- Okay Let me call to order this meeting of the city of Bloomington Plan Commission for January 12th 2026
- We have quite a quite a packed agenda tonight. Let me just give a brief overview of what all we have
- This is the first meeting of the year So we have some internal housekeeping election of officers and
- things like that that we need to take care of that'll be first and then we will get on to
- some reports and resolutions from From staff and then on to our petitions this evening. We do have three
- petitions that will be heard this evening SP 2025-12-0094 The petitioner there is BR CJ civil engineering
- that is the Mixed-use downtown showers technology zoning property
- Then we have Sub 2025 dash 12 dash double oh five one Petitioner, there's Biden fan you and associates.
- That's the property at 25 11 North Dunn Street And then we have a zeo 2025 dash 12 dash double oh one
- eight petitioner. There is the city of Bloomington and this is PUD Request in Hopewell
- So we will get to all of those this evening. But first, let's start by calling the roll. Enright Randolph.
- Here. Ballard. Here. Bishop. Here. Burrell. Here. Seaborg. Here. Holmes. Here. Kinsey. Here. Stossberg. Here.
- Whistler here All right. We we have a quorum. So let's move on to Minutes. We do have minutes to be
- approved from the November 10th 2025 meeting. Are there any questions or corrections to those minutes
- that were included in the packet? If not, is there a motion to approve those minutes motion to approve
- the November 10th minutes?
- I Believe we don't have any remote participants tonight so we could do voice vote on this Yes, all right
- all in favor of approving the November 10th minutes say aye Any opposed nay All right, the minutes are
- approved moving on we are now going to reports resolutions and communications first. Are there any reports
- from commissioners? All right
- We'll move on then to reports from staff. One thing real quick on the agenda, the item that was listed
- on the consent agenda, SP 2025-012-0094 for 477 West Maker Way will be heard during the regular agenda.
- So that is not on the consent agenda anymore. So I just wanted to make a note that that would be placed
- within the regular agenda.
- Do we need to take a vote on that since it was published as consent agenda or is that a change that
- we can just? Yes, you can certainly take a vote on that just to make that formal. Okay, I'll do that
- when we get to that point in the agenda. Any other reports, resolutions or communications from staff?
- Other than we need to elect officers.
- All right, is there anyone from staff that has a list of all the appointments we need to make here?
- Yes, we do. So you need to obviously appoint a president for the planning commission and vice president
- and as well as representative on the plaque committee and representative on the Board of Zoning Appeals
- and an MPO member and the hearing officer and alternate. All right.
- Well, let's just start at the top. We need to elect a president. Is there any nominations for president
- for 2026? I'll nominate Brad Whistler for president. Second. Are there any other nominations? Please.
- All right. Last call. All right. Let's do we need to call the roll on these or can we do voice vote
- on these? Whistler I'm sorry Ballard. Yes. Bishop. Yes. Burrell. Yes. Seymour. Yes. Holmes. Yes. Kinsey. Yes.
- Stossberg yes Whistler. Yes All right. We were on then to vice president. We have any nominations for
- vice president Nominate Jillian Kinsey for vice president second Any other nominations Do you accept
- your nomination yeah
- All right, let's call the roll on appointing Jillian Kinsey as vice president Bishop yes Burel. Yes
- seabor yes Holmes. Yes Kinsey. Yes Stossburg. Yes Whistler. Yes Ballard. Yes All right. We now need
- an appointment to the plaque committee
- Who is our current committee appointment. Is that also right. I'd be happy to allow someone else to
- learn all about the Platt committee and the wondrous things that go on at that meeting if someone is
- inclined. We have any nominations for Platt committee appointee. Feel free to nominate yourself. It
- conveniently meets right before this meeting.
- May I ask a question? We get a brief blurb of what I'm newbie. Could we get a brief blurb of what each
- of these appointments entails? Yes The plat committee is the group that actually is nicely related to
- the planned Commission meetings and reviews all of the plats both prior to projects being approved or
- considered further in this
- by this body. So I think it's a nice compliment. And typically it does require meetings at the four
- o'clock hour on that Monday. And we meet fairly consistently to be honest about our cadence of our meeting
- so monthly. Did she sell you on that. It's a it's there's a lot of nice crossover training.
- Good group you get to learn more about utilities a lot about drainage. Patrick I would I would love
- it if you would be interesting stuff. Okay. We do need we need someone we need a nomination. Is anyone
- willing to do it reluctantly.
- Jillian willing to do it again. I'm I am willing to do it again provided Yeah, I do want to make sure
- that other people have a chance to learn about other dimensions of this work and if I want to make sure
- that that by also putting someone else on plat that we are not Eliminating the real need around BZA
- for sure That's a very important appointment. So want to make sure we get that one covered as well and then Yeah
- I'm willing to do it again If it works out that way And then see how that fills in that's what we usually
- do, okay Thanks Sure, we can open the the floor to appointments for to the Board of Zoning Appeals and
- brief summary on this one, please So this person represents The Planning Commission on the Board of
- Zoning Appeals the Board of Zoning Appeals here's variances from development standards as well as conditional
- use applications So variances from development centers or anything that are in chapter four that deal
- with setbacks and height a whole whole list of things So the Board of Zoning Appeals meets once a month.
- So like I said, this person represents the Planning Commission on that board
- What time does it mean. It's 530 usually the fourth Thursday of every month. I'll do it. Do you want
- to nominate yourself or I would dominate Flavia. If you would still like to be on my pleasure.
- So I nominate Flavia bro. All right. Second. Any other nominations? Don't have our first contested race
- tonight. No. All right. All right. Let's call the roll then on the appointment of Flavia Burrell to
- the Board of Zoning Appeals. Burrell. Yes. Seaborg. Yes. Holmes. Yes. Kinsey. Yes.
- Stossburg. Yes Whistler. Yes Ballard. Yes Bishop. Yes All right. Now we need to have an alternate in
- case Mr. Braille cannot make the meetings. So this would be a great opportunity for someone to Dip their
- toe in the water. I'll nominate Commissioner Holmes for alternate to the BZA Second
- Any other appointments for BZA alternate? You accept your nomination? Yes. All right, let's call the
- roll on Patrick Holmes as alternate appointee to the BZA. Seaborg? Yes. Holmes? Yes. Kinsey? Yes. Stossberg?
- Yes. Whistler? Yes. Ballard? Yes. Bishop? Yes. Burrell? Yes.
- All right, now we are back to the plaque committee and still looking for a nomination to plaque committee.
- Commissioner Stossberg. I'll nominate Jillian Kinsey to the plaque committee. Is there a second? Second.
- Any other nominations? All right.
- Call the roll on Jillian Kinsey Appointment to plaque committee Holmes. Yes, Kenzie. Yes, Stossberg.
- Yes, Whistler. Yes, Ballard. Yes, Bishop. Yes, Burrell. Yes, Seaborg. Yes All right, and we also need
- an alternate for that in case Commissioner Kinsey cannot make one of those meetings is there
- Nomination for Platte committee alternate Who is it currently Who's our current faithful alternate do
- we know somebody knows I'm sure I
- The current alternate was mr. Smith, so it's been vacant for a couple of months. Okay So we're gonna
- have to have somebody new You're allowed to have more than one position here Jillian what's the likelihood of
- That we're gonna need our alternate to step up here. How many times did our last alternate have to step
- up? Zero, okay. All right, so it's a low risk. So this is a risk appointment. Yep I Mean I'm on the
- BZA, but I'm willing to do this If you if you stay 100% Okay. Yeah. Okay. All right. Oh Commissioner
- Stossberg. I'll nominate Commissioner Ballard Is there a second second?
- All right. Last call for nominations for Platte committee alternate Excellent. Okay. Let's call the
- roll on the appointment of Commissioner Ballard as black committee alternate Kinsey. Yes Stossburg.
- Yes Whistler. Yes Ballard. Yes Bishop. Yes. Burrell. Yes Seaborg. Yes Holmes. Yes
- All right, and we are now on to County Plan Commission. We nominate one of our commissioners to sit
- as a non-voting member on the County Plan Commission. And I believe this one's been vacant for a little
- bit too. Has it not? Yeah. All right. So we're looking for a nomination. Do we know when those meetings are?
- Mondays, do you know Tron? My calendar I believe they're Tuesdays. It's the second the first and third
- Tuesdays Similar starting at either 530 or 6 All right. Is there a nomination for? Appointed to the
- County Planning Commission nominate Commissioner Bishop second You accept your nomination All right
- any other nominations?
- All right, let's call the roll on Steve Bishop for County Planning Commission. Stossburg. Yes. Whistler.
- Yes. Ballard. Yes. Bishop. Yes. Burrell. Yes. Seaborg. Yes. Holmes. Yes. Kinsey. Yes. All right, Mr.
- President, I was just going to let him know that our first regular Planning Commission meeting is this 20th.
- the following Tuesday. Thank you. Congratulations to all of the all of you who have been appointed.
- Congratulations. One that you guys don't appoint is the MPO representative of the Planning Commission
- by statute. It's the president but he often chooses works with
- You all to choose someone else so that will could happen And so we will hope that you guys work that
- out so that that can be attended Julian has been doing it for a number of years And then we do need
- you to vote on the other members of the plaque committee. And so this is the slate. We're recommending
- From City Bloomington utilities Liz Carter with the alternate is Brian Blake engineering
- member being Kendall Kenoki with the alternate as Maria McCormick and then Those are also our recommendations
- for a hearing officer Ryan Roebling and hearing officer alternate and Chris Elias So you have those
- to finish please. Thanks. Thank you. Yeah, let me just say Yes by statute I as president and the important
- and pointy to the MPO, but I frequently have conflict with that meeting time and so
- For the past few years, we've just appointed a proxy which has has been Commissioner Kinsey. If you
- have a particular interest in that, that's a very important body. But please let me know. That's not
- something we have to vote on here. But we will we will handle that offline. Yeah. Commissioner Stossberg
- as a note, they changed the meeting time this year to 1030 in the morning instead of 130 in the afternoon
- on the 4th. Thank you.
- Alright, so though we'll move on to the plaque committee slate. Do we have a motion to approve the the
- slate of candidates as As proposed by staff Motion to approve the slate for the plaque committee members
- is there a second second Any Discussion
- Alright, let's call the roll then on the Plaid committee appointments Whistler yes Ballard yes Bishop.
- Yes, Burrell. Yes stop seabor Yes Holmes. Yes, Kinsey. Yes Stossburg. Yes. Oh
- Those appointments are approved. We now have to make an appointment to the hearing officer and the hearing
- officer alternate Staff any comments on on this Continuing with the the status quo here. All right Can
- we vote on these together or okay? Let's is there a motion to approve the appointment of Ryan rubling
- as hearing officer and and Chris Elias as
- hearing officer alternate So moved is there a second All right, let's call the roll on the hearing officer
- appointment appointments Ballard yes Bishop. Yes, Burrell Yes, seabor yes Holmes. Yes, Kenzie. Yes Stossburg
- Yes, Whistler. Yes. All right, congratulations to all. We are, I think, done with our appointments.
- Are there any other reports, resolutions, or communications from staff? Sorry, just one more. I'm Jackie
- Scanlon, assistant director. We have a new senior zoning planner. Jamie Kreindler, BZA members have
- seen her present, but the rest of you haven't. So just to let you know, we have filled that position.
- So development services is full right now.
- Presenting to you later tonight and she's been a great addition thus far. So just wanted to introduce
- her to you. Thanks All right, welcome Okay, we are on then to our agenda Typically at this point we
- would consider our Consent agenda first, but I believe staff would like to See that case get a full
- hearing. So I'd like to have a motion to
- Remove SP 2025-12-0094 from the consent agenda I'll motion to a move remove SP SP 2025-12-0094 from
- the consent agenda. Is there a second? Second All right, all in favor of removing that from the consent
- agenda and giving it a full hearing Please say aye
- Aye. Any opposed nay. All right. So that is done. We will then move to in order of our packet here.
- Our first petition will be sub 20 25 dash 12 dash double 0 5 1 by them fan yo and associates. And we've
- got case manager Jamie Kreindler here to present.
- All right, good evening, Jamie Kreindler, Senior Zoning Planner. Thank you for having me. So the petitioners
- for this case are Paul Pruitt and Keith Klein. And the consultant on their behalf is Bynum Fanio and
- Associates. So in addition to the primary plat approval for this subdivision that they're requesting,
- They're also requesting two waivers from the subdivision standards, which the plan commission has the
- authority to review and make a decision on. So one of the waivers is from the required 67% of lots to
- be accessed by an alley, the alley requirement. And the second waiver request is from the required sidewalk
- installation. And this applies to just a portion of the sidewalk on the northwestern part of the subdivision,
- which you'll see on the plat.
- Since waivers are being requested, this typically will require two primary plat hearings with the Plan
- Commission. And I also want to share that this petitioner is requesting several variances from the Board
- of Zoning Appeals, so there'll be an additional public hearing to hear those variance requests that
- would take place after the Plan Commission hearings.
- So the four acre property is located on the west side of Dunn Street. It is zoned R2 residential medium
- lot zoning district. The subject property is approximately 270 feet wide, 640 feet deep, and surrounding
- land uses include single family homes to the north and south, an office park to the west, and an assisted
- living facility to the east.
- The property currently contains a detached single family home that's proposed to be demolished. There's
- a stream and a riparian buffer running through the Northwest corner of the site, which you can see on
- the aerial photograph here. The property also has a substantial amount of tree coverage and that's subject
- to the tree preservation standards that are in the unified development ordinance.
- And that is one of the variances that the petitioner is requesting. I'll give some information about
- that. So you have that information. But again, that variance would be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals
- at a separate meeting. So the petitioner is proposing to subdivide the property to create 15 residential
- lots and three common area lots. This proposed plat includes the construction of a new public road that
- connects to the
- western boundary of the site and cul-de-sacs are not permitted. So you see that the road is stubbed
- to the western side of the site. The proposed plat includes two common lots lots one and three are for
- tree preservation and there's a third common lot lot number two and that's for stormwater detention.
- Since the property is over three acres, it has to follow the traditional subdivision type, and this
- requires a minimum of 67% of the lots to be served by alleys. The proposed site plan does not show any
- of the lots served by alleys, so the petitioner is requesting a waiver from the alley requirement to
- allow all of the lots direct access from the proposed main road.
- Tradition is also requesting a variance to not install the required sidewalk along the northwestern
- portion of the internal street. So try to use the laser pointer here just to show you can see here where
- the sidewalk stops. The subdivision standards require that it would continue all the way to the west.
- So that's what the waiver specifically applies to.
- On street parking is required on at least one side of all streets and is being provided with the proposed
- cross section. The new internal street will be a public street with a neighborhood residential street
- typology and the neighborhood residential typology requires a minimum of 60 feet of dedicated right
- of way. The petitioners showing 61 feet. So they're compliant with that requirement. It requires a six
- foot sidewalk in a five foot tree plot. And this has been shown on the plan except for the portion of
- the sidewalk, which a waiver has been requested.
- The petitioner has shown 2.61 acres of existing tree canopy coverage on the four-acre property. This
- is about 65% coverage of existing trees. The UDO requires 60% of the tree canopy to be preserved, so
- that equals 1.56 acres of required preservation. The petitioner is proposing to preserve 0.93 acres
- of tree canopy.
- And this is 0.63 acres less than what the tree preservation is required by the city standards. So this
- is a variance, but I'm just sharing it with you so you have that information. So the petitioner is requesting
- a variance from the BZA to retain 36% of the existing tree canopy instead of the required 60%. For the
- general compliance criteria, staff is proposing to propose full findings with the required
- second hearing for the primary plat. Several aspects of this petition are still being evaluated, specifically
- the alley requirement. Several variances from the minimum lot area, minimum lot width, minimum side
- building setback, tree preservation requirements, and riparian buffer regulations will also require
- a hearing with the Board of Zoning Appeals. For the additional criteria applicable to primary plats,
- full findings will be proposed with the second hearing.
- the same thing for the review and decision criteria For the subdivision waivers full findings will be
- proposed with the second hearing report as well If the two requested waivers are granted this could
- have a negative impact on public safety the presence of additional drive cuts combined with the proposed
- narrow a lot with and size could create a safety hazard along the street and
- The lack of a sidewalk along a portion of the road also increases potential hazards to pedestrians.
- The presence of alleys would create a safer pedestrian vehicular environment, as the UDO calls for.
- The inclusion of alleys would not change the proposed tree preservation on the site. The requirement
- to serve 67% of the lots with alleys, that would equal 11 of the 15 residential lots. And the exclusion
- of a sidewalk along the northwestern side of the street
- appears to have a minimal impact on the ability to save trees. I think there are five trees that are
- being saved as a result of that sidewalk not being installed. There are several items that need to be
- addressed prior to the second primary plat hearing, which are outlined in the staff report. So some
- of these items to address include the underground fiber network with the ITS department, a street lighting
- plan, a tree remediation plan,
- And the plat does need to be submitted to city of Bloomington utilities for their review. CBU has several
- stormwater comments and I mentioned those in the report. So the petitioner would need to address those
- with CBU directly. The staff recommendation is that the plan commission forwards this petition to the
- required second hearing. And lastly I just want to show this is a table that just shows
- What the plan commission is reviewing is just the two waiver requirements and then what the Board of
- Zoning Appeals would be reviewing, which are the six variances outlined here. So we did receive a lot
- of public comment even after the packet was distributed for this case. I distributed all of those emails
- to all the commissioners. There were a total of six additional comments.
- Several of them do relate to some of the variances being requested So I just wanted to clarify that
- those would need to be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals And I'm happy to answer any questions that
- the Commission has. Thank you. Thank you Is there a representative of the petitioner who would like
- to add anything to the presentation tonight? I
- Good evening playing commissioners. My name is Daniel Butler. I'm with by them fan you and associates
- With me tonight is Paul Pruitt. He's representing ownership Let me give a little bit of background and
- Just give a little more light to long Path we've had to our the place we're at now with the plan that
- you see in front of you we've met with engineering planning and
- environmental committee to kind of get to a place where we need to see this from all sides and There's
- a lot of requests and interests from all parties to try to make something Viable and work on this property
- and something that is Can be developed and so we've tried to achieve that over time over different iterations
- of this plan I
- We wanted to one of our main goals was to try to have different aspects of the property protected
- environmentally and we tried to Introduce or take away different lots move them around to make that
- impact as less as possible while also there was requests from engineering to
- Have the Tamarack Trail go through So we did have a different plan that saved a little more tree some
- more trees Less impact on the property, but we're also marrying that with the different requests of
- the different departments to make something that works And that's what you're seeing in front of you
- tonight I want to make sure that everyone is aware that We're not trying we didn't try to go out here
- to just maximize the property with as many lots as we could and
- I think we tried to marry with something that's viable with environmental impact and I want to focus
- a little bit on the alley waiver request here. We think there's several reasons why we're requesting
- this not simply just one first that you've seen other projects like this in front of you where there
- are it's a rectangular lot.
