- Good evening. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the city of Bloomington Plan Commission for
- November 10th 2025 Let me just give a quick overview of our agenda this evening We have House is that
- better? All right. Thank you Quick overview of our agenda this evening We have
- Several petitions that have been tabled that won't be heard tonight. Just quickly. Those are SP 24 22
- Cutters Kirkwood 1 2 3 LLC zio 34-23 Those are text amendments related to sign standards zio 0 1-25
- that's text amendment related to affordable housing incentives
- And then SP 28-25 built LLC Those petitions remain tabled we do have three petitions that we Excuse
- me. The first three of those are tabled. The fourth of that is continued We have three petitions that
- we will hear this evening. The first is Zio 33-25, which are text amendments to the UDO related to resolution 25-12
- to amend incentives zeo 35-25 text amendment in response to the common council resolution and then zeo
- 36-25 Petitioner William Wammoth I The property at 2005 West Cory Drive, so we'll hear those three petitions
- this evening we do have a little bit of housekeeping to do before we get to those petitions and
- But let's start with just calling the roll to make sure we've got a quorum. Ballard here. Burrell here.
- Holmes here. Kinsey here. Stossberg here. Whistler here. Bishop.
- Okay, sounds like we do have a quorum. We do have one commissioner participating Remotely this evening,
- which just means for the record. We'll have to do a full roll call vote on every vote We take tonight.
- No, no voice votes tonight We do have minutes to be approved. We've got the minutes from the October
- 6th 2025 meeting are there any questions or corrections to those minutes? I
- None is there a motion to approve the minutes a motion to approve the October 6th minutes Second all
- right, can we call the roll on the motion to approve the October 6 minutes Burrell Homes yes Kinsey
- yes Stossberg yes Whistler
- Yes, Bishop. Yes Ballard Yes All right, the minutes are approved Looks like we have Commissioner Seabor
- joining us here as well if let the record reflect that We are on then to reports resolutions
- and communications any reports from the
- commissioners Mr. Stossberg I'll go ahead and report that if you guys didn't know it the City Council
- addressed the urban agriculture Petition last week and it was voted down Can you you're saying that
- the the one that we forwarded to the council and
- To the council was defeated. It was the vote was 1-7 and there was one member absent And yeah, and then
- similarly the SRO Petition had first reading last week. So it will be discussed on November 19th Thank
- you any other reports from commissioners I Just want to make a just a quick report
- just to To recognize Commissioner Chris Smith who recently resigned I don't think there's any been but
- any public Announcement of that yet, but unfortunately he resigned from the Commission to focus on some
- some health issues and just wanted to just say how much I appreciated his his input here he was only
- on the Commission for a brief time this time, but he also had a previous stint on this Commission and
- I also served on the Arts Commission and the MPO and various other boards. He's done a lot of public
- service here and really appreciate him and wish him the best. Any reports from staff this evening?
- Thank you Jackie Scanlon assistant director a similar report Thanks to mr. Smith for being so willing
- to serve and doing a great job while he was here and we hope that we'll see him coming as a member of
- the public to meetings and other Engagements we have and we want to say welcome to mr. Bishop who is
- our newest member as well. This is his first hearing and So, thank you. Thank you all always for giving
- your time. That's all Just want to note that
- We'd like to get the the List of members updated in the packet and on the website for for next time
- to make sure it reflects that that change All right any other reports set it from staff All right, well
- I think we are ready for our first
- petition then zio thirty three dash twenty five and looks like Jackie Scanlon is the case manager take
- it away whenever you're ready.
- So the first petition we're looking at tonight is zero thirty three twenty five. This is in response
- to resolution twenty twenty five twelve from the council. Let's see if I can make this so much going
- on on this screen. OK. So so you know resolution twenty twenty five twelve was signed by Mayor Thompson
- on August 6th 2025. Plan Commission held its first hearing on October 6th 2025.
- And at that hearing the department presented a proposal questions and concerns were raised and gathered
- to be addressed tonight So the plan commission must make a recommendation to the common council on or
- before December 5th So if we don't if you do not vote to send it to the council tonight We will need
- to set a special session to finish the discussion This slide is blank because I just realized right
- before okay, you all asked What has the housing development fund been used for we have reported on that?
- briefly before but I did confirm some things today with director Killian Hansen. So I am going to tell
- you what those are. So money has been given we've talked about or when she presented in February she
- talked about you know that money went to support existing
- low income housing as well as directly to members of the community. So some examples are money given
- to a union at Crescent which is a low income housing development on the north side around eleven hundred
- north Crescent. Money has been given to Bloomington Cooperative Living. There has been a number of down
- payment in closing.
- assistance loans given to people who are just buying homes. Money went toward the, went to Bloomington
- Housing Association for what's called a RAD project to SIHO, which is another, that was a grant that
- went to help establish some more affordable housing, Habitat for Humanity, a different Bloomington
- Cooperative Living project.
- and some has also been given to Middle Way House. More recently this year some was given to a group
- called Caritas and they're developing affordable housing on the west end of Kirkwood that I believe
- you all saw. So most of the money, so there is still quite a bit of money there and as Director Killian
- Hanson shared when she was here previously, there are a number of
- projects that she is hoping to get off the ground this year with some pilot projects that she had put
- in the budget that the money from the housing development fund is intended to be used for. So those
- are tenant based rental assistance projects.
- Or program excuse me so that can be used for rent as well as rent supporting things such as like an
- application fee or for utilities so that goes with the tenant and then interest rate by downs the way
- she explained it was you know encouraging maybe encouraging people to move up.
- if they are just trying to not get rid of their great interest rates to open up housing kind of along
- the ladder and eviction prevention programming. So those are the types of projects that the money has
- been used for thus far. And then as a reminder, what happens is that when Hand goes to propose their
- budget, they basically have to let council know
- how they intend to use that money and then council appropriates the money per year. Another question
- we had from the October hearing related to increasing impervious surface coverage to 80 percent as one
- of the potential development incentives
- when using affordable housing incentives, it was what the impervious surface coverages are in the affected
- zoning districts. So R1 through R4. So you can see here that it's a range from 30 to 50. So 80% would
- be quite an adjustment if you were to include that. Okay.
- This is these are the whereas clauses the main goals from resolution twenty twenty five twelve. So I'll
- go ahead and read them because obviously that's very small. The council wishes to assess and amend the
- relevant provisions of the U.D.O. in order to incentivize developers in creation of affordable housing units and
- Any payment in lieu qualifying standard should exceed the requirements of actual creation of permanently
- affordable units and the common council further wishes to ensure any payment in lieu options are meeting
- the long-term interests of Bloomington housing needs so those are the items that broadly goals that
- you are addressing with this response to the resolution and the particular directives were
- that the common council directs the plan commission to prepare a proposal consistent with this resolution
- to amend the text of, and then there's a certain section of the code listed that's called affordable
- housing incentives to assess the incentive structure and consider creating additional incentives for
- affordable housing, including but not limited to expected owner occupied unit development. And then
- the second section says that they direct the plan commission to prepare a proposal to amend this text
- of a different section called payment in lieu
- to assess the payment in lieu option and consider an increase in the qualifying standard for developments
- utilizing the payment in lieu procedure. So we're going to talk about the section one request first.
- Okay, so the part of the code that it's referencing is 20 0 4 1 10 c 5 So that's here on the left and
- again, that's the affordable housing incentive section. It's in your packet The proposed red line changes
- are in the packet posted to the website for the hearing tonight but this is the actual test text as
- it exists and Then we are proposing to make changes to both sections of that text so
- The first section is section A. Let me see if I can zoom in on this. Hold on. Okay, so in order to meet
- the goals of this particular directive,
- which are to assess the incentive structure and consider creating additional incentives for affordable
- housing, including but not limited to expected owner occupancy. We took some direction from the hearing
- last month and moved the reference to owner occupancy into the preamble for this section. So basically,
- if you are developing single family detached,
- and duplex residential lots in the R1 through the R4 that are also intended for owner occupancy. And
- if you meet the affordable housing criteria listed above, then you can have these incentives listed
- here, which are now one through six. And so we also added number five, the maximum impervious surface
- coverage may be increased to 80%, which is what I was referencing earlier. So that is how we are proposing
- to address A,
- of the first part of the directive from the resolution. So the idea being that you can use these reduced
- bulk standards, bulk requirements if you are intending your project to be owner occupied. We have talked
- about here a little bit and we can flesh it out to more tonight or it could be something you could leave
- for the council. But what does that mean intended for owner occupancy? How do we guarantee that
- that we cannot require them to do that, and what document would we accept that they are intending to
- have those units be owner occupied. But if they are, then they can have reduced standards for lot size,
- lot area, and lot width, as well as setbacks, as well as impervious surface coverage to fit more basically
- lots and units on the same size parcel.
- So that's changing section A there, and now we're looking at section B. So what we did for section B
- was, again, toward the objective of assessing the incentive structure and considering creating additional
- incentives for affordable housing, we are adding that if you do a tier two project,
- projects that meet the tier two affordability standards may increase the maximum impervious surface
- coverage allowance by 10% and decrease the landscape area by 10%. So that is slightly more coverage
- in some of our mixed use districts. Obviously in the downtown, there is quite a bit of, in some areas,
- 100% impervious, so this would likely be more in the mixed use corridor district. Okay, so for the second part,
- the resolution the council is asking Plan Commission to assess the payment in lieu option and consider
- an increase in the qualifying standard for developments utilizing a payment in lieu procedure so this
- is just the regular text for payment in lieu and what we proposed last month was
- You could do payment in lieu if your petition contained more than 50 50 or more dwelling units We heard
- some feedback from hand staff at that hearing Wondering if that number could be lower and it was also
- discussed among the plan commissioners that Potentially 30 might be a better number because of some
- of the previous projects we have done While we have done projects with less than that we are proposing
- this as a direct response to the
- to the directive to increase the qualifying standards. So we felt like putting kind of a floor on who
- can use the payment in lieu was responding to that. So this kind of gets to planning commission will
- have to decide if you think that putting something like this in is actually meeting the larger goals
- of the resolution for affordable housing in general.
- So one of the things that goes along with this is that the actual calculation for how to decide what
- a payment in lieu contribution is lives in the administrative manual. It doesn't live in the UDO. When
- it was written by a team of directors from HAND, ESD, BHA, and Planning a number of years ago, the idea
- was that the contribution rate would be revisited every year.
- and it's actually only been revisited once. This year it was changed to 30,000. So this is the current
- language here. And though the planning commission doesn't have to approve changes to the administrative
- manual, we want to look at it as a holistic picture and talk to you guys about these potential changes
- that we think help address some of the concerns about the payment in lieu option.
- So here is the red line for that and we discussed this a bit last week or last month.
- Currently HAND is using bedrooms for their count as it's written in the administrative manual. And so
- we would be recommending to change that to dwelling units, which is what the UDO calls for. And instead
- of 15% of the total project dwelling units, if you wanted to do a payment in lieu, we're suggesting
- to double that to 30%. So again, increasing the qualifying standard and then also relating to the whereas
- clauses of requiring more,
- if you were doing payment in lieu than if you were going to do units on site. So we are also proposing
- to increase the contribution rate to $50,000 a unit for units that have one to three bedrooms. And if
- you have units that have four or five bedrooms, it's an additional $5,000 for each additional bedroom.
- So there's a sample project calculation here for a 132 dwelling unit project. You this calculation with
- which has 12 extra bedrooms. So some fours and some fives would be two point zero six million dollar
- contribution.
