:22:51.290 --> 00:22:51.920 - buildings 00:22:51.920 --> 00:22:56.240 - We have been told time and again is just more cost effective. And so the extra 00:22:56.760 --> 00:22:58.760 - Coverage may be something that's desirable 00:22:58.760 --> 00:23:03.960 - We only included that in the tier two projects because those are the ones that are giving us the 00:23:03.960 --> 00:23:05.240 - lower affordability 00:23:05.240 --> 00:23:09.120 - As it's as the UDO is currently written 00:23:09.120 --> 00:23:15.410 - Does anyone want to talk about that one before I go into the next one or would you rather I just do 00:23:15.410 --> 00:23:16.200 - both I 00:23:16.200 --> 00:23:18.840 - would 00:23:18.840 --> 00:23:24.440 - Just a question about where it's located. So this is section B primary structure height and this is 00:23:24.440 --> 00:23:25.720 - a bulk requirement 00:23:25.720 --> 00:23:26.880 - requirement 00:23:26.880 --> 00:23:31.000 - In the previous section was a reduced bulk requirements 00:23:31.000 --> 00:23:35.770 - So and I realized that one has a preamble that limits it to our one through our four which may not 00:23:35.770 --> 00:23:36.560 - be what you're trying 00:23:36.560 --> 00:23:40.880 - To target with the second one, but it's an I'm just is that the right place for it? 00:23:40.880 --> 00:23:47.000 - Is there another place where bulk requirements are addressed for non r1 through r4 or is this no? 00:23:47.000 --> 00:23:53.490 - So there were the reductions in like subdivision requirements or setbacks are only offered for the 00:23:53.490 --> 00:23:54.560 - smaller projects 00:23:54.560 --> 00:23:59.720 - They are not offered for the projects in the mix you currently the way the UDO is written 00:23:59.720 --> 00:24:01.920 - They're not offered for the mixed-use districts 00:24:01.920 --> 00:24:04.360 - slash larger projects 00:24:04.360 --> 00:24:08.880 - Okay, so this is probably the best place to play. I think so based on how we're looking for it 00:24:08.880 --> 00:24:11.960 - I wouldn't you know what I mean, like you right? It's kind of a weird add-on 00:24:11.960 --> 00:24:16.560 - They both are but especially because the resolution called for particular 00:24:16.560 --> 00:24:19.280 - You know for us to look at particular 00:24:20.600 --> 00:24:25.190 - Sections of the code we want to you know respect that and stay within those and and I don't 00:24:25.190 --> 00:24:26.840 - necessarily think there's a better place 00:24:26.840 --> 00:24:30.720 - For these two to live. Okay, and then if I may another 00:24:30.720 --> 00:24:37.040 - question that for this one and the previous one like what do these numbers allow like 00:24:37.040 --> 00:24:43.560 - 20% increase in r1 through r4 and as you're you're allowing smaller lot sizes 00:24:43.560 --> 00:24:49.820 - Which makes sense for affordable housing has there been like what does this enable them to do? 00:24:49.820 --> 00:24:54.440 - Where did you guys come up with 20% for the residential and 10% for this? 00:24:54.440 --> 00:24:58.340 - Is it meant to just move the line or where their actual calculations? It's like look they want to 00:24:58.340 --> 00:24:58.760 - build a house 00:24:58.760 --> 00:25:02.040 - That's 1700 square feet. They can't do it if they subdivide 00:25:02.040 --> 00:25:07.300 - Because of the impermeability requirement this gets them across the line and lets them do that 00:25:07.300 --> 00:25:11.960 - Where do these is their math that somebody do the math and say this is what would actually be 00:25:11.960 --> 00:25:12.520 - allowed 00:25:12.520 --> 00:25:15.840 - This is right. So I think what we've seen like I mentioned in the PUD 00:25:16.080 --> 00:25:20.620 - I'm sorry, I think maybe trail view the PUD that's northwest of here on the beeline 00:25:20.620 --> 00:25:23.040 - Because it's a PUD 00:25:23.040 --> 00:25:25.280 - I mean they did a PUD so that the lots could be smaller 00:25:25.280 --> 00:25:30.440 - But it seems like they carried over the same impervious surface coverage. So then the houses are 00:25:30.440 --> 00:25:36.440 - Smaller than they could otherwise be and maybe that's fine, you know, maybe that that that's what 00:25:36.440 --> 00:25:37.340 - size they build anyway 00:25:37.340 --> 00:25:43.100 - But if we allow for more coverage then even in the affordable housing projects the houses 00:25:43.520 --> 00:25:48.320 - Don't necessarily shrink because the lots are shrinking. They could still be 00:25:48.320 --> 00:25:51.880 - They they could be slightly larger 00:25:51.880 --> 00:25:53.880 - So I think that was part of it 00:25:53.880 --> 00:25:56.910 - I was thought that was interesting when I looked at both of those habitat projects that they were 00:25:56.910 --> 00:25:59.020 - actually basically holding our impervious lines 00:25:59.020 --> 00:26:01.020 - And maybe they would continue to do that 00:26:01.020 --> 00:26:03.640 - But we have had other develop 00:26:03.640 --> 00:26:10.240 - potential subdivisions in town where they're like just you know, just slightly under and 00:26:11.640 --> 00:26:16.200 - Maybe they could have gotten there by they could have gotten there on the lot size with these but 00:26:16.200 --> 00:26:16.640 - then 00:26:16.640 --> 00:26:20.870 - You know not being interested in the size of house that they could build that they would want it 00:26:20.870 --> 00:26:22.080 - wanted to have built something bigger 00:26:22.080 --> 00:26:25.880 - When they're just barely under that line, so there has been some feedback from 00:26:25.880 --> 00:26:31.240 - Builders of the public that says we need relief on this. Yeah, I think it's mostly in one way 00:26:31.240 --> 00:26:35.660 - But there's still a constraint over here. Sure. Yeah, it's mostly just us tracking that through 00:26:35.660 --> 00:26:35.980 - time 00:26:35.980 --> 00:26:40.410 - but I can give one specific example and then looking at the ones that have been successfully done 00:26:40.410 --> 00:26:41.540 - and thinking like how 00:26:41.540 --> 00:26:46.340 - Could these have been better maybe and that do we really need to be holding them? 00:26:46.340 --> 00:26:50.750 - especially in a subdivision situation where you're probably setting aside common area and stuff 00:26:50.750 --> 00:26:53.960 - like is it okay for these to function more as like 00:26:53.960 --> 00:26:58.900 - Not zero lot line development, but closer to that than what we have allowed previously 00:26:58.900 --> 00:27:04.020 - Okay, and these on the like the primary structure height these would apply to rentals 00:27:04.020 --> 00:27:09.220 - So like apartment buildings that are not single-family homes. Yes, that is primarily who uses these 00:27:09.220 --> 00:27:13.600 - Okay, and those they only need to have like what 15% of yes 00:27:13.600 --> 00:27:19.180 - So it's 15% affordable and then half of that 15% is at 80% AMI or lower 00:27:19.180 --> 00:27:25.060 - Okay, and more strict standard. Yes, so you can do tier one, which is 15% at 00:27:25.060 --> 00:27:32.340 - Say 120, thank you 120% of AMI 00:27:32.340 --> 00:27:34.700 - But then that's fine 00:27:34.700 --> 00:27:39.380 - But if we're trying to induce lower affordable housing, then we want to give the extra incentive to 00:27:39.380 --> 00:27:40.540 - the tier two projects 00:27:40.540 --> 00:27:45.180 - Okay, and then I will say now that you will see a second resolution 00:27:45.180 --> 00:27:50.710 - Those first those numbers that I'm talking about like the 120 and the 80% council has asked us to 00:27:50.710 --> 00:27:51.460 - look at those 00:27:51.460 --> 00:27:56.180 - Those were part of what you saw in February as well, but council split them off 00:27:56.180 --> 00:27:59.260 - So you'll see that coming up likely next month 00:27:59.260 --> 00:28:04.420 - With some proposals. So again, we did make proposals to you in February about that 00:28:04.420 --> 00:28:08.580 - Working with the Housing and Neighborhood Development Department to lower those percentages 00:28:08.580 --> 00:28:11.260 - So just to have that in your mind 00:28:11.260 --> 00:28:16.860 - again, we will talk about this again next month, so then you'll see them together but that as 00:28:16.860 --> 00:28:19.100 - Miss Killeen Hansen 00:28:19.100 --> 00:28:21.100 - Director Killeen Hansen has said here before 00:28:21.100 --> 00:28:23.620 - You know that 120 is really high 00:28:23.620 --> 00:28:26.900 - If we're trying to use this for actual affordable housing 