- the width of the lot here is 272 feet by 641 feet so 272 the residential zone here requires a minimum
- lot size of 72 hundred sixty feet wide and so that's 240 feet and plus the right-of-way that would go
- down through the middle. That's not enough room so it's just the nature of the lot and
- And you've seen ones like these recently That it's hard to get the alleys behind them to fit everything
- and Make it work just from the kind of lot and the impact From that standpoint so just from a lot size
- ability and not we're already asking for the lot sizes to be reduced a bit and
- And we don't wanna do that anymore than we need to. And so that's one reason why we're asking for the
- lot weight or the alley waiver. Another reason for adding alleys to this current plan that you see in
- front of you would eliminate more trees. You would have to put the alleys behind the homes. And there
- are trees right now along the perimeter that would further be removed. And I'm counting about maybe 10 to 12,
- Extras and and it just keeps adding up the tree removal. So again, we're trying to marry having Less
- of an environmental impact but also have a plan that can work and so just that's another reason of and
- We want some of those trees for neighbors To have a natural buffer there rather than an alley go to
- their backyard essentially And so we're asking that for another reason
- to protect the neighbors from cars being driven behind the homes. Rather, they would all be front-loaded
- just with the street that goes down the middle. Another reason is additional pavement would increase
- the impervious area of the site. So that increases runoff, and so we would ask for that that be reduced,
- and we don't think it's necessary from that perspective as well.
- On the north side of the site, there is a natural drainage way now that accepts water not only from
- us, but from the north property. And so if you were going to add an alley on the north side of the property,
- then you would have to introduce some other drainage improvements to get that to work. And so if you've
- been out there, the site does drop off to the north. And so there is a bit of a grading challenge to make that
- Work on the north side. I'm not saying it's the only reason I'm just saying it's another reason that
- so grading natural drainage way and we're trying to again minimize the impact and right now we don't
- have any drainage or grading revisions up on the north side to keep that Grading impact to a minimum
- natural buffers trees up there on the north side Another reason is we understand
- with reducing the lot size that You know, there's some incentives, you know to that and so one just
- simple Piece to this is adding alleys to this plan would increase lot costs and it goes back to lot
- Purchasers, you know in the long run. So that's just another smaller reason of the cost that is being
- added to it and
- We've had several surveys studies performed to get to the place that you guys see in front of you tonight
- I'm Excited to have you a chance to start commenting on it We believe after environmental committee
- planning discussions meetings going through all the the iterations and revisions that
- You can come in. I'm happy to answer any additional questions I can give you more examples of what's
- been changed different iterations from the past but I won't Go there unless you would like to hear kind
- of different thoughts and ideas and what we've changed hearing from different departments and different
- interests through the process, but We're happy to answer any questions All right. Thank you
- You've got about 13 minutes you can reserve for later if you have things you want to add. Let's go to
- questions from commissioners. Are there any questions either for staff or for the petitioner. Good.
- Yes I guess my first question will be to staff and on.
- Packet page 25. Actually, I think you have that up on this screen. Yeah, if you could zoom in to kind
- of the northern West part kind of where the stream is and the riparian buffer Are you able to do that?
- and my question is our
- Is this kind of showing where that easement would be that's being asked for? Like where it says riparian
- fringe zone, is that so you're just trying to clarify the riparian zone? Yeah, I'm trying to see if
- that's exactly what the easement would look like and it And if Daniel would like to answer that that's fine, too
- This is one area that we've done somewhat of extensive survey and study on and that would be very close
- At one time we used the GIS Line and that wasn't accurate enough to draw that on The plan and so we've
- done a survey to find where's that exact stream location? Where's all the water running to and there
- is a low area on the property now that holds water during large rain events and that's it goes right
- through the middle of that too and that would be
- This is accurate to what you see from the UDO for each separate riparian buffer area, right? So this
- would be in compliance with the UDA, but you're asking for a variance Have has there been consideration
- of just reducing the easement a Variance from the riparian area. Yeah, I mean just reducing the size
- or would you explain maybe some of the practical difficulties of not creating that easement or
- So the zones for the riparian buffer are established based on the location of the stream. I think it's
- 25 feet wide for each of the three zones and there's language in the UDO that talks about what you know
- how they're regulated. There's different regulations for each of the three zones. So the ones closest
- to the stream are the most stringent just to protect that environmental feature.
- As far as the variances that are being asked for that has to do with some defer disturbance activity
- That's taking place in the intermediate and the fringe zones. So not the one closest to the stream,
- but the other two So it's disturbance, but it's going to be placed in a easement Yes, that's another
- requirement of the UDO that all the sensitive environmental features would be placed in easements. I
- Okay. Well, that's where my larger concern was and I guess the disturbance is a little not my focus
- on the question May I add to that Tron, please? That is a variance that's being asked at BZA, but to
- clarify the you do you do does allow your Stormwater treatment facilities to be in those zones, but
- they thought it was necessary to add the disturbance in those zones even though we're
- We're we're not asking for something that is not allowable in those zones so that was one variance that
- to me felt like a formality formality because it's disturbing for the reason of a stormwater facility
- going in the zones that it's allowed to do if that makes sense, yes and I can add to that the disturbance
- activity does include the stormwater facility like Daniel mentioned
- There's also it's also the construction of or the removal of the trees for the construction of the street
- So there's various components to it and Eric might want to add something to yeah, so there's so Mr.
- Butler was correct, you know the riparian zones do allow for a certain thing to be there stormwater
- detention area a street or sidewalk Because there are tree removal that is associated to install those
- facilities. That's where the variance was necessitated from
- It's not so much that the thing itself isn't allowed there, but there was an additional disturbance
- activity that was proposed as part of that yeah, and again, I just want to make sure that if they're
- able to Put that in an easement. That's kind of the direction we're going which yeah So the easement
- is required because it's in a riparian buffer And that would be on put on top of what would be proposed
- there and did you get that data from the wetlands inventory? How was it?
- So it was field verified so it and it was initiate Initiated because our GIS system indicated that there
- was a hydrology feature there So we use that to go out and say hey, you know here is an actual feature
- on the ground So it was field located and then located on their site plan. Okay, sounds good. Thank
- you Other questions for commissioners question Thank you
- So one of our criteria for deciding whether to grant a waiver it says the conditions upon which the
- request for a subdivision waiver are based are unique to the property. So if we're going to grant a
- waiver there needs to be some unique feature of the property as opposed to the plan that requires it.
- So you can say well the alleys don't fit because we want you know with the lots will have to be smaller.
- That's something that's unique to the plan and not to the property. What is it? That's unique to the
- property that requires the absence of alleys Absolutely. I mean I believe that some of the the reasons
- that I outlined before are Yes, there is partial to the plan, but we've also believe it's partial to
- the property to Grade differences natural drainage ways that we want to remain Allowing a road that
- is planned by
- the transportation plan to go through here and have homes on both sides of that and Natural features
- such as trees being protected on the back sides of these properties and I believe the shape of the property
- With the width does give it a little bit unique to Also another reason I didn't mention before that
- the nature of the neighborhoods around it is
- do not have the alleys, and so they already have established backyards, and so I believe that's also
- unique to this property where you have established, to use the word infill, this would be infilling
- a property that has already established neighborhoods on mainly the south, but also some on the north
- as well. That's how to answer that question, I suppose. Just to supplement that a little bit,
- Plain Commission's perspective, you know, there's 67 or 67 percent of the lots that would be required
- to be accessed by an alley in essence represents the Lots are on the south side of this street. So you
- see in the site plan There's a street that runs down the center with lots to the north and south side
- of that So the percentage of lots would it basically equivalent to what are the lots on the south side
- of that street? I
- So in the petitioners grading plan, they already show those areas being completely graded anyway in
- removal of all the trees So incorporating the alley for the south side of those lots wouldn't change
- their tree preservation requirement You know, obviously one of the reasons for the alleys is it because
- we it creates a safer street and
- frontage. He has less driveways, less conflict points for vehicles and pedestrians. So we certainly
- recognize that not every neighborhood in Bloomington has alleys. This is something that was specifically
- put into the UDO in 2019 in order to create
- This situation where it doesn't exist because we recognize that there is a better design for neighborhoods
- that can be incorporated and so that's You know why this is a new thing and you're not going to see
- it But it is something that we want to see because we do like I said, we do recognize it does create
- a safer neighborhood You know, especially in this situation where lots are being proposed to be smaller
- and more narrow So your driveways get even closer together, you know as we're have a concern there with
- the safety as a result of that
- So I just wanted to offer that as a perspective there on that component. Thank you. Thank you both Mr.
- Kinsey Yeah, thank you Can we continue on this same line around the alley access? I have some interest
- in imagining what the alley options could be and it would only be on the south side and that in effect
- what that would do would be
- Reduce the number of drive cuts to be only on the north side Facing prep. I'm trying to play this out.
- So correct me as I get this wrong but the driveway cuts would then only need to be on the north side
- property thereby Reducing some of the concern about pedestrian safety on a roadway that would have drive
- cuts about every I don't even know how many feet but but there would be a lot more drive cuts
- I'm just trying to see if can you talk a little bit about how you? Thought about that and and you know
- if it was removed from consideration why and a little bit more about that Because and Eric just to make
- sure Sorry, just want to make sure I know the 67% is in fact only covering that would cover all of the
- south side Lots I think So it
- 67 67 percent would be 11 of the 15 So it looks like nine, okay on the south side, okay Yeah, okay.
- All right, so Petitioner if you might talk a little bit about what? How did you get around that or how
- did you talk a little bit more about their consider for that? Yeah, we've again the we've done a
- a new subdivision like this recently. This one is a little bit different than the last one in that there's
- more environmental impact in terms of trees and stormwater to work around, and so more study has been
- given to this. But again, the nature of the lot and having backyards, especially on the south side,
- that was a big, to protect neighbors from their existing backyards and not have alleys
- Introduced in a backyard that doesn't have it now. I think is a big deal to the neighborhood and to
- I agree with I like from a civil engineering perspective the alley concept but I think it needs to be
- introduced in the right times and the right places and some of the Neighborhoods that have been established.
- It's hard to try to get those in there now from your question
- We would have to introduce alley on the north side because there's nine on the south side. So it would
- have to be at least two. So you'd have to be considering both sides. And just from the simple width,
- it would be further reducing the lot sizes. Now, one concept that we've done on some of those other
- smaller subdivisions is we pair two homes driveways together.
- Now, that's a concept that I think we would likely go with. And if we're going to ask for a smaller
- lot size, then we certainly compare them. And that would contribute to helping less drive cuts. And
- that can help solve that, rather than introducing more pavement and cuts for the alleys to come in and
- out, in my opinion, can be a good alternative here. Thank you. Thanks.
- I just want to ask a quick follow-up on that. Is that something that we could introduce as a condition
- of approval that The the number of drive cuts is limited Since there are no the alleys Yeah, I think
- that you could limit that You know, it would be challenging obviously to track further down the line
- You know with it just these being lots of record. It would be very hard for staff Ten years to know
- ten years from now to know that this lot's not allowed a drive cut You know, it would really kind of
- only be something that would best be done if you had one developer who's building all the lots by themselves
- and weren't selling them for each individual person to do with as they wanted You could but it would
- be very challenging to track I think thanks
- I can just add a comment to at this point the petitioners requesting 100% For the waiver from the alley
- requirement So it's possible there could be like, you know in between if only two lots couldn't meet
- the alley requirement Then it would be a less substantial waiver requests just sharing that as information
- Thank you. Thank you for sharing that. I think those are important Considerations as we move through
- this process of negotiating here Okay, the other
- I had just you know, maybe a couple of clarifying the Staff report indicated the waiver for the north
- portion of the sidewalk and that's only at the area of tree preservation So that's lots one and three.
- Is that right? So if you can see my laser pointer, it's this section here so yeah, there are no residential
- lots proposed along that section and
- Okay, so essentially the sidewalk would stop at the last lot on the north side. Yes. Okay. Yep.
- That's right. And, and that mean I understand that you calculated it as a loss of five more trees to
- build to install that sidewalk, even though there'll be a road right next to it. Okay.
- Do you want me to speak to that a little better? Yeah, if you if you want to say anything about that
- You can see that the road does have a unique shape to it. And of course that's we're trying to again
- minimize we're trying to marry Getting a road through here for the city providing that marrying it with
- trying to save the most Substantial the best trees on the site this looked to be the best spot to bend
- that down into there and then the next thought on our mind was
- will provide the sidewalks along all of the frontages of the actual homes and then we'll have a cross,
- a mid-block crossing perhaps where the last home is on the north side and then you cross and you take
- the south side and that would further help marry these kind of concepts of development with impact to
- the environment and asking for
- this road to go through a riparian area, which again, it's allowed, but we thought that that was maybe
- sensible to think about it that way. But if you deem that the sidewalk is necessary, it would take out
- a couple more trees. But that was kind of our point, is we've tried to save some here, some here. We've
- even taken out, as you can see in the top north side, we've taken out
- We lost two lots because we saved a new clump of trees up there So we're trying to again marry that
- and that was just another piece To what we thought might be sensical. Yeah, okay. So the south side
- sidewalk is continuous correct, okay, and the other question is related to that road stub and where
- it comes out and
- You know, I mean that's undeveloped or well, it's currently developed but it's a parking lot essentially
- is what it is stubbing to That is that is correct. And again, this would just further the Tamarack Trail
- for further connectivity Again, some of our initial iterations didn't have it but we understand why
- the city deems that it might be necessary in the future when that property the West gets built up then
- we'd provide that access and then you would have a east-west through streets
- For that access and this development would provide that with this plan. Yeah, so that's and Jamie or
- staff if you want to comment on that, you know as part of the transportation plan and the Desire for
- continuous the continuity to a new property. I mean this seems like a desirable Trade-off or thing to
- have yeah, I think that's the city's vision or preference is that the property to the west the vision
- is that it
- May or would likely develop in the future. So by having the stub rather than a cul-de-sac which are
- prohibited Then the stub would create a future connection possibility in the future. Okay. Thank you
- for that Okay, and then just to deal with the east side part of that road the entryway it aligns with
- Tamarack the existing Tamarack So right now there's a stop sign it aligns So the entryway aligns that's
- correct. Okay, good. Okay, so
- And this is a little bit of a future related thing. Given the conversations that have been going on
- for, I don't know, at least 30 years now about done roadway enhancements, I don't know if there's been any
- I mean nobody needs to comment on this now. I don't mean to take us away from this proposal but but
- it is something that would be interesting to see just I mean done is a narrow road in its existing form.
- You know there are no sidewalks on done you know except for right close to where it goes out onto State
- Road 46. Is there any
- How does this relate? And again, I don't mean to put this on the table today. You may not be prepared
- to answer it. But I think this would be an interesting question is how this development might either
- align with or where you see some of those larger enhancements to Dunn perhaps being furthered by this
- project. I don't know. I'll let Eric correct me if I'm wrong. But I think the city's plan for Dunn is
- to have the side or malt the path
- installation on the east side of Dunn Street Okay, that's what I know. Okay. All right This might be
- it just might be something to think about as we continue moving this since this is just the first hearing
- but okay I think that's it for me right now. Thank you I'll just add to that too that we are providing
- a sidewalk on our side with crosswalks that aren't there now at this time and that would be as and we're
- dedicating right away and
- our property as well as part of this so you do get some you know enhancements or Improvements with this
- to Dunn Street, even though it's not the full trail. Thank you. Thanks a Couple of questions I have
- So what kind of Housing do you see here? Is it going to be single-family home duplexes? Or what is it
- going to go here?
- Single-family single family in in the one per lot Say that again one per lot one house per lot. Yes.
- Yes. That's our intention is right now. Yes, okay And I want some clarification on a stormwater so We're
- gonna create an environment, you know, we're gonna have the street new homes How is this gonna impact?
- How is the stormwater gonna impact the neighborhoods on north and south?
- Yeah, great question. We've studied this at length. This is the thing we've studied most on the site
- So we are gathering Most of the stormwater on the site with the new improvements and putting it into
- a new stormwater treatment Facility that will also detain it for a certain amount of time and then now
- empty into the current low spot in the property now after it's been cleaned and that current low spot
- It fills up a little bit and then it spills over into a culvert that goes to the west and through the
- property to the west and it has a natural open channel ditch to the west and it goes under a couple
- drives and that ultimately Will it goes through mainly that property to the west it goes a little bit
- through two properties to the very Before you get to the next street over I'm blanking on the
- Is it walnuts at that point? So the next is walnut and before gets there it goes through two backyards
- and then it goes under walnut Yeah, my main concern is the neighborhood to the south is old and historic.
- They don't have stormwater The you know what we have as modern stormwater Facilities so that's my concern.
- How is this going to impact the neighbors when you have
- Many more homes dumping into the other question to that goes with the sewer. So we're going to have
- 18 homes 15 homes or 15 homes. Then that sewer line is going to be connected with the old sewer line.
- I mean how's that going to work. I mean I don't know if that's a question for the city I guess.
- That's a question best answered by city of Bloomington utilities. And as far as stormwater, the utilities
- department did provide three comments, which are in the report. They are waiting for the plat to be
- submitted to them for additional review, but their comments about stormwater at this time are that the
- drainage easements will need to cover the pond, the emergency overflow path and any pipes that direct
- stormwater offsite.
- And looking at the current proposal, these drainage easements will be in direct conflict with much of
- the riparian buffer easement. The second comment is about portions of the stormwater detention facility
- are within right of way, which is not per their standards. So that would need to be revised. And the
- third comment is that they've at this time not determined if the stormwater quantity and quality requirements
- meet their standards. So,
- That's what I know about the stormwater at this time, but that's something that CBU is continuing to
- evaluate with the petitioner. So it would be nice to have a second hearing so we can iron out all those
- details before then. Yeah, I would hope if we came back for a second here and we could have more information
- about that to provide you. Yeah, I agree. We need a second hearing. Thank you. And in regards to the
- sanitary, there is an easement that runs between this development and to the loss to the south of this.
- And so that's how they're accessing that sanitary connection in Glendora.
- And how does that easement impact the current owners. The petition can maybe answer that if there are
- any implications to that but there is an easement that was platted between two of those adjacent platted
- loss to the south. I believe the houses are out of that easement so there aren't any improvements in
- that easement but it was platted for a connection extension to this
- So this is an existing easement not that he created but it was already there it was plotted with the
- creation of Matlock Heights Okay, so the the current owners should be aware that that already existed
- Well, that's that's debatable, but yeah, it is it is recorded and okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks
- Thank you Commissioner Stossburg Yeah, thank you. Um
- I guess the question that I have right now has to do with what is going to be built there. So it are
- y'all planning to develop this all yourselves or sell off these individual lots to individuals to do
- with as they please. The plan is is develop them ourselves and have those and build them ourselves.
- OK. What kind of I mean you said single family homes but
- What kind of size are you thinking about? What is the price point that you're expecting to sell them
- for? Hi, I'm Paul Pruitt the intention is to build single-family lots and build the homes on the lots
- and I think with the lot size that we have that they will probably be in the 1500 1800 square foot range
- maybe as large as 2000
- As far as pricing and the cost of the house. I really can't say at this point until we know what we're
- up against for development cost so I Had several other questions about various drainage etc, but that
- was already talked about at length So I appreciate all my other commissioners for handling some of those
- for me. I don't think I have any other questions
- questions right this second. Thank you. Any other questions from commissioners. All right. Seeing none
- then we will go to public comment on
- this petition sub 2025-12-0051. If you'd like to make public comment, if you're here in the chambers,
- make your way to the podium, state your name for the record and you'll have up to five minutes to comment.