- So there were some requests to have comparisons for some of the projects that we have already seen if
- we're planning to or if we're proposing to change the calculation. So here we have four projects and
- how much payment in lieu was pledged when those projects were approved. Some of them are at the 20,000
- rate and some of them are at the 30,000 rate depending on when they were approved.
- You can see that we've listed dwelling units and beds and then the payment in lieu pledged and then
- on the right The payment in lieu with the new calculation and this is assuming no fours or fives. So
- no additional Cost and you can see that for in each case they do net more for the housing development
- fund than the previous calculation did and
- Okay so plan commissioner homes also submitted an amendment for discussion tonight and so that is that
- in the payment and loose section he proposes to replace that language.
- with the language all petitions seeking to utilize the affordable housing incidents established in this
- section shall satisfy the affordability obligation solely through an agreement with and monetary contribution
- to the city of bloomington here it after referred to as a payment in lieu no provision of this title
- shall require or authorize the construction sale or rental of income restricted dwelling units as a
- condition of incentive eligibility so um We can have that ask him to present that and have discussion
- of that here shortly
- Oops sorry just a sec. So the department tried to put together a response to resolution twenty twenty
- five dash twelve in order to
- respond to the call of incentivizing developers and creation of affordable housing units the main two
- ways we've done that is to increase the use of or hoping to do that is to Increase the use of bulk standards
- reductions in the creation of platted subdivisions with the addition the additions that we added there
- and To limit which projects can bypass affordable housing dwelling unit creation through the payment
- in lieu option So that actual units would be created again planning commissioner
- included an amendment and so we can discuss that shortly. Basically your charge tonight will be to decide
- if the proposed changes that the department have put forward do incentivize developers and creation
- of affordable housing units which was the overall goal of resolution 2025-12 or if you have amendments
- that you would like to see. We are recommending that you forward the version that we have submitted
- but we're happy to discuss and make any amendments that need to be done. Thanks. Thank you.
- Are there any questions from commissioners? Good Payment in the amount was changed. Did you say it was
- changed last year to $30,000 change this calendar year this calendar year It was just changed and it
- was I think it was at 20,000 before correct. Okay, okay and
- And then another so thank you for that. Another question I had you mentioned that the Plan Commission
- doesn't have to approve changes to the administrative manual. Is that right or whatever. Sorry if I
- get that wrong. How.
- How does it get changed then? We're here sort of as an advisory role, I guess, on that. How does it
- get changed then? Yes, so staff can change it. In theory, it's mostly processes and how, I mean, that's
- the idea is that it's processes and more technical calculations so that they don't have to live in the
- UDO in case they need to change over time just from the realities of development. And so the calculation
- for this particular topic was put there so that staff could update it every year without having
- To need the need to go all the way through council and we would still update them and update you and
- if there were concerns Of course, we would take those into account And is it staff of your department
- planning transportation for this particular one? We would rely on the housing and neighborhood development
- department to confirm any Amendments that we thought were appropriate. Okay, okay Thank you Other questions
- to know where did the $50,000 figure come from? If the goal is that any of these affordable payments
- in lieu of should be to bring, you know, exceed the amount to bring on permanent affordable housing,
- is 50,000 sufficient for that? Are we talking single-family homes? It'd be great to know a little bit
- more behind the scenes on that. Sure, it's a good question. We came to 50,000 kind of based on
- the fact that it was 20,000 initially, and so that was about three years ago, and that
- it would be, should have probably been increased incrementally over that time. So 10,000 a year getting
- you to 50,000. It could probably be more. We have heard from some in the development community that
- it's quite low and we can tell you that when we meet with developers, they don't balk at the amounts
- we give them and they pay them and move on with their lives. So there may be more work to be done to
- find a better amount there. And again, you guys wouldn't necessarily, you're not approving that tonight.
- So we can still do that and bring that forward to you, no matter what happens tonight. It would be helpful
- to know what it would cost to bring on those units in a more conscientious way. So are we looking at
- duplexes, fourplexes, something like that? So what does that affordable housing option look like that
- we would put these into? But also, can we pay the amount that that increases to both inflation and just
- the cost of
- Building, you know, maybe on an annual basis because the cost of those building supplies will continue
- to increase eats away at what that 50,000 or whatever the amount turns out to be is plus then you've
- got builder costs and things like that, which also vary depending on time of year, labor shortages,
- things like that. Sure. Yes, we can work on that with the hand staff and get you guys some more kind
- of detailed information about that. Any other questions?
- Commissioner Stusbrook. Thank you. So in terms of kind of following on that same line of questioning
- about the administrative manual numbers, who actually created those numbers? Were they created with
- the hand department? Is the hand department on board with what is presented to us here? And I don't
- know. The proposed version? Yeah, the proposed. Yeah. So before last month, I worked with Director Killian Hansen
- Suggestions from them and put it together for that. So for example the additional costs for having more
- than three bedrooms Was something that came out of that collaboration and was added for that reason.
- Yeah, we worked with that staff. Okay, great I Guess I have a similar question to you in terms of that
- 30% of the total project versus 15% of the total project so in our tier in our tier
- eligibility we cite 15% and then in the administrative manual it doubles that, which I appreciate,
- love that, but is that something that we should consider putting into the UDO in terms of, because that
- is part of what I was intending with the resolution in terms of a higher threshold to if you want to
- pay in lieu then you would have to pay for more than
- what you would have to provide if you were actually providing affordable housing. Does that make sense?
- So I guess I'm wondering if, like, because it makes sense for the actual payment itself to be in an
- administrative manual allowing for the department to make those changes. But is it worth putting some
- kind of more strict guideline, or is it possible to put some kind of more strict, like, percentage guideline
- into the UDL? So potentially, yeah. So hold on. Let me share something quickly.
- Maybe it makes sense to make a reference here in the 7A for payment in lieu to having that percentage
- come from the, like you don't necessarily have to put the percentage in the code because then every
- time you might want to change it, it might be laborious, but making a reference to that, because like
- it references the administrative manual related to processes
- But maybe it might be here where it says a payment in lieu of providing housing that meets tier one
- or tier two. Yeah maybe we should make a reference to the administrative manual there. Yeah or even
- I mean I just I don't know if it makes sense to do that in terms of what needs to be in the administrative
- manual or how much guidance the UDO can give the administrative manual in terms of saying like OK if
- we're going to require 15 percent of units
- that are actually built to be affordable, can we require then twice that amount to be utilized as part
- of the payment in lieu? Because then that percentage depends on the tiers which are in the UDO. Well,
- both tiers add up to 15, right? So you're actually getting 15 with each. So that's where it's like,
- where did the 30% come from even?
- Like is that something that like planning or hand went hey like let's require more if they're wanting
- to pay in the directive in your resolution you know was talking about. Oh not that one of the directives
- but in the goals hold on let me go back.
- Any payment in lieu qualifying standards should exceed the requirements of actual creation of permanent
- affordable housing. So we were thinking, if you're doing affordable housing on site, OK, you can use
- 15% as your base. But if you're going to do payment in lieu, it's going to be twice that amount as an
- increase for the, excuse me, exceeding the requirements as of what you would be doing on site.
- Which I love. I guess I'm just wondering if that should go in the UDO versus in the administration.
- I think it's possible we maybe should make mention of it
- in that A of 7A. Any other questions. Thank you for adding the owner occupancy in the preamble there.
- And I wonder though you still seem to suggest that there was some outstanding question about how it
- would be enforced. And I remember last time in the
- our conversation included some discussion about a zoning commitment. Was that, were you able to explore
- that? I think that we could take a zoning commitment. I wasn't sure if the, if I went back and watched
- the meeting and wasn't sure if that was the direction we, that you all wanted to go. If it is, I do
- think we could make reference to it in this section. Hold on, let me see, sorry. That are also intended
- for owner occupancy.
- I think we could make reference to it, but I'm not sure. I guess I need to see where. And Adina, are
- you online? I think she's here. That might be something I want to check with her. I'm pretty sure that
- we can because it's. Sorry. No, you're fine. Sorry. So the question is, for these, using these incentives,
- If one of the kind of stipulations is that it's intended for owner occupancy and so then you're getting
- additional incentives because of that, could we require that they record a zoning commitment to that
- effect since it's like an opt-in program? My instinct is that since it's an opt-in program that you
- could have that as, have a zoning commitment as part of that.
- But I would need to double-check this with the rest of legal. Okay. Thank you. I like the idea of that
- because it strengthens the commitment. But if it doesn't need to be included in here, let's not mess
- around with it. But I guess I just want to make sure that we are enacting what we believe were actually-
- I think from a process standpoint, and Dr. Hittle can correct me if I'm wrong, I think we could say,
- When working with someone on one of these petitions, okay, we need you to put that in writing and then
- it could be a condition of approval like that. We're recording that as a zoning commitment as opposed
- to them just saying we are intending to do that. Yes. Yeah, that makes sense. I think we have seen that
- kind of thing in a condition of approval. So, okay. Okay. Any other questions from commissioners?
- It might also be useful. I don't know because we don't usually do amendments in this way, but it might
- be useful to have playing question or homes describe his intention for his amendment. If you guys want
- to discuss that before you or do you want to go to whatever you want to do is don't you forget about
- it. I think we're going to need to allow separate public comment on the amendment. So let's.
- Let's let's let's do the amendment first that way when we go to public comment on the the full petition
- people will know the form of what they're Yeah, so let's yeah, why don't you go ahead and introduce
- your amendment? Okay. Thank you And this is I can tell going against kind of the the trending direction
- here, but I'm gonna try it anyway so these
- We have two ways of trying to support affordable housing. One of them is through the covenants and deed
- restrictions that the builders manage. The homes can only be sold to people of certain income levels
- or lower or rented to people of certain income levels or lower. And those are price controls essentially
- that literally that's what they are.
- The other way is to extract payment and lose from the builders give them the same incentives let them
- build outside of normal standards collect money from them and the city then has the discretion to apply
- those funds to support affordable housing in the way that they want. I think that second way is a much
- better way to support affordable housing than the first way like there's there's actually a large economic
- literature on price controls but just in these examples if you're trying to support homeowners they're
- going to get their house.
- But there's a deed restriction on it and they can never sell it to anyone above the 70 percent or 90
- percent of AMI. And so they're never going to realize appreciation of the asset right there. It's simply
- they're not going to go to sell the market value. They're going to have made a contract with the city
- that they can never do that. And those things go into perpetuity. They don't end. So that's there forever.
- It's similar problems with rent controls in Apartments, it disincentivizes the creation of them. So
- if we want more housing, this typically goes the other way it de invests in housing And it also people
- they're not going to want to invest in them. So quality will typically go down so Another point I'd
- like to make I think maybe the
- Affordability problem in Bloomington is less on the apartment side and more on the homeownership side
- I've seen charts that track AMI versus rental cost and they roughly track so Rentals haven't become
- a lot less affordable over the past several years homeownership has become drastically less affordable
- over the past several years so if we're going to apply effort towards
- affordable housing I think it should be on the homeowner side I think it's better for homeowners as
- well if you can get people across the finish line into a house they get to start building generational
- wealth it makes a difference so organizations like Habitat that do this type of thing are very important
- because they don't just temporarily assist they're doing something that's like you're setting them off
- and then they can go on and continue to benefit for the rest of their lives I think that's by far the
- better way to go
- And so the payment in lieu. Where's the demand for these affordable housing incentives. It's almost
- on the apartment side right. They want to build bigger apartment complexes. Fine. And if we only let
- them do the builder managed ones where there's going to be covenants we're going to get a whole lot
- more affordable apartments in Bloomington. My understanding reading articles some of them stand empty.