00:28:26.900 --> 00:28:32.180 - So they so we will likely in response to that resolution propose to lower those percentages as well 00:28:32.220 --> 00:28:35.780 - You're gonna solve the 120 and the 90. Yes reduce 00:28:35.780 --> 00:28:46.940 - Okay, so on to the second item this is for you do section 2004 110 T7 110 C7 00:28:46.940 --> 00:28:51.920 - To assess the payment in lieu option and consider an increase in the qualifying standard for 00:28:51.920 --> 00:28:54.820 - developments utilizing a payment in lieu procedure 00:28:54.820 --> 00:28:58.060 - so 00:28:58.060 --> 00:29:02.280 - When the UDO was first adopted when this UDO was first adopted in 2020 00:29:02.280 --> 00:29:09.130 - The previous administration wanted to focus on on site units and so it was more difficult to do the 00:29:09.130 --> 00:29:09.960 - payment in lieu 00:29:09.960 --> 00:29:15.600 - You had to basically in some ways prove that you couldn't do the on-site units 00:29:15.600 --> 00:29:19.220 - Before you could do the payment in lieu council 00:29:19.220 --> 00:29:24.900 - That feeling I think in the administration changed a little bit over time and in 2022 00:29:25.460 --> 00:29:30.040 - Council amended the UDO to what it is today where you can just choose to do the payment in lieu 00:29:30.040 --> 00:29:32.040 - So that that's where we are now 00:29:32.040 --> 00:29:35.940 - So the 00:29:35.940 --> 00:29:42.720 - The resolution is asking you to consider an increase in the qualifying standard. So what we have 00:29:42.720 --> 00:29:43.380 - included 00:29:43.380 --> 00:29:45.900 - in response to that is 00:29:45.900 --> 00:29:51.020 - That in this section they asked us to look at section 7 payment in lieu 00:29:51.540 --> 00:29:55.700 - That a payment in lieu of providing housing that meets the tier one or tier two affordability 00:29:55.700 --> 00:29:56.720 - criteria 00:29:56.720 --> 00:30:01.940 - We have added that that can only be done in projects that contain more than 50 units 00:30:01.940 --> 00:30:07.360 - So that would increase the qualifying standard projects with less units wouldn't be allowed to do 00:30:07.360 --> 00:30:07.600 - it 00:30:07.600 --> 00:30:11.340 - We have heard from housing and neighborhood development 00:30:11.340 --> 00:30:19.630 - Staff that the more successful on-site unit projects anyway are smaller the large developments have 00:30:19.630 --> 00:30:20.720 - a much harder time doing it 00:30:21.360 --> 00:30:26.230 - So that's kind of why we thought maybe putting a number threshold in there for availability to even 00:30:26.230 --> 00:30:27.720 - be able to do the payment 00:30:27.720 --> 00:30:29.720 - In lieu addresses the resolution 00:30:29.720 --> 00:30:35.180 - With some information that we have, you know from real life that it actually is easier for the 00:30:35.180 --> 00:30:35.740 - smaller 00:30:35.740 --> 00:30:37.960 - projects to do it and be tracked 00:30:37.960 --> 00:30:42.160 - The resolution does not 00:30:42.160 --> 00:30:46.140 - Specifically address the administrative manual but because a lot of the because the calculation 00:30:46.140 --> 00:30:49.200 - lives in the administrative manual we'd be making a change there as well 00:30:50.200 --> 00:30:55.910 - This first one here residential projects must satisfy all applicable standards within 2004 110 C is 00:30:55.910 --> 00:30:58.880 - really just more of a housekeeping thing because 00:30:58.880 --> 00:31:04.960 - This kind of preamble only addresses non-residential student and dormitory projects 00:31:04.960 --> 00:31:09.120 - But we have other residential projects that use the housing development fund 00:31:09.120 --> 00:31:12.720 - So we're proposing to do a number of things here 00:31:12.720 --> 00:31:16.560 - And so you'll kind of I'm sure you've all been cogitating on them over the weekend 00:31:16.560 --> 00:31:20.460 - But you'll think about them for the next month and see if you think it's too many things or which 00:31:20.460 --> 00:31:21.760 - things you would maybe like 00:31:21.760 --> 00:31:23.640 - to focus on 00:31:23.640 --> 00:31:26.520 - so what we do now is 00:31:26.520 --> 00:31:32.920 - As we've said 15% of total projects when you're doing the payment in lieu. It's the same percentage. 00:31:32.920 --> 00:31:33.920 - It's 15% and 00:31:33.920 --> 00:31:36.480 - then you 00:31:36.480 --> 00:31:39.000 - Round that to the nearest unit number 00:31:39.000 --> 00:31:44.360 - This says bedroom, but I believe hand uses units because in the UDO it says units 00:31:44.360 --> 00:31:51.920 - And so then you pay $20,000 per whatever that number is so your total number of units 00:31:51.920 --> 00:31:54.720 - times 00:31:54.720 --> 00:31:56.640 - 15% and 00:31:56.640 --> 00:32:00.480 - Then times 20,000 and that's how we get the contribution number 00:32:00.480 --> 00:32:05.240 - So we're proposing that if you're choosing to do the payment in lieu instead of on-site 00:32:05.240 --> 00:32:12.360 - you will do the number that's equal to 30% of your total project units as opposed to 15 and 00:32:13.520 --> 00:32:14.840 - that 00:32:14.840 --> 00:32:21.080 - Your base contribution rate is now it would be $50,000. So this was actually increased. I'm sorry 00:32:21.080 --> 00:32:23.160 - I said that I did not clarify this earlier 00:32:23.160 --> 00:32:28.150 - It was increased to $30,000 this year by the Housing and Neighborhood Development Department. So 00:32:28.150 --> 00:32:29.640 - currently it's $30,000 00:32:29.640 --> 00:32:36.760 - So we would be increasing to 50 and so if you have units that are from studios ones twos and three 00:32:36.760 --> 00:32:37.440 - bedrooms 00:32:40.680 --> 00:32:43.880 - You would be paying at the rate that you have 00:32:43.880 --> 00:32:46.760 - Those you would be paying 00:32:46.760 --> 00:32:52.960 - $50,000 per unit and then for the units of four or five bedrooms, you'd pay an additional 00:32:52.960 --> 00:32:55.800 - $5,000 per bedroom 00:32:55.800 --> 00:32:57.920 - so this I 00:32:57.920 --> 00:33:04.620 - Think the idea first of all, we're trying to respond to the resolution 00:33:04.620 --> 00:33:10.520 - Which does seem to kind of want to focus more on units on site 00:33:11.240 --> 00:33:15.800 - How do we per actual provide actual affordable housing as opposed to just money? 00:33:15.800 --> 00:33:18.600 - into the 00:33:18.600 --> 00:33:22.200 - Housing Development Fund. So that is what we tried to do here with these 00:33:22.200 --> 00:33:25.440 - Changes and 00:33:25.440 --> 00:33:28.720 - So then we wrote in the conclusion some things for you all to consider 00:33:28.720 --> 00:33:32.760 - So there are proposed response which you can see here to resolution 20 25 12 00:33:32.760 --> 00:33:35.960 - Obviously raises the costs for the payment in lieu option 00:33:36.160 --> 00:33:41.800 - which in reality could make on or off site units more desirable for developer potentially or 00:33:41.800 --> 00:33:46.100 - That could just be fine and they could pay more now 00:33:46.100 --> 00:33:51.280 - we did receive feedback from some in the development community that the 30,000 is low and 00:33:51.280 --> 00:33:53.960 - That is why people just keep paying it 00:33:53.960 --> 00:34:00.080 - So thinking that that should probably be increased whether we and 00:34:00.800 --> 00:34:07.190 - Whether we try to really incentivize payment in lieu or really incentivize on site if we're leaving 00:34:07.190 --> 00:34:07.920 - in payment in lieu 00:34:07.920 --> 00:34:10.200 - We should increase the amount that we're charging 00:34:10.200 --> 00:34:18.050 - Okay, so then is that the best-case scenario the resolution seems to be desiring on and off site 00:34:18.050 --> 00:34:19.600 - units as opposed to payment in lieu 00:34:19.600 --> 00:34:24.320 - Does the Planning Commission think that is the basic best case scenario housing and neighborhood 00:34:24.320 --> 00:34:24.760 - development? 