- If you are joining us remotely, you can click on the react button and look for the raise hand option
- or you can send a chat message to the meeting host and we'll recognize you when it is your turn to speak.
- Thank you.
- Good evening. My name is Jessica Will. I've been a resident of Matlock Heights directly to the south
- of this development since 2018 and I'm here today as a proud North Sider and an advocate for responsible
- growth. We all know Bloomington needs housing but more housing should not mean unregulated housing.
- The proposal for North Grove asked for variances and waivers to squeeze 18 lots into a residential medium
- lot are to district. This level of density requires encroaching on side setbacks narrowing lots and
- most concerningly bypassing riparian buffer and tree preservation standards. These are not minor tweaks.
- They are a fundamental departure from the unified development ordinance with real consequences to the
- community.
- To illustrate the gravity of these exceptions, several neighbors join me today to speak about the ecological
- cost of removing more than 100 mature trees and destroying vital wildlife corridors, the public safety
- concerns regarding the stormwater surges already flooding basements, which are likely to be exacerbated
- by the removal of the riparian buffer, existing traffic safety issues on Dunn Street, which this density
- is likely to worsen,
- and the legal precedent for spot zoning that is inconsistent with our subdivision standards and would
- fundamentally alter the character of the north side. We aren't against development, but we are in favor
- of enforcing the existing code. We believe a subdivision that respects our two restrictions is entirely
- possible and would be a far better fit for this land.
- We ask you to prevent this project from moving forward as is and require a plan that honors the standards
- designed to protect us all. Thank you so much. Thank you. Hi, my name is Julia Livingston and I live
- at 2641 North Dunn and I'd like to speak to the waiver for tree and forest preservation.
- The four acres at 25 11 North Dunn have been in a long process of development, but a very different
- kind of development than is being proposed today. Long in development has been a magnificent grove of
- tall white pine trees. Ironically, it is the very grove of trees that gives the subdivision North Grove its name.
- and the very trees proposed to be cut down in their prime trees that have a lifespan of 200 to 500 years.
- This mid neighborhood four acres has developed into an urban forest. This was the intentional plan of
- former owner and botanist IU professor Johnson Claire, who is one of the first to realize the importance
- of native trees in Indiana.
- and set out to plant every variety he could find on these four acres. His efforts have resulted in an
- urban forest that promotes biodiversity and is home to many generations of birds who nest in the mature
- trees. The large pines provide winter shelter to a variety of birds, including owls, pilated woodpeckers
- and nut hatches, and are integral to the migration path of migratory warblers.
- The trees provide a winter buffer not only for their nest, but also for our neighborhoods. The acreage
- serves as part of a wildlife corridor connecting Griffey woods to cascades. Yet this proposal would
- cut down 103 trees and destroy the diverse ecology. Bloomington's 2020 environmental action plan states
- that the city should,
- update codes to maximize the preservation of the largest long-living trees, encouraging tree species
- and diversity. It also states urban forests provide numerous environmental benefits by promoting wildlife
- along with water and air quality. They promote wildlife by providing critical habitat, contributing
- to biodiversity and conserving soil.
- and urban forests very importantly reduce stormwater runoff and pollution that threaten waterways by
- filtering and absorbing rainwater. It also warns Bloomington's native wildlife populations are at risk
- due to current land development and management practices that destroy and remove habitats. Furthermore,
- the Environmental Commission's 2050 long-term vision
- prescribes the urban forest will be lush with green infrastructure, limiting the heat island effect
- while also sequestering carbon, providing habitats and cleaning air and water. If allowed to survive,
- this urban forest will nurture the lives of all of us, both human and animal, who call this neighborhood
- home. I urge the Plan Commission to deny the petitioner a waiver for tree and forest preservation. Thank you.
- Thank you. Is there additional public comment? Good evening. My name is Robin Halpin Young, and I was
- the president of the Matlock Heights Neighborhood Association.
- when it became the first mid-century modern neighborhood in the state of Indiana to receive a historic
- designation. Our wonderful neighborhood was an outlier when it was created, long before the stadium
- was even built. One of the ways the developers saved money was to skip putting in a storm sewer system.
- The residents have carved out culverts and drains on their own property, and during bad storms, water
- forms surface rivers that flow across our neighborhood on its way to Cascades Creek. The CBU is aware
- of the problem, and we have an IU report on file number 204540.
- We continue to pay our monthly charge for storm sewer drainage, as well as the actual costs of dealing
- with the stormwater. James Hall, CBU, attended our annual picnic in October of 2025.
- We talked specifically about the new North Dunn pathway, stating clearly that the pathway's drainage
- must be engineered to capture and direct water away from the neighborhood instead of inadvertently increasing
- flow into it. I understand that density is an issue here. When I first saw the proposed project, I thought
- it would make a perfect stamp, rubber stamp, for a density project.
- But the property in question is not a flat little square. In Indiana, it is called a hill and holler
- country. And the area we are talking about is situated near the crest of two different watersheds, Lake
- Griffey and Cascades Creek. Water rolls down on us from way above North Dunn Street. One of my top concerns
- is that under the proposed plan,
- paved streets, cement sidewalks and driveways, and homes that create roof runoff will cover about 75
- percent of the penetrable ground surface, upending the natural flow of the watershed and increasing
- surface runoff. I strongly oppose the 35-foot sewer right-of-way carved out between me
- and my neighbors to the east that would pump the sewage of 15 households across my property and into
- Matlock Heights' 65-year-old sewer system. In the very area that they want the right of way, I have
- personally installed two perimeter drains and built two large swales in an attempt to direct water away
- from my home. Last summer, we had two rain microbursts.
- One brought five inches of rain in less than an hour, and water poured into my basement window like
- a broken submarine portal. I have braced myself knowing that this special property behind me would likely
- be developed someday, but I'm sorry.
- I can't help but think what a wonderful pocket park this would make. Northeast Bloomington has a lot
- of recreational opportunities, but very little infrastructure. This property could be provided in parking
- for the Lake Griffey Trailheads. We have no community garden on the north side. There could be educational
- opportunities. I know I'm probably dreaming, but I just thought I would throw it out. In closing, just
- to confirm,
- I think that now there are overwhelming reasons for us to lean into the protection of our zoning codes
- and ordinances. And so I ask you to deny the waivers and variance requests that are being sought. Thank
- you for the time and the opportunity to speak tonight. Thank you. Hello. My name is Stephanie Dickinson.
- My husband and I have lived in Matlock Heights on Dunn Street for 18 years. I want to speak tonight
- to concerns about the traffic and safety on Dunn Street. 15 new houses on three acres with an estimated
- two cars per house means an additional 30 cars driving up and down Dunn Street, past our homes, past
- our yards, multiple times a day. I wonder if a traffic study has been done. North Dunn Street is a popular
- road for little 500 cyclists, runners,
- dog walkers, sports fans, walkers commuting to campus, done as a narrow road with no shoulder, no sidewalks,
- and not designed to move large volumes of traffic at high speeds. I know I and my neighbors may sound
- like curmudgeons. Those darn cars are going too fast. There's too many of them, too darn loud. But I
- do think safety is a concern here. People don't stop at the stop signs. They go fast. They don't get
- over for cyclists. I honestly get nervous getting my mail.
- on that street, mowing the lawn, my husband running. The purpose of the subdivision standards in the
- UDO are to facilitate the orderly growth and harmonious development of the city, protect and promote
- public health, safety and welfare. Like my neighbors, we understand the need for more housing in the
- city. We're not anti-development, but it needs to be incremental development across the city. Not all
- on the back of an established historic neighborhood.
- all at once. I don't see a reason for the allowances to be made on the variances and waivers for setback
- lot size, tree preservation, riparian buffers, simply to allow to fit more homes on that lot, only to
- make that development work at the expense of the neighbors. From this discussion today, it sounds like
- the lot is not a good fit for this development. I thank the Planning Commission for being protective
- of the public health, safety and welfare of the community.
- Thank you. Hello, my name is Jim Hart. I've lived on 2641 North Dunn Street for at least 50 years. As
- citizens and lawmakers, we have to protect our common good, which includes goods that benefit
- and are necessary for all. One such good has to do with the riparian areas. Ripa is the old Latin word
- for the bank of a river. Such areas are the transition zones between the fully terrestrial and fully
- aquatic systems, stream banks, floodplains, and wetlands. They are rich in organic nutrients and directly
- affect biodiversity.
- of plant and animal species. In the US, they provide the habitat, in the US, they provide the habitat
- of one third of plant species as 60% of vertebrate species. 70% of the endangered species in the US
- depend on riparian systems to survive. At the northwest end of the four acres for which the developer
- seeks a waiver, there is a visible riparian area.
- This is low-lying land where there's already a pond which is surrounded by a protected riparian buffer.
- The pond water flows through a wetland before it lands on the surface of the surrounding area contributing
- to the flooding of the houses on Fritz Street and then heads across Walnut Street toward the creek running
- through Cascades Park. The invasive construction site proposed for this four-acre property
- would involve the covering of 30,000 square feet of land with gravel for construction vehicles. In addition,
- as we've heard often today, there would be the impermeable covering of the land by 15 dwellings and
- the extension of street surface of Tamarack Road. The city of Bloomington, the UDO, the Unified Development
- Ordinance, Chapter 20.05 states, preference for design of riparian buffer zones
- shall be fitted to the topography and the soil conditions of the site. And there will be an effort to
- attract tree crowns and root zones within the drip line of all the trees that are retained.
- And UDO exhorts, perhaps even requires retaining and not cutting down trees, especially those of native species.
- Thus, it states also no alteration of forest understory except for the removal of non-native or invasive
- species is permitted. I urge the planning commission to carefully review the quest for the waiver of
- the requirements of the protection of the riparian zone. Thanks. Thank you.
- I'm Susan Sandberg, here to join my Matlock Heights neighbors to oppose the intense density of the North
- Grove subdivision. We respect the work of the Plan Commission to ensure that the current UDO is upheld,
- and we thank you for listening to our many concerns. I'm speaking about subdivision standards found
- in the UDO, Chapter 20.05. The purpose of subdivisions is to facilitate orderly growth and harmonious
- development
- It provides equitable working relationships between public and private interests. In researching the
- three subdivision types, infill, conservation, and traditional, we fail to see how this development
- meets the definition of any of these types. An infill would allow for a subdivision containing a small
- number of lots with no new public streets or rights of way. It allows residential layouts that are consistent
- with adjoining developments
- in developed neighborhoods. Enfield facilitates development on existing parcels not characterized by
- environmental restraints. Historic Matlock Heights, known for its mature tree canopy that supports
- biodiversity, is directly adjacent to this proposed development. A conservation subdivision seems less
- likely fit for North Grove, given the maximum protection of environmentally sensitive features.
- A conservation subdivision sets aside significant open space, parcels with environmental features such
- as mature tree stands, karst geology, steep slopes, and water resources allow for very limited development.
- They must provide necessary connection to adjoining street systems for adequate levels of emergency
- service and traffic mitigation.
- The removal of over 100 trees to begin this high density development is problematic on its face.
- A traditional subdivision ensures a grid like street and alley system that allows maximum connectivity
- to adjacent neighborhoods as well as non residential activity centers. It has a pedestrian scale street
- state streetscape featuring narrow and narrow street profiles on street parking short block lengths
- and decorative street lighting.
- It facilitates the compatible development of parcels located next to existing subdivisions, characterized
- by more grid-like street patterns. It develops on properties not characterized by environmental features.
- The Matlock Heights neighborhood and surrounding areas are zoned R2. This proposed land use on four
- acres with requests for five variances is more in line with R3 zoning.
- It does not seem to be a fit for UDO standards for a subdivision. If it doesn't fit, we trust that time
- will be taken to consider the negative environmental and community impacts. Thank you.
- Good evening. My name is Mark Wiedemeier. Please vote no on this proposed development. Thank you. Thank you.
- My name is Michael Douglas. My wife and I live adjacent to this proposed project. Metlock Heights is
- a very nice neighborhood. The lot size are about twice or more twice than proposed lots. All of our
- homes are nice stone homes. And I don't think this new project is consistent with our neighborhood.
- Thank you.
- Is there additional public comment? Hi, my name is Amy Hamburg-Mead. I live at 444 East Glendora Drive,
- which is on the corner of Dunn and Glendora. This past summer, in July, my house flooded three times
- on the lowest level. It's a tri-level, 1957.
- We were told when we bought the house that we didn't need flood insurance because we're on high ground.
- But over the years Dunrode has begun to crumble and on our side. I don't know. I was going to ask people
- who live in in Matlock Heights how many people have drainage issues on their property. OK. Right there.
- is the show of hands. That's a lot of people. And something that people, I don't know, it was mentioned
- maybe briefly, but I'm concerned about just the soil. We have clay soil, everybody. And it doesn't absorb
- water very well, so the water runs off. If you remove the trees from that property, and the soil is
- a lot of clay,
- That water is going to run right off and into other people's properties. So I think that's a big concern.
- Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there any additional public comment? Do we have any online commenters waiting?
- There's anybody online they would like to speak to this petition Please use the raise hand function
- or send a message via chat and we can recognize you Please go ahead My name is Heidi Darling and I live
- in Matlock Heights just south of the proposed development my husband moved into the neighborhood with
- his parents in 1977 and
- We moved back to the neighborhood in 1998 to raise our family. And now our son, who's here tonight,
- would like to purchase a home, raising the fourth generation of darlings in Matlock Heights. Does Bloomington
- need housing? Absolutely. Should the need for housing circumvent the unified development ordinance?
- Absolutely not.
- My argument is not in protest of the proposal being in my backyard, but rather in protest of not following
- the well-planned UDO and the potential precedent this may set. The neighborhoods just north of the IU
- athletic complex are low density, single family homes. Many homes on North Dunn street are four, six
- or more acres.
- with some reaching back to the new hospital. If we allow this development to proceed, it could set a
- precedent for additional small, high-density projects in the area. I don't take issue with high density
- in general, but I do take issue with circumventing the UDO and the plans for sustainable and protected
- development in Bloomington. It is my understanding the UDO was designed
- to protect Bloomington neighborhoods from proposals such as this. I'm a lifelong resident of Bloomington.
- We chose to raise our family in this area. Our son and his wife find themselves in the same situation
- as many young professionals in Bloomington. Finding any housing is a challenge. Nonetheless, new housing
- projects should be planned in accordance with the city UDO. If the variances are granted,
- The precedent is set Build anywhere a developer finds available land How does this preserve the mission
- of the UDO and Bloomington Planning and Transportation Department? according to the website The mission
- is to ensure that the elements that make Bloomington special are maintained and enhanced as new development
- and redevelopment occurs in order to ensure that
- that our community retains its unique qualities, it is important to proactively plan for impacts of
- this future development. We need to maintain neighborhood quality. We need to maintain environmental
- quality as discussed tonight. Additional concrete will only exasperate the environmental issues we are
- currently facing. I implore you,
- to postpone the decision to move this proposal forward. Please take a pause and consider the UDO. Please
- take a pause to consider the precedent for future development of the Bloomington community in relation
- to its existing residential core. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Is there any
- additional public comment?
- My name is Kristen Weida, and I am the CEO of Indiana Uplands Realtor Association. I actually wasn't
- planning on speaking on this issue tonight. I'm here for the PUD that's being proposed a little later.
- But I lived in Marlin Hills for over 20 years, so I'm very familiar with that side of town. My boys
- went to Marlin Elementary, actually with Heidi's son. My home also got water and bad weather.
- However, I am also hearing from you guys the importance of needing housing in Bloomington. And so I
- really appreciate that you understand that how important it is that we do more development in town.
- And so I would just encourage you, this might not be the right development. This might not be the right
- location to do development.
- But I really encourage you to work with the mayor, to work with her office. The UDO that you guys are
- speaking of is really, really, really problematic for development. And so look into that. Look into
- why it's costing builders so much to build houses that are actually attainable for us, for our sons
- in this town, for our kids.
- For us who are empty nesters that are wanting to downsize, get out of Marlin Hills, get out of Mallott
- Heights, we can't find anything that's affordable. This proposition, they're proposing small homes,
- which is exactly what we need. The average cost of development from regulation alone is 25% of the cost
- of the property is from regulation. From regulation, that's what we're talking about with UDL.
- So the most we can remove the regulation from Actually building property the more affordable we can
- have for homes And that's what this next proposal is going to be about is actually an area. It's the
- Bloomington Hospital location They're asking for those things to be removed. So think about that as
- you're arguing for lack of development in one area But please come forward and be speaking about pro
- development and other areas because we need it We need the city needs the revenue
- I don't know if you understand how bad of a situation we are in fiscally and how our population is aging
- and we're actually losing people to live here and to support this community. We see the students but
- we don't see the residents and the residents are actually decreasing instead of growing. So it's a huge,
- huge problem we're having to support our community in the long run. We lost a lot of funding with SB1.
- So our government is really, really struggling to actually help support us and support our schools,
- our fire, our safety.
- So please work with the mayor work with their office. They're trying really hard to make some really
- positive changes. So that's what I would say Thank you Hello, my name is Ryan still
- I work for some help me development corporation. We're an affordable housing developer. I'm actually
- here for the other thing too I noticed when someone earlier actually right before me who made some very
- good points about the problems that we're having developing which I know very well Some people kind
- of like went like this and did a little cry face. That's deeply inappropriate There's an actual housing
- crisis that's happening that I'm helping to deal with To mock people that are struggling to find a place
- to live or to mock developers that are trying to help that it's
- It's just not good. It's not a good way to have an actual conversation about people that have needs.
- That's it, I just, sorry. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. President. I'm gonna write here and say my intro
- at the same time. Chris Herndry with the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce. I'm just gonna reiterate
- what Ms. White has said of the Uplands Reader Association.
- About the need for housing and it's going to unfortunately take density. I remember councilmember Stasberg
- mentioned the price points and we I read these Reports all the time and it requires density and some
- things that are a little bit uncomfortable I don't have an opinion on this particular proposal at all.
- I've not really looked at it I just want to kind of give a little bearings here repeat what somewhat
- she said it on the need for housing and the SB 1 which really transforms how the city's going to get
- revenue and
- and how property taxes are gonna go down and how the income tax is gonna be relied upon. It's not gonna
- be split based on population, but where you actually live. So it requires more people to live here.
