Okay, good evening, let me call to order this Meeting of the city of Bloomington Playing Commission for October 6th 2025 Let me just give a quick overview of our agenda this evening We really only have one Petition to hear this evening. There are a few petitions that have been tabled and remain tabled those are SP 24 - 22 zio 34 - 23 and zio 0 1 - 25 We also have SP 28 25 that was continued none of those will be Heard this evening. The only petition we have to hear this evening is zio - 33 25 which are text amendments to the ud o related to the City Council resolution on affordable housing incentives So we will get to that as quickly as we can let's let's start by calling the roll Seabor here homes here Kenzie here Stossburg here Whistler here. So we do have a quorum but just Oh Here thank you, thank you and sorry, I didn't realize I didn't see the only screen is behind me so I didn't see that we have a Commissioner joining remotely tonight But so that still means we have we have five voting members present which is just barely a quorum so You know we can proceed with with the agenda tonight, but I think given that About half of our colleagues are not here. We're probably going to want to provide an opportunity for for their input on this as well But before we get to that petition, let's we do have a couple of housekeeping items to take care of we have We have minutes to be approved from both the August 11th meeting and the September 8th meeting Are there any questions about those minutes or any corrections to those minutes? Commissioner Stossberg, I will embarrassingly say I didn't notice that those minutes were there I didn't read them Despite your admission I would motion to approve these Pretty straightforward minutes from August 11th and September 8th, but if we want to do them separately I'll just do August 11th first because we have seen that one twice now August 11th So, why don't we do that one at least so there's a motion to approve the August 11th minutes, is there a second second? All right, let's call the roll on the approval of the August 11th meeting Yes, Kinsey, yes Stossburg Yes, because I just look at the thing that changed which is what I requested to be changed so, thank you Whistler, yes Seymour, yes. Okay the August 11th minutes are approved Commissioner Stossburg, would you like to Move to Continue the September 8th meeting minutes till our till our next meeting so you've got a chance to review those Well, or I could skim them real quick and you all could go slow I'm sorry. I said or I could skim them real quick and you all could go slow Are there any other questions or comments related to those minutes I I'll motion very slowly to approve the September 8th minutes All right, there's a motion to approve the September 8th minutes Is there a second for that motion? I'll second it. Those were really short All right any discussion Seeing none. Let's go to calling the roll on the approval of the September 8th minutes Yes Yes Yes Seabor yes Holmes. Yes Okay Leave the minutes are approved. Do we have any reports resolutions or communications from? Commissioners first All right seeing none do we have any from staff looks like we do Yes, I'll be real quick for you. I just wanted to give everybody. Oh, sorry Ryan Roebling planning services manager I wanted to give everyone an update We've been in the works for a long time the college and walnut corridor study It's kind of been dormant or in the background for a while But we've still been working on it and we're going to have some public meetings that I wanted to alert everyone to So there will be a more formal announcement, but this meeting happened first that we expect that sometime next week but Tuesday October 28th will be a meeting a public meeting and then Thursday October 30th We'll have to there'll be the essentially the same meeting twice Will do it open house here in council chambers. So if you could come to one or both, that'd be great there will also be an online form for feedback from the public and We'll do the the whole nine yards. We'll do some pop-up pop-ups during that in the next week as well so we'll be out on the corridor asking for feedback from members of the public and Yeah, so we're excited. We have two designs narrowed down that we've talked about all those years ago and we'll hopefully get everybody to weigh in and Get something to you. The another reason I'm bringing it up is I need everyone to be aware that we'll probably ask to have a special meeting of the planning and trade or planning commission. I'll get there eventually in potentially late November early December We don't want to put it on your regular agenda because it might be a large topic to cover with all of your other topics, so We'll reach out to you in the next couple days about organizing a date when everybody's available So keep that in mind if there are any complete blackout dates But yeah, happy to answer any questions if anybody has any or you can reach out and email me But yeah, we'll see you in a couple weeks I Do have a question Ryan on this one, maybe certainly a question first is Is some of the information the two designs are those already publicly available or posted? So yeah, we if you recall from way back when we did a presentation on the feedback that we received from stakeholders and members of the public during our Engagement week. So we've moved forward with the two designs that kind of came out of that You can find those on the studies website. This will be a line drawing. So it'll be a map or Ortho imagery of the corridor and then what we're proposing Similar to what you see on other corridor designs. Okay good Yeah, and this is you know a little bit of a comment But I do think that because whenever these kind of large public Where the public is pretty interested at the get-go and then there's some gap You know, this is where we always hear people will complain or say oh, I didn't know that was still going or I had no idea That project was still viable. So I just would urge that you know, there'd be some indication on there that these aren't just sitting here as dead or Decaying projects, but they actually are being reconsidered and and are actively being considered So that we don't run into that same complaint So yes, that's great feedback. Yeah Unfortunately that kind of happened here, but we'll be better about it in the future and we'll make sure to include It's not meant to be a criticism. No, I just the reality Did not take it as such but yes acknowledging that that did kind of happened here and We are hopeful that it won't happen again But we'll also include that information that we've been working on at the whole time and things like that If you said it I missed it what time were those meetings on Tuesday and Thursday They both will start at 530 right here in council chambers Great. Thank you Any other questions Any other reports resolutions or communications from staff? Thank you assistant director Jackie Scanlon We are hearing officer bad backup appointment Karina Pasos took a position with the city of Chicago a number of weeks ago So we need to replace her and so we are Asking you to appoint Kendall Kenoki. He is an engineer on the engineering in the engineering department The rules of procedure allow you to appoint someone from planning commission or engineering he was previously worked at a private civil firm and so has quite a bit of experience with the UDO as well, so Though Ryan who is our regular hearing officer rarely misses if we think Kendall would