00:34:25.400 --> 00:34:29.910 - staff has expressed a preference for payment in lieu as opposed to developer built and monitored 00:34:29.910 --> 00:34:31.240 - units for the reasons that 00:34:31.240 --> 00:34:35.740 - Director Killian Hanson and miss Lafontaine have explained here before 00:34:35.740 --> 00:34:40.120 - They're hard to track the ones that we have that are older weren't great 00:34:40.120 --> 00:34:43.400 - They weren't done 00:34:43.400 --> 00:34:47.890 - The zoning commitments weren't great. And so some of them actually have vacant units. That is 00:34:47.890 --> 00:34:49.780 - obviously not what we're trying to get 00:34:49.780 --> 00:34:51.600 - so 00:34:51.600 --> 00:34:55.400 - Would it be preferential to encourage payment in lieu even if the 00:34:55.400 --> 00:34:58.040 - amount was raised 00:34:58.040 --> 00:35:00.600 - Something else that came out of the meeting that we haven't 00:35:00.600 --> 00:35:07.360 - Addressed specifically here except for including the additional impervious. I would say 00:35:07.360 --> 00:35:11.600 - under the single and duplex section is 00:35:11.600 --> 00:35:16.640 - Whether or not we should have separate incentives for developers of strictly affordable owner 00:35:16.640 --> 00:35:18.000 - occupied developments 00:35:19.440 --> 00:35:26.800 - some feedback we got from former habitat staff as well BHA staff is that 00:35:26.800 --> 00:35:31.960 - Just the way that the world is right now with funding even with all of the incentives that they can 00:35:31.960 --> 00:35:32.680 - get from the UDO 00:35:32.680 --> 00:35:37.130 - And even other things they can get from other departments in the city. They can't make new 00:35:37.130 --> 00:35:38.040 - developments work 00:35:38.040 --> 00:35:40.640 - It's just not enough money 00:35:40.640 --> 00:35:42.840 - and 00:35:42.840 --> 00:35:47.440 - So yes, so if the charge of the resolution which in the whereas clauses it says 00:35:48.920 --> 00:35:52.720 - That they would like to incentivize developers in the creation of affordable housing units. Do you 00:35:52.720 --> 00:35:54.640 - think that these changes are doing that and 00:35:54.640 --> 00:35:59.360 - That's kind of obviously the may the crux of the whole thing 00:35:59.360 --> 00:36:03.200 - But just something to think about when you're considering whether or not, you know 00:36:03.200 --> 00:36:05.640 - You think these make sense or how you might like to change them? 00:36:05.640 --> 00:36:10.480 - So we're happy to discuss again like President Whistler said there's only half of you here tonight 00:36:10.480 --> 00:36:16.510 - It might make sense to have a larger discussion next month, but we're happy to answer any questions. 00:36:16.510 --> 00:36:16.760 - Thanks 00:36:18.520 --> 00:36:21.640 - Thank You Jackie are there any questions from commissioners 00:36:21.640 --> 00:36:30.600 - Sure, I would like a little more discussion about the specification of intended owner 00:36:30.600 --> 00:36:33.960 - Occupancy, can you say a little bit more about what that's? 00:36:33.960 --> 00:36:41.840 - You know, what does that mean? And why is it isolated to just that one dimension of the criteria? 00:36:41.840 --> 00:36:45.880 - sure, so I think intended owner occupancy comes from the resolution and 00:36:47.080 --> 00:36:49.080 - You know the idea of 00:36:49.080 --> 00:36:54.840 - We can't mandate that something is be owner occupied. So yeah, that was kind of a question 00:36:54.840 --> 00:36:58.920 - That I wanted to maybe explore here with you guys 00:36:58.920 --> 00:37:03.180 - so intended owner occupancy if someone's intending for them to be owner occupied if it is for 00:37:03.180 --> 00:37:05.080 - example a developer such as habitat or 00:37:05.080 --> 00:37:07.200 - another low-income developer of 00:37:07.200 --> 00:37:13.190 - Of those kinds of smaller units what that type of a developer would very likely be willing to do 00:37:13.190 --> 00:37:14.760 - some sort of zoning commitment 00:37:14.760 --> 00:37:17.600 - Like yes, we're building these for people to own them 00:37:17.600 --> 00:37:25.140 - Because they in those situations, they're often already deed restricted or when they purchase them 00:37:25.140 --> 00:37:32.380 - So I thought it's possible that maybe we could put in some sort of reference to his owning 00:37:32.380 --> 00:37:33.420 - commitment 00:37:33.420 --> 00:37:36.440 - because this is 00:37:36.440 --> 00:37:41.200 - Describe because this is an opt-in program. It's not required 00:37:42.160 --> 00:37:47.080 - I don't legal doesn't love that. I don't think but I do think that they 00:37:47.080 --> 00:37:52.530 - Acknowledge that that's different than you know, just putting it in the by-right projects, which is 00:37:52.530 --> 00:37:53.640 - strictly illegal 00:37:53.640 --> 00:37:56.960 - So I didn't so I kind of wanted to ask you all 00:37:56.960 --> 00:38:01.000 - What you thought about that? I that was the only way I could think of 00:38:01.000 --> 00:38:06.280 - So far, how do we get to these intended owner occupied units? 00:38:06.280 --> 00:38:10.160 - If someone wants to tell us, you know wants to commit to doing them 00:38:11.640 --> 00:38:13.640 - That might work. Oh 00:38:13.640 --> 00:38:21.200 - I was also trying to figure out that right now that is 00:38:21.200 --> 00:38:27.020 - Associated with impervious surface coverage that that qualifier 00:38:27.020 --> 00:38:33.000 - But is there a way did you try and attach it someplace else in here? 00:38:33.000 --> 00:38:38.460 - Where is that just because it's a new dimension that you're attaching it. I mean all the other 00:38:38.460 --> 00:38:39.960 - things are already in there 00:38:39.960 --> 00:38:45.380 - Yeah, I think that area right. That's a great question. It's pop we could for example 00:38:45.380 --> 00:38:51.590 - Put that at the top of that section and indicate that if you're doing owner occupancy, then you can 00:38:51.590 --> 00:38:52.320 - get all of those 00:38:52.320 --> 00:38:57.630 - It's not something again that is widely used especially compared to the tier to the larger 00:38:57.630 --> 00:38:58.640 - developments 00:38:58.640 --> 00:39:04.930 - They use the affordable housing much more than smaller developments probably can or do but I think 00:39:04.930 --> 00:39:06.920 - the reason I did that was we were 00:39:06.920 --> 00:39:10.700 - When we were kind of debriefing about the meeting with the developers 00:39:10.700 --> 00:39:15.340 - Impervious surface was something, you know thinking being able to build slightly bigger 00:39:15.340 --> 00:39:19.800 - Not being held to some of the landscaping standards with something that came up 00:39:19.800 --> 00:39:25.400 - But I do think that that intended owner occupancy could probably be just included 00:39:25.400 --> 00:39:28.160 - potentially in the like 00:39:28.160 --> 00:39:33.760 - Preamble of this section and so then you could have all of these things if you're doing that 00:39:34.880 --> 00:39:40.680 - Yeah, I mean that would be my interest is if you know, it just seems odd to isolate it in 00:39:40.680 --> 00:39:46.220 - Yeah association with the impervious service coverage. So yeah, I could see the following 00:39:46.220 --> 00:39:49.100 - dimensional standard shall apply to single-family detached 00:39:49.100 --> 00:39:55.360 - Intended for owner occupancy, you know, somehow it could be in that first paragraph, right? 00:39:55.360 --> 00:40:02.620 - Just as a if if we're gonna go with that. Yeah, I mean, I don't I don't want to make legal squeamish 00:40:02.620 --> 00:40:03.400 - but 00:40:04.200 --> 00:40:06.200 - Yeah, I do feel like if it's 00:40:06.200 --> 00:40:10.690 - You know, we know that that's an interest of the public at least that we've heard that the 00:40:10.690 --> 00:40:12.640 - preference is for owner occupied 00:40:12.640 --> 00:40:14.640 - So that might help 00:40:14.640 --> 00:40:20.770 - appease some critics of this quickly or at least help them feel more comfortable with making a 00:40:20.770 --> 00:40:21.920 - change and 00:40:21.920 --> 00:40:25.680 - That's one question. Yeah, the other question I have if I just 00:40:25.680 --> 00:40:28.440 - is 00:40:28.440 --> 00:40:31.400 - Oh the 00:40:31.800 --> 00:40:37.160 - Qualifying units just make sure I'm clear on this that that will a unit 00:40:37.160 --> 00:40:41.600 - there's a standard definition for a unit, but it changes whether it's a I 00:40:41.600 --> 00:40:46.340 - don't even know how I want to say this a unit is is a 00:40:46.340 --> 00:40:52.760 - Bedroom and other space or maybe I need to ask what the unit as I sit here and okay 00:40:52.760 --> 00:40:57.200 - Which section are what part are you looking at specific? I'm just I just want to make sure we have 00:40:57.200 --> 00:40:58.400 - a definition for unit 00:40:58.400 --> 00:41:00.800 - It sounded like you indicated that 00:41:01.800 --> 00:41:06.280 - Hand has a definition for what qualifies as a unit 00:41:06.280 --> 00:41:09.880 - But I just