- So that pizza, we're not all having to pay for all of the pieces, but we have to share it to get our
- less of a proportion of it. So we are gonna require more residents that actually live here, not just
- commute from other counties or from the
- Unincorporated area itself and this is going to be an adjustment. I don't know if this proposals right
- and I mean we need Smart growth and I know sometimes that seems like an oxymoron, but we do need we
- need growth is the key term in there I came before this Commission. It's been over a decade ago on a
- multifamily Unit proposal that did pass on Walnut Street Pike and I was one of the neighbors who was
- against it I said a couple things while I was going to take
- Some of the characteristics away from our neighborhood at sunny slope and I've said it here before I
- was wrong The what we said about some traffic things in the character of the neighborhood I would go
- as far as to say we were wrong enough where it actually improved the neighborhood So we have sometimes
- in our head and I'm not saying this is is this particular case But we have this inflated things of what
- might happen. It's kind of the worst-case scenario
- It's not always that case. I just you know, we have to have that sort of perspective I don't know where
- we're at on this particular one, but Going by miss why does report? And what she mentioned it is a housing
- crunch here and it is also a fiscal crunch So we just kind of need that sort of perspective as we move
- forward. This is a tough job from the Commission I really
- I'll commend the job you're doing in hearing all that because it's a lot of polls. It's like it's gonna
- be, the new housing is either too expensive or it's too dense or it's environment. All of that in this
- sort of umbrella, this cloud we're hanging over is difficult and you have a difficult job but I just,
- there's a lot of perspectives on this and so you just sometimes we need to exhale a little bit and sort
- of get through this together. Thank you for your time. Thank you.
- Hi, good evening. My name is Megan Blair and I'm a property owner in Matlock Heights. Again, the words
- you heard tonight from Matlock residence are in relation to the UDO and its standards created to protect
- neighboring property owners. Everyone you heard from here knows that we need housing in Bloomington.
- So just want to make that clear. What we've heard tonight from the petitioner
- focuses on the constraints of the property, its width and the lack of room for an alley and its drainage
- challenges, which need to be mitigated with a detention pond on a four acre parcel. The solutions being
- proposed to address these constraints consistently involve making the lots smaller and placing them
- closer together. In doing so,
- The plan seeks to bypass established requirements for lot sizes, setbacks, sidewalks, and alleys.
- At its core, this proposal is about maximizing the number of lots, even though doing so requires a whole
- list of variances from the UDO. This plan presented today is not the right fit for this property. Thank you.
- Thank you. Hi, I'm Mary Ellen May. I live in Matlock Heights as well. I'm sorry I didn't plan to speak
- tonight either, but just want to share that my parents bought a home at Matlock Heights in 1993.
- Had been the home of dr. Middleton many know that name. It's a historic district. It's a very highly
- sensitive environment We have nature cams in our backyard that capture bobcat on the property who has
- it done there Sorry, I'm so emotional This really isn't the right place for this if you step on that
- piece of land. It's four acres in
- It's not big, you guys. It is a small piece of land for what has been proposed. I'm all in favor of
- a house or two or three with the proper rules. But the reason we have these rules is because we set
- them up. And we have to hold the line. We have to maintain this boundary. And this is just too much
- for this piece of land. I won't get into it. But I also want to say that this sewage thing is real.
- My parents dealt with it forever. So I now own my parents home. We purchased it last year And it backs
- down into the creek that feeds into cascades and we jokingly call it shits Creek because it smells like
- shit and we are working with the city to remedy the situation, but this is real like
- I don't want to live like this. It's gross. I'm like worried to have people over and it's just not sanitary
- or safe. So we got problems that we need to help with. We're getting help and I'm so grateful to the
- city for their help. But I just want to say this is just too much. It feels very insensitive. It feels
- like a money grab. And that's not who we are. That's not the Bloomington that I grew up in.
- So thank you. Thank you.
- So any additional public comment? My name is Julie Williams, and I live on Glendora in Matlock Heights,
- and I raised my three kids there. We've been there for 24 years and have a major interest in seeing
- this development, which as I understood it, when this property was bought, it was permitted for six homes.
- Is that right? Six homes. Well, I'm sure it's on record somewhere. And that seems reasonable for that
- size property. So the person who bought that property must have felt at that time that they could make
- a profit, create a nice development there with six homes on it. And why it became 15 homes seems to be just
- I mean how this benefits anyone other than the developer how this profits or Improves the lives of anyone
- I again I understand. Yes, we do need housing and no one was mocking the fact that people need homes
- the problem is that the boo-hoo comes when it's like oh the developer developer can't make enough money unless we
- Bypass all the rules that we have and cram as much concrete onto that lot as we can so that why So that
- the developer can make more money. It's not about affordable housing. He's never said it's about affordable
- housing There's nothing he won't even say how much these houses are gonna cost so You know It's whose
- interests whose interests are we are we really concerned with?
- I mean, yes, a person who's invested should make some money and he will. But does it need to be at the
- expense of all of these people? I don't think so. That's all. Thank you. Eric, do we have any online
- commenters yet?
- Once again, if there's anybody online, please use raise hand function or send a message via chat to
- the host and we can recognize you Any more additional public comment here in the chambers? Our last
- call for public comment All right, then we are back to the Commission for
- Any additional questions, comments, or a motion? Start down at this end this time. Commissioner Stossberg,
- go ahead. I just have a quick question for staff. I'm totally in favor of moving this to a second hearing,
- but I just want to understand, like, they're asking for a couple variances for us, but then they also
- have to go to the BZA. So what would happen if we, this is just hypothetical, so nobody get upset.
- If this is approved here, but then the BZA does not grant their variances like procedurally. What does
- that look like? So they're both independent of each other, right, you know different purview different
- criteria for those So, you know if you were to grant the waivers that are being requested for the number
- of out lots being accessed from the alley and from the sidewalk and
- Then it would have to go to the BZA if the BZA denies those variances and obviously that affects all
- of their lots within here. So they would have to come up with a new primary plan which is what they're
- seeking and come back to the plan plan commission for that. OK. Thank you. All right.
- Okay, well first I appreciate all of the comments from the public on this one, and I'm gonna try and
- frame a couple of them into some questions that we can pose or pursue if possible. So the first is a
- little bit about, I'm gonna continue with a little bit of the procedural question. One, I'd love for
- the staff, if you could comment on the
- One person said it explicitly but others implied it about Precedent setting and how much it affects
- future development and I realize we can't you know, we're not here to talk about future development
- That's a difficult thing to imagine or propose, but I do want to just get some clarification on precedent
- of doing you know as we continue to evolve and create new forms of housing and
- You know make modifications variances happen all the time in Plan Commission. What what is precedent
- and how does that affect you. So all of the criteria you know for instance that the waivers are based
- on come back to a peculiarity about a property.
- So those are reviewed on a situational basis So there's not really a precedent that is set by one decision
- in one case each of those both for the waivers and the variances are Reviewed for the situation and
- the lot that is in question Thank you for that clarification and it's I think it's important for us
- to remind ourselves of these things because I do think it can I mean it weighs heavily on our minds
- to think about precedent and I appreciate
- Commissioner Holmes reminding us what the particulars as you have just done Eric to of the property
- and how that affects Decisions we make the other piece the other question I have is about the wow. We
- heard a lot about Sewage and drainage and flood and that is a serious concern. I don't know if anyone
- wants to address that particularly petitioner if this has given you new thoughts about how to address
- some of these clearly
- serious implications both for Matlock Heights and I mean I think a little bit for done and If you have
- other comments or concerns about that, I think we should it would be great to hear them now staff or
- petitioner I've got just also a different list of kind of
- Speaking to some of the concerns from the neighbors. I can start with that though That's for right now.
- Just answer the questions We'll give you a chance to use your remaining time after we conclude this
- round of questions. Sounds good Just to be clear the riparian area that were that is allowed by the
- UDO to have those engineered ponds in them to control from an engineering standpoint
- the storm water that's coming off of our site. And so that's, then I can use sound calculation to make
- sure that nothing additional is especially going to the Matlock Heights area. Another thing I just want
- to add to this is Matlock Heights is definitely south of us and everything is draining to the north
- from our property. So everything goes to the northwest corner.
- Right now so nothing from our site pop perhaps a little from the backyards It might be what it's doing
- now, but less stormwater will go in that direction Now it'll still go to the northwest corner and still
- go on the same path, but at a controlled rate and less Part of our calculation is to show CBU particularly
- but also Hopefully assure some of the neighbors that we will be delivering less rate
- Their area not less volume less rate to help control the flooding now again From the property to the
- west of us where this flows through it goes through then to Backyards that has an open channel defined
- ditch through it. Just I don't know if it's here there for anybody, but it really from a Drainage standpoint,
- it's really not affecting that neighborhood
- our site It's going through two backyards at the end after the West property. There's no drainage to
- Matlock Heights Okay Thank you. Thank you for that. Yeah All right additional questions from commissioners
- go ahead This is a question but
- I'm thinking you might have to get back to us. So let me go ahead and pull up the UDO with the dimensional
- standards, which I was just on but moved the minimum lot if you could remember it by memory in
- residential two, what's that? 7200 square feet, which equates to 0.16 acres per lot. Yeah, 0.16 acres.
- Correct. And what we're seeing kind of on the diagram is kind of about, what, 0.11. It varies. In the
- larger common space, I think it was like 0.75. So my question is, how many lots would you actually have
- to remove to then meet this standard?
- We're probably only talking about, and I don't want to guesstimate, but like two, maybe three lots total
- to remove for them to almost have a buy right development. So we're not, just for everyone to know that
- someone could come here and propose all these lots and meet that minimum standard that's set. So we're
- really only talking about difference of three lots.
- That's a question, because I do think this will be continued, that maybe you could answer. I think it'd
- be great to bring Katie Stein, your drainage engineer here, too. I was going to actually ask if you
- could put up, oh, I downloaded the UDO and I have it here now, but on the packet, page 20, wait, that's,
- actually the page with the bioretention on there,
- I think a visual will help a bit for you, Mr. Brown. That's actually page 26. And what I'm getting at
- as they're bringing it up is what they're doing is they're creating bioretention with controlled release
- rates, which is meant to actually mitigate the stormwater coming on the site now and release it
- at a lesser rate, which is actually going to improve the stormwater impacts versus exacerbate them.
- So like with a lot of these issues with inadequate infrastructure, this is actually meant to be put
- in place to help mitigate floodings and things that we heard a lot of the neighbors concerned. Would
- you be able to zoom in on that Eric? It looked like you had the driver's seat.
- So as you can see, they have a lot on this diagram. It's quite busy, but it starts showing you kind
- of the sewer system and how all this water will release into that. And what Mr. Brown was saying earlier,
- it's gonna then go into that riparian buffer, which is already defined, and kind of release, but at
- a slower rate, which is very important. And if I'm correct, the deviation is to kind of
- That little road stub in the riparian easement, but they're still going to put that in the easement.
- Is that correct? I Gotta make sure some of these are questions. I forgot we're in question time. It's
- okay Yeah, so there will still be an easement that is required for the riparian buffer area The road
- will not be going through that some of the detention will be in that area and
- There's a portion of the road that might might go through that easement area It looks maybe a portion
- but we're talking about very minimal impact and you know Sometimes we grant a lot of variances on the
- county side of things So we're not impacting existing homes and such this will be a new road So I do
- understand why we would like to meet that compliance That that's it I think this is very important to
- kind of bring some
- visualization to the discussion and I also think it's very important to know that like We might only
- be talking about a couple of lots here. We're not talking about It going back to only being one or two
- lots which I think a lot of the folks would like but it is private property and it's up to the Property
- owner right as far as how they would like to propose a development. Is that correct? I
- Yes, I mean ultimately the property owner, you know, they do main Large degree of control over the property.
- Of course, there are the UDO regulations that they need to comply with So that's why we're all here
- today, right? So, thank you. Thank you Just I wanted to give staff just a chance to answer I do know
- Offhand what the number of lots that would be allowed by right on this property would be
- Mean that's hard to do a raw calculation, you know, obviously with it being six acres You know, I'm
- sorry for acres You know if you just did a raw calculation without factoring out roads and tree preservation
- and riparian buffer You know, that's a very different number than when you factor those in So it's hard
- to really just take that box and put it within or those boxes and put it within this box because it's
- not realistic and
- Thanks Commissioner Seymour good It's a quick comment and then one question and one questions But just
- appreciating the the neighbors the public that came out and spoke Just wanting to recognize that a lot
- of what I heard were regarding things that will actually be discussed at the BZA So just encourage you
- to attend that meeting where some of that is more more applicable to though. It does relate to this
- discussion and
- But I think my question is wanting to talk a little about the alley question, since that's one of the
- big things that does come to us. And I guess just asking the petitioner, I imagine at some level you
- maybe have sketched it out, or at least in your head. If you could just walk through, if there was an
- alley, what would it look like? How would it tie in? What would the impacts be?
- It's it's a great question We have done one iteration that kind of showed that and again as I described
- it had his challenges it would go Nearly to you know the back property lines And so you would have you
- know, you'd turn into the project and then you would have some place that you turn to go behind The
- the homes and then come back out So that it's safe and you don't get into
- you know, a dead end situation or something like that. Another one of the challenges with that was that
- you can't make, we don't want to make these lots too small. And so on the south side, then we had to
- introduce it again on the north side. And so there'd be extra grading work to make that happen, especially
- on the north side, like I was describing. And that's kind of, in words, that's how I'd describe it.
- So just in my own head, so essentially it's more like a u-shape It wouldn't have a dead end and it would
- get close to the southern property line close to the adjacent but not right on that That's correct.
- Okay We would have to have it a little away from the property line for grading purposes Of course, we
- couldn't put it right against there But it would seem or show that some again we are we are removing
- some perimeter trees But we're trying to save some so that there is some buffer
- through there and again, some of those would be removed with having a straight alleyway through there.
- Hope that helps, I guess. It does, thank you. Any other questions, comments? Comment. Yeah, go ahead.
- I would make the comment, I would love to see a plan that complies with everything and that doesn't
- require setbacks with lot size variants, trees,
- stormwater mitigation sidewalk alley. I think if you do the raw calculation of the lot sizes you come
- up with about just back of the envelope here about four lots is what I came up with. You think it's
- just under that. But when you throw in all the others I think it's going to be a bigger effect than
- that. And I think honestly these variances are because of the plan not because of anything inherent
- to the land. I'd like to see a plan that actually complies. What does that look like.
- Thank you Any other Commissioner Ballard good. Yeah, just we're doing quick comments Yeah questions
- or comments. I would like To get a motion on the table before we go too deep into our final comments
- and also want to give petitioner a chance to use The remaining time but but go ahead. Okay. Yeah. No,
- I think as a commissioner of the BZA I think somebody mentioned a pause the BZA is the pause we get
- into a lot more detail so I
- I encourage all of you who commented probably be at that meeting as well. But again, I think I want
- to find the middle ground. I think I think we definitely need to hear this again. But there's a housing
- study that's been put out by IU that anybody who talks about affordable housing or says they're for
- affordable housing, I think we need needs to read it. It's about 60 pages and it's very alarming. But
- I think this conversation could go on and on. But I do think the BZA
- Commissioner Borrell and I sit on it gets into a lot more details with this and I Definitely think finding
- a common ground is is what we're trying to do. So Thank you Just as a reminder the staff recommendation
- is that we Forward this petition to the required second hearing. So if someone would like to make a
- motion that would be in line with the with the staff recommendation
- Commissioner Stossberg. Yeah, I would also like to make a quick comment if I could I would like to make
- a quick comment if I can please So I wrote down a few concerns and they're not necessarily in any particular
- order I'm concerned about the sheer number of variances and the different levels that they have to be at and I
- think that a better plan would have fewer variances and I'm not saying no variances because of the size
- of a lot. For example the alleys I would be far more likely to grant an alley variance if it was a few
- percentage points. We actually did that recently. It wasn't my favorite but at least putting an alley
- on one side I think would be a preference for me.
- It just seems like there's a lot of stuff squeezed into the space and it's kind of a stretch. I'm generally
- for density. I think that people who know anything about me know that I tend to go to density. Density
- in this particular location concerns me. It's not particularly walkable. It's not particularly bikeable.
- There's no transit out there. There's a lack of amenities in that area that would make this development
- incredibly car-centric.
- If you know if we want to care about environmental concerns Like even just putting aside the idea. Okay,
- we need density But we also need density in the right places so that then we can minimize some of those
- other environmental aspects on this so I'm a little concerned about putting density like this in that
- particular location just because there's it it's just I don't I could be convinced maybe but it's not
- my favorite place and
- The extension of Tamarack isn't actually in the transportation plan and I got mentioned by a couple
- people but it's not actually there and I'm not saying that that's not necessarily a good idea, but that's
- not a reason for me to go. Oh great. We can have this connectivity thing that connectivity was never
- proposed. I'm interested in more information about drainage from CBU because that does concern me and
- some of the language the preliminary language from CBU is concerning to me and
- Oh, and the other piece is the affordability piece. If there could be some guarantee of affordability
- with the density, then I would also be more likely to be like, OK, maybe we can manage that if there's
- some affordability promises in there. But there are no affordability promises. And that just leaves
- me in kind of a tough spot. So anyway, thank you. I'm looking forward to a second hearing and maybe
- seeing some changes. Thank you.
- So Commissioner Seaborg mentioned the 2025 study that I you did it's not an affordability study. It's
- attainability which is I think a key distinction here between the goals that we have as a city of having
- affordable housing and also being able to have housing that people can get into it any means. And I
- think that that's the difference there to that point though.
- I believe that the I would like to see some of the cost general cost specs that you guys have for these
- because I think that makes this maybe a little bit more palatable if they are attainable or affordable.
- Not saying that's the goal for this particular housing development but it makes decisions like these
- a bit more you know
- You know reasonable to make when you have so many exceptions and waivers that you're requesting is at
- least it meets some other criteria in other areas which at this point I think there are too many variables
- that we don't have So that would be one piece of the puzzle. I'd like to see Mr. Kinsey, thanks. I appreciate
- what everyone's offered already from the Commission's standpoint and everything the public has commented
- on I think there's a lot to consider in this proposal and
- I'm generally for in feel like Commissioner Stasberg. I have a lot of concerns about this place for
- that kind of infill and particularly given the environmental constraints and just the the I think one
- resident described it in Hill and holler area of Indiana. This is certainly characteristic of that.
- So I have a lot of concerns about what this lot can allow and permit safely and also without
- making a lot of, well, I mean, we're always sacrificing trees whenever we're developing anything. So
- just the lowest level of reduction in any sort of environmental issues would be a concern. The drainage
- issues and the mitigation of sewage and other problems, I'm interested in what
- Commissioner and right Randolph was was describing in terms of the benefits I think if those could be
- explained a little bit more we could come to some greater understanding of how That could help with
- some larger issues that the community is facing I think that's very important to do this well, and I
- appreciate even the Developer describing how this can be engineered and I think that's an important
- thing for us to all understand I'd like to know more about that so describing how that happens will
- be important for a second hearing
- The other thing, the alley is still very interesting to me. It's part of our UDO. If we can work that
- into a plan to make it viable, I think that does help reduce some of my concerns about safety of drive
- cuts and just overall access to this space. My last issue is the done safety.