- Right. A lot of them that created blocks of affordable apartments are not being rented and I don't know
- why that would be necessarily but that's the case. So if instead the incentives were all directed to
- payment in lieu then instead of having empty affordable apartments and apartment complexes the city
- gets the money and they can apply it to affordable housing in other ways. Right. Down payment assistance
- is that type of thing. I mean we saw the list of those things. Most of those I think are better ways.
- to support affordable housing than the covenants and the deed restrictions. So that's the logic that's
- what I was trying to get at with this amendment and what the amendment is intended to do is say you
- can't do it by setting off units and putting price controls on them that no longer qualifies you for
- it. If you want these incentives for affordable housing make the payment in lieu and then the city will
- do what best it can with that money to support affordable housing. So I think that's I think that about
- something.
- All right. Thank you. Any questions from commissioners on the proposed amendment. Commissioner Stossberg.
- So just for clarification sake you think that only payment in lieu should be offered and that there
- should not be any requirement on developers to actually build affordable housing for affordable housing
- incentives. That's right. Yes. Yes. Because they'll instead of building affordable housing
- They'll make a payment in lieu and it will be used to support affordable housing in another way. They're
- contributing to affordable housing. They're not doing it by building apartment units with price controls.
- That's what it's removing is apartment mainly and not even because I don't know that how many affordable
- homes have been built under this program. Mainly it's apartments with price controls that we're building
- and they're not even being rented. So yes I would stop that. Other questions from commissioners.
- I guess I wanna think about, I appreciate all the information, thank you for sharing all that, how it
- plays out then in anything else. I wanna appreciate and I understand the logic of what you're just describing
- in the amendment, but now how does it play out? What does that then eliminate in the rest of this? In
- the actual UDO, yeah. UDO, good question. I think there are gonna be lots of places that would
- Become moot or things that could just be you know held in reserve From it. I I started looking at that
- and honestly, I'm not the person to do that But I did I mean include along with modifications
- cross-references things that necessarily have to change in order for consistency We'd basically probably
- just rewrite the tier sections slightly to indicate that
- Like maybe we would then have two tiers of contribution to get you to the different number of floors.
- Like you know how right now tier one is 15% at a higher AMI and tier two includes lower AMI. Maybe tier
- one is a certain, the payment in lieu and tier two is a slightly higher payment in lieu because you're
- getting more floors. We could do that, we could scrap the tiers and just do a percentage per project.
- I would say,
- I follow plan commissioner Holmes's logic as well. And I do think what we heard from hand staff in February
- was they would prefer to have money to be able to Program that money to where it needs to go as opposed
- to monitoring units at various locations Especially for our larger projects one concern about completely
- scrapping it that I would have would be those projects that are
- like Habitat for Humanity or other places that can use like the reduced bulk standards and automatically
- qualify because obviously they're 100% where we wouldn't want them to be giving us money to have reduced
- bulk standards. We would want them to be able to have reduced bulk standards because they are affordable
- housing developers. So then that would kind of be separate
- Detached dwelling rules and multifamily which would kind of already have I mean mostly we see multifamily
- right the tier is Really more the tiers are really more applicable to multifamily But that would be
- my only concern if we entirely scrapped it and the other thing is we have been trying to walk this line
- as well because the resolution really Wants to make payment in lieu less attractive. So that's why I
- tried to say last month as well you all have to decide if you agree with that or not
- That's what they've asked you basically to propose is to make it slightly harder to do to encourage
- actual unit building But toward the goal of getting more units
- Altogether is that do you agree that that's the way to do it or you know? Do you see another way like
- planning commissioner homes of just should we just be giving money to hand to program and would that
- get us actually get us more units I do also. Oh, sorry want to say director Killian Hansen is here.
- I'm sure she would Love to speak on all this if you would like to hear I didn't realize she was there
- during staff report Or if you'd like to have her speak during public comment either spine, but I just
- wanted to indicate I think she does have some input
- Thanks. Thank you. Can you comment Jackie just on sort of just the text of this. My understanding is
- that this is essentially an alternate proposal. Right. I mean this is this is the proposal here is just
- make this one change instead of
- All of the other changes that are proposed in. Yes I yes I mean I think it would supersede most of the
- other things we were talking about. Yes I think it has anything to do with the impermeability. I think
- it has to do with the second to the amendment to see seven I think is the one that it will affect just
- see seven seven the C5 amendment isn't that limited to changing impermeability standards.
- Yes but it's for if you're doing tier one or tier two then you get for single family or duplex then
- you use those standards the permeability and those things. Can you hold on. Do you mind putting the
- text of the amendment back on the screen for us. Is that in the packet or is it just. It is in the packet.
- I believe you know what page that's on page 10.
- I see it now The other thing you know if a majority of you were on board with with the amendment I Mean
- obviously this is all like a very process thing, you know, the the council sent you a resolution They
- want you to respond to the resolution you could send the changes we've made which we do think respond
- to the resolution and recommend that they don't do it and
- And you know send and then you could bring forward your own amendment. You are the only other body that
- can bring forward an amendment. You know you could send the amendment that they want recommend denial
- and then we could work on another amendment in the vein of what Mr. Holmes love what Plank Mr. Holmes
- is saying and then that could go forward as well. I'm not suggesting that we do that but that
- is a possibility to your kind of to your question Mr. Whistler about like isn't this just a different proposal.
- Yeah, I mean I suppose all of the The other changes about How its calculator still still would apply
- in this case, right so It's really just changing The original proposal is just to make a
- change one change to see seven a right that says the ads the language impetitions for projects that
- contain more than 30 dwelling units. Correct. Yes. And so the amendment is instead of just adding that
- line it's to replace that entire C7 a with the new language. Yeah yes but he indicated that he does
- want it to replace everything else. So the items discussed in the previous sections like five or
- earlier in the incentive section I think would also be moot because they'd be replaced. Like no one
- would be doing 15% at 120 or 90 or whatever because everyone has to just pay. So all of that would have
- to come out. So then figuring out what you are getting, what the incentive is for your contribution
- also has to change because they're based on the tiers which are the percentage, which are the AMI percentage
- breakdowns.
- I'm I know this isn't a question but I'm a little bit nervous about adopting an amendment that doesn't
- contain all those specific references and you know making changes to the code that we're not really
- reviewing the specifics of has as legal taking a look at this amendment and do they have any concerns about
- about allowing those other changes just to be made at the staff level if we were to adopt this amendment.
- Sure. And Adina or Miss Casamanian are you online and able to answer that? Yes. And Adina here. Legal
- is would probably need a little bit more time. We have been discussing from what I understand
- We would just need a little more time to review this amendment. OK. Thank you. I suppose. Would you
- like to go ahead. I don't know that you made a formal motion to introduce this man. You kind of explain
- the amendment. Would you like to go ahead and make a motion.
- And then we'll see if there's a second for it. Let's see. How about I move to amend to include the changes
- outlined in Section F of the packet. Is that sufficient. Is that sufficient to identify it by which
- section of the packet it came out. I can read it out. Yeah I don't think you need to read the entire
- text of it. I think that's sufficient.
- Okay so the motion is to interest introduce the amendment to section C7 and related areas as is outlined
- on page 10 of the packet. Is there is there a second for that motion. I'll second. Okay. Any other.
- We've got that on the floor. Are there any other any other questions for commissioners about
- the amendment and what it's trying to achieve here. It's not a question but it's just a point worth
- raising that deed restrictions are generally onerous to homeowners especially when they go to get financing.
- So not having the restrictions on properties going forward makes it significantly easier for people
- to transact those homes at a future point. Thank you. All right. We were going to go now to public comment
- on the amendment itself. So I know many of you are maybe here to talk about the petition generally.
- At this point we're just going to hear a comment on the proposed amendment to Section C7A. So if you'd
- like to make comment on that amendment please step 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 and you'd like to make comment
- on the amendment
- Just click the React button and click the Raise Hand option or send a chat message to Jackie Scanlon
- and we will recognize you when it's your turn to speak. Good evening Chairman Wheeler. This is Christopher M.J.
- from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce. First I want to say I want to echo the sentiments
- on Commissioner Smith. I was a big fan of his on here and the fact that he's replaced by Stephen Bishop
- the Bish I think is a great testament to the quality of
- Volunteers we do have in the community. I wasn't familiar with this Amendment coming in today, but I
- thought it was a very interesting one The chamber doesn't have an opinion on something like this, but
- I do want to say just from the meetings I've been to and miss
- Killian Hansen's presentations on the housing development fund, I've been impressed with the way it's
- used and the lack of administrative costs in it that some of the compliance comes with when you have
- the units that are affordable. And specifically, it didn't seem to work on larger multifamily units.
- It's when there's a developer who then sells it, it becomes part of the package that they don't care
- if those specific units are rented.
- I'm not sure if this particular amendment is ready yet, but it's something that I think should be really
- discussed and talked about, because we do have to look at some of the administrative costs that go into
- getting some of the results we want. What is that going to take? And if maybe we can keep, if it's developer
- who is doing the renting, we've seen some successes, but any of those larger ones, it just doesn't seem
- like this has been what we've
- wanted when we first put this together, so I appreciate your time tonight and I would love to hear some
- of the comments from Miss Killian Hanson as well on this and Further debate from the Commission. Thank
- you Any other public comment on the amendment Any online commenters
- I ask call for public comment on the amendment. All right. Any final discussion from commissioners.
- Commissioner Stossberg. Yeah. So I have lots of comments on this. So first of all I would argue with
- the earlier statement that rentals have not become less affordable. Rentals have become significantly
- less affordable in this community significantly. It is it is huge.
- Okay, secondly, I do want to comment about some of the vacancies, specifically the vacancies in some
- of the workforce housing or affordable units that Ms. Kellyanne Hudson highlighted in the spring, a
- couple different presentations that I was at, and part of the challenge with those were the contracts,
- and I agree that payment in lieu works really well, especially with certain types of builds, and student
- housing is one of
- those types of builds often because student housing it runs by the bedroom and they have these five
- bedroom five bath kind of places and then it's it's Significantly less to rent a room in a five bedroom
- five bath apartment within a student complex and it it is affordable enough in fact that it's actually
- often less expensive per bedroom than the
- what it is in terms of the rent that is dictated by the AMI because you're sharing some of those common
- spaces. So it does become more affordable in some ways when you have those five bed, five bath units
- and large student housing complexes. And so like entertaining the concept of
- incentivizing student housing complexes specifically and you know when they come to us like they come
- to us often like designed as a student housing complex right to Utilize the payment in lieu option Would
- definitely be something that I think is on the table in terms of wanting to make sure that the payment
- in lieu is used You know in effective ways but to completely require everything to do payment in lieu,
- I think is
- really does not go along with several pieces of our...