want to make sure that that's a great question me 00:41:09.880 --> 00:41:14.260 - I should probably change that to dwelling unit to make it clearer. Okay, because that's what it's 00:41:14.260 --> 00:41:15.920 - referencing. Yeah, that's great 00:41:15.920 --> 00:41:19.080 - All right, that at least helps. Okay. Thank you 00:41:22.280 --> 00:41:30.860 - Thank you. So the change from 15% of total project dwelling units it does that change the number of 00:41:30.860 --> 00:41:34.880 - units that have to be affordable or is that purely for the 00:41:34.880 --> 00:41:40.100 - Payment in lieu calculation purely for the payment in lieu. Okay, so it doesn't change the tier one 00:41:40.100 --> 00:41:40.680 - in tier two 00:41:40.680 --> 00:41:46.310 - No, cuz it was 15% which was the same as the same requirement, but it's just coincidence. Yes, that 00:41:46.310 --> 00:41:46.440 - was 00:41:46.440 --> 00:41:51.680 - Okay. Well, we weren't when it was written, you know, they were decided to do that across the board 00:41:51.680 --> 00:41:53.680 - but there really is 00:41:53.680 --> 00:41:58.220 - Maybe an argument to be that they don't need to be the same and that if we're trying to de incentivize 00:41:58.220 --> 00:41:59.200 - payment in lieu 00:41:59.200 --> 00:42:05.020 - Basically that saying that that number that that percentage has to be it's based on a more of your 00:42:05.020 --> 00:42:05.520 - units 00:42:05.520 --> 00:42:08.360 - Than it then the number you would have to set aside 00:42:08.360 --> 00:42:11.680 - could 00:42:11.680 --> 00:42:14.320 - Do that potentially is there a difference between 00:42:14.320 --> 00:42:20.610 - This is just a question leaving at 15% and doubling the number and instead of 50 make it a hundred 00:42:20.610 --> 00:42:21.440 - at 15 percent 00:42:21.440 --> 00:42:25.460 - Doesn't the math come out exactly right? I don't know. Yeah, we 00:42:25.460 --> 00:42:29.360 - We did look at you know, because there's all there's been this 00:42:29.360 --> 00:42:35.820 - Tension between bedrooms and units so far as long as this has been written because it says units in 00:42:35.820 --> 00:42:36.240 - the ud. Oh 00:42:36.240 --> 00:42:41.680 - but the work that the team who wrote this did called the bedrooms and that's been confusing and 00:42:41.680 --> 00:42:42.960 - some of the zoning commitments and 00:42:42.960 --> 00:42:44.960 - things so I do want us to 00:42:45.280 --> 00:42:51.060 - Pick, you know pick one probably units because this I think that in miss LaFontaine can clarify, 00:42:51.060 --> 00:42:52.320 - but I think that's what hand uses now 00:42:52.320 --> 00:42:54.320 - anyway, but we would 00:42:54.320 --> 00:42:56.760 - call them dwelling units and 00:42:56.760 --> 00:43:02.140 - What was I gonna say? Oh, we've looked at a couple of the larger projects here in town recently 00:43:02.140 --> 00:43:03.200 - that have done 00:43:03.200 --> 00:43:08.780 - Payment in lieu and I can bring you guys that information next month to look if you did them the 00:43:08.780 --> 00:43:10.000 - current way how much? 00:43:10.000 --> 00:43:13.760 - That how much that contribution would be and then if you did them this way 00:43:13.760 --> 00:43:15.760 - How much that contribution would be? 00:43:15.760 --> 00:43:22.760 - You know and it was larger I think it's confusing because of the bedrooms some people were 00:43:22.760 --> 00:43:24.740 - concerned that it wouldn't actually, you know 00:43:24.740 --> 00:43:29.620 - Be impactful but and all the ones we looked at it was and I can bring those examples as well 00:43:29.620 --> 00:43:31.800 - Okay. Thank you 00:43:31.800 --> 00:43:37.840 - So what Jillian was asking about the intended who decide like if you have habitat in front of you 00:43:37.840 --> 00:43:38.800 - and they say we intend 00:43:38.960 --> 00:43:43.940 - To sell these with this is what we do. They're gonna be owner-occupied. Is it the Board of Zoning 00:43:43.940 --> 00:43:44.580 - Appeals? 00:43:44.580 --> 00:43:48.960 - Who is it that hears that and is going to be judging and deciding? Okay. I believe you or I don't 00:43:48.960 --> 00:43:50.520 - well, it's probably you all 00:43:50.520 --> 00:43:58.000 - So I think that that's one reason to maybe consider 00:43:58.000 --> 00:44:03.550 - including a requirement for zoning commitment that they're they're indicating that they do really 00:44:03.550 --> 00:44:06.380 - intend for those to be owner-occupied as opposed to 00:44:08.600 --> 00:44:10.600 - Maybe fudging that a little 00:44:10.600 --> 00:44:17.880 - Yeah, yeah, okay, I think that's easier for the detached and the duplexes than it would be for 00:44:17.880 --> 00:44:20.120 - something to be condoized or apartments 00:44:20.120 --> 00:44:25.930 - It's just so I don't think it I don't think it's like beyond the pale to ask someone or you know to 00:44:25.930 --> 00:44:26.920 - include that in this 00:44:26.920 --> 00:44:33.120 - In this type in this area where you know, they have to opt into this 00:44:33.120 --> 00:44:36.400 - But yeah, we don't we wouldn't have to do that 00:44:36.920 --> 00:44:43.070 - Okay, and and I I know you're not gonna have all this but we're gonna have a discussion about this 00:44:43.070 --> 00:44:43.620 - next time 00:44:43.620 --> 00:44:48.820 - And when I read all this I was thinking like well, how many projects over the past five years 00:44:48.820 --> 00:44:50.600 - qualified for t1? 00:44:50.600 --> 00:44:55.850 - How many petitions were there for t1? How many qualified and petitioned for t2? Okay, how many 00:44:55.850 --> 00:44:56.720 - payment and lose? 00:44:56.720 --> 00:44:59.960 - Happened every year for the past five years, right? 00:44:59.960 --> 00:45:04.960 - Like some of the data to see what we've been doing and how it worked because I'm we're flying 00:45:04.960 --> 00:45:05.560 - flying blind 00:45:05.560 --> 00:45:09.460 - I'm just coming into this. I don't know what has happened in the history of these things 00:45:09.460 --> 00:45:14.270 - So and we're being asked to change it and data on these things would be very useful and since it 00:45:14.270 --> 00:45:15.240 - conveniently we're gonna 00:45:15.240 --> 00:45:20.290 - Probably continue this or forward it in here at next time. I have the opportunity to ask if you 00:45:20.290 --> 00:45:21.180 - guys could produce 00:45:21.180 --> 00:45:27.080 - Some of some data like that to show us sort of what it how have these rules functioned 00:45:27.080 --> 00:45:30.360 - Existing 00:45:30.360 --> 00:45:34.800 - How many like how much payment and Lue dollars have come in? 00:45:34.920 --> 00:45:39.140 - Yeah, oh in the past. So this is how many we've done 00:45:39.140 --> 00:45:47.030 - I'm 98% sure. This is all of them. I hate showing this because then I just feel like I'm gonna 00:45:47.030 --> 00:45:48.880 - forget one, but this is them 00:45:48.880 --> 00:45:56.940 - So they're not they are roughly in order of time so evolve was 00:45:56.940 --> 00:46:00.200 - 17th and done 00:46:00.200 --> 00:46:05.340 - When Mayor Hamilton was new and it was a plan unit development. It was done before we had the 00:46:05.340 --> 00:46:06.840 - regulations written and 00:46:06.840 --> 00:46:10.200 - That was the first 00:46:10.200 --> 00:46:13.180 - Private development that went into the housing development fund 00:46:13.180 --> 00:46:21.000 - So then you can see we've had some smaller ones a project with 35 a project with 34 project with 33 00:46:21.000 --> 00:46:23.800 - and I would say 00:46:23.800 --> 00:46:26.360 - starting with 00:46:27.200 --> 00:46:33.900 - The Strouser construction on line 7 is probably the first one where it's been under these rules 00:46:33.900 --> 00:46:39.360 - So I can get you more information about tier 1 and tier 2. I when I was looking at this today 00:46:39.360 --> 00:46:41.360 - I actually think we've only done 00:46:41.360 --> 00:46:47.900 - Well, I'm not gonna say I can get you more information about that once the payment in lieu became 00:46:47.900 --> 00:46:49.480 - easier people choose payment in lieu 00:46:49.480 --> 00:46:53.200 - It's just easier. They don't have to worry about especially under the old 00:46:54.080 --> 00:47:00.140 - Administration the focus was on in perpetuity and people had a really hard time with that 00:47:00.140 --> 00:47:03.480 - so I 00:47:03.480 --> 00:47:07.620 - Believe these are all the ones that have gone into the 00:47:07.620 --> 00:47:13.120 - Housing Development Fund, but I'll verify before next month 00:47:13.120 --> 00:47:18.640 - With the controller and add any that needs to be added and I'll send you guys that information. So 00:47:18.640 --> 00:47:21.680 - again, we had 00:47:22.520 --> 00:47:27.650 - When dr. Killian Hansen was here one of the last times she was here. She talked about like how that 00:47:27.650 --> 00:47:28.200 - money is used 00:47:28.200 --> 00:47:31.040 - and 00:47:31.040 --> 00:47:32.520 - That was my next question 00:47:32.520 --> 00:47:36.960 - So a hand manages the money and do we have any kind of record for what they've done with it? 00:47:36.960 --> 00:47:40.080 - Because we are gonna be asked to decide are we gonna try to incentivize? 