- That is a it is a narrow road. There is no shoulder. There's no sidewalk I You know whether it needs
- a traffic study. I don't know that's it's a large expense for I'm not really sure if that's the right
- answer But I'd like to know what the answer should be to understand what the traffic is in that space
- so lots to still think about on this and many concerns and I still would be interested in hearing if
- the developer has
- some responses right now or if you want to hold all that to when you come back. But if you want to float
- anything by us now I think it would be useful. That's it for me. Thank you. Do we have any additional
- comment or emotion. I'll go ahead and make a motion so we can move this along. So some move that we
- deny the request of waiver for the second hearing and forward this petition to the required second
- Is there a second second? All right Anything the petition would like to add with your remaining time
- before we yes, or just real quick we're I had a list of notes, but I'll just keep it quick here that
- the the density issue when we originally did this plan with a bulb and not having the road go through
- we achieved a
- 15 lots with that with not going into the riparian area that we are now and so the density is just making
- some of those smaller and saving more trees and saving more environmental features and that's where
- the So it's not more dense per se. It's just the smaller lots does that make sense? So it's the same
- number of lots that you would have gotten before but with more environment less environmental impact
- per se I did have just one
- Question somebody mentioned they wanted to see a buy-write plan Would you include the route through
- road on the buy-write plan or do you want just a buy-write without the through road? I Think that was
- me that you're my comment you're talking about I'm open to I don't know what the buy-write plan has
- to look like so I don't really have an opinion on whether it would include a road or not and
- That's it. Thank you. All right. Thank you any final discussion before we call the roll on the motion
- All right, let's call the roll on the motion to Forward this to a second hearing Ballard yes,
- Bishop Yes, Burrell. Yes Seaborg. Yes Holmes. Yes
- Kenzie? Yes. Stossberg? Yes. Whistler? Yes. All right. That motion carries, and we'll see you at our
- next meeting. I just want to take a moment to give a quick situation report and remind the commission
- of our rules. We are not to hear any new cases after 9 PM, and we are automatically adjourned at 9.30
- if we don't suspend those rules.
- Our first petition there took about two hours. If our next one takes two hours, we're not going to get
- to our third one. So we probably need to be aware of that and try to be as expedient as we can here
- if we want to get through the agenda tonight. So next up on our agenda, we will have petition SP 2025
- dash 12 dash
- This is BRCG Civil Engineering and I think, yeah, once again, we have Jamie Kreindler, case manager,
- to present. Take it away. Okay, thank you again. I will try to be brief with this report. The detailed
- version is in the staff report. I'll try to highlight the important elements for the discussion tonight.
- And in particular, I know the developer, the petitioner, wants to discuss some of the recommended conditions.
- So that's part of why it was moved off the consent agenda. So I just wanna share that. So the petitioner
- is William Rigert of BRCJ. There are some other representatives from BRCJ here with us this evening.
- The area of this currently vacant site is slightly under one and a half acres.
- The zoning is the Mixed Use Downtown Showers Technology District, or the MDST District for short, and
- the Comprehensive Plan designation is Downtown. The property is also part of the Downtown Overlay District
- in the Bloomington Trades District. So the request, as you stated, is for major site plan approval for
- a new Trades District Hotel, and this is located on the properties at 477 Westmaker Way.
- West 10th Street and 617 North Madison. The proposed hotel has four frontages with Westmaker Way to
- the north, North Madison Street to the east, West 10th Street to the south, and North Rogers Street
- to the west. Surrounding properties to the north, east, and west are zoned MDST, and the adjacent properties
- to the south are zoned mixed use downtown core. Some of the notable nearby sites include the Forge and the Mill.
- and also City Hall. The proposed trades district hotel is a four story tall full service boutique hotel
- with 160 to 170 guest rooms and roughly 5,000 square feet of meeting space. The petitioner was granted
- two variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals on November 20th of last year. So the first variance
- that was granted was from the upper floor facade step back requirement on parts of the west and the
- south facades.
- And the second variance was from the minimum landscape area regulation of 15%. So those were previously
- granted. And the petitioner attended the development review committee meeting on December 2nd as required.
- And they also presented to the Near West Side and Maple Heights Neighborhood Association meetings on
- December 18th of last year. And those are both required pre-submittal meeting activities for a major
- site plan review.
- The proposed hotel includes a restaurant to serve guests and the public, third party retail spaces,
- and a rooftop bar and outdoor patio on the fourth level of the building. The submitted plan also shows
- locations for public art, a green wall, garden spaces, bicycle parking, and other amenities. For the
- proposed architecture, the first level of the hotel will consist of masonry and glass with limestone
- accents. The upper levels of the hotel will consist of glass, rain screen paneling, and metal accents.
- This is a perspective view at the corner of Rogers and West 10th Street. There are no driveway access
- points proposed with the hotel. There's no parking proposed with the hotel. They're planning to use
- the parking garage that's across the street and nearby for their parking needs. There is an existing
- alley off Westmaker Way to the north and a proposed alley along North Madison to the east. And the petitioner
- is proposing to dedicate
- this new east-west alley to serve as an access point for the site. For the street classifications, Westmaker
- Way and North Madison Street are shared streets and they require a 10-foot sidewalk and 5-foot tree
- plot, so those are the streets to the north and the east. Pedestrian facilities and street trees were
- installed along these frontages by the city in 2019.
- West 10th Street to the south and North Rogers Street to the west are general urban streets and they
- require a 10 foot sidewalk and eight foot tree plot. Along North Rogers Street there's only 16.6 feet
- of space between the property line and the existing edge of the street curb and the planning director
- has authorized a reduction to the tree plot plot width to 6.61 feet. So that is not
- shown on this plan, just to be clear, a lot of these conversations took place last week. So not all
- the revisions are updated in the plan at this time, but that is the intention of the petitioner as approved
- by the planning director for the west side is to install the 10 foot sidewalk as required and the modified
- tree plot, which would be 6.61 feet instead of the required eight feet.
- After major site plan review, if approved by the plan commission, the petitioner will have to apply
- for a site development permit, SDP, with the planning department. So at that time is when we would plan
- to see these revisions made on the plan. So I just want to address that point. I also want to address
- West 10th Street to the south because the travel lanes, the on-street parking, the tree plot, and the
- sidewalk widths have not been
- Finalized and confirmed at this time. So the petitioner and they may talk about this when they present
- but they're continuing to have conversations with planning and engineering about the exact width of
- the travel lanes the on-street parking The tree plot and the sidewalk
- With the travel lanes that are proposed, I think on this plan, it's showing 11 feet. There have been
- some discussions about those being reduced to 10 feet or 10 and a half feet. So that remains to be seen.
- For the on-street parking, they have reduced on their plan to show seven feet wide on-street parking
- instead of the existing eight feet. And I don't see a tree plot on this plan. I will say that
- If they cannot provide a at minimum a five foot wide tree plot, then that would require them to go back
- to the board of zoning appeals for a variance. If they would like to provide less than an eight foot
- tree plot, but more than a five foot tree plot, that is something that the UDO authorizes the planning
- director to approve instead of them having to get a variance. So that's something that still needs to
- be sorted out. And then the 10 foot side, 10 foot wide sidewalk is a requirement along West 10th street.
- For the general compliance criteria, the dimensional standards for the proposed hotel have been met
- as modified by the approved variance from the minimum landscape area regulation. There are no known
- sensitive or regulated environmental feature and the property is not within a regulated 100 year floodplain
- regarding the access and connectivity. The petitioners continuing to work with city engineering, planning
- and transportation.
- and Bloomington Transit to ensure compliance with the sidewalk tree plot on street parking and bus stop
- regulations. And these are all recommended as conditions of approval. There are some minimum bicycle
- parking requirements that still need to be met on the plan. Some parking spaces are shown, but with
- the building being over 20,000 square feet in size, all 20 bicycle parking spaces
- are required to be covered. So that's also a condition in the staff report that they would need to address
- prior to their site development permit being issued. Private hotel pickup and drop off areas are not
- permitted. So that would also need to be reflected in their final plan. It would need to be available
- for the public at large and not just for private hotel use. And I believe that's regulated by title
- 15, the engineering's code.
- So overall, the site and building design standards have been met as modified by the approved step back
- variance for the west and south facades. There are a few minor revisions that are necessary as it relates
- to some of the street trees and landscaping, and those are also included as conditions of approval.
- In conclusion, the proposed site plan meets the requirements of the UDO with the approved variances
- and the conditions of approval outlined in the staff report.
- So the staff recommendation is that the Plan Commission adopts the proposed findings and approve this
- case. There are 11 conditions in the report. I do believe the petitioner would like to discuss
- the Bloomington Transit bus stop condition in particular, and there might need to be some more discussion
- had on the West 10th Street widths for the travel lane, what the final plan will be there. But otherwise,
- a site development permit is required prior to any Landister
- disturbance and final approval from Bloomington utilities is required prior to issuance of the site
- development permit. The petitioner also needs to submit a lighting and photometric plan before issuance
- of the SDP and any public improvements that are removed within the right of way must be replaced. So
- as far as we know at this time, the petitioner due to the hotel having such a limited, basically not
- much of a setback from the property line
- It's very minimal. The petitioner is expecting to have to do just to disturb the existing infrastructure,
- especially along the South and the West, but potentially to the North and the East as well. So that's
- why we have the condition that any of the public improvements that are removed during construction would
- need to be replaced. And I'm happy to provide any additional information and answer any questions.
- Thank you. Is there a representative of the petitioner who would like to add anything tonight?
- Good evening, I'm Dustin Egan with Ratio Architects representing the owner. I also have BRCJ with me
- as well on the civil engineering side. I guess thank you for your summary, as always. To speak to a
- couple of items, specifically about 10th Street, yes, there's some
- Particulars that will that still need to be worked through as we were discussing this last week even
- about the width and the The on-street parking and those specific elements. We are still in the process
- of that We have every intention of meeting the requirements if we are not meeting them We understand
- will probably won't be going back for a zoning variance request as it may
- Relate to specifically on street parking and the related or the in the related spaces for the For the
- street trees. So that is something that's still being worked through that also relates to the overall
- width of that of that 10th Street trying to make sure that that is a Really the most
- safest and best use for that with the curve. It's a bit of a unique circumstance that we're all working
- through right there. One item that we're kind of, as there are 11 conditions, the item three with the
- bus stop or requested bus shelter along Roger Street, that is an item that we do take exception to.
- There are, as is,
- as was requested, there would be either a bus shelter located at the northwest corner of 10th Street
- and Rogers, or the southeast corner of Rogers and Maker's Way. With that, one of the existing bus stops
- Which is at the beeline south of the property or north of there would be relocated to alongside the
- property the I think the a few things to consider with that is that the property or the site rises about
- 10 feet from from 10th Street as it goes up to Makers Way, so a and
- an understanding that the hotel entrances are along 10th Street and the trigger for the requested bus
- stop would be that this property is requiring more transit use. So that would start to really suggest
- a bus stop along the southwest side of the property itself, so the northeast corner of 10th Street.
- At the northern property you would really be taking a further path of travel and Also rising up 10 feet
- 10 feet from an accessibility standpoint It becomes a little bit problematic at that standpoint. We
- would prefer to keep things a little bit more level the there is a existing bus stop that is
- and that is along the B line, south, just south of the property, less than a fifth of the mile from
- the front door of the property. That seems to be a better location. It's actually physically closer
- considering the curvature of 10th Street. And then there is also a related plaza with that space that
- does allow for kind of the space for people to
- We'll sit and wait for a bus to have there. When you start to locate it on the southwest corner of the
- property, it does start to create some problems with the required sidewalks and also pedestrian traffic
- flow into the restaurant spaces itself. So there could be some congestion. Also with a bus stop coming
- just north of an intersection, there's some space
- Can be some problems with traffic moving out from 10th Street heading north onto Roger Street so those
- are the kind of the factors that we are Really have some problems with locating a bus stop at that location
- right there And then beyond that I'm happy to answer any other questions Regarding the project.
- All right. Thank you. I
- There are questions from commissioners either for staff or for the petitioner Commissioner Seaborg I
- Guess just to dig in a little bit to the the transit discussion. I think just Reading the report just
- making sure I'm understanding the conditionery So the the condition as it's listed is that the petitioner
- must coordinate with BT to provide a transit stop that meets their specifications So as I read it, I
- didn't even
- I guess no or is there there's flexibility potentially built into that as long as it meets BT specs.
- I guess what I don't know if this petitioner or staff what has BT specified it shall be in this corner
- or or is there has that discussion just not yet taken place. There has been some discussion starting
- at the development review committee meeting. We got a comment from Shelly Stry mitis and BT.
- about the transit stop, and I have her email pulled up in front of me. So it reads, if a shelter can
- be added to the project, we would move a nearby stop to the new shelter location. These are Shelly's
- words. I was thinking that the southwest corner of the property would be suitable to replace the stop
- we have at the Beeline Rail Trail, but if it would be easier to put a shelter at the northwest corner,
- we could instead move the stop on Roger Street closer to 11th Street, traditionally BT offers.
- to take over the maintenance of bus shelters put in by developers. So it can be a nice way
- to have maintenance free amenities for guests. So that's from Shelly. And that's the last I heard about
- this. I think Jessica Salty at BRCJ was maybe coordinating with Bloomington Transit, but I did not hear
- any final word on that. So that's why it was included as a condition in the staff report. Okay.
- I guess I didn't hear in those languages like it shall be yes, but like is is the condition as it's
- written problematic from petitioners side or It just says that it will work to find a spot that's suitable
- Well, I it's There are you know related to the the bus shelter itself there is an associated cost with
- it and so there you know, there's
- No denying that. Also, as we look at the spots that you're really looking to serve, it would make sense
- that the spot next to the beeline really is serving the population at its location. Moving that to the
- property north of 10th Street
- It becomes an issue for the hotel itself. You're starting to park a bus in front of a restaurant And
- then there are also even along Roger Street You have to consider that a bus stop starting and stopping
- yet people's trying to sleep And so there are that can become detrimental impacts for the property itself
- No, I I appreciate that I think just as a person that has seen the
- Transit users on this corridor just recognizing that I guess is Theory being put there to serve this
- development. That's why it's a part of it But there's also adjacent land uses. There's the afford. There's
- a housing right across the street that Those are the people that I've seen use that bus stop and so
- in proximity to that that that might be help transits about it Just to serve that the discussion about
- 10th Street just in all the the other conditions that are listed generally
- Okay with recognizing there may be additional things coming forward. Sure. Yes. Yeah, that is something
- that it's it's the development of design It's really we're you know, there's a lot of nuance with that
- with that particular width of being a curve and also the suggestion we're Recommending putting in a
- speed table across there to improve the pedestrian crossing across that street from the garage to
- to the proposed project. So there's just a lot of discussion right now, right there with that, where
- that speed table goes, where the pick drop is, where that parking, where, you know, there's a lot of
- parts that are really, that are at play right there. So we're, we've had some very good conversations
- to work through that, so everyone is getting, you know, we can come to a solution that makes no sense
- for everyone. Great, thank you so much.
- Thank you. I just have a couple questions I think for staff about the alley So there's already right-of-way
- alley on the alley that's going north south and then the proposal as was approved when Council vacated
- the rest of that alley was to put an alley like to make it an L shaped going out and
- So the petitioner is prepared to do that. And so there's something in this contract somewhere where
- that's going to be designated right of way is my first question. Yes. And then just clarify that would
- be it's one of the conditions. So condition number nine talks about dedication of the OK. Oh wonderful
- Sally. Thank you. And then whose responsibility is it to construct the alley because once the alley
- is there it's the city's responsibility to maintain it.
- Right. But who's constructing it to begin with. I believe it's the petitioner that would construct that.
- OK. Is that does the petitioner agree with that. OK. Great. If y'all want to build it. Oh no please.
- That would be great. I think that that's all I wanted to know. Thanks. The questions from commissioners can see.
- Yeah. Thank you for the presentations. My questions were a little bit about the topic you just started
- to talk about on 10th Street for access to the hotel. I mean I have some real concerns about people
- crossing that area of 10th coming from the garage and doing that safely to get into the hotel dragon
- luggage or whatever it is boxes or whatever it is they're bringing in. Can you talk a little bit more
- about what the
- Proposal is to design that crossing way safely Sure the the proposed Design is to implement a speed
- table across 10th Street and so it becomes a traffic calming measure to slow down traffic and also creates
- a very obvious and designated crossing spot and a crossing spot for that so it
- Really doing two things in that regard creating, you know slowing down traffic at a specific location
- location But also making it very obvious to those who are doing the crossing that this is the spot to
- go to Okay, and that's that's the expectation is the garage To the south of the property is the main
- parking area. I mean, I know there's parking across the street potentially but
- Cross Rogers potentially sure. Yes, that is them. That is the intent. Okay Okay, one other question
- about the landscaping variation. I mean this is I Appreciate a vegetative roof, but boy, this is a lot
- of Building and no landscaping what's say more about that? Why is there so little on the ground for that?
- The landscaping that's around the building, there's actually a fair bit of landscaping along Roger Street
- within the step backs that we have along that location right there. We are also filling in landscaping
- on the east side and then on the northern leg of the property itself.
- It really, it's a balance that we're really working with in creating this development while also working
- with the required setbacks, because we're not allowed to step, set the building too far back from the
- property line. So at the same time, there's a step back, so we're kind of working within a sweet spot,
- and so we are
- Working to maximize the landscape space and landscaped areas that we have as much as we can Thank you
- Krishna Bishop so with the parking garage being the main source of parking for the
- 200 or so guests that would be coming to the hotel What's the current utilization rate of the parking
- garage as it sits? Because right now it's not only utilized by the mill and the trades district But
- also some city government people county government people. It's kind of a catch-all right now for that
- area Yeah, you're answering a question I asking a question I can't answer as far as it
- So I don't know the answer to what the utilization is of the parking garage right now. I will say, though,
- that the trends in hospitality are moving less and less away from parking. And that's just a nationwide,
- industry-wide trend, is that people are utilizing cars less for hotels.
- I understand that but they've got to park somewhere so even if they're going to get on the bus line
- that they may have to walk across the street to they're still gonna have to park their car somewhere
- and so with there being 350 ish spots in that parking garage if you've got 200 guests coming in with
- 200 cars that means there's 150 left to disperse amongst everybody else so I would be interested to
- find out what that looks like on current utilization.
- Another question I have is what kind of a traffic impact are you expecting in the area outside just
- the 10th Street? Because that's, again, very narrow place. I've had my side mirror ripped off there.
- already and it's not busy. But 11th Street is a concern for me because that stop sign, the four-way
- stop up there on 11th and Rogers is already doggedly slow. You add in before and after school traffic
- and everything else that goes into it and then a couple hundred people kind of coming in and out for
- hotel stuff. That seems like that would be a real choke point right there.
- Any thoughts on that? Are you speaking to 11th Street? Yeah 11th and Rogers the the four-way stop up
- there on the northwest corner so this is a Block north of the property sure. Yeah I think that you know
- Primarily, you know, it would be to look at where the traffic is Would be coming from so if we're if
- we're talking about
- people in a garage, so they would be, if people are arriving, they are arriving at different times,
- so not everyone would be coming down from Rogers and circling through there. And then, so really you
- get to the exiting standpoint. So people leaving a garage and going to a certain spot right there. I
- think the, you know, hotels traditionally don't drive a lot of peak
- or surge traffics, it's kind of just kind of pretty consistent throughout the day. So is there an out
- of traffic? Sure. But it's not specifically a concentrated load of traffic that you're seeing surges
- at certain points of the day.