- comprehensive plans and one of the things about that and one of the things that affordable housing incentives
- are supposed to do is to Diversify where that affordable housing is So instead of affordable housing
- all being in one location and put all of the people who need economic help over here It gets spread
- out and dispersed throughout multiple areas of the city. And if you just require payment in lieu, then
- that means that Nothing is really affordable anywhere
- So what we're doing is depending on the city and the city housing development fund to create that greater
- affordability And I love a lot of the programs that director Killian Hansen has talked about this year
- and that she's starting with rental assistance and other types of voucher programs and things like that
- I think that those are wonderful and great programs and I don't want to diminish that but the fact of
- the matter is we cannot require Landlords to accept those which means you are still gonna have segregated
- housing to some degree because the only place you're gonna be able to use those vouchers
- or where the landlords allow them to be used. So you're still going to have pockets of places where
- you can live if you're
- If you need that economically and then you're going to have you know, it's just going to become greater
- separation so that's I guess I I think that this idea is generally contrary to lots of pieces of what
- Bloomington is about then lastly is the council representative in conversations with my council colleagues
- around payment in lieu over the last two years really There is far more sentiment on council to completely
- eliminate the payment in lieu option and require every developer
- To actually build affordable units then there is to do this option I would be shocked if this ended
- up approved through council and so I think that that is a consideration that's a playing commissioners
- Should use especially since this is an amendment on a petition that is in response to a council resolution
- and as miss Scanlon said part of that council resolution did indicate making it harder to
- to do and to use payment in lieu, not easier, certainly not requiring that everybody use it. And then
- there was one other thing that I wanted to say in here. I'm not sure where it is in my notes anymore,
- so I will call that my comment. Thank you. Thank you. Other comments? Commissioner Kinsey? I guess I
- have some more questions for Director Killian Hanson if you're willing to come forward and
- respond and react to some of this conversation. I think we're trying to hold two things in balance here.
- We're trying to express or demonstrate and have more affordable housing and figure out what's gonna
- work here. Tell us what your impressions are. Well, I'm gonna be as honest as I can be,
- always been my best policy. So I actually think that the directive to make it harder to use housing
- development fund is actually the opposite of what should be happening right now. You guys have to think
- about who is using housing development fund, who is triggering those incentives. Nine times out of 10,
- and I'm yet to see a small affordable housing development that is triggering that incentive that is
- not student housing.
- It is not working. Let's also think about where this starts, boots on the ground. Developer starts talking
- about a project. Oh, I can get more units if I trigger this incentive and they are just excited to get
- their project off the ground.
- They do not stay with the project long term to make sure that it's in compliance We have massive compliance
- issues that are just creating a lot of headaches in my department to be honest with you So they make
- these agreements they create these zoning commitments, which have been written terribly Basically to
- use these incentives they can go up to 120% of the area median income that is not affordable and so
- You saw me earlier this year come and talk about me the need to really reduce those A.M. eyes for if
- we are going to have any actual units on site. Unfortunately the vast majority of the zoning commitments
- that have been written have language like up to 120 percent. So it doesn't really get you anywhere below
- where it needs to be to be
- truly affordable. And the vast majority of them are in student-centric complexes. If I am making $75,000
- a year and the majority of these units are one bedrooms or their studio apartments, I don't want to
- live next door to a student that is keeping different hours than me. So I'm just saying that that has
- a big impact.
- $75,000 a year look at what the AMI chart is there should be one on our website that will calculate
- out if you're making X This is what you're paying in rent. So those are not affordable units to start
- with Let's also talk about compliance of the number of units within the buildings that are working so
- workforce housing units are working very well in buildings and complexes that have less than 20 units and
- I'm really concerned about the idea of trying to increase the number, the vast number of units that
- are on site, particularly when generally the developer makes these agreements, they pass it on to their
- property manager who some kid doesn't understand what AMI is and the income qualification is a complete
- nightmare. So then they end up sitting vacant. We also have another zoning commitment that said that
- they would only advertise it for up to six months and then turn to market rate.
- So the process is broken if we really want affordable housing and you guys are trying to keep the workforce
- housing units That's fine But you need to lower the AMI and you need to have a mechanism in which those
- zoning commitments are Executed in a manner that they were intended to be not after the fact not two
- years after the fact when they're being built But you are creating
- staffing issue for me because the more Workforce housing units or affordable units on site that you
- have the more monitoring that we have to do and let me tell you it's not just as simple as them turning
- in a report a lot of times there's back and forth because they don't understand what they've inherited
- and Sometimes after they're built ownership changes as well. So it is quite onerous to be honest with
- you I'm happy to answer some other questions. I know I had some other comments, too and
- Can I just ask one question about the clarifying the person from the chamber who indicated the administrative
- costs are the things you just described are referencing. Those are examples of the administrative costs
- of the US. Yeah of the units and you know how the development fund to be perfectly honest with you is
- one of the very very few funds that are available in the city that can truly be nimble to help meet
- the affordable housing needs of the community.
- all of our HUD funding, you have to go through significant red tape and generally they make the projects
- more expensive, not less expensive. So I do think that generally affordability in Bloomington, there's
- a lot going on there, but I think you can't just lump it all together. It's supply and demand. It's
- also the fact that we have 13,000 beds on campus and 48,000 undergrad students. What do you think that
- is to an out of state developer?
- That is a huge magnet. So we have to try and start thinking about what kind of development makes sense
- to incentivize. What are you incentivizing? The other comment I want to go back to is that we're not
- monitoring based on bedrooms. We have said that there's a discrepancy between bedrooms and units because
- of some of the complexes that ramp by the bedroom. Do you count that as a unit?
- Do you count that as a bedroom? It needs clarification So we've been doing it by units, but there's
- definitely some areas for clarification Can I just ask you to quickly just clarify I know when your
- answer you talked about AMI and I know this is a point That's very confusing for a lot of people when
- you say a hundred per twenty hundred twenty percent of AMI You mean
- That it is required that that unit is rented to someone making less than 120 percent of the area median income.
- Development Fund guidelines say that it should be utilized for somebody up to 120% of the area median
- income. However, the zoning commitments that have been executed have very vague language that say up
- to 120% AMI, allowing the developer to only advertise at the 120% AMI, which by the way, last year you
- would have had to make $75,000 and this summer they changed it to $90,000 for a one-person household.
- 120% AMI figure come from I have no idea because the Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis says Affordable
- housing is usually 80% AMI. Yes a capital a affordable housing projects are 80% of the area median income
- and below which is why we brought an amendment earlier this year to say hey, can we please stop advertising
- at 120% because this is not your demographic to fill these units and
- Also with concerns to where the funds would go for payment in lieu with it not bringing on like new
- units and things like that. Is there any reason it couldn't be tied together with like Hopewell or something
- like that to where those funds are then used to build units within development already. Absolutely.
- So let me tell you a little bit about how we're using it and what the boots on the ground
- method for HDF in general. I have to go to council every year and say, and guesstimate, like hey, I
- think I might need 500,000 this year. And then we talk to developers as they're having gaps, or if there's
- a project that we wanna make sure that we're securing those affordable units, then it's a negotiation
- game. We may or may not use it. You don't know until you have the project. The issue right now is the
- things that we require builders to build,
- Really add a ton of costs. So I've had numerous conversations with numerous builders this year and their
- average gap is closer to like three million dollars not five hundred thousand that I've requested. So
- every almost every project that we've been in talks with need a significant
- Larger number than what I have to give at the moment and I don't care to go back to council and say
- hey This is a great project. This is what's going on. We really need to support this but then you've
- got the timeline of Does that make sense real estate time is of the essence. So it's challenging I Would
- love to be able to invest a whole lot more in areas like Hopewell or places that actually have affordable
- Units that can be created the vast majority. I don't really think that there's a lot of homeownership
- That has been triggered. We haven't gotten any payment and lose from any ownership models at all No,
- it's all rentals that are making those payment and lose The one that you guys recently approved for
- clear path Kirkwood 123 is homeownership That's the only one that I know of the rest of them are all rentals
- Are there any other questions? Go ahead. Thank you for being here, by the way, tonight. I know that
- we've had several conversations about this. And what you just said very publicly was something that
- you said privately, that one of the challenges is the contracts that have already been written. And
- at this point, there's nothing to do about those rights. And so the question that I have is,
- moving forward, and maybe this is also for the attorneys that are online, is it possible to make those
- contracts better
- such that you don't have these kinds of headaches moving forward? Well, I can tell you it's my personal
- mission to make sure that I don't see another zoning commitment that was created before my time because
- they are just not well written at all. They do not support our need or what the general idea was. I
- don't know what happened. I can just tell you that the language is vague enough that it doesn't help
- us on the enforcement side at all.
- On the subject of the actual amount for the payment in lieu, when I inherited this, the amount was $20,000.
- And I knew very well that it needed to be increased, except for I think the administrative manual indicated
- that you can do it like at the beginning of each calendar year, the hand director. So last year we did
- increase it. We increased it 50% from where it was. I'm a little bit scared to just throw a dart at
- the wall and say, this is what the number is.
- when we don't really have any measured response. That's why I went 50% more, okay? Another 50% more
- each year to see, I was trying to be methodical about it. I didn't wanna just go out and double it overnight.
- So but moving forward, we can expect that contracts are going to be written in ways that are easier
- for you to enforce and that are more, I'll say, transparent and readable.
- Hopefully yes, I think that we internally have some things to hammer out as far as the process by which
- those actually get recorded because there are agreements that cannot be found in process right now and
- we have completely turned it over to hand so they can write it however they would like because
- It actually doesn't even say it needs to be a zoning commitment. So if they would prefer to do an agreement
- between hand and the developer the zoning code allows that as well. So it's completely up to them how
- they are written moving forward. And I guess I just really wanted wanted to emphasize that in terms
- of the problems of the past and we're stuck with those problems of the past. And so it's from here moving
- forward that something different is already happening.
- and will continue to happen so that those headaches are not replicated in more places. Correct. Correct.
- And I do think that if you guys did some research on the actual rental market that's out there, there's
- really two different markets. There's your student complexes and then your everyday
- other complexes, and so we're really challenged because this bucket has not been being built. It's not
- what's lucrative. We make it extremely hard to navigate the process to be approved for a project, so
- it would be great to incentivize a different kind of development. I don't have any answers for you on
- how to do that, though, but. I have one more question for you.
- Just wait till you're recognized if you would we have another question down here was just in front of
- you in line So is there a process for accountability for these funds of payment in lieu You know, I
- feel a little nervous when we are getting millions of dollars from different developers that you know,
- of course they just want to get their project done so they just throw money at
- at the city, but it would be wonderful if there were some sort of report that we can see every year
- or something that we see where the funds are going, because it's a lot of money. It is a lot of money,
- and I think I go back to the subject that it doesn't all come to me all at once. It's just sort of sitting
- in a fund that the controller's office has until council appropriates the amount to me. So I am more
- than happy to give a report
- Quarterly if you would like.
- bi-annually, it doesn't matter. I mean, it should be very transparent. And I do know from working with
- the development community that there's a lot of frustration from them because they have felt like in
- past years there hasn't been transparency. Where's the money? Where did it go? What projects did it
- go for? So, and I do have to say that the record keeping has been challenging. So we had to do quite
- a bit of forensic accounting to even figure out like, okay, do we have everything accounted for or not?