be a good replacement. So we have to vote to change that All right, is there a Motion to appoint a new Backup hearing officer I'll motion to appoint Kendall Kenoki as the backup hearing officer Is there a second? Second is there any discussion? All right seeing none, let's call the roll on the motion to appoint Kendall Kenoki as the backup hearing officer Stossburg, yes Whistler, yes Seaborg yes Holmes. Yes Kinsey. Yes All right motion carries the only other item I wanted to mention was we have three items tabled on the agenda and the first You'll recognize the address as a as the address of a site plan you approved this year So we have asked the petitioner to formally withdraw that so we can take it off the agenda So hopefully that will be gone before next month They had a BZA case as well and that came off But I think they just forgot about the plan Commission one and then the next two are Text amendments so we're working with legal to see how to either move those forward or be able to take those off So we'll report back to you next month. Thanks. Okay. Thanks Any other reports resolutions or communications from anyone else All Right, we are on then to our petition for the evening zio 33 - 25 I Believe Jackie is going to present. Yes. Thank you Zio 33 - 25 in our new system. It's zio 20 25 0 9 0 0 13 This is text amendments to the unified development ordinance title 20 in the Bloomington Municipal Code in response to resolution 2512 from the common council So the resolution is asking the Plan Commission to prepare a proposal that accomplishes two things And so those are listed here. Let's see if I can Love that to be more visible so to amend a particular section in the UDO in order to assess the incentive structure and consider creating additional incentives for affordable housing and including but not limited to expected owner occupied unit development and the second item is a separate particular section of the UDO in order to assess the payment in lieu option and consider an increase in the qualifying standard for developments utilizing a payment in lieu procedure We discussed this along with a third item related to incentives at the February 20 25 Plan Commission hearing but because of errors in When that ear hearing was held the Common Council passed a new resolution. And so that is what we are hearing today Today is the last day Today we are meeting the first requirement That we hear the petition within 60 days and then the Planning Commission will have to make a recommendation to counsel within 60 days of today So you will definitely hear it in November I will check here shortly to see if the December meeting is within that 60 days Otherwise, if you wanted to have more than one additional hearing we could have a special hearing Okay. So in response to this resolution the department hosted a discussion we had talked here in February and then with the office of the mayor and housing and neighborhood development about potentially having some sort of working group for this topic and that kind of Evolved into a discussion session held by Planning and Transportation Department staff with local developers realty Representatives build builders some plan Commission members and other stakeholders. We had that at the end of August In order to address these two questions. So the four questions we supplied to them Are here and they were again focused on the two kind of incentive questions that the Council was looking for us to address As you can imagine we did get a lot of feedback It wasn't really all related to incentives, but some of it was and so we tried to use that feedback To inform some proposed amendments. So the feedback that we received is kind of summarized there in the packet But more particularly for tonight we included Redline proposals for the specific sections outlined in the resolution in order to address those directives so for the first one Again, the first one is asking us to assess the incentive structure and consider creating additional incentives for affordable housing including expected owner occupied unit development So one of the this is the section that was called to be looked at in the resolution. It's a 2004 110 c5 it's the affordable housing incentives section in particular and One of the things that we looked at We have a reduced reduced bulk requirements Incentive section that is largely for obviously where you can see there smaller developments. It's in the r1 through r4 and It's related to single-family or duplex developments. So we already have that in the code where you can make some Reductions in lot area or lot width if you're doing a subdivision Having reduced side set side and rear setbacks And so one of the things we we are proposing here to kind of address Incentives related to expected owner occupied unit development is that the maximum impervious surface coverage For lots that are also intended for owner occupancy may be reduced to 20% so actually I emailed I think today with Commissioner Holmes about this. This is so the way you'll see later. We reduce some of the Maximums by certain percentages, but in this case, this would just be reducing your maximum to 20% so you could So I think it should be increasing So these always trip me up. So the maximum impervious surface coverage that are going to have affordable housing and be intended for owner occupancy the maximum impervious surface coverage is Why I'm having some time with this is that's not right. Why am I saying that wrong increased to 20% That's not right Reduced to 20% the idea was okay So I'll tell you what the idea was and then you can tell me why I'm having our time That you would only have to have 20% open space We don't have open space in these four districts. So I think this should say it may be increased to 80% So you could cover 80% of your lot. None of our districts between the r1 through the r4 allow anything that high so this would say if you're meeting the affordable housing Some of one of the tiers of affordable housing as well as and then we can talk about what does intended for owner occupancy mean That then you could cover 80% of your lot. So I will change that for next month. That's the intended Should be increased to 80% Coverage Does that make sense to everyone? Okay, sorry, what is it? What is it now again? Well, it depends on the district. So they're like between 30 and 50. Okay Right is reduced to 20% or the maximum impervious. So I think I'm yes is increased To 80 to 80 because in these districts, so, you know in our mixed-use districts We have both numbers of open a landscape area requirement and an impervious surface coverage max But in the r1 through r4 you only have the impervious surface coverage max will just increase it to 80 is the proposal so the idea would be for example, if you are a developer such as habitat or another developer that you Know focuses on single-family detached or duplex units on their own lots that you would be doing a subdivision and you would be able to Have the lots be smaller because you would be able to cover more. I looked at the lots at Osage place the ones that have already been built and the ones that I think it's called trail view It looks like a football. It's like up here northwest of town. We look at it on an aerial Near the beeline and they are both lower than 80. They're both closer to 50 So I think it could be kind of an interesting give that even the ones we've done Those were both done the one northwest of town was done as a PD and a few decades ago a couple of decades ago That