- Final question I have for you regarding you had mentioned bus noise being one of the concerns about
- the bus stop Is that to say the hotel will be so poorly insulated from sound deadening perspective that
- that would be an issue It's it's not the it's not the insulation. It's really about the it's about the
- glazing everything has a weak spot and So this is something that is It's a it's a common element
- You know at any hotel is the sound and so anything that you can start to think through to you know to
- help mitigate that but you know becomes a an area of concern Okay, thanks Any other questions
- from commissioners All right seeing none then we will go to public comment I
- If you'd like to make comment and you're here in the chambers, just step up to the podium, state your
- name for the record and you'll have five minutes to speak. If you are joining us online and you'd like
- to make comment, click on the react button, find the raise hand option or send a chat message to the
- meeting host and we will recognize you when it is your turn to speak.
- Hello, I'm Greg Alexander. I just I just wanted to add something that Commissioner Seabor already mentioned
- the purpose of the bus stop is mostly for people who are not using the hotel But for people who already
- live here the building across the street really they do use the bus stop They don't I don't know other
- reasons, but they don't go all the way south to the beeline They they like the bus stop that's almost
- directly across the street from their place Even though it is a jaywalk and and I sure wish we could
- do something about Roger Street safety Thanks a bunch
- Thank you. Good evening again, Mr. President. This is Christopher G. from the Greater Bloomington Chamber
- of Commerce. I'm here to support the trades district hotel site plan and staff's recommendation for
- approval. I personally am looking forward to the rooftop bar. But from a chamber perspective, this project
- has several reasons to move forward. I think number one is it's a major investment milestone.
- Private investment capital into the trades district which helps a long-standing vision on the grounds
- of progress And it the foundationally the infrastructure for innovative district This is what we want
- and the hotels are not axillary in these environments They help support multi-day business activity
- essential to innovation ecosystems and that ecosystem here in Bloomington is missing Young professionals.
- I think the trades district has a real
- Real possibility to be a beacon for that, creating innovation-driven environment that exists apart from
- campus, that is really a demographic space that the city is currently missing. And as I mentioned in
- a previous public comment, we need people living here. And that talent, attraction, and retention is
- a real functioning of this innovation district with amenities that Bloomington can compete with early
- career development talent to work, live, and collaborate here in a setting that's distinct from the
- rest of the town.
- And then the other thing is the process matters. The petitioner has gone through a lot of the points
- This has taken a while And the staff has evaluated the proposal and found it compliant and recommended
- for approval and conditions and then predictability encourage investment We've heard how much that that
- red tape government costs. We need the predictability as best we can And then we've also heard
- Another hotel site that's having difficulty. So we know we need hotel space here So I encourage the
- approval of this site plan So this project and the broader trades district ecosystem can continue to
- move forward and I thank you for your time Thank you Good evening, I'm a John Fernandez. I'm the CEO
- of the mill and I'm here to support the proposal and
- First I want to thank our city planning staff. They've worked closely with the mill team and the developer
- from the get-go on this has been a lot of really great engagement very early on in the process so that
- we could mutually understand what our Expectations were and set some goals together We are very excited
- about the project and
- Lots of reasons that Chris mentioned but just a little reminder this land was owned by the City Redevelopment
- Commission and This proposal was approved. I was part of a project plan by our redevelopment Commission
- specifically for this project for the hotel project a hotel is a by-right use in this zoning and
- So I think it's important to think about that in the context of a lot of the discussions around larger
- You know traffic issues, etc I do want to make a quick comment about the bus stop because I've on the
- one hand I mean, I'm certainly very pro public transit. I I get a little squeamish when the process
- adds things that aren't necessarily required and
- This may seem like a small thing but in the context of how we heard in the earlier petition people wanting
- to stick to the code Let's be consistent with that if that's the thinking here but more importantly
- I think the the location the current location of the bus stop on the south side of the beeline is a
- better location and
- It's better suited to connecting pedestrians to the beeline itself and the sidewalk network.
- There's also, as some of you may know, there's a large new apartment project that's going through the
- process on the former Bloomington Iron and Metal site. So it just seems like where it's at is a pretty
- good place.
- the petitioner reference some of the challenges of moving it across the street. I share those in terms
- of just that you know if you're going to have your primary restaurant facility right there having the
- bus stop there just seems a little bit out of sync. The other site that was proposed by the member of
- the Bloomington Transit staff was for a site further north that the petitioner doesn't own or control.
- So I mean when we start thinking about the process that we go through for trying to work on and supporting
- You know positive investments in our city I've just hope people would think about the big picture about
- some of the inconsistency the Uncertainty and asking people to do things that they can't control That's
- just more of an editorial comment and the parking garage we worked
- Prior to the approval by the Redevelopment Commission for this project plan with the city's parking
- department to understand capacity the garage has 355 spaces as part of the project agreement the city's
- agreed to provide Permits, but they're paid for at the market rates, whatever they are but when you
- talk to the parking staff as particularly with hotels and
- The peak use of a garage is different than your typical daytime use of these urban garages. They have
- a similar agreement with the graduate hotel and it works out quite well in terms of from a city's perspective
- maximizing the investment that you made in the garage. So that ensures that there's higher utilization
- throughout the entire time.
- Through the week and the weekends then you currently have so it actually is going to work. I think well
- As we continue to coordinate with the city staff on parking so just to wrap things up You know, this
- is a big investment in downtown Bloomington. It's an exciting development and
- in terms of what it means for the vision we have of the trades district as an innovation hub. It's going
- to be a great addition to that whole development potential along the beeline north at the trades district,
- to the convention center, to Hopewell, to Switchyard. So I'd encourage the applying commission to support
- the petition. Thanks. Thank you.
- We do have one person online with the hand raised Yeah, let's go ahead to the online comment or if there's
- anyone else in the chambers that would like to comment Please feel free to queue up behind the podium
- here so we can keep things moving Talisha copy you should be able to unmute
- Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Yes, hi, hi.
- Thank you to the Planning Commission for your consideration of this important project. I'm Talisha Coppick
- speaking on behalf of Downtown Bloomington, Inc. We wanted to voice our strong support for this proposed
- boutique hotel in the Trades District. Trades District is such a premier example of successful public-private
- partnership. Given the current national spotlight on Bloomington, it's now more important than ever
- to elevate our overnight accommodations. The proposed design with featuring limestone and
- and glass with the modern aesthetic, along with amenities such as the rooftop bar, outdoor patio,
- public art, garden space, will serve as vital assets for welcoming visitors and thus strengthening our
- community. The Trace District is already a beautiful area and this development will be
- an excellent addition to its character. I back up John with the parking and the shared parking concept
- of being able to fully utilize that parking garage, but it would encourage the plan commission to support
- this project. And thank you to Mr. Whitaker and John and Jane and planning staff and all those who've
- worked hard to get to this point. It's exciting times.
- Thank you. We do have one more person online, but if we want to take the person here. Okay.
- My name is Casey Green. I'm a resident of the Maple Heights neighborhood and I did attend the meeting
- that was held in December and I would say that I really appreciated that meeting and the involvement.
- There were a lot of interesting aspects of the project.
- But it didn't really allow us time to meet as a neighborhood, given the holidays, and there are some
- concerns. It was communicated to us upfront, or it was my understanding that all the green infrastructure,
- the trees and everything were compliant and not needing variants. And so we would like more information
- about that before, as a neighborhood, we would be able to get on board.
- Otherwise, there were a lot of things that were mostly to be determined. So we had questions primarily
- about traffic, runoff, the price point of the rooms, and the overall environmental impact.
- Our main issue, and I'll just speak for me, but the main issue is traffic. We already have a very, very
- dangerous situation up over the Rainbow Bridge, up North Madison. We also have it on the other side
- of college, so we're being
- bisected our neighborhood is being bisected by very dangerous traffic North Madison is also the primary
- connector with the beeline and then the 17th Street East West corridor like multi-use path So that is
- where cyclists get off onto that pinch point in that friction point that we're talking about right there
- where the bus stop is they get off the beeline get on the road go up over the railroad with no protected area and
- Already very very very dangerous. And so to get a lot of buy-in I would say like those need to be addressed
- before we exacerbate the issue and So I would say that first part the second part is we're expecting
- the river district to be a big topic coming up in the next year
- A lot of the justification there is that so many of our liquor license are going to chain restaurants
- that are big and we need to be supporting local restaurants and small-scale establishments. From listening
- to my neighbors, I think it's gonna be harder to get buy-in on that if we're simultaneously green lighting
- a chain luxury restaurant and a rooftop bar. I'm not saying I'm hearing anyone being completely opposed,
- I'm just saying that
- Those two things happening simultaneously when one is very controversial Isn't a great look and it should
- give like a little bit of pause I also have concerns about whether we're actually keeping money in the
- city or if it's just going out if people are coming in to the hotel and then going down to the restaurant
- and going up to the bar and that's Those are all chains. How much of that is going out into the community? I do
- I'm conflicted about this because I do like the idea of a rooftop terrace bar. I do like the idea of
- a luxury restaurant there. But I think there's a there's a lot from the neighborhood side of things
- about how we're going to be impacted versus how much we're actually being benefited. And I'll say that
- me personally as a mid career professional I was so excited about a trades district. I was so excited
- to have walkable gainful skilled employment.
- And this feels more like the opportunity to service tradesmen rather to be than to be one so That's
- kind of a tough pill to swallow. I do like that the area is being utilized but given the Traffic impacts
- it's not going to improve employment for people in my neighborhood We talk a lot about people needing
- to live here and not commute and the fact that we need to
- We have this aging population. Our neighborhood is a prime example. I live right there. I'm a prime
- example. I'm feeling choked out. I'm feeling like if we drive this traffic up Madison, how am I supposed
- to get anywhere except to drive? Our neighbors will be picking up that cost. And when asked, it hasn't
- been considered. Traffic in and out hasn't been considered.
- My mind Madison is going to be the main transit down not college So I would like to see those addressed
- and I do have a comment from a neighbor who wanted me to say The building of a hotel must be preceded
- by improving pedestrian and bicycle safety along Rogers north and south of 11th along 11th from Rogers
- to college and along college north and south to 11th and
- about past incidents and enforcement actions in these areas should be used to inform future
- safety improvements and We would just like the opportunity for the bike pedestrian Safety Commission
- to your time chime in. Thank you. Thank you. I Think we we have one more person online Clark you should
- be able to speak Good evening
- My name is Clark Greiner. I am with the interim director for the Bloomington Economic Development
- Corporation. I wanted to thank the Planning Commission for considering approval in support of the Trades
- District Hotel. I think this is a great redevelopment project and I think it's vital for future expansion
- of our innovation ecosystem in the downtown area. I want to talk about a brief experience we had not long ago.
- Recently, we had a business attraction initiative out at the Monroe County Airport. That business attraction
- customer or client that's considering our community to locate here is potentially may bring some innovative
- aerospace and innovation. And one of the things that happens when you're bringing clients in for a business
- attraction, it's vital to show the interconnectedness between the university, their workforce,
- and how industry connects with that. The trades district and the hotel actually creates that. It creates
- a place where they can go and stay and be able to connect with one another and interact. And so that's
- exactly what transpired with this conversation that we had. I thought I won't get into all the details
- that John and Chris and Talisha already talked about, but I think it's really important that we drive
- and have places where we can
- these types of conversations between professional businesses, traded sectors, and also our talent and
- innovation districts. So I think it's vital for that. I would continue, or I would just strongly encourage
- you to support this initiative, and I think it would be great for future development and future business
- attractions to our community overall. Thank you. Thank you.
- We have one more person online. Mike, you should be able to speak. Thank you very much. I want to thank
- everybody who's working on this project. You can hear me, right? Yes, we can hear you. Thank you. Visit
- Bloomington, we're excited. I'm Mike McPhee. I'm the executive director at Visit Bloomington. We're
- excited about this development. The quality of the hotel is very impressive.
- It's going to be a great addition to the overall stable accommodations in the Bloomington area that
- we can offer to visitors and be a great improvement to that. It's going to, you know, it's going to
- improve the overall lodging experience that we can offer to visitors. It's going to make a positive
- impression on anyone that sees it. That includes investors, young professionals and talent
- perhaps considering Bloomington
- as a place to do business and relocate. Definitely we'll do that as others have mentioned. I do want
- to say I appreciate the comments about the bus stop and parking and all of that. It's been great to
- have communication with the developer, Charles Whitaker. I appreciate his effort to reach out to members
- of the community, the business community to talk about the development, including myself,
- I know that this group developing is going to want to work with the neighborhood and everybody to make
- it the best that it can be and work for everybody. That doesn't always happen, so I'm really looking
- forward to working with this hotel and the management team. We need this hotel room inventory to be
- truthful, and this was one of the problems with the stadium district why it didn't pass. I know the
- neighborhood wasn't in favor of thinking that a bunch of short-term rentals would pop up,
- We have too many short-term rentals in the market. And more quality available rooms competing for lodging
- market share might help level that out. In November, we had 885 short-term rentals in the Bloomington
- area. From my experience and seeing what other markets in the state have, I think 500 is a more viable
- number and something that would be healthy for our market. And I think this quality hotel, like this
- development,
- we'll provide for some healthy competition. And if we can ever narrow that number down and bring back
- 300 houses, apartments, and condos that could be available for long-term housing in the market, I think
- that would be a great benefit and help with our housing shortage. So I do hope you support this and
- keep moving it forward. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional public comments?
- There's anybody else online, please use the raise hand function or send a message via chat to the host
- and we can recognize you Last call for public comment All right seeing them we are back to the Commission
- for any additional questions or comments or emotion Commissioner Stossberg
- I just want to clarify with staff after one of the public commenters mentioned the variances regarding
- the tree is like that variance was already granted by the VCA is right. Yes there was a variance granted
- by the VCA for the minimum landscape regulation. Fifteen percent is what the audio requires. I have
- the numbers in front of me if you're interested.
- They they're providing about sixty two hundred square feet of landscape area. The UDO requires around
- eighty nine hundred. So that's the difference in terms of what was approved by the BZA and to supplement
- that they did show in an open space diagram presented to the BZA that they'll have about forty nine
- hundred square feet of outdoor space and ninety five hundred square feet of green roof area. So those
- are the numbers. OK. And then.
- Generally speaking this development is with the conditions like by right essentially, right? Like since
- they have those variances, it's Yeah, I think modified by the variances and some of the conditions outline
- or yeah the conditions in the staff report address any items that weren't granted by the BCA Okay
- For example the lighting and photometric plan is still something that you do requires and that needs
- to be reviewed As far as the bus stop I can share if the Planning Commission would like to see there's
- a section of the video that does talk about public transportation routes and those transit requirements
- So that was drawn from the UDO as well when evaluating the condition in the staff report Okay,
- thank you. I don't have any further questions
- Other questions or comments I'm gonna ask a question and I guess if you know the answer awesome if not,
- it's been a while but the Redevelopment Commission has invested in this area quite significantly and
- I think some of it was stormwater improvements and I don't want to guesstimate but
- Are you able to talk about kind of the investments that we've already made within this area area quite
- some time ago? That's why my memory on it's a bit fuzzy but like the aging infrastructure is a concern
- and getting something there that can utilize it and you know, we can Maximize the investments that we've
- already made in that area. I don't see anyone with RDC here. So Could you speak to it?
- Mean I could just briefly say in the petitioner or any of their representatives can kind of supplement
- this, you know We did install new infrastructure within the trades district and this particular project
- itself is unique For downtown projects and that they will have on-site detention To some capacity so
- that that's certainly a rarity for a downtown project to have any on-site detention component to it
- right and I guess my main point is that we've made significant investment here with our
- Redevelopment Commission and getting something on this site Is probably pretty important so
- the infrastructure doesn't keep aging and aging and then we have to go and repair it. So just Thank
- you Thank you any additional questions or comments I'll just ask one more clarifying question if we
- were to Remove
- recommendation number three from the approval What's the practical effect of that if if If if Bloomington
- Transit decides there needs to be a change in that stop Does that just simply mean that they would have
- to bear the cost of of moving that?
- Yes, so, you know the way the staffs approaches as Jamie pointed out, you know, there's a section at
- the UTO that talks about You know for any development over certain thousand square footage requirement
- That is expected to generate public transit use usage that they are required to put in a bus stop So
- that was our approach is that and which was what Bloomington Transit confirmed is that you know, they expect
- Transit usage here. They're required to put in a stop, you know the location for that along Rogers is
- open for discussion You know in any portion along here, but yes if you know the Plaint Commission made
- a determination that this development doesn't generate public transit usage Then you could relieve that
- otherwise it would be a variance But they're okay. I guess the part that I'm having a little bit of
- a hard time with it. There's already a
- Stop just to the north and a stop just to the south There aren't facilities there, you know, it's just
- a general stopping point, you know so this would be a little bit different because it would Require
- the construction of an actual facility and not just you know a place where they will pick up at
- Yes, there are already two spaces and certainly the the apartment complex the multifamily development
- that is proposed across the street will have the same conversation You know as Bloomington Transit,
- I believe serves both directions here But we don't know at this point what that would be right. So is
- is Is it possible that they say yeah, we just need another stop Well, is there I guess my question is
- there's a range of possibilities that would meet BT's
- Specifications is that yeah. Yeah, I don't think we have any additional information from BT on the type
- of facility that they want here But I would expect it to be something more than just a pickup point
- Okay All right, thank you any other questions I have the same Concern about condition number three on
- this and I'm wondering if there's
- Possibility of reading into this condition. I mean, it's it's a little general as it is Coordinate to
- provide a transit stop that meets BT specifications. So I feel like there's some Opportunity here to
- see what's gonna work best based on what BT is studying about transit use I mean I do consider them
- experts on transit use and that they would be advocating for the needs of people who are living in that
- area who need a Reasonably placed transit stop. I mean, yes, the hotel might I mean given the development
- and the people who are coming there would warrant this development would warrant transit considerations, but
- You know to me there are some unknowns here and there's some flexibility it sounds like in condition
- three to retain it. I guess I don't want to lose the potential for increasing transit options or the
- bet to better a transit stop for residents and hotel guests or restaurant guests at the same time. So
- I'm not sure what the best answer is here. Yeah. And I'll just say we left that very open.