- We have a process moving forward. It's just sort of the things that have it's water under the bridge
- at this point for some things Do you have any data points as far as what affordable housing units would
- cost in Bloomington? The things that were aspiring to build to build themselves like a rental unit
- Well, if we're going to have them pay in lieu to cover the cost in excess of what it costs to bring
- on an affordable unit Have we engaged with like the builders Association or anything like that to figure
- out like what does a stock, you know unit cost it does it cost $80,000 a hundred thousand dollars and
- is that this year's price is it last year's model? I can tell you what home funds or HUD Feels like
- is a subsidy for a single unit
- And it is close to 300,000 per unit to build So but to bring online an affordable unit there are other
- ways to do it other than build from the ground up right if you give Down payment assistance to someone
- of low AMI so they can get into a house and they can make payments then you've created an affordable
- unit that way and
- Right and that brought one online. Yeah, and that's sort of been my point is that it's the We're stuck
- with golden handcuffs right now. People are locked in with their current interest rates Where are they
- gonna go? There's not a lot of Places they can move to where they're paying something either equal or
- less than their current mortgage payment So we're stuck. We've got a lot of our lower-end units that
- are being occupied by someone that may be
- shouldn't be there. So what we need overall is movement in our housing ladder, up and down. People move
- typically, what, every eight years or so. We're not seeing that right now. So if we can unlock some
- units, that was the idea with the interest rate buy down was that, hey, we can incentivize this homeowner
- that's been in a five bedroom unit, their kids are out of the nest, they could really use a smaller
- unit, unlock that for somebody else. So there just in general needs to be
- more movement in the housing ladder. And that, I believe, is how you also create some affordable units.
- Overall, though, whether it's rentals or homeownership, it's all laws of supply and demand. And we have
- not kept up. Any more questions? Thank you.
- Your input any final comments on the amendment here before we call the roll mr. Stossberg Is that like
- over time if you do the math And I've and I haven't some other council members have done the math before
- that ultimately a port a permanently affordable unit is going to end up giving more
- to the community over time than a payment in lieu. The payment in lieu number would have to be super
- duper high, even higher than what's proposed right now in the administrative manual in order to make
- up that kind of investment. So that is the other reason why a number of my colleagues are really opposed
- to payment in lieu at all. As I said, I think that it can make a lot of sense in some types of housing,
- especially student housing, in terms of that as an option.
- Yeah, that's all. I appreciate Commissioner Holmes' amendment and what you're trying to incentivize
- here and the logic that's put into it. But I guess I fear the impression that somehow we're not supporting
- affordable units being built if we were to move to that
- very specific amendment. So I guess I don't want to express that or appear to express that. So to me
- that it's not tenable in that way. I also am persuaded that I don't think the council is going to move
- anything forward. So you know I I don't want to set up a really oppositional
- approach right away. I'd like us to try and move forward a little bit, so I'm more inclined to try and
- move forward with some of the action that I think we're suggesting today. The other thing is, I do think
- that the payment in lieu really has worked, and I very much appreciate the creativity and the responsivity
- that HAND has envisioned for ways to make these funds more usable.
- I understand all of the problems of previous restrictions and legal zoning commitments that weren't
- well crafted and the enforcement challenges that those create. But I think some of the creativity I've
- seen in what you described, how the funds are being used, that's really impressive. So I don't want
- to lose that. So I want to think about how that can continue.
- But I would urge us to consider that AMI change. All right. That's it for me. Any other comments. I'll
- just say quickly I appreciate the spirit of this. I do think that it's pretty clear that the trust fund
- is making more direct impact on affordability than some of the other things we have here.
- Appreciate that and would love to see us be able to do more of that. And I also appreciate your concerns
- with Essentially price controls. I think that is a very valid concern But I have a problem with the
- general principle of all of this in the sense that The reward that you get for meeting any of these
- incentives is that you get to build units that are
- inherently cheaper to build because they're essentially adding on to your project top floors Increasing
- footprint right there. They are by definition the most affordable units that you can build In terms
- of the cost of building them and so we're saying in order for you to be able to be allowed to build
- the cheapest unit you can build you have to pay more money which inherently
- Wipes out the affordability of building those units. I think I think there's a just a fundamental logical
- problem with the approach to this and so to say That's the only way we're going to be able to do it
- and that we're going to continue to jack up that price year after year Just says to me that this is
- not going to solve the problem Like this is this is maybe going to be a band-aid and give us some some
- short-term money to work with to make certain cases more affordable but at the end of the day we are
- increasing the price of
- building new supply, period. At the end of the day, that is the problem. It is too hard and too expensive
- to build new supply. That's what we've got to solve here. What we're doing is making it more and more
- expensive and harder and more complicated. You have to go through this whole workbook and do math homework
- just to figure out if you even want to look at building a project. The answer here, I think, is let's
- just make it straightforward.
- Let's make it clear what you can build. Let's make it easy to build up. Let's make it easy to build
- more dense so that you can build things that cost less so that we can offer them at a more affordable
- rate to the market. So appreciate the spirit. I think it's based on some very sound logic. But ultimately
- I think it just exacerbates some of the some of the problems that I have with the whole structure we
- set up here. So I will be voting no.
- All right last Let's call for comments before we call the roll on the amendment All right, let's call
- the roll on the amendment, please No Yes, can't see no Stossburg no Whistler no Bishop Yes
- Burrell no All right, so believe that family we all had three three yeses and five notes, okay, um,
- I'm sorry Mr. Ballard did have his hand raised earlier I forgot to tell you because then you guys got
- so I don't know I know it's too late for that but it just Maybe check in with him on the next one. I
- will try to remind you as well. I
- We'll make sure you have a chance to to make your comments The people voting online as well as hear
- them because that is yes one of the council rules that is correct Playing mr. Ballard when you vote
- you have to have your camera on sorry about that. Well, I'll tell you what since we have to Since we
- have to redo this
- As we have to redo this vote, Commissioner Ballard, if you'd like to make your comment before you state
- your vote, feel free. That's fine. I'll make it quick. I really appreciate all the conversation. I'm
- very much in agreement with Commissioner Holmes on this. I think what Director Gilliam-Hanson has presented
- multiple times now and has shown for years is that the system's broken. Commissioner Whittle, I understand
- your comment, but I think it has to start somewhere.
- And I think the starting point of creating the payment in lieu that is working and building upon that,
- to then offset that money into hand records, creating things that are working, I think is a great step
- forward. And it's taking action. I'm really, really shocked that the Common Council are all about trying
- to scrap that. I don't understand
- I would want to see Commissioner Seltzer's friendly disagreement here. I don't see how you can quantify
- that an affordable unit is more attractive than the payment and lease type. I would want to see hard
- numbers on that, because that to me is just kind of an emotional argument, I think. And I think that's
- actually very, I think we need to be careful with that kind of argument. I think we need facts to back it up.
- So that's all I appreciate Mr. Holmes again the work he's done with this I very much agree with him
- but obviously thank you. And so your vote just for the record on the amendment was yes. My vote was
- yes. All right. Thank you. All right. So that.
- That amendment fails. We are now back to the petition as it was originally presented. I think we are
- ready then to go to public comment on the petition itself. So if you'd like to make public comment on
- Case Zio 2 0 2 5 dash
- Let's see, hold on a second. Zio-33-25. If you'd like to make a public comment, just step up to the
- podium, state your name for the record, and you'll have five minutes to speak. If you're joining us
- online, click that React button, click the Raise Hand option, or just send a chat message to the host,
- and we'll recognize it when it is your turn to speak.
- Is there any public comment on Zio dash 33 dash 25? All right, we are then back to the Commission for
- any final comments or for a motion If I could so this is going to be all of the amendments that were
- initially proposed by staff it's gonna be one vote for
- all of them together correct thank you unless there's another so you welcome to offer another amendment
- if you think you have that that option if you have a question can you can you speak into the microphone
- the AMI is not included in this amendment can that be included in the amendment
- The change on a am I Addresses that okay. Thank you All right, any other follow-up comments before or
- when we need a motion Mr. Stossberg earlier I brought up the idea of putting in some kind of percentage
- or reference to the administrative manual should we try to create a
- an amendment on the fly related to or like should we try to do something on the fly related to that
- because I know that we have to like forward this on tonight or should that wait for you. I'm happy to
- work with you on an amendment for council but then obviously it has to come back.
- If you guys think there's a quick change, we could do that. So the payment in lieu of providing housing,
- that means the tier one or tier two affordability criteria and petitions or fraud projects that contain
- more than 30 dwelling units may be authorized by an agreement with the city and all payments will be
- paused in the housing development fund. I was thinking it's,
- I'm just not sure exactly I think it should go in there but I'm not sure exactly because of the references
- to the tears because those are where the 15% lives If that should be totally scrapped Mr. Stossberg,
- could you like that would be too difficult right now to try to wordsmith Do you want to add a condition
- that it be a
- That it be amended to reference the The administrative manual requirements or Yes, is that might I make
- it just a suggestion that you could move approval of the petition with
- with the condition that staff add that reference before presenting to council. Should I do that now
- or do other people have anything else to say. All right. I will move that we forward petition. I say zeo 2025.
- Dash oh nine dash. Oh one three or zero thirty three dash twenty five to Common Council with a positive
- recommendation on the condition that staff Wordsmith to include Reference to requirements within the
- administrative manual So good
- Okay. Yeah, I think that's good. All right. We've got a motion in a second. Is there Any final comment
- before we call the roll on the motion All right, please call the roll No Kinsey, yes Stossberg. Yes
- Whistler No Bishop
- No. Ballard Ballard left. So he is off of the assume. Braille. No. Seymour. Yes. So the motion fails
- motion fails. Yes. So I think we will need.
- We'll need another motion. Another motion could be that we forward with negative recommendation or that
- we forward with no recommendation or that we continue to another hearing move forward with a negative
- recommendation. Is there a second for that motion.
- for information was it for four on that last motion yeses and four nos three yes and four nos you need
- five to only have seven voting members now we lost Commissioner Ballard so we need five out of seven
- commissioners to take any action correct I might suggest that forwarding with a with no recommendation
- might be the only way we get we get a majority vote here I'll change my motion
- forward with no recommendation. Would you also like to include as Commissioner Stossberg included that
- the condition that staff add the reference to the administrative manual. Yes. OK. All right. So the
- motion is that we forward this to the council with no recommendation along with the condition that staff
- add reference to the administrative manual. Is there a second for that motion.
- All right. Any final discussion. I guess I just want to know kind of what happens after this now. I
- mean I feel like we have not done what the council asked us which was to essentially address and assess
- this resolution. So I think I mean it's definitely an option in the state statute that you've assessed
- it. You haven't come to an agreement. You're sending them
- Aversion and you're not all in agreement about whether or not they should do it And so it's very similar
- to the others. They'll make a decision. The only thing I can't well It's not like this is our first
- night. No recommendation But if they so I'm not sure if it comes back to you I can verify you that that
- for you for next month But you can send it on this way and they'll see it we will certify it within
- 10 days and then they'll put it on their Calendar and they'll have to make a decision within 90
- Come back to us if the council decides to make significant changes. I think so. Yes Okay, so Any other
- final discussion got a motion in a second All right. Let's call the roll on the motion to forward with
- no recommendation Kinsey Yes Stossburg
- Yes Whistler, yes Bishop Yes Well, yes Seymour. Yes Holmes. Yes All right motion carries We are now
- on to our next petition and
- Which is 0 3 5 dash 2 5. This is related. We also have again Jackie Scanlon to present.
- Go ahead. Yes. So this is response to resolution 2025 dash 17. You will recall probably some of you
- that last winter we received a resolution from council and we heard it in February of this year. That's
- when Miss Killian Hansen gave her presentation. Then we realized that was outside of the 60 days statutorily
- required for that hearing. So council then broke up that resolution and sent it forward as the one you
- just saw. And this one as a separate resolution. So
- The latest resolution was signed by the mayor on October 2nd. You're hearing it tonight and you have
- to make a recommendation to common council by January 9th. So again to kind of just a little bit go
- over what that resolution is entails they pass a resolution to re initiate in part the intent
- to pursue the objectives set forth in resolution 2024-23 from last year and to amend the minimum qualifying
- standards for affordability and plan unit developments. So this one has three sections that we need
- to address with specific mandates in the code. The first is related to the eligibility section.