even when they were going to develop that they kind of kept it lower that if we increased it Maybe that could be beneficial to those developers so that's something to think about because we're trying to It's hard because the owner occupancy Is also a goal and so the affordable housing is a goal Owner occupancy is a goal So how to include the owner occupancy in this section that is for the affordable housing incentives as another goal So we are just kind of here saying like we're layering them if you're doing both then you can Do this so this may be something for you all to think about in the next month and we'll continue to think about it as well, like how does that work with the other requirements and Would we need to include? More than what is already here related to the reduced lot area lot width and setback standards Okay, so we included that portion there and then In describing Sorry, so we are still in the affordable housing incentive section We're leaving the reduced bulk requirements section Which again is only applicable to single-family and duplex in those four districts and going to primary structure height Which is What we primarily see multifamily and they use the primary structure. They use the incentives to build taller buildings so in tier two projects You can that's when you're doing Currently that's when you're doing 15% of your units seven a seven and a half at 120 seven and a half at 80% of area median income So you're giving you're offering some low lower income than some of our other projects by including the second the second portion there as opposed to the entirety being 120% and So then you can receive up to two additional floors So we have included here that projects that meet the tier two affordability standards can also increase their impervious surface coverage allowance by 10% and then as I mentioned for the mixed-use districts Decreasing their landscape area by 10% so that those will still match So for example, if you're in a district that allows 70% coverage And requires 30% landscape area if you do the tier two Which means you're providing units on site and some of them are at 80% Then your building can then you can cover 10% more of your lot than you previously could with impervious And I you know, obviously building Want one building more bigger buildings or building bigger buildings as opposed to a lot of smaller buildings We have been told time and again is just more cost effective. And so the extra Coverage may be something that's desirable We only included that in the tier two projects because those are the ones that are giving us the lower affordability As it's as the UDO is currently written Does anyone want to talk about that one before I go into the next one or would you rather I just do both I would Just a question about where it's located. So this is section B primary structure height and this is a bulk requirement requirement In the previous section was a reduced bulk requirements So and I realized that one has a preamble that limits it to our one through our four which may not be what you're trying To target with the second one, but it's an I'm just is that the right place for it? Is there another place where bulk requirements are addressed for non r1 through r4 or is this no? So there were the reductions in like subdivision requirements or setbacks are only offered for the smaller projects They are not offered for the projects in the mix you currently the way the UDO is written They're not offered for the mixed-use districts slash larger projects Okay, so this is probably the best place to play. I think so based on how we're looking for it I wouldn't you know what I mean, like you right? It's kind of a weird add-on They both are but especially because the resolution called for particular You know for us to look at particular Sections of the code we want to you know respect that and stay within those and and I don't necessarily think there's a better place For these two to live. Okay, and then if I may another question that for this one and the previous one like what do these numbers allow like 20% increase in r1 through r4 and as you're you're allowing smaller lot sizes Which makes sense for affordable housing has there been like what does this enable them to do? Where did you guys come up with 20% for the residential and 10% for this? Is it meant to just move the line or where their actual calculations? It's like look they want to build a house That's 1700 square feet. They can't do it if they subdivide Because of the impermeability requirement this gets them across the line and lets them do that Where do these is their math that somebody do the math and say this is what would actually be allowed This is right. So I think what we've seen like I mentioned in the PUD I'm sorry, I think maybe trail view the PUD that's northwest of here on the beeline Because it's a PUD I mean they did a PUD so that the lots could be smaller But it seems like they carried over the same impervious surface coverage. So then the houses are Smaller than they could otherwise be and maybe that's fine, you know, maybe that that that's what size they build anyway But if we allow for more coverage then even in the affordable housing projects the houses Don't necessarily shrink because the lots are shrinking. They could still be They they could be slightly larger So I think that was part of it I was thought that was interesting when I looked at both of those habitat projects that they were actually basically holding our impervious lines And maybe they would continue to do that But we have had other develop potential subdivisions in town where they're like just you know, just slightly under and Maybe they could have gotten there by they could have gotten there on the lot size with these but then You know not being interested in the size of house that they could build that they would want it wanted to have built something bigger When they're just barely under that line, so there has been some feedback from Builders of the public that says we need relief on this. Yeah, I think it's mostly in one way But there's still a constraint over here. Sure. Yeah, it's mostly just us tracking that through time but I can give one specific example and then looking at the ones that have been successfully done and thinking like how Could these have been better maybe and that do we really need to be holding them? especially in a subdivision situation where you're probably setting aside common area and stuff like is it okay for these to function more as like Not zero lot line development, but closer to that than what we have allowed previously Okay, and these on the like the primary structure height these would apply to rentals So like apartment buildings that are not single-family homes. Yes, that is primarily who uses these Okay, and those they only need to have like what 15% of yes So it's 15% affordable and then half of that 15% is at 80% AMI or lower Okay, and more strict standard. Yes, so you can do tier one, which is 15% at Say 120, thank you 120% of AMI But then that's fine But if we're trying to induce lower affordable housing, then we want to give the extra incentive to the tier two projects Okay, and then I will say now that you will see a second resolution Those first those numbers that I'm talking about like the 120 and the 80% council has asked us to look at those Those were part of what you saw in February as well, but council split them off So you'll see that coming up likely next month With some proposals. So again, we did make