- You know that that condition is very general as you noted so it could manifest itself in a wide variety
- of ways Commissioner bro good Well, if I could speak about the bus stop my what I have problems with
- is There's already a bus stop south and one north and now we're going to require them to do maybe move
- to their track
- So they can pay for a covered one That's that's where it gets complicated for the developer because
- it's like it's not their track Their track doesn't require a bus stop There's already one below and
- one above and now we're gonna add that cost or take the opportunity because they are coming and making
- them build that you see what I'm saying it almost looks like we're trying to Make them do something
- that it's unnecessary
- Yeah, I definitely hear that point. I guess I'll just add, for the sake of the conversation, there is
- some language in the UDO about public transit, general standards. I pulled it up on the screen. It says,
- transit facilities shall include benches, shelters, or similar transit stop amenities. So I think there
- is some flexibility. I'm definitely not an expert on the Plumington transit requirements. So I would
- prefer if that's coordinated with a representative from BT at the table. But there is language in the UDO that
- Guides us in terms of transit requirements Mr. Stossberg Yeah, I don't I don't feel comfortable removing
- number three as a condition because our UDO does require developments non-residential developments of
- at least 20,000 square feet to
- Include a transit facility to be constructed on all routes for which one or more of the following criteria
- are met and So it is part of our UDO that that has this requirement now It also does say that that BT
- can waive that based on existing facilities But I don't think that we are in a position to waive that
- because we are not part of BT and we are not
- Professionals with regard to transit operations in that area. So I I would not feel comfortable removing
- that however, I would wonder at the potential of Moving this to a second hearing to in order to reduce
- this list of conditions because probably you know, I mean
- There's gonna be some things that have to get worked out obviously and there would still probably be
- some conditions but I mean without somebody from BT there I think the petitioner made a good argument
- and there are lots of good arguments I think for leaving the bus stops where they are and not requiring
- one on site but I think that there also might be arguments for requiring one on site or somehow having
- some cooperation in there and I would be interested in kind of revisiting this after BT
- Involved in this discussion, but I don't know from staff's perspective or anybody else what the logistics
- are of postponing this decision All right, any other questions or comments or comments Comment on this.
- I think we I think we're complicating it I think we strike number three because I agree with Commissioner
- Burrell I think we're kind of strong-arming we put the developers through
- A lot of hoops as it is they're meeting all the criteria. We have stops north and south I Don't see
- why we want to you know continue this kind of conversation when this project is a major project that's
- gonna have major Positive impacts the tax dollars alone. They're gonna collect on this they can build
- a bus stop I mean they can build a you know, I think that's I think it complicates by taking this any
- further than either striking it or
- Well, I'll just say, yeah, I mean, I tend to agree. My major concern is not so much with the cost as
- it is with just, again, uncertainty and unpredictability. We're asking a developer to agree to something
- that they don't know what the price tag is going to be. And we're asking them to essentially exist at
- the whim of Bloomington Transits
- you know, decision, which we don't know what that's going to be. And I, you know, that doesn't sit well
- with me. So I'm most concerned with moving this along, given that we have 13 minutes before we're going
- to adjourn. But I would welcome a motion either to strike recommendation three, if that's what you wish,
- or to move this to prove as is.
- But whatever we decide to do I would like to hear that motion as one motion so that we don't have to
- take two separate votes on this to to keep moving I Move we approve with all conditions intact second
- All right, so the recommendation is that we adopt the proposed findings and
- Approve the petition with all 11 conditions as stated in the packet. There is a second on that any Final
- discussion before we call the roll now, I guess I should give the petitioner you do have some time remaining
- anything you'd like to say quickly before We move on No, thank you for your time. I think all these
- issues can be You can can be resolved at staff or in a subsequent zone
- Thank you. All right any final comments? All right, let's call the roll on the motion To adopt the proposed
- findings and approve the petition with the 11 conditions in the packet Bishop Yes, well, yes seabor
- yes Holmes yes Kinsey yes
- Stossburg. Yes Whistler. Yes Ballard. Yes All right motion carries the petition is approved We now have
- about 10 minutes before 9 p.m. So we can go ahead and introduce the next petition and hear that petition
- We've all been sitting here for quite a while though, and we're clearly not gonna get it's it seems
- unlikely we're gonna get through this before 930 so rather than
- Hit that deadline and have to reschedule another meeting. I'd like to go ahead now Entertain a motion
- to suspend our rules and stay until we finish this next petition after a five-minute break Motion to
- suspend our rules and consider the next petition Beyond the stated timeline. Yeah All right All in favor aye
- Any opposed all right, it is 850 we will readjourn here at 855 Please take your seats. I'm gonna call
- this meeting back to order We have Suspended the rules so we will hear this the final petition tonight
- In its entirety so we take some action This is zeo 2025-12-
- And Eric Grulick is the case manager on this one. Take it away, Eric. Thank you. This is a request from
- the Bloomington Redevelopment Commission for a series of properties that are along
- West First Street and Roger Street. The petitioners are here to aggregate these properties to bring
- forward a planned unit development. So their request is to rezone approximately 6.3 acres to a planned
- unit development, which includes a request for approval of the district ordinance for that area and
- a preliminary plan.
- So this area was part of the redevelopment of the general properties that were formerly occupied by
- the Bloomington Hospital as the departure of the hospital was something that was anticipated for quite
- some time and was expected. This has been studied in several different reiterations. One, certainly
- this was mentioned in the comprehensive plan and was included as a focus area. There was later a
- ULLI study that was done that looked at kind of massing possibilities, suggested some possible land
- uses within there to guide the redevelopment of this area. There was another study that was done in
- 2020, 2021-ish, that also looked at kind of massing studies and looked at some traffic analysis, gave
- a little bit more in-depth review of what might be possibilities here.
- Both of those studies kind of suggested that this would be best served by a master developer of sorts
- or a consolidated plan for the area as a whole. The city came forward with the transform and redevelopment
- opportunity overlay a few years ago to help
- Implement some of the suggestions in those documents, you know, the suggestions included more compact
- urban form of reduced setbacks You know looking to achieve a diversity of land uses So the TRO included
- a lot of those recommendations and
- The comprehensive plan, as I mentioned, this is a focus area and is also within the mixed urban residential
- area. The mixed urban residential talks about incorporating developments that surround existing built
- out neighborhoods, which is certainly does to a certain degree. To the south, you have the McDowell
- historic district.
- The comprehensive plan as well as some of the other studies that I mentioned look at maintaining sort
- of a general massing within here of two to four story buildings allowing a wide range of residential
- uses design styles that complement the adjacent historic district.
- and look at ways to best utilize this location given its location in terms of proximity to transit,
- existing infrastructure, existing density to the south. You have the downtown that is just to the east
- of this a little bit, about a block and a half. And so this location presents a lot of opportunities
- for revisiting and kind of reimagining maybe how
- Development within the downtown or I'm sorry within the city could be viewed and addressed This is one
- of many components within the Hopewell area That is coming forward just to the north of this There was
- a subdivision that was done not too long ago that platted streets within there that included Jackson
- Street and Fairview Street stubs for both of those were placed just to the north of this development
- that you can see in this aerial photograph and
- As well as the city also recently did improvements to 1st Street As well as some small sections of Roger Street
- putting in those intersections Repaving it putting in sidewalks and tree plots. So the city has kind
- of already initiated several steps to spur redevelopment in this area and the petitioner has engaged
- the services of an outside consulting firm to come up with a master plan of sorts for this area to help
- guide the redevelopment and as I mentioned look at ways to expand the allowances within the UDO the
- development standards some
- of the processes that are into that to try to create a more predictable design as well as try to maximize
- the buildability of this particular area and so they are coming forward with that planned unit development
- and I'll kind of step through a lot of the specifics of that but overall it encompasses three areas
- that are known as block eight nine and ten
- uh... within this area it includes an existing building on the east side of the site is on first and
- rogers uh... was a former convalescent home uh... that particular building uh... has been imagined uh... as
- possibly serving as if possible future headquarters for the Bloomington Police Department. So there
- is some language that is built into the district ordinance that would allow for that and kind of govern
- that a little bit differently. Blocks nine and 10 that are on the west side of the site here are envisioned
- to come forward with more of a residential design. So the petition has come forward in their preliminary
- plan showing what that might look like.
- So there are several unique components to this PUD besides just the alterations that are being proposed
- in their district ordinance to allow for greater build ability within the
- One of those is certainly a reduction of setbacks. Side yard setbacks are proposed to be zero. Front
- setbacks are proposed to be zero. Rear setbacks are zero, but five feet if you're adjacent to the perimeter
- on the outside of the PUD. There is also not proposed to be,
- Impervious surface coverage maximums to promote maximum build ability One of the other unique things
- that they are proposing within this are cross sections for Street that aren't envisioned within the
- transportation plan So that that was one of the main challenges and one of the main reasons that this
- is coming forward as a PUD Is to allow for roads within here that don't fit within what the transportation
- plan envisioned
- So one of those things are the incorporation of what's known are as lanes Within this development and
- and I'll step through these cross sections a little bit later in the presentation So these lanes are
- envisioned to be in 20 feet of right away with 18 foot of drive paths As I mentioned Fairview Street
- and Jackson Street extend through this development the transportation plan would require 60 feet of
- right away for those roads and
- As I mentioned, one of the goals of this PUD is to maximize the buildability of this overall property.
- So the petitioner is proposing to reduce those right of way widths for Fairview and Jackson Street to
- 48 feet. We're still able to get the pedestrian and sidewalk facilities within there, but we're accomplishing
- that in a narrower right of way.
- One of the other unique characteristics of this PUD that they are requesting to utilize would be the
- allowance to have lots incorporated within here that don't front on the typical public streets.
- For the most part, most of the lots within here do front on a public right of way in a street frontage
- in most regards, but they are requesting to allow for lots to be created on a public space, public green
- space, sidewalks if they are contained within access easements.
- So there are some lots on the southwest side of the proposed development They don't have true street
- frontage, but they do have frontage on this common open space So with the PUD right now what they're
- showing is this central open space that you can kind of see in the center here
- that would be connected throughout the development with a series of sidewalks. The sidewalks connect
- First Street to the north and Wiley Street to the south, as well as connect to the west end
- of the development and then connect over to the east end on Jackson Street.
- So you can see on the east side of this preliminary plan kind of a conceptual layout of what that property
- might look like with a New parking lot installed that would possibly serve this for the Bloomington
- Police Department The police department is still going through certain feasibility studies. So they
- are not certainly a component of this but the PD is being set up with that eventuality that they might
- be and so there were some allowances that are made for them and
- if that should come to fruition. So the PUD is proposed to be phased in kind of a west to east direction.
- Parcel A on the west side would be the first phase of that. There are some existing lots there that
- the petition would be looking to do some lot line adjustments at kind of the early stages while they
- work through the platting.
- One of the other components with this is ADA accessibility. There are several units within here that
- will be fully ADA accessible and then others that have different levels of accessibility. The petition
- will be able to speak to that to a little bit better regard. So that's certainly a key component to this.
- The pedestrian and street network is also something I mentioned is a heavy component to this. So with
- this development and one of the things that certainly consumed a lot of our early discussions with this
- were the deviations from the transportation plan expectations for streets and roads moving through here
- and how can we still accommodate pedestrian traffic through here as well as create what is envisioned
- with the PUD in terms of
- creating central open space and a higher enhanced pedestrian network. So that's certainly been something
- that's been very important for us to incorporate. And the petitioner has done a great job incorporating
- those pedestrian network connections through here. So this exhibit kind of shows what that looks like.
- There are several things throughout the staff report that we've highlighted as items that need further
- refinement
- So in regards to the pedestrian network, we need a little bit of clarity in terms of what these internal
- sidewalks will be for width purposes. You know, as I mentioned on the southwest side, there are several
- Buildings that just front on a public sidewalk So it might be necessary for them to have a little bit
- more than a five-foot sidewalk to accommodate accommodate movement of trash and accessibility for other
- folks So I'll try to step through some of those items that are in the staff report I may not mention
- them all but but they are in there in various locations of things that need refinement as we
- move through the PUD process. So as I mentioned, the phasing, the petition is expecting to move from
- west to east to set up the platting for the west end of the development. The exact infrastructure components
- that will be installed with each phasing is very important. So one of the things that we need to work
- on as we move through the first hearing and second hearing is exactly which infrastructure will be installed
- with each phase. For instance, the construction of Fairview Street,
- That will be very important that that be incorporated within phase one. We're still working through
- comments from city of Bloomington utilities in terms of water and sewer connections that will be needed
- throughout here with each phase as well as stormwater detention. The interior green space is anticipated
- to serve a lot of that green infrastructure component and stormwater drainage. Also the petitioner is
- showing a lot of green space around the
- Parking lot on the east end of the building to provide possibilities for some of that to be above ground
- There's also expected to be a heavy underground detention component within that parking area as well
- So one of the other things that we're working through with this is also the maintenance of these green
- infrastructure areas
- Utilities has indicated they would be willing to some degree to maintain a lot of this But we need to
- kind of have some of those components dialed in as we move forward Another component with this as we
- looked at streets that were narrower Than what the transportation plan envisions You know, what are
- the implications of these streets that are more narrow? So
- trash and sanitation pickup as well as servicing these is a heavy component. We obviously also need
- to make sure that fire department vehicles and emergency services vehicles can access all of these lots.
- So the petitioner has done a great job coordinating with fire department and fire code, as well as making
- sure that all the units are accessible by the fire department in terms of the maximum length that they
- can be from fire department vehicles.
- So the petitioner has worked with Public Works to make sure that this can be served. So Public Works
- has expressed the ability to be able to serve this not only from 1st Street and Wiley Street and Fairview
- and Jackson with some of the sanitation trucks that have the automated arm, but they do have smaller
- trucks that will be able to move through the lanes and serve some of those residents as well.
- So with the street cross sections, as I was just mentioning, with these being narrower than what was
- envisioned within the transportation plan, we stepped through each of those cross sections individually
- at great length through several meetings with engineering and planning and public works. So I'll just
- kind of step through some of those things right now. The first one would be First Street, as I mentioned,
- Improvements were just done with 1st Street. So we have all the right away that was dedicated or needed
- for that So there's no additional right away that is being needed for 1st Street. The petitioner has
- shown that Basically with what the city installed which was six foot sidewalks five foot tree plots
- to 11 foot travel lanes And so that reflects
- What the city did there was not on street parking that was installed along first street. So that is
- not shown here on the proposed cross section. So the petitioner is proposing no changes to first read
- from from what was just installed. Roger Street as we kind of move along the transportation plan would require.
- about 84 feet of right of way. That distance though creates some obvious challenges because the existing
- building would be within that right of way width. So again, we've kind of been working internally to
- come up with what are the facilities that we need to see within here that would not impact or place
- any of that building within the right of way.
- So there is a bike lane that was recently installed along Roger Street by the city. So we've looked
- to accomplish that and extend that along this frontage as well as install a 10 foot sidewalk through
- work with the.
- and engineering, we've determined that only about 30 and a half feet of right of way is required along
- Roger Street. So that would allow all of these infrastructure improvements to be installed without placing
- any of the building within the right of way and still allow for the parking area to be installed as
- shown on the preliminary plan.
- The two extensions within the development for Jackson Street and Fairview are both very similar in terms
- of Right-of-way. So as I mentioned, those would be 48 foot right-of-way cross sections That would have
- a 5 foot sidewalk on both sides and a 5 foot tree plot 2 10 foot travel lanes and a 7 foot parking stall
- There's a slight modification to both this and Fairview to accommodate a one foot inset on the edges
- of the right of way for the sidewalk, but hopefully that's something that can be done fairly easy. So
- these would deviate from the 60 foot right of way that the transportation plan would require to allow
- for a 48 foot right of way.
- So both cross sections for Jackson and Fairview are the same. One thing and we'll kind of get back to
- this a little bit for the preliminary plan. There is conceptually some perpendicular spaces that are
- shown along Jackson Street to the east. So that is something that we're still kind of working through
- that particular design element. So you can see that on the right side of the screen here adjacent to
- Block 10 that particular element is still something that we're looking to See what that looks like but
- on-street spaces are expected along the east side of both Jackson and Fairview With that as I mentioned
- also we have two one new
- road called a lane. So these will serve the majority of the inside of the development. These are proposed
- to be in about 20 feet of right away, have two nine foot travel lanes with a one foot strip on each
- side of those travel lanes. The petition as it's shown right now has that labeled as a concrete ribbon.
- But we're trying to work to come up with a better idea of what that might actually look like. These
- lanes are intended to serve a wide range of parking off of that, both possibly within a building, but
- also spaces directly off of that lane. So we need those to have kind of a minimal abstraction.
- to getting into those parking areas. Wiley Street, which borders the south side of this development.
- Again, the petitioner is looking to maximize the buildability of this beauty. So we're looking to work
- within the existing right away that is there.
- There is a five foot, approximately five foot monolithic sidewalk along the north side of Wiley Street
- as well as one lane of on-street parking. Right now, initial analysis has indicated that that sidewalk
- is in very poor functional condition and will most likely need to be replaced anyway with the construction.
- So we would look to get in at least a five foot sidewalk along the north side of Wiley.
- In addition, survey work hasn't been done at this point yet to know definitively where that property
- line is. So there might be the possibility for street trees along the north side of the sidewalk, but
- that is at least not conceptually shown right now. It's not something that we're able to work into that
- cross section, but we'd leave that to final review with the final plan as that moves forward and once
- the survey work has come in.
- So this is just a kind of a close-up of that cross-section of the lane, as I mentioned, two nine-foot
- travel lanes. So this would serve a majority of the interior of the development. And so one of the other
- unique characteristics with this PUD is the development of what's known as a housing catalog or a building
- catalog that prospective homeowners would choose from
- As they look through and they purchase each lot. So there will be a specific building catalog that will
- be prepared And so these these houses Will be vetted with planning to make sure they meet all of our
- requirements and the district ordinance requirements To try to help expedite and speed up the building
- department review We also anticipate that these will be coordinated with the building department to
- make sure they meet all of their requirements to help ensure that permits can be
- released a lot faster. So they have a mix of housing types within here. Within the PUD, they are proposing
- a mix of single family units, some duplexes, some triplexes, some multi-family buildings. So all of
- those have respective building elevations that are shown within that housing catalog.
- So that's something that will be reviewed when they go to purchase a home So here is kind of a unit
- mix and type So it's it's important to note that you know, these are just kind of conceptual unit mixes
- You know, the petitioner will be creating lots and those will be sold And the the exact house that will
- be on each lot is somewhat flexible
- You know, they have tentatively shown lots that are slated for detached single-family houses, but the
- remainder of the interior lots are all shown to be a mix of duplexes and triplexes and fourplexes
- possibilities. So there's a lot of possibilities with this. The petitioner is also requesting to utilize or
- I'm sorry reduce some of the standards for accessory dwelling units to not require those to be owner
- occupied to allow for a situation where maybe those get created on a lot and then those get sold off.
- You know if they front on a sidewalk or a lane or something like that. So it's really trying to build
- in a great
- deal of diversity of allowances for building types. So you can see here the multifamily building. This
- would be called the Faulkner on the top left of your screen. And then you see some of the houses that
- could be duplexes. As you move through here, some of the triplexes against a wide range of duplexes.
- So these have been designed to meet and be compatible, as I mentioned, the historic neighborhood to
- the south, the McDowell Historic District. So you see a lot of tall roof lines, very defined porches,
- diversity of building types, all trying to be reflective of the surrounding housing types that you'll
- see here. So these are all in your packet.