- And the directive was that the plan commission is to prepare a proposal consistent with this resolution
- to amend the text of the eligibility section, which is here on the left, to include an AMI requirement
- within tier one and tier two affordable housing projects as follows. Tier one, affordable housing projects
- to include at least some units to be priced below 90% of AMI using whole percentages for each tier.
- And tier two, affordable housing projects to include at least some units priced below 70% of AMI using
- whole percentages for each tier.
- So this was an image that Miss Killian Hansen presented to you in February. I don't know if I can zoom
- in on it. Maybe I can. And as she has before talking about the percentages in the existing zoning commitments
- and that the code was written for 120 percent just for those people who don't know or weren't involved
- initially.
- The code was not written for affordable housing. It was written for workforce housing. The idea under
- the administration at that time was that there are a number of federal and other resources for what
- is defined as affordable housing, and so the UDO is supposed to be a gap for workforce housing, so that's
- why it was up to 120. The new administration, I would say, is getting away from that, and so this
- bar, this chart here indicates you can see that 90 and 70 is the second circle there on the bottom,
- is much more in line with our actual wage distribution here.
- because that is local data used there. So what we have proposed to the plan commission is that for tier
- one, you change 120 to 90. So requiring that all of the 15% in a tier one project have to earn less
- than 90% of HUD AMI for the county. And that in tier two, that percentage is split between 90 and 70.
- You've heard a number of times other city staff saying they don't like the 7.5 and can we change it
- to 16 and eight.
- You can, if you'd like. The UDO is very explicit that those numbers just get rounded up after you do
- the math. So once that number of units is established, you don't have to keep going back to that.
- So 7.5 times your number of units. If it's 12.1, you're doing 13 units. So we are not proposing to change
- that because it's very clear. But we can if people want that to be different. So that's the first section.
- The second, hold on.
- see here. Just a sec.
- Okay the second directive is to adjust the minimum qualifying standards for affordability applicable
- to plan unit developments requiring that such developments meet or exceed the tier one affordability
- standard. So the qualifying standards here you can see listed. There are seven with some having sub
- standards there. Those are if you are requesting to rezone to plan unit development and number three
- is related to the resident if you are doing residential dwelling units a minimum of 15 percent of those
- dwelling units
- must be permanently income limited through a deed restriction.
- earning less than 120. So we have proposed to change that to say where residential dwelling units are
- proposed the total dwelling units proposed must include at a minimum the percentage of permanently income
- limited units required in and then we reference the tier one section at the AMI percentages listed in
- that section so that if in the future the council wants to change the tier one then this will
- just automatically change and this won't have to come back as a separate
- amendment. So again meeting the tier one standard and then indicating that that is a minimum. So you
- can kind of see it a little bigger there probably still can't read it. Okay so then under section four
- propose any additional amendments necessary to line other sections of the UDO with the changes described
- in the previous sections. One thing
- So when I was thinking about that, I thought, oh, I bet the percentage is in the definition of workforce
- housing, and it is. So 120% is there in the percentage. But then I realized when this was first written
- with the consultants in 2019, it was intended to be workforce housing. But in all of the sections, they
- started calling it affordable housing. So workforce housing doesn't actually appear in the code at all.
- It only appears here in the definition. So we are proposing to just strike it.
- That will probably be helpful as well for ongoing conversation about affordable versus workforce. And
- the code is just going to be talking about affordable housing. So we don't need this definition. I don't think.
- So the department is proposing to amend the percentages related to area median income and affordable
- housing units that are provided through the incentive section of the UDO to better align with our local
- workforce reality. Again, as you've seen tonight, while there are differing views on whether or not
- on-site units are more or less beneficial than receipt of a payment in lieu, the proposed changes in
- this response to resolution
- make any onsite units potentially more impactful than the current regulations by lowering those percentages.
- And additionally, we did, these are the same percentage numbers from the hearing in February, or I should
- say hand staff mentioned these numbers at the hearing in February, 1970, so we aligned with those, and
- you could see on the chart that I displayed from Ms. Killian Hansen's presentation that that aligns
- well with our actual workforce.
- So we are recommending that you approve the waiver of second hearing and forward this petition as well
- to the common council with a positive recommendation and I can answer any questions. Thank you. Are
- there questions from commissioners Commissioner Burrell. So if this is approved does it go back to the
- existing or non occupied units that I mean would it apply to them.
- It will only apply for petitions submitted after it would be signed by the mayor. Yeah, I'm just trying
- to figure out if it would solve a problem that we already have that problem. But it might prevent other
- problems. Okay. Thank you. I've got a question. These levels percentages of AMI are in the are in the UDO.
- Saying if you want to qualify for these incentives you have to meet these tiers And then they are codified
- for each individual deal in a contract Right and that's right is there a legal reason why Those contracts
- could not just reference similar to the way that our UTO references an administrative handbook
- Those the contract could just say you must offer X number of units according to the standards in the
- city of Bloomington and administrative handbook that's question 1a question 1b is is there any reason
- that handbook has to be tied to AMI or tied to these the way that I assume we have these definitions
- because it's the way HUD
- There's federal definitions. Is there a reason our local handbook couldn't just say a unit must be less
- than $600 a month and must be rented to someone who makes less than $40,000 a year? And could we not
- then just update that table every year so that everybody is playing by the same rules and
- even if the rules, even if the specific numbers are changing with as income change, as inflation happens,
- is there any reason we couldn't do it that way? Is there any reason that we have individual, every deal
- has a separate contract and that contract is referencing AMI and these other standards? It just seems
- that there's a more straightforward and more scalable way to do this.
- So I think it ever yes, I think the contract could reference whatever we wanted Some of the ones that
- have been unsuccessful were pre this being written sure So they were just go back and yeah, so that
- so maybe there are ways we can incentivize those owners to agree to something new But I know we can't
- just force forward I think what hand will choose to do with the help of legal is to just directly reference
- the UDO and Yes, I do think we could make it whatever we want. This is not a mandatory
- process, it's an incentive. So I think we could make it whatever we want. I was not in the room when
- that was being written, but I know the parties that were involved, which was largely the hand director
- and the SD director, were trying to make it logical and something that was in line with what made sense
- with the numbers that HUD was putting out and tried to make it make sense in that way. But I do think
- that it could be anything.
- I'd like to hear director killing Hanson's thoughts on that if you don't mind. I'm sorry I believe that
- we use AMI because it's tall tied to household size So obviously if it's a four-person household at
- a certain area meeting income, it's a different rate than it is a one-bedroom So I think that that's why
- I would prefer to keep it with AMIs, but maybe make it more clearly stated in the agreement. I really
- just think that the language and the agreements in general has been the bulk of the issue. I think it's
- great to reference back to the UDO and kind of keep it as an evergreen item that they have to keep changing
- or checking. But I do think that there's a
- I would love to see that the agreements come back to the Plain Commission for Verification before that
- actually signed I would like to make sure that there are like some actual processes to cover our bases
- That's just my two cents though, I guess just to continue on that Could we not make that a condition
- of approval on future when we approve a Petition site plan for example, could we not?
- Make a condition of approval if we know that there's they're taking advantage of the incentives condition
- approval that the final Agreement will come back then be approved by the Commission Okay Thank you.
- All right. Any other questions from commissioners? Mr. Stossberg I just want to point out that one of
- the things in the resolution I said was to use full percentages and in the tier two We didn't do that.
- So I guess I'd like to
- proposed to amend it, or I don't know if we need to do a condition of approval if that's easier, to
- make it a minimum of 7% for households earning below 90% and 8% for households earning below 70%. And
- the reason why in the resolution I said use whole percentages is because Hand told me that whole percentages
- were easier to deal with than half percentages.
- Question for staff. Can we do that? And also a question for commissioners is that like good for y'all
- in terms of a condition of Approval if that's the best procedure that staff I think that we would have
- I think we would want to have that as a as an amendment that we I think that's a substantive change
- here. So if you'd like to introduce an amendment Feel free Okay, I would like to move that we
- Let me go back and that we amend petition Zio 3525 To state that tier 2 eligibility requires a minimum
- of 7% of the total dwelling units Our income restricted unless otherwise adjusted or forfeited by the
- city to households earning below 90% of the HUD AMI and that a minimum of 8% of the total dwelling units
- are income restricted permanently and
- Unless otherwise adjusted or forfeited by the city to households earning below 70 percent of the HUD
- AMI So just to clarify you're referencing section In section 2 eligibility To be Roman numeral 2 you
- want to change 7.5 percent to 7 percent and in Roman numeral 3
- Changed seven point five percent to eight percent. Correct. All right. Is there a second for that amendment?
- Okay, any discussion amongst commissioners on that amendment Any public comment on that amendment if
- you'd like to make comment step up to the podium state your name for the record and state your comment
- if you're joining us online click the react button click the raise hand and
- Option or send a chat message to miss Scanlon and we will let you know when it's your turn to speak
- Last call for public comment on the amendment All right back to the Commission I Think we're ready to
- call the roll. We didn't have any discussion before I Can't imagine we do now. All right, let's call
- the roll on the amendment, please Yes
- Whistler? Yes. Bishop? Yes. Burrell? Yes. Seaborg? Yes. Holmes? Yes. Kinsey? Yes. All right, the amendment
- is adopted. Any other questions from commissioners for staff on this petition?
- All right. We'll now go back to public comment on the petition itself. Is there any public comment?
- Let's call for public comment on the petition. All right. Back to the commission. And I think we are
- ready for a motion motion to approve the
- Let's see to approve the waiver of second hearing and forward zeo 35-25 to the common council with a
- positive recommendation Is there a second Sorry, sorry as amended. Yep. Thank you We have a second Second
- All right any final discussion on the motion
- Whistler Yes Bishop Yes Burrell Yes seabor yes Holmes. Yes Kinsey. Yes Stossberg. Yes All right motion
- carries and the petition is forwarded to the council and
- We are on now to our final petition of the evening zio-36-25 petitioner is William Wama thigh the property
- at 2005 West Corey Drive. I believe we have Eric we need Eric Grulick to present this one is Mr. Grulick with us.
- Probably didn't expect us to get through that last one as quickly as we did. Most of the time he would
- have been right. While we're waiting for Mr. Grulick I'm going to go ahead and just call a brief five
- minute recess so we can all take a little break and we'll reconvene here at seven twenty seven.
- We are ready now for Zio dash thirty six dash twenty five and we have a girl to present whenever you're
- ready. Take it away. Next case is V.O. Sorry. Give me just a second. There we go. Next case is Zio dash
- thirty six dash twenty five. And this is coming forward to the planning commission tonight.
- For something a little bit unique that you guys have not heard in a long time And so this is a recommendation
- for zoning for a property that is coming forward for a voluntary annexation So this is for a property
- at 2005 West Corey Drive The petitioner is coming forward ultimately to the City Council to request
- a voluntary annexation and so the Planning Commission's role in this is to make a recommendation to the
- City Council on what the zoning for this property should be if the council ultimately decides to annex
- this property. So the count or the Plank Commission's role tonight as I mentioned is simply to make
- a recommendation for a property that is currently in the county on what that zoning should be.