proposals to you in February about that Working with the Housing and Neighborhood Development Department to lower those percentages So just to have that in your mind again, we will talk about this again next month, so then you'll see them together but that as Miss Killeen Hansen Director Killeen Hansen has said here before You know that 120 is really high If we're trying to use this for actual affordable housing So they so we will likely in response to that resolution propose to lower those percentages as well You're gonna solve the 120 and the 90. Yes reduce Okay, so on to the second item this is for you do section 2004 110 T7 110 C7 To assess the payment in lieu option and consider an increase in the qualifying standard for developments utilizing a payment in lieu procedure so When the UDO was first adopted when this UDO was first adopted in 2020 The previous administration wanted to focus on on site units and so it was more difficult to do the payment in lieu You had to basically in some ways prove that you couldn't do the on-site units Before you could do the payment in lieu council That feeling I think in the administration changed a little bit over time and in 2022 Council amended the UDO to what it is today where you can just choose to do the payment in lieu So that that's where we are now So the The resolution is asking you to consider an increase in the qualifying standard. So what we have included in response to that is That in this section they asked us to look at section 7 payment in lieu That a payment in lieu of providing housing that meets the tier one or tier two affordability criteria We have added that that can only be done in projects that contain more than 50 units So that would increase the qualifying standard projects with less units wouldn't be allowed to do it We have heard from housing and neighborhood development Staff that the more successful on-site unit projects anyway are smaller the large developments have a much harder time doing it So that's kind of why we thought maybe putting a number threshold in there for availability to even be able to do the payment In lieu addresses the resolution With some information that we have, you know from real life that it actually is easier for the smaller projects to do it and be tracked The resolution does not Specifically address the administrative manual but because a lot of the because the calculation lives in the administrative manual we'd be making a change there as well This first one here residential projects must satisfy all applicable standards within 2004 110 C is really just more of a housekeeping thing because This kind of preamble only addresses non-residential student and dormitory projects But we have other residential projects that use the housing development fund So we're proposing to do a number of things here And so you'll kind of I'm sure you've all been cogitating on them over the weekend But you'll think about them for the next month and see if you think it's too many things or which things you would maybe like to focus on so what we do now is As we've said 15% of total projects when you're doing the payment in lieu. It's the same percentage. It's 15% and then you Round that to the nearest unit number This says bedroom, but I believe hand uses units because in the UDO it says units And so then you pay $20,000 per whatever that number is so your total number of units times 15% and Then times 20,000 and that's how we get the contribution number So we're proposing that if you're choosing to do the payment in lieu instead of on-site you will do the number that's equal to 30% of your total project units as opposed to 15 and that Your base contribution rate is now it would be $50,000. So this was actually increased. I'm sorry I said that I did not clarify this earlier It was increased to $30,000 this year by the Housing and Neighborhood Development Department. So currently it's $30,000 So we would be increasing to 50 and so if you have units that are from studios ones twos and three bedrooms You would be paying at the rate that you have Those you would be paying $50,000 per unit and then for the units of four or five bedrooms, you'd pay an additional $5,000 per bedroom so this I Think the idea first of all, we're trying to respond to the resolution Which does seem to kind of want to focus more on units on site How do we per actual provide actual affordable housing as opposed to just money? into the Housing Development Fund. So that is what we tried to do here with these Changes and So then we wrote in the conclusion some things for you all to consider So there are proposed response which you can see here to resolution 20 25 12 Obviously raises the costs for the payment in lieu option which in reality could make on or off site units more desirable for developer potentially or That could just be fine and they could pay more now we did receive feedback from some in the development community that the 30,000 is low and That is why people just keep paying it So thinking that that should probably be increased whether we and Whether we try to really incentivize payment in lieu or really incentivize on site if we're leaving in payment in lieu We should increase the amount that we're charging Okay, so then is that the best-case scenario the resolution seems to be desiring on and off site units as opposed to payment in lieu Does the Planning Commission think that is the basic best case scenario housing and neighborhood development? staff has expressed a preference for payment in lieu as opposed to developer built and monitored units for the reasons that Director Killian Hanson and miss Lafontaine have explained here before They're hard to track the ones that we have that are older weren't great They weren't done The zoning commitments weren't great. And so some of them actually have vacant units. That is obviously not what we're trying to get so Would it be preferential to encourage payment in lieu even if the amount was raised Something else that came out of the meeting that we haven't Addressed specifically here except for including the additional impervious. I would say under the single and duplex section is Whether or not we should have separate incentives for developers of strictly affordable owner occupied developments some feedback we got from former habitat staff as well BHA staff is that Just the way that the world is right now with funding even with all of the incentives that they can get from the UDO And even other things they can get from other departments in the city. They can't make new developments work It's just not enough money and So yes, so if the charge of the resolution which in the whereas clauses it says That they would like to incentivize developers in the creation of affordable housing units. Do you think that these changes are doing that and That's kind of obviously the may the crux of the whole thing But just something to think about when you're considering whether or not, you know You think these make sense or how you might like to change them? So we're happy to discuss again like President Whistler said there's only half of you here tonight It might make sense to have a larger discussion next month, but we're happy to answer any questions. Thanks Thank You Jackie are there any questions from commissioners Sure, I would like a little more discussion about the specification of intended owner Occupancy, can you say a little bit more about what that's? You know, what does that mean? And why is it isolated to just that one dimension of the