00:47:40.080 --> 00:47:46.730 - Builders to do this and manage it directly or are we gonna try and incentivize instead letting 00:47:46.730 --> 00:47:48.080 - builders just build and pay 00:47:49.080 --> 00:47:55.600 - And and let hand have the money to do it, right? So and I so I haven't I haven't looked this year 00:47:55.600 --> 00:47:57.600 - but last last year 00:47:57.600 --> 00:48:00.920 - With director Killian Hansen and 00:48:00.920 --> 00:48:06.730 - Controller McClellan we looked through the housing development fund and at that time the money had 00:48:06.730 --> 00:48:07.600 - been spent 00:48:07.600 --> 00:48:13.000 - Some money had been given to cyho some money had been given to the Monroe County Housing Trust 00:48:13.760 --> 00:48:18.920 - There is a small amount of money that's used for like software tracking the rad project 00:48:18.920 --> 00:48:21.360 - Which I can never remember what that stands for received some money 00:48:21.360 --> 00:48:27.630 - They hand uses money for down payment and closing cost assistance money to Bloomington Cooperative 00:48:27.630 --> 00:48:28.180 - Living 00:48:28.180 --> 00:48:30.840 - and then 00:48:30.840 --> 00:48:34.120 - Some to habitat some universe some to Union at Crescent 00:48:34.120 --> 00:48:35.760 - So a lot of the money is given 00:48:35.760 --> 00:48:40.750 - I mean the money has been given basically to projects that are providing affordable housing or 00:48:40.750 --> 00:48:43.040 - directly to people who 00:48:43.720 --> 00:48:45.720 - Are trying to purchase 00:48:45.720 --> 00:48:52.060 - Homes, I assume affordable homes, but miss Lafontaine could probably clarify that and then some of 00:48:52.060 --> 00:48:53.400 - them are loans and so 00:48:53.400 --> 00:48:58.290 - Various ways to support affordable housing that the money might be used. It's not just like one 00:48:58.290 --> 00:48:58.800 - program 00:48:58.800 --> 00:49:05.320 - And that is determined by hand and they every year at 00:49:05.320 --> 00:49:10.400 - Budget time they request a specific amount based on what they think they can 00:49:10.720 --> 00:49:14.800 - Allocate for the year based on what programs because I know they had a few new programs this year 00:49:14.800 --> 00:49:18.760 - I believe try and then they're allocated that money 00:49:18.760 --> 00:49:23.170 - And then of course, I think they could always go back and ask for more but that that's how that 00:49:23.170 --> 00:49:23.520 - money 00:49:23.520 --> 00:49:26.440 - Kind of comes out of the fund and is used 00:49:26.440 --> 00:49:34.680 - Okay, and when a builder does the payment in lieu they the units don't have to be affordable 00:49:34.680 --> 00:49:39.640 - So there's no deed restriction or contract with hand that requires that they get out of that 00:49:39.680 --> 00:49:43.560 - But they enjoy the benefit of the reduced requirements for the building, right? 00:49:43.560 --> 00:49:48.620 - They can have the more bigger setback or more impermeable. Correct, right? So that it's yeah larger 00:49:48.620 --> 00:49:51.080 - bigger height usually more units 00:49:51.080 --> 00:49:55.680 - and so it's usually it's a condition of approval here a plan commission and then 00:49:55.680 --> 00:49:59.760 - Usually we're specific here about when they have to make that payment 00:49:59.760 --> 00:50:03.640 - So for example before occupancy or before a site development permit is issued 00:50:04.480 --> 00:50:09.600 - Depending on the size of the project. We may we have phased some before 00:50:09.600 --> 00:50:16.200 - But that happens here that decision about when that money is distributed to the city. Okay, how did 00:50:16.200 --> 00:50:17.040 - you guys come at? 00:50:17.040 --> 00:50:20.960 - 50,000 so doubling it to 30 units and then changing it to 00:50:20.960 --> 00:50:27.690 - $50,000 where did that number come from? Well, I think we have been under the impression for a 00:50:27.690 --> 00:50:28.440 - number of years 00:50:28.440 --> 00:50:30.520 - When we originally wrote it 00:50:30.520 --> 00:50:34.480 - It says in the administrative manual the team that wrote it indicated that it would be being revisited 00:50:34.480 --> 00:50:35.000 - every year 00:50:35.000 --> 00:50:38.920 - and that hasn't been able to happen just with the 00:50:38.920 --> 00:50:44.040 - It just hasn't happened. So we've only increased it once to 30,000 00:50:44.040 --> 00:50:49.320 - And so because of the number of years, it's been I was thinking, you know 00:50:49.320 --> 00:50:51.040 - If we were increasing at 10,000 a year 00:50:51.040 --> 00:50:52.920 - We'd actually be slightly more than 50 00:50:52.920 --> 00:50:58.490 - But 50 seems like a reasonable number based on if there was an expectation when this started that 00:50:58.490 --> 00:51:00.000 - it would be being increased 00:51:00.400 --> 00:51:05.950 - Every year and then I think that was kind of supported for me by the feedback. We got that the 00:51:05.950 --> 00:51:06.800 - number was 00:51:06.800 --> 00:51:09.320 - Just too low 00:51:09.320 --> 00:51:14.580 - Okay, no studies. No data gathered. No looking at other cities because surely other cities have 00:51:14.580 --> 00:51:15.640 - this type of thing 00:51:15.640 --> 00:51:20.430 - Did we have we compared with like cities and what their numbers are for payment in lieu and what 00:51:20.430 --> 00:51:21.520 - the results are? 00:51:21.520 --> 00:51:27.960 - Yeah, we got any data out there. We can look at that. Yeah, I don't know that a lot. Yes, I don't 00:51:28.800 --> 00:51:32.880 - Know that a lot of our peer cities do an affordable a payment in lieu light like this 00:51:32.880 --> 00:51:34.880 - But I bet we will look into that for next month 00:51:34.880 --> 00:51:37.920 - Okay 00:51:37.920 --> 00:51:44.780 - Okay, I have like I can maybe correspond because there's like I have a whole list of data the types 00:51:44.780 --> 00:51:45.620 - of information 00:51:45.620 --> 00:51:48.080 - I would want to know in order to do this stuff and I'll see you can 00:51:48.080 --> 00:51:51.100 - Email that I'll just course to bond that'd be helpful. Thanks. Thank you 00:51:51.100 --> 00:51:57.040 - Commissioner Stossberg 00:51:57.560 --> 00:52:02.520 - Yeah, so in the affordable housing incentives part it says 00:52:02.520 --> 00:52:09.380 - That the following dimensional standards apply for the r1 through r4 that meet either of the two 00:52:09.380 --> 00:52:14.170 - criteria and subsection 2 above and so I went back to the original like to the whole UDO and so I 00:52:14.170 --> 00:52:15.240 - think that that's 00:52:15.240 --> 00:52:18.240 - like subsection 2 is 00:52:18.240 --> 00:52:25.320 - About the eligibility for tier 1 or tier 2. Is that right? I believe so. Yes 00:52:26.160 --> 00:52:28.160 - and so I guess part of my my 00:52:28.160 --> 00:52:30.720 - question lies and 00:52:30.720 --> 00:52:37.200 - Qualifying for affordable housing 00:52:37.200 --> 00:52:43.680 - Benefits especially I guess with regard to that section 00:52:43.680 --> 00:52:52.720 - But that might be very small projects and so it's that idea of going well, what if you know 00:52:53.280 --> 00:52:57.080 - Fifteen percent of projects. I mean, what if it's only two or three? 00:52:57.080 --> 00:53:02.990 - Dwelling units like what if it's two or three single-family homes? What if it's you know, like 00:53:02.990 --> 00:53:05.280 - somebody bought a large lot and thought 00:53:05.280 --> 00:53:07.920 - Okay, I'm gonna put a few on here. And so then 00:53:07.920 --> 00:53:11.600 - like those percentages don't work out well in 00:53:11.600 --> 00:53:14.640 - terms of qualifying simply because 00:53:14.640 --> 00:53:21.920 - like I guess I'm wondering how much thought has been given to especially small projects and 00:53:22.320 --> 00:53:25.400 - How to support or incentivize? 