- So the property is on West Corey Drive and the properties to the south of this are zoned within the
- city which is what makes this property eligible for annexation. The property to the south is a moose
- lodge that's own residential medium lot are to the.
- This particular property that is coming in for annexation or possible annexation was actually in the
- county when this subdivision was approved. It was approved in 1992 as Corey Lane Estates. And so it
- was in the AFA at that time. So this is lot two within the Corey Lane Estates. This is within property
- that is, as I mentioned, zoned by the county, within the county's
- Urbanized area plan, which is their equivalent of the comprehensive plan. It is designated as mixed
- residential As I mentioned the properties to the south of this the moose lodge or zone residential medium
- lot are too Just to the south of that again within the city of zone mixed-use medium scale the county's
- urbanized plan has this designated as mixed residential, which is their one of their residential
- designations that is very comparable to the city's kind of urban residential zoning or comprehensive
- plan that deals with low density residential encourages a mix of housing types both single family and
- attached. And so the.
- petitioner is coming forward, as I mentioned, for an annexation petition that'll go to the common council.
- So as we looked at this, we look at what the county's comprehensive plan is and both the city's comprehensive
- plan for the adjacent properties. The adjacent property, the Moose Lodge, is zoned neighborhood residential,
- is zoned R2. The county's zoning, which is RES, which is kind of a very low density zoning, has very similar
- setbacks to the R2 zoning that is to the south of this and so in this particular instance it was a somewhat
- easy exercise to kind of go through of what the zoning on this particular property should be which we
- stated our staff would be R2.
- similar lot size, somewhat similar setbacks, although the county doesn't have a zoning district that
- completely matches what ours is. The R2 certainly is something that is very comparable to that. So as
- I mentioned, this was certainly a very easy exercise for staff to go through in terms of matching up
- with the zoning should be. So we are recommending that the plan commission
- forward this to the Common Council with the recommendation that the are to the residential medium lot
- zoning be approved for this with a waiver of the required second hearing and I'm happy to answer any
- questions. Thank you. Are there questions from commissioners.
- Is there a representative from the petitioner that like to add anything to the presentation? I don't
- I don't know if the petitioner they're they're not required to be here for this particular element As
- I mentioned, this is just simply a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the council And like
- I said, it's it's really just kind of a mathematical exercise almost of sorts
- From us because we're just making a recommendation of what the zoning should be based on the comprehensive
- plan the county's comprehensive plan So I don't I don't know that the petitioner themselves Are here
- tonight, I don't know if they're here in the crowd. No Doesn't look like it. Okay Mr. Stossberg Just
- have a question so I mean I
- I guess I think that that R2 designation kind of makes sense in terms of what Quarry Drive looks like.
- And it makes sense because we have an adjacent R2 to the south of it. But I'm really curious as to why
- that property to the south was zoned R2, if you happen to know. Because it is all owned by one entity.
- And it is the Moose Lodge. And R2 is residential.
- I mean it's not like we have a proposal on the table to change that but I'm just kind of confused as
- to why that was ever R2 while we're talking about this area. Yeah. So that's that's a great question.
- And so actually when.
- When the Coraline Estates subdivision came in, they kind of looked, although the Moose Lodge property
- did exist obviously and was occupying the property to the south of this, they installed or required
- a road stub to the Moose Lodge property because they expected that to be developed. One of the things
- when we go through our zoning map and we look for situations where maybe a property is, I don't wanna
- say mis-zoned or mismatched, the commercial properties,
- Always for the most part you know they have frontage on public roads and then depending on kind of where
- that might be in a situation you know if it's back from an arterial road from a collector road then
- we look and see you know is a commercial zoning really appropriate. So in this case here the Moose Lodge
- you know it does not have frontage on Second Street or Bloomfield Road. And so you know the
- in the comprehensive plan has it.
- designated as neighborhood residential. So the art to zoning on that property really does kind of make
- sense in that you don't have frontage on arterial collector road. You know you have residential to the
- north residential to the west. And as you get back into Bloomfield road get you know
- Even one property off of Bloomfield Road, you're pretty much predominantly all residential. So it really
- made sense. Well, I don't have any recollections of the Moose Lodge property myself discussing it.
- You know, it does make sense for that to be zoned R2 because, you know, it does lend itself to residential.
- You know, it could be commercial, but kind of given the deep length of it, you know, it makes it a little
- bit challenging sometimes for a commercial development to occupy that and and housing in that situation
- certainly would it be appropriate as well. So that's
- you know, why I can alter a hypothesis of why the Moose Lodge is owned R2. So I understand the equation
- that you're operating from that there's R2 south of it. So that makes sense. But I wonder if there were
- other zones that would get us more density or if there were any other interests
- of what this property could be developed as. Yes, absolutely. So, you know, one of the factors and one
- of the kind of the components of the equation were, you know, what are the properties within Coriolanus
- States? What is their lot size? What is their lot width? You know, those are very comparable to the
- R2. You know, also, you know, I'll point out on this particular lot. And then within Coriolanus States,
- when this was coming forward for subdivision approval 92, there were several sinkholes.
- that were located within or adjacent to this subdivision. This particular lot, lot two, did not at that
- time have an identified CARS feature. There was a unique drainage feature that was located on this particular
- parcel. So there was a large drainage easement that was platted for this parcel. So the R3, while it
- could allow for more
- parcel or more properties to be developed in a theoretical world, this particular parcel has
- a few constraints on it, both for the drainage easement as well as tree preservation, so trying to get
- another lot
- in on this particular lot really was very challenging in terms of realistic standpoint of balancing
- all the factors. There's a utility easement that runs through the northwest corner. You've got a drainage
- easement for this feature on the property that could be a cars feature. You know we're not sure that'll
- be that'll be something that will be evaluated with any kind of a development plan or building plan
- for the property. So the R3 zoning certainly was something we did consider however it did
- It seemed to be really kind of squeezing in more than what was probably appropriate on this on this
- property. And so that's why we went with the R2 because it's certainly an easier conversation as it
- matches and is analogous to what's immediately a south and surrounding it. Any other questions from
- commissioners. All right. We'll go to public comment then.
- On 0 36- 25 if you'd like to make comment just step up to the podium state your name for the record
- And you'll have up to five minutes to make your comment if you're joining us online click the react
- button Click on the raise hand option or send a message to the meeting host And we'll recognize you
- when it is your turn to speak
- Good evening commissioners. My name is Paul post. I'm a property owner on the Street in question on
- Cory Drive along with several of my neighbors that were here tonight a couple things I wanted to point
- out to you that I think kind of gotten glossed over here That entire area is part of what's called island
- for in the annexation process with the city The majority of that area did not want to be annexed That's
- a very important point all the neighbors around there You know the people that that's been a very ongoing
- issue to us to have one odd lot of
- Want to be in the city would cause a bit of a headache. This is as a city employee I can tell you for
- police for fire for Sanitation to have to service one odd lot on a street that is considered County,
- right? So that's something I think needs to be pointed out a lot of the things that were going through
- the paperwork today in 92 when this was approved there were things mentioned that that have never come
- to fruition and
- It talks quite a bit about curbs and sidewalks and all those things that never happened We still have
- the existing as far as I know pavement from back in the 90s There's a section there where it talks about
- Adequacy of road systems the finding was listed as there are no known problems with the existing quarry
- drive road or infrastructure Well, that's just false. There's several buckled areas. There's a big pothole.
- There's a giant It's like four foot wide just gravel. No one cares for that road
- We've asked the county to care for it and they say it's not county the city says it's not theirs We
- talked to Cowden enterprises and they say well, yeah, it's kind of a private road, but you guys have
- to pay for it There is no homeowners association There is no that that's another thing that was mentioned
- in the paperwork originally when this was approved was a homeowners Association would be established.
- It never was all the talk in the paperwork and stuff that talks about the homeowners Association will
- care for the
- Sinkholes that doesn't happen. There is no homeowners association. So I have no idea what you know,
- they think someone's caring for those properties They're just trees. They're just grass, right? There's
- no actual care that anyone that I'm aware of does anything with it So there's a few things that we wanted
- to bring forth tonight I really don't have an issue with someone buying the property that that particular
- Parcel is just wooded. We have several deer that live in there. I'll tell you that they're not gonna
- be happy with it But you know, however, it's used I think the issue here why we're asking for
- a no recommendation is really about the annexation question. It makes no real sense to Drop a one property
- onto that street when the area around it is very much opposed to annexation And look at those things.
- So again, thank you for your time and appreciate it
- Thank you How you doing thank you counsel lieutenant Reyes retired naval officer and also a Resident
- of Cory Drive um yeah that that that property is a sinkhole it floods regularly I mean
- You could swim in it when it floods. Literally, it's up to your chest. And also, as my neighbor Paul
- Post said, it would be inconvenient if just one piece of property was designated commercial. It just
- makes no sense. It would probably be a disruption to the rest of the residents of our little block there.
- Most all of us, you know that I've talked to pretty much every neighbor Up and down the block and they're
- pretty much opposed to it. Is it just would be a disruption to all of us That's all I have to say.
- Thank you. Thank you Hello, my name is Cammy felling I'm also a resident on
- I had several of my neighbors who were unable to attend this evening talked to me about wanting to let
- you know their concerns about the the actual property itself getting a visual I'm not quite sure how
- especially if there is a sinkhole or a karst in on that property how they would accommodate building what
- We have been told they want to do is put a duplex on that property and especially if there's a duplex
- placed on that property. No there's guidelines as far as easements from roadways and that sort of thing.
- I'm not sure to me in my mind I can visualize almost having to have a garage almost open right on the road.
- and to have two Residents Vehicles have to be accounted for in that area would be Rather difficult,
- especially where it's located because of the curvature of the road might become a Hazard to traffic
- flow on that road Also, I'm not quite sure how
- Having one resident be Designated in the city as opposed to the other neighbors being in the county
- on that road How that would affect our the process that we were where we remonstrated against annexation
- Kind of seems like a we jumped through a lot of hoops in order to remonstrate against the
- Oppose the annexation into the city I'm not sure I wasn't even aware that you could one person could
- voluntarily Decide to become part of the city so I was just not sure what the ramifications of that
- Legally would mean for the rest of the residents on the street. I
- Those are my concerns. Thank you. Is there any other public comment. We have any online commenters.
- Anybody online that would like to speak to this petition. Please use the raise hand function or you
- can send a message via chat and we can recognize you. Go ahead. Say your name for the record please.
- My name is I'm also resident on on Cody Drive. Yeah. Can you hear me.
- There was something that wasn't added, but it's kind of obvious also. And so if they decide to build
- a property on 2005, so raise the field that's in coal, there will be more chances that the property
- opposite, the 2005, which is now us, will get flooded even more, because every time we have a lot of rain,
- those two properties or two lots to get flooded. So if they fill one side there are chances that the
- opposite property will get even more flooded than usual. This is what I wanted to add. So it will be
- even more inconvenient for one of the residents on top of what was said before. And thank you.
- Thank you. So any additional public comment.