criteria? sure, so I think intended owner occupancy comes from the resolution and You know the idea of We can't mandate that something is be owner occupied. So yeah, that was kind of a question That I wanted to maybe explore here with you guys so intended owner occupancy if someone's intending for them to be owner occupied if it is for example a developer such as habitat or another low-income developer of Of those kinds of smaller units what that type of a developer would very likely be willing to do some sort of zoning commitment Like yes, we're building these for people to own them Because they in those situations, they're often already deed restricted or when they purchase them So I thought it's possible that maybe we could put in some sort of reference to his owning commitment because this is Describe because this is an opt-in program. It's not required I don't legal doesn't love that. I don't think but I do think that they Acknowledge that that's different than you know, just putting it in the by-right projects, which is strictly illegal So I didn't so I kind of wanted to ask you all What you thought about that? I that was the only way I could think of So far, how do we get to these intended owner occupied units? If someone wants to tell us, you know wants to commit to doing them That might work. Oh I was also trying to figure out that right now that is Associated with impervious surface coverage that that qualifier But is there a way did you try and attach it someplace else in here? Where is that just because it's a new dimension that you're attaching it. I mean all the other things are already in there Yeah, I think that area right. That's a great question. It's pop we could for example Put that at the top of that section and indicate that if you're doing owner occupancy, then you can get all of those It's not something again that is widely used especially compared to the tier to the larger developments They use the affordable housing much more than smaller developments probably can or do but I think the reason I did that was we were When we were kind of debriefing about the meeting with the developers Impervious surface was something, you know thinking being able to build slightly bigger Not being held to some of the landscaping standards with something that came up But I do think that that intended owner occupancy could probably be just included potentially in the like Preamble of this section and so then you could have all of these things if you're doing that Yeah, I mean that would be my interest is if you know, it just seems odd to isolate it in Yeah association with the impervious service coverage. So yeah, I could see the following dimensional standard shall apply to single-family detached Intended for owner occupancy, you know, somehow it could be in that first paragraph, right? 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 but Yeah, I do feel like if it's You know, we know that that's an interest of the public at least that we've heard that the preference is for owner occupied So that might help appease some critics of this quickly or at least help them feel more comfortable with making a change and That's one question. Yeah, the other question I have if I just is Oh the Qualifying units just make sure I'm clear on this that that will a unit there's a standard definition for a unit, but it changes whether it's a I don't even know how I want to say this a unit is is a Bedroom and other space or maybe I need to ask what the unit as I sit here and okay Which section are what part are you looking at specific? I'm just I just want to make sure we have a definition for unit It sounded like you indicated that Hand has a definition for what qualifies as a unit But I just want to make sure that that's a great question me I should probably change that to dwelling unit to make it clearer. Okay, because that's what it's referencing. Yeah, that's great All right, that at least helps. Okay. Thank you Thank you. So the change from 15% of total project dwelling units it does that change the number of units that have to be affordable or is that purely for the Payment in lieu calculation purely for the payment in lieu. Okay, so it doesn't change the tier one in tier two No, cuz it was 15% which was the same as the same requirement, but it's just coincidence. Yes, that was Okay. Well, we weren't when it was written, you know, they were decided to do that across the board but there really is Maybe an argument to be that they don't need to be the same and that if we're trying to de incentivize payment in lieu Basically that saying that that number that that percentage has to be it's based on a more of your units Than it then the number you would have to set aside could Do that potentially is there a difference between This is just a question leaving at 15% and doubling the number and instead of 50 make it a hundred at 15 percent Doesn't the math come out exactly right? I don't know. Yeah, we We did look at you know, because there's all there's been this Tension between bedrooms and units so far as long as this has been written because it says units in the ud. Oh but the work that the team who wrote this did called the bedrooms and that's been confusing and some of the zoning commitments and things so I do want us to Pick, you know pick one probably units because this I think that in miss LaFontaine can clarify, but I think that's what hand uses now anyway, but we would call them dwelling units and What was I gonna say? Oh, we've looked at a couple of the larger projects here in town recently that have done Payment in lieu and I can bring you guys that information next month to look if you did them the current way how much? That how much that contribution would be and then if you did them this way How much that contribution would be? You know and it was larger I think it's confusing because of the bedrooms some people were concerned that it wouldn't actually, you know Be impactful but and all the ones we looked at it was and I can bring those examples as well Okay. Thank you So what Jillian was asking about the intended who decide like if you have habitat in front of you and they say we intend To sell these with this is what we do. They're gonna be owner-occupied. Is it the Board of Zoning Appeals? Who is it that hears that and is going to be judging and deciding? Okay. I believe you or I don't well, it's probably you all So I think that that's one reason to maybe consider including a requirement for zoning commitment that they're they're indicating that they do really intend for those to be owner-occupied as opposed to Maybe fudging that a little Yeah, yeah, okay, I think that's easier for the detached and the duplexes than it would be for something to be condoized or apartments 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 include that in this In this type in this area where you know, they have to opt into this But yeah, we don't we wouldn't have to do that Okay, and and I I know you're not gonna have all this but we're gonna have a discussion about this next time And when I read all this I was thinking like well, how many projects over the past five years qualified for t1? How many petitions were there for t1? How many qualified and petitioned for t2? Okay, how many payment and lose? Happened every year for the past five years, right? Like some of the data to see what we've been doing and how it worked because I'm we're flying flying blind I'm just coming into this. I don't know what has happened in the history of these things So and