00:53:25.400 --> 00:53:34.240 - Those smaller developers sure I think I mean because this is the affordable housing incentives 00:53:34.240 --> 00:53:37.520 - section if you're doing a small project and 00:53:37.520 --> 00:53:43.960 - wanting to utilize these you're intending to do affordable housing and then you 00:53:43.960 --> 00:53:50.480 - Are getting these to make your project more feasible, right? Like this isn't someone who? 00:53:51.360 --> 00:53:53.920 - The person who's I mean and I could be wrong 00:53:53.920 --> 00:53:58.640 - But I think most people who are using these incentives in particular they reduce spoke requirements 00:53:58.640 --> 00:53:59.160 - incentives 00:53:59.160 --> 00:54:05.960 - they aren't like thinking of chopping their you know, 20 acres on the north side or whatever into 00:54:05.960 --> 00:54:09.880 - Eight and then thinking oh I can do 00:54:09.880 --> 00:54:16.440 - 13 if I do these but I have to set the side 15% it would be I think more 00:54:17.120 --> 00:54:21.070 - people who were intense people or developers who were intentionally looking to do affordable 00:54:21.070 --> 00:54:21.800 - housing and then 00:54:21.800 --> 00:54:24.840 - realizing that they could do more if if they 00:54:24.840 --> 00:54:27.920 - Set those aside 00:54:27.920 --> 00:54:29.080 - To those percentage 00:54:29.080 --> 00:54:29.640 - so yes 00:54:29.640 --> 00:54:35.080 - if there were if it was one person who wanted to cut off their lot and they couldn't 00:54:35.080 --> 00:54:39.100 - Cut off their backyard and they couldn't meet the size requirements, but they can meet it with this 00:54:39.100 --> 00:54:39.680 - then yes 00:54:39.680 --> 00:54:44.860 - One of those houses would have to meet the currently 120 00:54:45.640 --> 00:54:49.960 - And so you don't think that that's a problem, but I feel like I also just heard you say that 00:54:49.960 --> 00:54:52.240 - and 00:54:52.240 --> 00:54:54.120 - one of the reasons why I 00:54:54.120 --> 00:54:58.980 - Put this in as a resolution was that there were a few subdivisions that went through that didn't 00:54:58.980 --> 00:54:59.600 - even bother 00:54:59.600 --> 00:55:02.920 - Looking at the affordability stuff. Yeah, and 00:55:02.920 --> 00:55:10.000 - so do you think that I mean, I think I just heard you say that our affordability incentives aren't 00:55:10.000 --> 00:55:10.920 - appealing to those 00:55:12.000 --> 00:55:17.680 - Developers who are doing subdivisions. I don't think that the types of developers we see currently 00:55:17.680 --> 00:55:19.520 - do and we don't see almost any 00:55:19.520 --> 00:55:25.040 - Right. We've only you've only seen a couple doing single-family are not inclined to 00:55:25.040 --> 00:55:29.400 - Look to add in affordability if they're affordability 00:55:29.400 --> 00:55:32.240 - developers already then they 00:55:32.240 --> 00:55:34.920 - Look at these and see how many 00:55:35.360 --> 00:55:42.160 - You know lots they can get and try to try to maximize the the land that they have because they know 00:55:42.160 --> 00:55:42.800 - they're going to be a do 00:55:42.800 --> 00:55:49.840 - Doing affordable and the conversations that we have I would not say it's very common for a typical 00:55:49.840 --> 00:55:52.560 - developer to then I 00:55:52.560 --> 00:55:55.800 - Think what you're asking to then look at these and say oh these are so 00:55:55.800 --> 00:56:02.380 - Desirable that I'm willing to do affordable here because I'll get X number of units more and I 00:56:02.380 --> 00:56:03.640 - guess what I'm wondering is 00:56:03.800 --> 00:56:08.280 - What can we do to make it that desire? Yeah for those people sure like that would really be the 00:56:08.280 --> 00:56:08.520 - goal 00:56:08.520 --> 00:56:12.100 - Is to make it that desirable and is there a way? 00:56:12.100 --> 00:56:14.720 - to do that I 00:56:14.720 --> 00:56:20.870 - Will say what I've said before which is like feels like a cop-out, but I just don't think that's a 00:56:20.870 --> 00:56:23.120 - udio answer. I think that's a 00:56:23.120 --> 00:56:26.080 - money policy 00:56:26.080 --> 00:56:28.280 - infrastructure answer like if we 00:56:29.440 --> 00:56:33.880 - Could subsidize them in some way like with money. I think they'd be more 00:56:33.880 --> 00:56:38.680 - That's what people need they need subsidy to build them and we just we don't that's not a UDO 00:56:38.680 --> 00:56:41.800 - the UDO can't 00:56:41.800 --> 00:56:43.800 - solve the whole problem 00:56:43.800 --> 00:56:47.600 - But we will continue to think about it and try to answer that question 00:56:47.600 --> 00:56:53.640 - Yeah, I mean this is the UDO is the piece of the problem that we have any like 00:56:53.640 --> 00:56:56.920 - power over 00:56:56.920 --> 00:56:59.920 - Here. Yeah in this forum, so 00:56:59.920 --> 00:57:05.160 - That that's all I have right this second 00:57:05.160 --> 00:57:13.080 - One one question you had indicated 00:57:13.080 --> 00:57:19.640 - some question about should we have something for owner owner occupied affordable units separate and 00:57:19.640 --> 00:57:22.920 - was there any thought to that and 00:57:22.920 --> 00:57:25.920 - dedicating something more to 00:57:26.200 --> 00:57:28.680 - owner occupied affordable units is there 00:57:28.680 --> 00:57:31.280 - should yeah, so 00:57:31.280 --> 00:57:33.720 - the first amendment 00:57:33.720 --> 00:57:39.360 - Or the first part of the proposal does address that right giving the reduced bulk standards to if 00:57:39.360 --> 00:57:40.160 - you're both 00:57:40.160 --> 00:57:48.160 - But I guess what I was wanting to hear your thoughts on as we draft for next month is like 00:57:48.160 --> 00:57:51.400 - Is that enough or do you think there should be a separate section? That's definitely it's not 00:57:52.040 --> 00:57:56.800 - particularly the way the resolution is written it kind of seems like they're I 00:57:56.800 --> 00:58:02.030 - Don't know that it was I don't know if miss Stossberg was envisioning them like sandwiched together 00:58:02.030 --> 00:58:04.320 - those two goals or if they were looking for 00:58:04.320 --> 00:58:10.010 - Incentives to get one and to get the other separately because it's in the affordable housing 00:58:10.010 --> 00:58:10.880 - incentive section 00:58:10.880 --> 00:58:12.960 - I think the only way we can do it is to do them together 00:58:12.960 --> 00:58:20.740 - But I don't know I guess I just wanted to see if plan Commission felt like okay 00:58:21.000 --> 00:58:23.840 - This kind of covers that or if you would be looking for 00:58:23.840 --> 00:58:26.680 - even more incentive 00:58:26.680 --> 00:58:32.110 - For those types of units and I think it sort of connects a little bit to what you're saying a 00:58:32.110 --> 00:58:33.800 - little bit around smaller 00:58:33.800 --> 00:58:39.320 - Unit development so there might be some value to playing out that whole scenario 00:58:39.320 --> 00:58:45.690 - I mean the other thing that I think Commissioner Stossberg's comment raises for me is what what is 00:58:45.690 --> 00:58:46.400 - hands? 00:58:46.400 --> 00:58:49.040 - intention on creating 00:58:49.240 --> 00:58:52.200 - You know Jackie you were just saying some 00:58:52.200 --> 00:58:56.240 - options for loans or or 00:58:56.240 --> 00:59:02.280 - financial incentives to make that like if that it's not part of the UDO, but the other way to 00:59:02.280 --> 00:59:11.430 - Realize the goal would be for hand to have more flex in the housing development fund to allow for 00:59:11.430 --> 00:59:12.340 - those smaller 00:59:12.340 --> 00:59:17.040 - Unit developments and again, but that's not our purview. I understand 00:59:17.040 --> 00:59:19.040 - I 00:59:19.040 --> 00:59:30.600 - Can 00:59:30.600 --> 00:59:35.940 - Address at least my my motivation on including that in and the motivation on including that in is 00:59:35.940 --> 00:59:36.600 - that I hear 00:59:36.600 --> 00:59:39.320 - generally speaking 00:59:39.320 --> 00:59:44.120 - People interested in buying a house and can't find an affordable ownership opportunity 00:59:44.120 --> 00:59:48.940 - and so that and and and then tying that together with my experience on the Plan Commission and 00:59:48.940 --> 00:59:50.240 - going okay the 00:59:50.240 --> 00:59:54.560 - Builds that are utilizing these incentives are they're really big multi-family 00:59:54.560 --> 00:59:58.680 - Complexes, and so how can we get more? 00:59:58.680 --> 01:00:05.390 - projects with an intention or an option even for owner occupancy because in the big but multi-family 01:00:05.390 --> 01:00:06.040 - complexes 01:00:06.040 --> 01:00:12.320 - There's I mean you in theory could have a large multi-family condo complex, but we don't see those 01:00:12.320 --> 01:00:12.640 - either 01:00:13.000 --> 01:00:18.100 - right, and and so at least with the intention or the possibility of ownership and how can 01:00:18.100 --> 01:00:21.120 - that be supported and kind of 01:00:21.120 --> 01:00:28.440 - You know incentivizing developers to create that kind of project or that kind of something and so 01:00:28.440 --> 01:00:29.280 - it wasn't necessarily 01:00:29.280 --> 01:00:31.840 - Intended for those things necessarily to have to go together 01:00:31.840 --> 01:00:37.910 - I just didn't want owner occupancy to like to like be left by the wayside while we incentivized all 01:00:37.910 --> 01:00:39.120 - the all the 01:00:39.120 --> 01:00:40.840 - developments 01:00:40.840 --> 01:00:42.840 - intended to rent and 01:00:42.920 --> 01:00:44.920 - So I I just wanted that to be 01:00:44.920 --> 01:00:47.880 - Considered as a thing like how can we do that? 01:00:47.880 --> 01:00:49.640 - and 01:00:49.640 --> 01:00:55.100 - In terms of the Housing Development Fund, there are several new projects. I don't know if our hand 01:00:55.100 --> 01:00:59.440 - Representative who's here actually wants to speak to that or is prepared to speak to that 01:00:59.440 --> 01:01:04.040 - But there are several programs that they are getting off the ground this year in terms of 01:01:04.040 --> 01:01:04.760 - supporting 01:01:04.760 --> 01:01:09.880 - owner occupancy in different ways supporting rent assistance in different ways 01:01:10.160 --> 01:01:13.600 - they they do have different existing programs and 01:01:13.600 --> 01:01:18.800 - That support ownership and in terms of housing development money 01:01:18.800 --> 01:01:24.430 - That has to be appropriated by council in the same way that other things did so last year at budget 01:01:24.430 --> 01:01:26.160 - season for this fiscal year 01:01:26.160 --> 01:01:31.600 - There was part of the hand proposal was we want to use this housing development money for these 01:01:31.600 --> 01:01:33.680 - projects that that were like starting 01:01:33.680 --> 01:01:37.100 - And so that is something that you know, the public can track 01:01:37.880 --> 01:01:42.580 - Looking at at budget and in terms of how we're doing outcomes 01:01:42.580 --> 01:01:47.520 - This year in theory in the future. We should also be able to track like okay 01:01:47.520 --> 01:01:50.260 - It was we intended to have such and such an outcome 01:01:50.260 --> 01:01:55.080 - By allocating this money to this purpose and then the next year you can go. Okay here 01:01:55.080 --> 01:01:58.300 - We're here's what actually happened when we allocated the money to that purpose 01:01:58.300 --> 01:02:05.120 - And so because we had this great success we would like more money or because you know things didn't 01:02:05.120 --> 01:02:05.680 - go so well 01:02:05.680 --> 01:02:09.320 - So we want to transition into it, you know something slightly different or whatever 01:02:09.320 --> 01:02:13.600 - So that is stuff that you should be able to track in terms of housing development fund money 01:02:13.600 --> 01:02:22.390 - May I ask does all of the money that comes to hand for payments in lieu does all of that go back 01:02:22.390 --> 01:02:23.280 - into affordable housing 01:02:23.280 --> 01:02:28.630 - Or is it go into like you said, maybe it goes to the the general fund and then they have to make 01:02:28.630 --> 01:02:29.400 - appropriations 01:02:29.400 --> 01:02:31.320 - And so maybe it's only 50% of it 01:02:31.320 --> 01:02:34.860 - No, it goes to the housing development fund and then that's appropriated out of the housing 01:02:34.860 --> 01:02:37.480 - development. There are like a ton of different funds 01:02:37.480 --> 01:02:38.360 - There are so many funds 01:02:38.360 --> 01:02:42.060 - I can't keep track how many funds there are and I'm thankful for the controller every day who keeps 01:02:42.060 --> 01:02:42.760 - track of all this 01:02:42.760 --> 01:02:45.760 - But it does that means mostly it is going to go to affordable housing. Okay 01:02:55.400 --> 01:03:01.810 - I do have one more did did these changes get run through the people from the August 26th meeting at 01:03:01.810 --> 01:03:02.120 - all? 01:03:02.120 --> 01:03:05.040 - No, okay 01:03:05.040 --> 01:03:08.600 - As I stated before they didn't really have a lot of 01:03:08.600 --> 01:03:14.630 - Direct answers to the questions that we tried to pose to dress a resolution, but I'm happy to share 01:03:14.630 --> 01:03:15.280 - those with them 01:03:15.280 --> 01:03:22.680 - All right 01:03:22.680 --> 01:03:24.680 - We'll go now to public comment 01:03:25.200 --> 01:03:29.960 - If you're here in the chambers and you'd like to make come it just step right up to the podium 01:03:29.960 --> 01:03:31.880 - state your name for the record 01:03:31.880 --> 01:03:34.680 - And you'll have up to five minutes to speak if you're joining us online 01:03:34.680 --> 01:03:41.540 - You can click the reactions button and click the raise hand button or you can set a chat message to 01:03:41.540 --> 01:03:42.220 - the host 01:03:42.220 --> 01:03:45.240 - And we'll recognize you when it is your turn to speak 01:03:45.240 --> 01:03:50.560 - Is there any public comment on 01:03:50.560 --> 01:03:53.760 - zio 01:03:53.760 --> 01:03:55.760 - 33 - 25 01:03:55.760 --> 01:04:04.960 - If you'd like to make comment you can step right up 01:04:04.960 --> 01:04:13.880 - So, I'm Stephanie LaFontaine I'm with hand and Anna was not able to be here tonight because she's 01:04:13.880 --> 01:04:14.800 - doing the mayor's 01:04:14.800 --> 01:04:21.980 - Traveling town hall. So just one comment that that and we had in discussion was on page for the 01:04:21.980 --> 01:04:23.000 - payment in lieu 01:04:24.000 --> 01:04:26.000 - the 50 unit requirement 01:04:26.000 --> 01:04:33.510 - wasn't you know wondered why it couldn't actually be less than 50 units just because what we're 01:04:33.510 --> 01:04:34.120 - doing is 01:04:34.120 --> 01:04:41.600 - Increasing density basically and then putting money into the housing development fund and just 01:04:41.600 --> 01:04:49.200 - You know wondered why we were just going for 50 as could it possibly just as a as a point of 01:04:49.200 --> 01:04:50.920 - discussion for that 01:04:51.880 --> 01:04:53.880 - So 01:04:53.880 --> 01:05:06.560 - Last call for public comment on zio 33 - 25 01:05:06.560 --> 01:05:16.320 - All right, we are back to the Commission for any final discussion or for a motion 01:05:18.760 --> 01:05:22.120 - As I mentioned I think it's probably appropriate that we 01:05:22.120 --> 01:05:26.840 - continue this to a second hearing so that our 01:05:26.840 --> 01:05:33.640 - Colleagues have a chance to to weigh in but welcome any discussion commissioner Stossberg 01:05:33.640 --> 01:05:36.440 - Just in terms of data for next time 01:05:36.440 --> 01:05:40.480 - I would also appreciate speaking of that new payment in lieu calculations 01:05:40.480 --> 01:05:45.040 - just seeing some of those calculations with those past projects because if before 01:05:46.280 --> 01:05:50.900 - They were paying per bedroom and now they're paying per unit for up to three bedrooms 01:05:50.900 --> 01:05:57.240 - I guess I'm curious how those numbers would work out because I mean we're increasing our base price 01:05:57.240 --> 01:06:00.480 - But if before they were paying 01:06:00.480 --> 01:06:06.820 - $30,000 this year for each of three bedrooms and then next time they would be paying 01:06:06.820 --> 01:06:09.480 - $50,000 total for the three bedrooms 01:06:09.480 --> 01:06:14.960 - Like yeah, I'll clarify again. I think hand is using units not beds 01:06:14.960 --> 01:06:16.960 - But I'll double check and I'll apply those 01:06:16.960 --> 01:06:19.040 - Submit those for next month 01:06:19.040 --> 01:06:19.400 - Yeah 01:06:19.400 --> 01:06:22.230 - I mean and that's not something that like we can really vote on to change at the planning 01:06:22.230 --> 01:06:23.240 - commission level anyway 01:06:23.240 --> 01:06:27.790 - Because that's an administrative manual thing that like hand has total