- Call for public comment All right, we are back to the Commission then for any additional discussion
- or a motion Commissioner Sossberg good. I Just want to Follow up on some of the things the public commenters
- mentioned. First of all, one of them mentioned how disruptive it is
- It would be if it was designated commercial and r2 is not a commercial designation So since it seems
- like there's lots of county folks in the room right now. Can you explain what r2? designation actually
- means for the city so r2 is a single-family residential zoning district that does allow for a somewhat
- limited amount of uses and
- Most single family dwelling detached single family dwelling attached duplexes. Those are the main permitted
- uses not not any commercial uses. You know there are some conditional uses but those are not certainly
- an extenuous list at all. You know churches and places of worship but it's a very low intensity residential
- zoning district. Thank you. Can I ask another one.
- So in terms of what we are actually supposed to do here tonight does our decision tonight have any effect
- particularly on whether the council actually approves the Annexation of this property into the city.
- That is a completely separate discussion So the council will weigh, you know a wide range of factors
- so the planning Commission's role tonight is simply to make a recommendation of if they choose to annex it or
- what the zoning should be for this property. So the commission is not making a recommendation on whether
- or not it should be annexed. You're not granting any waivers not approving a development plan or a building
- plan. Simply like I said a mathematical equation of what should this be zoned if the council chooses
- to annex it. Thank you. I have one more.
- I think, so there were several commoners that talked about the flooding and the karst features and those
- kinds of conditions. So in terms of the process, let's do a lot of what ifs here, right? So what if
- we designated R2? What if the common council approves it for annexation? What if somebody comes to the
- planning department with building plans and says, I want to put this thing here?
- What is your process to ensure that the property across the street doesn't have additional flooding
- that there's you know accommodation on the property itself for Environmental considerations related
- to that. Can you talk about that kind of stuff for a minute? Yeah, absolutely so development
- of a single-family lot whether You know is for a single-family house or any of the other permitted uses
- would just be a building permit if you know, so the petitioner in this case has
- express an interest in developing this with a duplex. Duplexes are conditional use in the R2 districts
- who would have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a conditional use for a duplex. We do have setback
- requirements. There are tree preservation requirements as well that I've outlined to the petitioner
- as well as we've
- brought up the issue of whether or not there is a cars feature on the property as well that will have
- to be evaluated. So there are several things on this property that are coming into play that would restrict
- the overall development as well as CBU could look at any drainage plans for this to make sure that nothing
- is being negatively impacted downstream or adjacent wise. So there are several things that are still
- going to be reviewed should somebody come forward or if they come forward with a plan for development
- on the property.
- So is there a potential world in which, once again, the what ifs, we say that it's our to what if common
- council approves the annexation, what if somebody comes to you and wants to build something and basically
- it just can't actually be built on because the environmental pieces are like that you can't build anything
- on there safely between karst stuff and drainage stuff and all of that stuff, then what happens to it?
- So I don't I don't know that it is completely unbuildable. I don't I don't know that that is necessarily
- a factor. But you know that is what the variance process is for. You know if any of the requirements
- of the UDO present a practical difficulty or a hardship in the development of a lot then somebody always
- has the right to seek relief from that to the Board of Zoning Appeals. You know when this was planted
- like said it was in the city and this was a lot that was
- permitted as a lot of record with the subdivision. You know there were other cars features that were
- set aside on this subdivision place in easements. This had a drainage easement that was placed on it.
- So it was created as a lot of record. So you know with that being said you know as I mentioned you know
- the board can grant variances from any of the design standards or development standards of the UDO if
- they create a hardship.
- In the use of the property, but you know, we obviously look at those very stringently So, you know,
- the hope would be that somebody comes forward with something that meets all of the requirements of the
- UDO Thank you. I think that that covers the concerns that I heard Any additional comments or questions
- go ahead so I understand we're
- Like not talking about actual annexation we're just talking about what zoning will we recommend if the
- council votes to annex it. But the question so somebody owns the property right now and it's county
- property. Is there building on it dependent on annexation in any way. Could they build on it right now.
- Well, I mean I don't want to speak for the county's regulations and what their standards may or may
- not allow but as I mentioned You know, it is a lot of record And so in theory somebody could go to the
- county and apply for a building permit today and build a house on it You know per the county's regulations
- and it's a like a mixed-use type of its own res which is a very low density kind of somewhat large lot
- size to be honest and
- I can pull up the standards here again. What I was trying to get at are we like up zoning or down zoning
- it. Are we trying to realize you guys are trying to our two zoning district has a smaller lot size.
- So in the R.A.S. County Zoning District the minimum
- Maximum lot width is 75 feet Minimum lot size is actually an acre So, you know going to the r2 is 7200
- square foot lot size So certainly this is a much more permissive lot size, you know The only comparable
- lot size that we have in the city is owned an r1 and that's about a quarter acre But this was certainly
- not fit the bill for the properties then within the city that are zone that So this isn't up zoning
- in intensity
- Anyway, like you said not from a land use perspective. The uses are very comparable You know the lot
- size right now. Yeah, okay Okay But that this particular lot or this this property in question this
- is already smaller than that Lot size, right? Correct. Yeah, it doesn't create any way for this to be
- subdivided
- Right. Right. Yeah the lot size and the lot for the zoning district would not allow for another lot.
- Not as far as I can see not with the constraints that are on it and the easements. Thank you. Sorry.
- We don't have more questions. I mean do we know this last question and this is kind of a little bit
- maybe off topic. Do we know why this person wants to be annexed into the city. Like what's kind of.
- As I mentioned you are they they have expressed a desire to build a duplex So duplex is a conditional
- use within the city if this lot were within the city I Did not pursue that conversation with the county
- of you know, could they build a duplex in the county? I just didn't get that deep. It wasn't really
- germane to what I was looking for for a recommendation to you guys Yeah, so I don't I don't know
- I have two questions. One is just a confirmation about the next step should the okay, so I don't want
- to go into the if the well I suppose if the council accepts it as a rezoned lot and acts on it's allowability
- for annexation if the council acts on that and it's positive then the person who would want to build
- something would have to come back to the BZA to get
- a conditional use for whatever you're imagining they want to do. So that would be the site to further
- discuss what gets built. Correct. Yeah. So yeah. So they would have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals
- for conditional use approval for a duplex if they chose to pursue that to pursue. Right. OK. So that's
- one that's one thing. So there is another option for further discussion of what actually gets
- done there that might be different than what would be allowed now. The other thing I want to just confirm
- is is there I mean this to me this is a it's a very unusual thing and how strange to imagine that we're
- in this situation. But I wonder Eric if there is a table that translates the county easily translates
- the county to the city zoning if such a thing exists and if we're going to
- I mean I can't imagine we would see more of this but. Well so interestingly enough there are some other
- properties scattered around that have entered some conversations with legal about voluntary annexing.
- We do not have a table of
- county zoning versus city zoning and what are our comparables. We might be going through some more exercises
- similar to this over the next year or two. Some of these other properties look to come forward as well.
- So that's certainly something we can try to put forward. Like I said, in this particular case, it was
- a pretty easy match of what should be here based on the size of the lots and what's around here. Certainly
- it might be a little bit more complex with different properties.
- I don't you know, I certainly don't want to generate work for anyone But that might be an interesting
- exercises to create that translatable table between County zoning and city zoning just to you know It
- might be educational for other people who might be interested in that as well. So, okay. Thank you Mr.
- Sussman How does the lot size of this compare to the general are two lot sizes? I
- So this lot size is about 126 by 100, so it's about 10,000 square feet-ish. And so in the R2, the minimum
- lot size is 7,200 square feet.
- But like I said, keep in mind, you know, good or not good. But, you know, the East 40 feet of this lot
- is encumbered with a drainage easement. So that's why this lot was bigger than some of the other loss
- that are that are in this subdivision. You know, the other ones that are in here are about 70 by.
- Hundreds of they're about eight thousand square foot range. So this lot was bigger. They made it bigger
- to accommodate this drainage easement that was being planted on the side and still allowing for buildable
- areas. So like I said it was it was planted with the intention that it would be buildable but it was
- has not been. But in terms of the size it blends in pretty well with the R2. Yes. Yeah certainly not.
- You know the quarter acre that was you know would be found in the R1 district.
- I'm sorry Eric in the in the packet it says this is one hundred twenty eight feet by forty seven feet.
- Is that correct. It's it's a little bit miss shaped. So the east is about forty six feet long. The West
- is about 90 ish feet. So it's odd. I'm sorry I didn't realize that the screen is getting cut off here.
- So it's a somewhat odd-shaped lot. OK. Because I did that quick math, and it's about 6,000 square feet
- if you just take 120 by 47. But it is actually bigger than that, because it's not square. OK. Yeah.
- Thanks. But it's still less than twice the minimum lot size, so it still would not be able to be subdivided.
- All right, any of the additional questions or comments or a motion? We're down to comments but hold
- on just let me go to Commissioner Bishop first So it feels a bit chicken or egg argument as to Determining
- the zoning for a property that may or may not be annexed at a future point in time Is there a reason
- that we're trying to determine this prior to the determination of whether or not it's going to be annexed? I
- Because the council would hear both ordinances at the same time and so they would have to be an effective
- date For when this gets annexed and then the zoning that would apply to it. So certainly it could happen
- afterwards But going forward at the same time allows for both things to be heard and approved at the
- same time and be sync to synchronize given the vociferous
- outpouring of people on annexation, is it worth doing this exercise prior to the annexation discussion
- itself? Well, so like I said, this particular exercise seemed pretty straightforward.
- whether or not it should be annex is a completely different question for the common council to decide.
- You know the zoning for it in this particular case was pretty straightforward. So you know it didn't
- really necessarily matter if it came forward after it or before. But you know it needed to have this
- particular element. So anyone like to make a motion before we just get to just comments I'd like us to have a
- Motion on the table and we're prepared to do that it just as a reminder the staff Recommendation is
- that we approve the waiver from the required second hearing and forward this petition to the common
- council with a favorable recommendation A motion that we waive the required second hearing and forward
- the petition of the common council with a favorable recommendation Is there a second for that motion?
- And I guess it's probably clarify just a little bit, you know with the recommendation that the property
- be zoned are too So not just a favorable recommendation really but that the property should be zoned
- are too. Yeah, I Mean, that's what the petition is, right? So I think yeah understood All right, we've
- got a motion to second any final comments mr. Stossberg
- Yeah, I'll just say that I appreciate that folks came out and we're interested in this and in some ways
- this is sort of like administrative burden of the Planning Commission right now to make this
- this recommendation to the Common Council because it's the whole Voluntary annexation thing is kind
- of supposed to come to us in a package that then we're supposed to be able to use the recommendations
- to make that
- declaration. And in terms of that area I just find it really interesting. That area is actually one
- of the spaces that the county down zoned earlier this year. And so the current owner of that property
- actually bought it in
- 2024 which you can find out through public record and at that time it was zoned HD in the county which
- allowed for multifamily apartments and other uses and it got down zoned this year to the Res zone making
- it much more limited. So there's you know, somebody was asking earlier about motivation of the current
- owner and it could be that when they bought it it was
- zoned for one thing and now it is owned for something different and That change was was very recently
- made by the county at the county level. So I just found that interesting. Thank you Thank you any other
- comments I'll just say thank you to everyone who came out and just encourage you to follow this because
- when it gets to Common Council, that's when the
- The the real decision is going to be made and and I'm sure they would welcome welcome your input there
- as well. I think we're ready to call the roll. Bishop. Yes. Burrell. Yes. Seabourn. Yes. Holmes. Yes.
- Kinsey. Yes. Stossberg. Yes. Whistler. Yes.
- All right, motion carries and that is our final petition for the evening. Any announcements before we
- adjourn? Thank you all for your patience tonight and your participation. We are adjourned.