we're being asked to change it and data on these things would be very useful and since it conveniently we're gonna Probably continue this or forward it in here at next time. I have the opportunity to ask if you guys could produce Some of some data like that to show us sort of what it how have these rules functioned Existing How many like how much payment and Lue dollars have come in? Yeah, oh in the past. So this is how many we've done I'm 98% sure. This is all of them. I hate showing this because then I just feel like I'm gonna forget one, but this is them So they're not they are roughly in order of time so evolve was 17th and done When Mayor Hamilton was new and it was a plan unit development. It was done before we had the regulations written and That was the first Private development that went into the housing development fund So then you can see we've had some smaller ones a project with 35 a project with 34 project with 33 and I would say starting with The Strouser construction on line 7 is probably the first one where it's been under these rules So I can get you more information about tier 1 and tier 2. I when I was looking at this today I actually think we've only done Well, I'm not gonna say I can get you more information about that once the payment in lieu became easier people choose payment in lieu It's just easier. They don't have to worry about especially under the old Administration the focus was on in perpetuity and people had a really hard time with that so I Believe these are all the ones that have gone into the Housing Development Fund, but I'll verify before next month With the controller and add any that needs to be added and I'll send you guys that information. So again, we had When dr. Killian Hansen was here one of the last times she was here. She talked about like how that money is used and That was my next question So a hand manages the money and do we have any kind of record for what they've done with it? Because we are gonna be asked to decide are we gonna try to incentivize? Builders to do this and manage it directly or are we gonna try and incentivize instead letting builders just build and pay And and let hand have the money to do it, right? So and I so I haven't I haven't looked this year but last last year With director Killian Hansen and Controller McClellan we looked through the housing development fund and at that time the money had been spent Some money had been given to cyho some money had been given to the Monroe County Housing Trust There is a small amount of money that's used for like software tracking the rad project Which I can never remember what that stands for received some money They hand uses money for down payment and closing cost assistance money to Bloomington Cooperative Living and then Some to habitat some universe some to Union at Crescent So a lot of the money is given I mean the money has been given basically to projects that are providing affordable housing or directly to people who Are trying to purchase Homes, I assume affordable homes, but miss Lafontaine could probably clarify that and then some of them are loans and so Various ways to support affordable housing that the money might be used. It's not just like one program And that is determined by hand and they every year at Budget time they request a specific amount based on what they think they can Allocate for the year based on what programs because I know they had a few new programs this year I believe try and then they're allocated that money And then of course, I think they could always go back and ask for more but that that's how that money Kind of comes out of the fund and is used Okay, and when a builder does the payment in lieu they the units don't have to be affordable So there's no deed restriction or contract with hand that requires that they get out of that But they enjoy the benefit of the reduced requirements for the building, right? They can have the more bigger setback or more impermeable. Correct, right? So that it's yeah larger bigger height usually more units and so it's usually it's a condition of approval here a plan commission and then Usually we're specific here about when they have to make that payment So for example before occupancy or before a site development permit is issued Depending on the size of the project. We may we have phased some before But that happens here that decision about when that money is distributed to the city. Okay, how did you guys come at? 50,000 so doubling it to 30 units and then changing it to $50,000 where did that number come from? Well, I think we have been under the impression for a number of years When we originally wrote it It says in the administrative manual the team that wrote it indicated that it would be being revisited every year and that hasn't been able to happen just with the It just hasn't happened. So we've only increased it once to 30,000 And so because of the number of years, it's been I was thinking, you know If we were increasing at 10,000 a year We'd actually be slightly more than 50 But 50 seems like a reasonable number based on if there was an expectation when this started that it would be being increased Every year and then I think that was kind of supported for me by the feedback. We got that the number was Just too low Okay, no studies. No data gathered. No looking at other cities because surely other cities have this type of thing Did we have we compared with like cities and what their numbers are for payment in lieu and what the results are? Yeah, we got any data out there. We can look at that. Yeah, I don't know that a lot. Yes, I don't Know that a lot of our peer cities do an affordable a payment in lieu light like this But I bet we will look into that for next month Okay Okay, I have like I can maybe correspond because there's like I have a whole list of data the types of information I would want to know in order to do this stuff and I'll see you can Email that I'll just course to bond that'd be helpful. Thanks. Thank you Commissioner Stossberg Yeah, so in the affordable housing incentives part it says That the following dimensional standards apply for the r1 through r4 that meet either of the two criteria and subsection 2 above and so I went back to the original like to the whole UDO and so I think that that's like subsection 2 is About the eligibility for tier 1 or tier 2. Is that right? I believe so. Yes and so I guess part of my my question lies and Qualifying for affordable housing Benefits especially I guess with regard to that section But that might be very small projects and so it's that idea of going well, what if you know Fifteen percent of projects. I mean, what if it's only two or three? Dwelling units like what if it's two or three single-family homes? What if it's you know, like somebody bought a large lot and thought Okay, I'm gonna put a few on here. And so then like those percentages don't work out well in terms of qualifying simply because like I guess I'm wondering how much thought has been given to especially small projects and How to support or incentivize? Those smaller developers sure I think I mean because this is the affordable housing incentives section if you're doing a small project and wanting to utilize these you're intending to do affordable housing and then you Are getting these to make your project more feasible, right? Like this isn't someone who? The person who's I mean and I could be wrong But I think most people who are using these incentives in particular they reduce spoke requirements incentives they aren't like