control of but I'm just 01:06:27.790 --> 01:06:30.180 - curious about about seeing some of those numbers 01:06:30.180 --> 01:06:33.840 - Okay 01:06:33.840 --> 01:06:41.680 - I guess the only other thing that now that 01:06:43.760 --> 01:06:47.720 - Stephanie LaFontaine raised the question about the number of units 01:06:47.720 --> 01:06:52.800 - I wonder if there is some logic to going less than 50 units 01:06:52.800 --> 01:06:59.000 - Well, I think it depends on what your goal is, right? So the resolution 01:06:59.000 --> 01:07:01.800 - requests that we 01:07:01.800 --> 01:07:04.520 - Basically 01:07:04.520 --> 01:07:11.040 - It well specifically increase the qualifying standard. So the standard now is zero to qualify 01:07:11.040 --> 01:07:14.840 - That's basically there is basically no qualifying standard. You just have to be doing a project 01:07:14.840 --> 01:07:16.560 - so 01:07:16.560 --> 01:07:20.040 - Toward that end we included like a basement number 01:07:20.040 --> 01:07:24.560 - But 01:07:24.560 --> 01:07:28.240 - You know, I think the plan commission will have to decide I 01:07:28.240 --> 01:07:35.300 - Whether or not you kind of agree with the result what the rules of the resolution or are you 01:07:36.040 --> 01:07:40.640 - Trying to make payment in Louisiana because that you know, you think that that actually meets the 01:07:40.640 --> 01:07:41.040 - goals 01:07:41.040 --> 01:07:46.360 - In a better way. So that's something you all have to talk about in which case you wouldn't put in 01:07:46.360 --> 01:07:46.660 - 50 01:07:46.660 --> 01:07:48.920 - You wouldn't want to make it harder to do that 01:07:48.920 --> 01:07:55.090 - Yeah, I'm just thinking it, you know going back to your table. I think you had some that were as 01:07:55.090 --> 01:07:56.680 - low as 35 units 01:07:56.680 --> 01:08:04.120 - Yeah, so I don't know if that that might be a consideration is if we went to 30 01:08:05.000 --> 01:08:08.880 - With that still encompass some of the ones that received it already 01:08:08.880 --> 01:08:17.000 - Or that thought it was I guess worthy enough to consider yeah, yeah 01:08:17.000 --> 01:08:26.680 - Any other final discussion or a motion 01:08:29.320 --> 01:08:35.860 - Staff recommendation was that we forward the petition to the November 10th 2025 Planned Commission 01:08:35.860 --> 01:08:36.160 - hearing 01:08:36.160 --> 01:08:38.880 - Yeah, I'll motion to 01:08:38.880 --> 01:08:43.800 - Forward the petition to the November 10th 2025 Planned Commission hearing 01:08:43.800 --> 01:08:49.720 - Is there a second? I had my hand up. I guess I just wasn't recognized 01:08:49.720 --> 01:08:55.040 - Sorry Tron we didn't didn't see that 01:08:55.040 --> 01:08:57.280 - Go ahead 01:08:57.280 --> 01:09:01.980 - Yeah, and it's just a brief comment. I'm planning my vacation time. So I might not be here next 01:09:01.980 --> 01:09:03.200 - month. I 01:09:03.200 --> 01:09:06.680 - Think this is a good incremental step 01:09:06.680 --> 01:09:12.040 - with the cost of inflation and other things construction and 01:09:12.040 --> 01:09:16.200 - Building material and all of that 01:09:16.200 --> 01:09:20.600 - I'm 01:09:20.600 --> 01:09:23.520 - Glad to see this be brought forward 01:09:24.040 --> 01:09:28.520 - I think there's a lot of areas where when people 01:09:28.520 --> 01:09:35.600 - Try to stay kind of on top of certain things and we don't take action over multiple years 01:09:35.600 --> 01:09:39.600 - That cost increase looks quite dramatic. So 01:09:39.600 --> 01:09:44.440 - Seeing this today 01:09:44.440 --> 01:09:49.320 - Makes me feel like we're trying just to get back to a good base and 01:09:50.240 --> 01:09:54.760 - Staying on top of this will be very important. I 01:09:54.760 --> 01:10:01.080 - Like what was discussed earlier that they're going to try to bring back other amendments to help 01:10:01.080 --> 01:10:02.600 - the intention of these 01:10:02.600 --> 01:10:06.640 - Incentives and this affordability challenge that we're all discussing today 01:10:06.640 --> 01:10:10.200 - So I just wanted to say that 01:10:10.200 --> 01:10:16.920 - It's gonna take a long time in my opinion to get this right and I feel like they're proposing a 01:10:16.920 --> 01:10:19.520 - change or amendment 01:10:19.880 --> 01:10:22.040 - That takes us in a step 01:10:22.040 --> 01:10:27.200 - in the right direction, but it could be incremental and 01:10:27.200 --> 01:10:31.280 - That's just my comment. I deal with rate 01:10:31.280 --> 01:10:37.620 - Fees and other areas and things like that. And when you wait for a long period of time, it's a lot 01:10:37.620 --> 01:10:38.400 - to kind of 01:10:38.400 --> 01:10:41.040 - deal with and 01:10:41.040 --> 01:10:46.670 - Again, I just was really happy to see this today and you know, I wasn't going to miss the 01:10:46.670 --> 01:10:48.200 - opportunity just to 01:10:48.280 --> 01:10:49.480 - To 01:10:49.480 --> 01:10:51.480 - Make that comment. Thank you 01:10:51.480 --> 01:10:53.840 - Thank you 01:10:53.840 --> 01:10:56.240 - Okay, so I think 01:10:56.240 --> 01:11:01.240 - We are then back to the floor here. Would you like to restate your your motion? 01:11:01.240 --> 01:11:05.640 - Yes, I motion to forward the petition to the November 10th 01:11:05.640 --> 01:11:12.860 - 2025 planned Commission hearing is there a second second. All right any final discussion before we 01:11:12.860 --> 01:11:13.800 - call the roll 01:11:15.680 --> 01:11:19.880 - All right, will you please call the roll on the motion to forward? 01:11:19.880 --> 01:11:25.880 - Whistler, yes 01:11:25.880 --> 01:11:33.060 - Seabor yes Holmes. Yes, Kenzie. Yes Stossburg. Yes 01:11:33.060 --> 01:11:39.280 - All right motion carries. We will see you all again in November 01:11:39.280 --> 01:11:42.780 - any final announcements or 01:11:44.120 --> 01:11:46.120 - questions before we adjourn 01:11:46.120 --> 01:11:52.300 - By my count, I think we might be the 01:11:52.300 --> 01:11:57.520 - December meeting might be 63 days. Yeah, it might yes, so I 01:11:57.520 --> 01:12:02.880 - Hadn't counted it out yet, but we could do a special session if we need to do that. Okay, so 01:12:02.880 --> 01:12:08.740 - I'll make that clear when we start the November meeting that if we don't take final action that we'll 01:12:08.740 --> 01:12:09.440 - have to have a 01:12:09.440 --> 01:12:11.800 - Okay, a special session. Thank you 01:12:12.320 --> 01:12:16.980 - Go ahead Commissioner Stossberg. I just want to say especially because probably next time we're 01:12:16.980 --> 01:12:18.400 - also gonna have the AMI 01:12:18.400 --> 01:12:21.320 - changes for Commissioner Holmes's benefit that 01:12:21.320 --> 01:12:24.640 - Hand presented to the plan Commission 01:12:24.640 --> 01:12:28.600 - earlier this year kind of their perspective and a bunch of 01:12:28.600 --> 01:12:31.520 - affordable housing sorts of 01:12:31.520 --> 01:12:36.290 - Information from their end and that might be a useful meeting for you to go back and watch because 01:12:36.290 --> 01:12:37.640 - we're dealing with this again 01:12:37.840 --> 01:12:42.400 - Now and I don't know if you guys know that meeting date off the top of your head when they were 01:12:42.400 --> 01:12:42.760 - here 01:12:42.760 --> 01:12:46.800 - But you because you can watch those on on cats 01:12:46.800 --> 01:12:52.240 - You can you can watch everything and so that just might be really useful 01:12:52.240 --> 01:12:56.320 - And I know that you tend to have a lot of questions and want a lot of information and data and they 01:12:56.320 --> 01:12:57.000 - presented a lot 01:12:57.000 --> 01:12:59.000 - Of stuff at that meeting and so that might 01:12:59.000 --> 01:13:01.040 - Might be beneficial 01:13:01.040 --> 01:13:04.320 - Thank you. All right, anything else? 01:13:06.520 --> 01:13:08.520 - All right, we are adjourned thank you 01:13:38.520 --> 01:13:41.440 - (orchestral music) 01:13:41.440 --> 01:13:44.360 - (orchestral music) 01:13:44.360 --> 01:13:47.280 - (orchestral music) 01:13:47.280 --> 01:13:50.200 - (orchestral music) 01:13:50.200 --> 01:13:53.120 - (orchestral music) 01:13:53.120 --> 01:13:56.040 - (orchestral music) 01:13:56.040 --> 01:13:58.960 - (orchestral music) 01:13:58.960 --> 01:14:01.880 - (orchestral music) 01:14:01.880 --> 01:14:04.800 - (orchestral music) 01:14:04.800 --> 01:14:07.720 - (orchestral music) 01:14:07.720 --> 01:14:10.640 - (orchestral music) 01:14:10.640 --> 01:14:13.560 - (orchestral music)