thinking of chopping their you know, 20 acres on the north side or whatever into Eight and then thinking oh I can do 13 if I do these but I have to set the side 15% it would be I think more people who were intense people or developers who were intentionally looking to do affordable housing and then realizing that they could do more if if they Set those aside To those percentage so yes if there were if it was one person who wanted to cut off their lot and they couldn't Cut off their backyard and they couldn't meet the size requirements, but they can meet it with this then yes One of those houses would have to meet the currently 120 And so you don't think that that's a problem, but I feel like I also just heard you say that and one of the reasons why I Put this in as a resolution was that there were a few subdivisions that went through that didn't even bother Looking at the affordability stuff. Yeah, and so do you think that I mean, I think I just heard you say that our affordability incentives aren't appealing to those Developers who are doing subdivisions. I don't think that the types of developers we see currently do and we don't see almost any Right. We've only you've only seen a couple doing single-family are not inclined to Look to add in affordability if they're affordability developers already then they Look at these and see how many You know lots they can get and try to try to maximize the the land that they have because they know they're going to be a do Doing affordable and the conversations that we have I would not say it's very common for a typical developer to then I Think what you're asking to then look at these and say oh these are so Desirable that I'm willing to do affordable here because I'll get X number of units more and I guess what I'm wondering is What can we do to make it that desire? Yeah for those people sure like that would really be the goal Is to make it that desirable and is there a way? to do that I Will say what I've said before which is like feels like a cop-out, but I just don't think that's a udio answer. I think that's a money policy infrastructure answer like if we Could subsidize them in some way like with money. I think they'd be more That's what people need they need subsidy to build them and we just we don't that's not a UDO the UDO can't solve the whole problem But we will continue to think about it and try to answer that question Yeah, I mean this is the UDO is the piece of the problem that we have any like power over Here. Yeah in this forum, so That that's all I have right this second One one question you had indicated some question about should we have something for owner owner occupied affordable units separate and was there any thought to that and dedicating something more to owner occupied affordable units is there should yeah, so the first amendment Or the first part of the proposal does address that right giving the reduced bulk standards to if you're both But I guess what I was wanting to hear your thoughts on as we draft for next month is like Is that enough or do you think there should be a separate section? That's definitely it's not particularly the way the resolution is written it kind of seems like they're I Don't know that it was I don't know if miss Stossberg was envisioning them like sandwiched together those two goals or if they were looking for Incentives to get one and to get the other separately because it's in the affordable housing incentive section I think the only way we can do it is to do them together But I don't know I guess I just wanted to see if plan Commission felt like okay This kind of covers that or if you would be looking for even more incentive For those types of units and I think it sort of connects a little bit to what you're saying a little bit around smaller Unit development so there might be some value to playing out that whole scenario I mean the other thing that I think Commissioner Stossberg's comment raises for me is what what is hands? intention on creating You know Jackie you were just saying some options for loans or or financial incentives to make that like if that it's not part of the UDO, but the other way to Realize the goal would be for hand to have more flex in the housing development fund to allow for those smaller Unit developments and again, but that's not our purview. I understand I Can Address at least my my motivation on including that in and the motivation on including that in is that I hear generally speaking People interested in buying a house and can't find an affordable ownership opportunity and so that and and and then tying that together with my experience on the Plan Commission and going okay the Builds that are utilizing these incentives are they're really big multi-family Complexes, and so how can we get more? projects with an intention or an option even for owner occupancy because in the big but multi-family complexes There's I mean you in theory could have a large multi-family condo complex, but we don't see those either right, and and so at least with the intention or the possibility of ownership and how can that be supported and kind of You know incentivizing developers to create that kind of project or that kind of something and so it wasn't necessarily Intended for those things necessarily to have to go together I just didn't want owner occupancy to like to like be left by the wayside while we incentivized all the all the developments intended to rent and So I I just wanted that to be Considered as a thing like how can we do that? and In terms of the Housing Development Fund, there are several new projects. I don't know if our hand Representative who's here actually wants to speak to that or is prepared to speak to that But there are several programs that they are getting off the ground this year in terms of supporting owner occupancy in different ways supporting rent assistance in different ways they they do have different existing programs and That support ownership and in terms of housing development money That has to be appropriated by council in the same way that other things did so last year at budget season for this fiscal year There was part of the hand proposal was we want to use this housing development money for these projects that that were like starting And so that is something that you know, the public can track Looking at at budget and in terms of how we're doing outcomes This year in theory in the future. We should also be able to track like okay It was we intended to have such and such an outcome By allocating this money to this purpose and then the next year you can go. Okay here We're here's what actually happened when we allocated the money to that purpose And so because we had this great success we would like more money or because you know things didn't go so well So we want to transition into it, you know something slightly different or whatever So that is stuff that you should be able to track in terms of housing development fund money May I ask does all of the money that comes to hand for payments in lieu does all of that go back into affordable housing Or is it go into like you said, maybe it goes to the the general fund and then they have to make appropriations And so maybe it's only 50% of it No, it goes to the housing development fund and then that's appropriated out of the housing development. There are like a ton of different funds There are so many funds I can't keep track how many funds there are and I'm thankful for the controller every day who keeps track of all this But it does that means mostly it is going to go to affordable housing. Okay I do have one more did did these changes get run through the people from the August 26th meeting at all? No, okay As I stated before they didn't really have a lot of Direct answers to the questions that we tried to pose to dress a resolution, but I'm happy to share those with them All right We'll go now to public comment If you're here in the chambers and you'd like to make come it just step right up to the podium state your name for the record And you'll have up to five minutes to speak if you're joining us online You can click the reactions button and click the raise hand button or you can set a chat message to the host And we'll recognize you when it is your turn to speak Is there any public comment on zio 33 - 25 If you'd like to make comment you can step right up So, I'm Stephanie LaFontaine I'm with hand and Anna was not able to be here tonight because she's doing the mayor's Traveling town hall. So just one comment that that and we had in discussion was on page for the payment in lieu the 50 unit requirement wasn't you know wondered why it couldn't actually be less than 50 units just because what we're doing is Increasing density basically and then putting money into the housing development fund and just You know wondered why we were just going for 50 as could it possibly just as a as a point of discussion for that So Last call for public comment on zio 33 - 25 All right, we are back to the Commission for any final discussion or for a motion As I mentioned I think it's probably appropriate that we continue this to a second hearing so that our Colleagues have a chance to to weigh in but welcome any discussion commissioner Stossberg Just in terms of data for next time I would also appreciate speaking of that new payment in lieu calculations just seeing some of those calculations with those past projects because if before They were paying per bedroom and now they're paying per unit for up to three bedrooms I guess I'm curious how those numbers would work out because I mean we're increasing our base price But if before they were paying $30,000 this year for each of three bedrooms and then next time they would be paying $50,000 total for the three bedrooms Like yeah, I'll clarify again. I think hand is using units not beds But I'll double check and I'll apply those Submit those for next month Yeah I mean and that's not something that like we can really vote on to change at the planning commission level anyway Because that's an administrative manual thing that like hand has total control of but I'm just curious about about seeing some of those numbers Okay I guess the only other thing that now that Stephanie LaFontaine raised the question about the number of units I wonder if there is some logic to going less than 50 units Well, I think it depends on what your goal is, right? So the resolution requests that we Basically It well specifically increase the qualifying standard. So the standard now is zero to qualify That's basically there is basically no qualifying standard. You just have to be doing a project so Toward that end we included like a basement number But You know, I think the plan commission will have to decide I Whether or not you kind of agree with the result what the rules of the resolution or are you Trying to make payment in Louisiana because that you know, you think that that actually meets the goals In a better way. So that's something you all have to talk about in which case you wouldn't put in 50 You wouldn't want to make it harder to do that Yeah, I'm just thinking it, you know going back to your table. I think you had some that were as low as 35 units Yeah, so I don't know if that that might be a consideration is if we went to 30 With that still encompass some of the ones that received it already Or that thought it was I guess worthy enough to consider yeah, yeah Any other final discussion or a motion Staff recommendation was that we forward the petition to the November 10th 2025 Planned Commission hearing Yeah, I'll motion to Forward the petition to the November 10th 2025 Planned Commission hearing Is there a second? I had my hand up. I guess I just wasn't recognized Sorry Tron we didn't didn't see that Go ahead Yeah, and it's just a brief comment. I'm planning my vacation time. So I might not be here next month. I Think this is a good incremental step with the cost of inflation and other things construction and Building material and all of that I'm Glad to see this be brought forward I think there's a lot of areas where when people Try to stay kind of on top of certain things and we don't take action over multiple years That cost increase looks quite dramatic. So Seeing this today Makes me feel like we're trying just to get back to a good base and Staying on top of this will be very important. I Like what was discussed earlier that they're going to try to bring back other amendments to help the intention of these Incentives and this affordability challenge that we're all discussing today So I just wanted to say that It's gonna take a long time in my opinion to get this right and I feel like they're proposing a change or amendment That takes us in a step in the right direction, but it could be incremental and That's just my comment. I deal with rate Fees and other areas and things like that. And when you wait for a long period of time, it's a lot to kind of deal with and Again, I just was really happy to see this today and you know, I wasn't going to miss the opportunity just to To Make that comment. Thank you Thank you Okay, so I think We are then back to the floor here. Would you like to restate your your motion? Yes, I motion to forward the petition to the November 10th 2025 planned Commission hearing is there a second second. All right any final discussion before we call the roll All right, will you please call the roll on the motion to forward? Whistler, yes Seabor yes Holmes. Yes, Kenzie. Yes Stossburg. Yes All right motion carries. We will see you all again in November any final announcements or questions before we adjourn By my count, I think we might be the December meeting might be 63 days. Yeah, it might yes, so I Hadn't counted it out yet, but we could do a special session if we need to do that. Okay, so I'll make that clear when we start the November meeting that if we don't take final action that we'll have to have a Okay, a special session. Thank you Go ahead Commissioner Stossberg. I just want to say especially because probably next time we're also gonna have the AMI changes for Commissioner Holmes's benefit that Hand presented to the plan Commission earlier this year kind of their perspective and a bunch of affordable housing sorts of Information from their end and that might be a useful meeting for you to go back and watch because we're dealing with this again Now and I don't know if you guys know that meeting date off the top of your head when they were here But you because you can watch those on on cats You can you can watch everything and so that just might be really useful And I know that you tend to have a lot of questions and want a lot of information and data and they presented a lot Of stuff at that meeting and so that might Might be beneficial Thank you. All right, anything else? All right, we are adjourned thank you (orchestral music) (orchestral music) (orchestral music) (orchestral music) (orchestral music) (orchestral music) (orchestral music) (orchestral music) (orchestral music) (orchestral music) (orchestral music) (orchestral music)