- So with this, some of the meat of this, the nuts and bolts, is the district ordinance. So these are
- the standards that will govern each of the parcels. So parcel A, which are the two western blocks that
- I mentioned will be developed with the residential housing types, proposing to be utilized, the R4,
- the residential urban lot, development standards with the modifications that they've listed, so I briefly
- talked about that at the initial beginning of the conversation. So they're proposing setbacks of zero
- feet for front, side, and rear, except along the edges of the PUD that would have a five foot or three
- foot abutting an alley. One of the comments that we've got in the report is the district ordinance
- references, alleys. That was a previous term that was used in the district ordinance in the preliminary
- plan. So we just need to change those references to lane,
- With the zero-foot setbacks, we obviously wanna make sure that buildings are not encroaching in the
- right-of-way, so there's just a basic provision that needs to be included for that. Again, as I mentioned,
- they are proposing no minimum lot width and minimum lot area requirements. Again, that is to allow for
- a wide diversity of housing types and to allow for, as I mentioned, situations where maybe there's an
- ADU that wants to be separated and sold off, as well as lot lines that go down the center of buildings
- for the duplexes or triplexes.
- As I also mentioned, they are proposing no maximum impervious surface coverage requirement. Architectural
- design standards for this parcel, as I mentioned, would be governed strictly by the design catalog that
- I referenced and kind of stepped through some of the elevations. Parcel B, which is block 10, which
- is the former convalescent building, is proposed to be utilizing the mixed use medium scale
- District that particular portion of the site is also within the transform and redevelopment overlay
- So that needs to be referenced in their district ordinance specifically one of the provisions that is
- in the district ordinance also references kind of a separation of standards if the building is used
- as the police fire or rescue station Then a lot of the existing non-conforming aspects of the site are
- allowed to remain
- They've also included language in relation to landscaping to not require any landscaping if it is used
- for that use if it is not that use then it would defer to the standards of the mixed use medium scale
- with the redevelopment overlay so that is an important distinction to make here is trying to build in
- a lot of flexibility for
- the use of that convalescent building. There's some additional modifications within the district ordinance
- that need to be made regarding setbacks for buildings or parking area. There's a large green space on
- the south side of the building that does present an opportunity for landscaping. We certainly understand
- that the police department has challenges and concerns with having landscaping within the property itself.
- So we want to make sure to respect that, but also see if there are possibilities for landscaping within
- the site if possible.
- So parking is an issue that needs to be addressed in the district ordinance to give a greater allowance.
- The transform and redevelopment opportunity overly restricts parking to 50% of the maximum. So that
- needs to be addressed in the district ordinance to just give them a greater allowance for the police
- department building.
- So there are many qualifying standards within the UDO. As I mentioned, one of the reasons that this
- is coming forward, predominant as a PUD, is because of the cross-sections. But there are several qualifying
- standards within the UDO that talk about minimum requirements. So one of those is the minimum five acres,
- which is meets. It's not within the mixed use downtown.
- So one of the other aspects of this is an affordability component. So the qualifying standards talk
- about a minimum of 15% of the dwelling units that have to be permanently
- income limited. I want to make sure to point out there was an early version of the staff report that
- had a reference to rent control. That is not something that is part of this whatsoever. The petitioner
- has certain other requirements or standards that they will be utilizing to meet the affordability standards.
- And they'll be able to talk about that a little bit more, but I want to make it clear that that was
- certainly not a component to this.
- So there are many qualifying standards here that we address in this. We felt like it was important to
- address those of why this is even being considered as a PUD. There are certainly lots of other criteria
- that have to be evaluated. And we'll make findings for those at the second hearing. But we did feel
- it was important to step through these qualifying standards to assess how this is meeting those and
- is eligible to come forward as a planned unit development.
- So I know the petitioner has a lot that they would like to supplement and add to this As I mentioned
- early on we outlined in staff report through here several areas as you go through the report of areas
- that need guidance and refinement So we have pointed those out and we are recommending that the Planning
- Commission forward this to the required second hearing and Happy to answer any questions once the petitioners
- had an opportunity to present Thank you
- Is there representative from the petitioner who would like to add to the presentation? Hello, Commissioner.
- Thank you all for letting me join remotely.
- I'm going to share my screen and wait until it looks like it is actually coming through. There we go.
- Then we'll jump into this. I think Eric gave us a great intro into what we are proposing generally.
- I'll give you a little bit of an intro to our project team and approach if you have not been able to
- be a part of some of our other introductory portions of the project. We are a multidisciplinary studio
- that is based in Fayetteville, Arkansas.
- And we're partnered with a nonprofit national educator and trainer for small developers. A big component
- of this project is both master planning the project, providing all the architectural work and entitlements,
- and then training local developers to build the houses that are part of this project. And so this is
- a capacity building and really kind of training and stress testing project, as well as a project that's
- going to yield some housing.
- We're partnered also with Kronberg Urbanist and Architects. If you have not heard of them, they do really
- cool work. They're based in Atlanta and do lots of national work.
- and have done quite a bit of this scale as we have. One of the things that we really enjoy about working
- with them is we are both also small developers. We develop as R&D. We make recommendations to things
- having built it ourselves, seen how it works on the ground. I'm a former planning commissioner myself,
- so can appreciate the late nights. I appreciate your patience in letting us be heard this evening.
- And we know how hard it is. I think is the biggest part of that, right? That there's a lot of components
- that go into getting housing that we're really excited about. One of the things that we talk about a
- lot, which may be familiar to you, is one of the biggest elements that we see as a struggle for housing
- generally in the United States. And we work really nationally.
- is that we have often, and our zoning has often, even our new ones have this kind of perception that
- likely a household is, you know, this 2.5 kids and a dog. And what we see instead is that the vast majority
- of households don't have children in them. We see a vast majority of our households, almost half of
- households have two people, no kids, often that's a couple, sometimes it's roommates.
- Two adults, no kids, a third of households. The next most common household type is one person living
- alone. And so we've got three quarters of our households who are typically sleeping in one bed at night.
- Meanwhile, we've got an inverse of that, that our houses skew really large and typically are, you know,
- both in actual size and square footage and in lot area and in single family arrangement. Often we're
- seeing houses that are much larger than our current households require. This household number started
- at about four people in the 50s and has been tanking ever since then.
- That is going to continue as we start to see, you know, boomers continue to want to age in place as
- we see young households, you know, partnering less young and having kids less and having fewer children.
- These are demographic changes that we are expecting to see generally.
- As was mentioned earlier in the evening, this creates some real housing and infrastructure dollar sign
- problems. We both have a large number of community members who end up without housing that is the size
- that they need at a price point they can afford in the location that they want. But we also end up with
- an enormous amount of infrastructure. This is our two single-family houses on two lots set up. We end
- up with all of this infrastructure that we know that the city is needing to pay for.
- And we typically only have a few homes that are then paying taxes towards that. And we have not only
- that physical infrastructure, we also have all of our other city services that our tax dollars are needing
- to support. And so as we found, and as you all have recently accomplished a really major UDO update
- to accomplish, that dollar sign of tax revenue relative to that infrastructure burden is not a great
- fit. And so typically what we're trying to move towards is what we call a housing choice approach.
- that we do still need some large family houses mixed into neighborhoods. We need a real variety of price
- points and sizes and arrangements and household types.
- so that we can get to housing that works for the full range of budgets, the full range of family
- arrangements, and age. Some of this too is even if you have kids, they're only in your house usually
- unless they're coming back for 20 to 22 years, maybe you've got a couple of kids. A lot of your lifetime,
- you will not have a big family in a big house. Having a couple of them is really important, but having
- a lot of diversity is also really important for functional neighborhoods.
- What we're trying to get to is a practical arrangement of density that also works for the way that federal
- finance works around mortgages and purchasing homes for home buyers. The way that our infrastructure
- needs work for getting good access, fire access that's code-compliant, trash access. There's all these
- different layers that we need to get to make this housing choice neighborhood work. Then ideally, we're
- also housing a much wider diversity of household types and residents within the city.
- One of the ways that we like to talk about this, and we steal this from Chuck Morrone from Strong Towns,
- I think this is in his housing book, is that we've got to think about housing and housing production
- especially as this door with lots of deadbolts. And so even once we've got our zoning solved, we often
- end up still with lots of deadbolts remaining that still need to be unlocked. And it can be challenging
- to figure out which ones those are.
- without actually stress testing projects. One of the things that we want to bring up about this project
- too, is we saw this and I think the city was really wise to see this as an opportunity to test how the
- new UDO really resulted and what additional changes might be needed. We see code changes as an ongoing
- iterative process that we get as close as we think we can and then often we're going to continue finding things.
- We sometimes joke that in our communities we've worked with for multiple years where we've gotten all
- the way down and we've gotten great alignment and we get the door open, congratulations, there's often
- another door with different deadbolts behind it. This is not a perfection goal. This is a kind of continual
- improvement incrementally goal is the way that we like to think about it. And so that top deadbolt feels
- like it's really open.
- And we found some, you know, as we really stress test, how do we try to get to a housing density that
- is desirable, that promotes home ownership, that has a really good accessibility percentage, that has
- really good affordability with current, you know, average incomes in town. We had some additional changes
- that we were able to identify that we think are really easily tested here at Hopewell to then be assessed
- whether or not those make sense for a wider adoption.
- One of the things that you heard me mention really wanting to promote here too is homeownership. I live
- in a fellow college town. We also struggle with this. Homeownership rates are really low. And some of
- that has to do with our housing mix, right? Bloomington actually has a pretty good housing mix relative
- to most cities that we work in. There are fewer percentage single-family homes that we see in lots of places.
- And we also see a big opportunity for growth of housing and homeownership opportunities at lower price
- points and for more starter home kind of price points. So as was discussed earlier, there's been lots
- of master planning on this. So we're down in this lower left corner, blocks eight, nine and 10. And
- let's run through what we're trying to achieve big picture with a lot of our requests in the PUD.
- As I've mentioned, we really want to get to a blend of those housing types and price points. We've also
- envisioned this housing catalog as something that could be rolled into pre-approved home design city-wide.
- The housing selections have been made relative to the Tetris block proportions of typical platted lots
- within Bloomington, so that those could have a wider applicability if Hopewell South is successful.
- The architectural plans are intended to be provided as fully pre-permitted, which is something we vetted
- with the county that is possible. Each lot would be plotted and available with a permit site plan specific
- to that lot with a full set of construction documents. As Eric mentioned, there's a little flexibility
- for some of the homes to swap. There's some houses that have more or less the same footprint and so
- you could switch some houses.
- We're envisioning that as being a swap that could be made by the RDC as owner, but that once the lot
- is purchased, the lot is purchased with a specific home, with a specific set of home plans that is then
- required to be built within a certain amount of time. This is really about building opportunity and
- capacity for local builders as well. So as we mentioned, Incremental Development Alliance will be providing
- full support and training for small developers who are building out the neighborhood
- And we're then working with the city attorneys and with RDC to build legal frameworks that can support
- permanent affordability and market rate homes and again that we're looking at that as a blend.
- that not every house in the neighborhood is going to be affordable at 100 percent AMI or below, but
- we are looking at about 70 percent of those houses meeting that affordability naturally, which is really
- being accomplished based on smaller homes on smaller lots. We've got more people sharing that land cost,
- the infrastructure costs, and we're able to better match household size.
- to home size and to home price. And so that is primarily viewed to be able to be done at a pretty market
- rate. All of our assumptions are based on market rate, comps of what we're seeing things sell price
- per square foot. You know, when you see that kind of recommended target sale price at the bottom of
- the house, we're just targeting that as if this sold on the open market right now based on what other
- things in town are selling for, this is about where it would be.
- We'll also be doing ongoing community outreach and developer training so that we're ensuring that we're
- getting really good lessons out of this project that can be wrapped into larger city-wide changes. So
- how are we achieving all of that? One of the big things that we're proposing is smaller streets for
- the neighborhood. One of the things that came up early on in our discovery process is that
- in the transportation plan, the neighborhood residential street sections
- are defined as being a 60 foot right of way and then within the text right above that we see that many
- you know i'll quote here many existing neighborhood residential streets are quite narrow in width. In
- order to preserve neighborhood fabric existing streets shall not be required to conform to these cross
- section standards.
- Priority for neighborhood residential streets is on maintaining calm streets that create a safe and
- comfortable environment for walking, even if there are no sidewalks. And so while the transportation
- plan lays out this framework that existing narrow historic streets are desirable and should be allowed
- to remain, you know, not just should but shall not be required to comply.
- There's not a set of alternative standards or sections that can apply to those streets. So streets like
- Wiley, which have a historic pattern that has worked for many decades, doesn't really have an alternative
- street section currently without a PUD that could be applied. So that's one of the discussion points
- we think we'll likely raise with some later recommendations.
- One of the things that we always really promote about that is that smaller streets tend to be safer
- streets. They tend to be more multimodal streets. We see less cut through traffic. We see lower road
- speeds. If there is a collision at lower road speeds, pedestrians and bikers tend to fare much better.
- You have much better health outcomes at much lower speeds, which makes a lot of sense. One of the other
- things we also really try to reinforce
- Is that streets are liabilities and built, you know, housing is asset. So a lot of times that's the
- opposite of the way that cities view this right that that often on your balance sheet your streets and
- your rights of way are listed as assets.
- But they are an element that doesn't produce any revenue, taxation or otherwise. They also are an element
- that requires constant upkeep maintenance. The more land area that we have put into streets and parking
- lots, the lower the land area yield we get on taxable revenue is within the city, both from property
- tax and from individual households paying into all of the income-based tax types.
- We really want to encourage as little land area as we can devote to those uses while still maintaining
- all of our typical fire code access, all of our compliant accesses for safety. The proxy in here are
- all housing neighborhoods that both Eric Kronberg from Kronberg Urbanist and Architects and I have developed
- ourselves. This is our R&D. One of the things that we've been able to be really successful
- with is alternative type street frontage.
- It both can lower the amount of street that the city is maintaining.
- reduce the amount of infrastructure per house and reduce the cost of that. It also produces really desirable
- neighborhoods because you have front doors that open out into common green spaces, which can be really
- social and really safe for kids and pets. But it also has lots of these other benefits as well. And
- so one of the things that we're testing within this neighborhood is a green street through the middle.
- And so that'll be a pedestrian-focused street with green infrastructure on either side of it that serves
- as the home frontage.
- We're also looking at reintroducing some housing types and density. One of the things that we often
- see as a challenge with trying to reintroduce missing mill housing is the building code is different
- for those housing types. The finance is a little bit different, permitting them is often a little bit
- trickier. And so if you don't have a set of small developers who are really successfully doing that
- in town already, these kinds of programs can be a really good test case for flagging types,
- flagging how those specific details work. Are there details in the building code that we don't have
- subcontractors that can install? So these kinds of programs often we're trying to reintroduce some of
- the housing types that the market has a little bit forgotten how to produce because of our only recent
- zoning changes. So as we look through our plan, and you guys have seen this in your packet, so I'll
- run through quickly,
- We've got parcel A standards was our residential standards, which is block nine and block 10. We're
- then reserving block eight and I want to flag to just for extra clarity. Block eight's design team joined
- after we did and so they're still really catching up to this set of standards. Our block eight standards
- are written to be more flexible so that as they work their way through feasibility, they will be able
- to catch up in time. While we envision that
- Parcel A, Block 9 and 10 are going to be very close to what you were seeing, including exactly the houses
- you're seeing elevations for and exactly the locations you're seeing them. Parcel B is more conceptual
- and the standards there are leaning more heavily on the existing zoning to ensure that those standards
- are a little bit less customized, especially if that tenant that goes in is not a safety or security
- city department.
- We started out by laying out these two blocks with what would be allowable under R4 by right currently,
- with the 60-foot right of way that typically has been interpreted as being required no matter where
- you are in town. Because we've got a really deep block length over in our block 10, we ended up with
- some waste because we're not necessarily limited by the lot area, but we are limited by that lot width.
- Meanwhile, we ended up with a little bit of a goofy leftover space in the middle of our Block 9. Again,
- based on the lot area and lot widths often work out in a little bit of a strange way from a geometry
- standpoint. We saw about 28 homes by right being able to be produced within this. Some of these could
- be duplexes, but because of the relatively large rear setback and front setbacks,
- We would not anticipate that there's a significant number of these that would be able to be provided
- as duplexes with much density. By incorporating the set of code changes that we recommended, a middle
- iteration of this plan, we got up to about 84 homes.
- And one of the things to notice here too, and this is also listed in your packet, is this average home
- price, right, that as we're able to increase our density and as we're able to get smaller homes on smaller
- lots, we're able to lower that average home price quite a bit. And we'll see too, right, our average
- is right there in the middle, but that we do have quite a range of price overall. So in our final iteration, we
- we were charged with adding back some additional units. There was another iteration that was over 100,
- and so we were trying to get closer back to that while maintaining some of the changes that had come
- through working through with departments. In this final iteration, we've swapped in several multifamily
- buildings. We have the two falconers that you've seen previously, and we have several triplex blocks
- with two little fourplexes. There's not an enormous amount of multifamily and it is very much house-scaled.
- but we were able to get the unit count back up and get our average price down below 300,000. There's
- also an accessible housing commitment in here that we've got a 20 percent minimum threshold required
- by code and we're at about 30 percent. One thing that is flagged in a letter in your packet is the standards
- by which that are measured are not terrifically strong within the code currently. We both have a series
- of homes which are shown in the dark blue that meet the accessible
- universal design standards that are included in the UDO. We also have a series of units that we have
- developed within the firm that are fully ADA accessible. As mentioned, there are a lot of different
- standards for accessibility. There's an ANSI standard for accessibility, there's a fair housing standard
- for accessibility, there's also full commercial ADA. ADA is the most stringent and so we do have a good
- number of units that meet that standard. We also then have a blend of both
- code compliance standards and fair housing standards. About 30 percent of our units then are hitting
- that metric above our required 20 percent. As mentioned too, we really wanted to focus on the primary
- grid here and that tight block structure being pedestrian. What you're seeing here in the dark green,
- we're utilizing an old alley frontage in our block south into block 10 as street frontage for a new trail.
- Then that trail connects through the site, through our green street, and all the way over to Jackson.
- We're maintaining a tight block structure for cross connectivity so you can walk through this neighborhood
- without being adjacent to cars. As discussed too, we've got five lots currently.
- that can be lot line adjusted to give us a first phase to get started on construction during the plat
- process because these have access and frontage on first. They already have existing infrastructure.
- The lot line adjustment will let us get a first phase rolling while the plat process and horizontal
- development happens for the rest of the site. The rest of these lots will then be plotted through typical
- processes. Green infrastructure, we're still working through a CBU, but I think
- We're to the point with them that we, I think we both feel comfortable that we've left enough space
- for it and final design will really depend on final design of the tenant of block nine or I apologize,
- block eight. Fire and trash collection as Eric discussed has been worked through pretty well.
- And then street standards, referencing again, you know, First Street, we are proposing keeping the same.
- Roger Street is constrained. This existing building limits. So the current proposed street width is
- the maximum street width that can be provided without requiring a portion of the building here to be
- removed. So it is slightly narrower in this block than it is likely to be in the block to the north here.
- Fairview Street is currently a 16-foot right-of-way, so that's being widened pretty significantly to
- 48 feet. Then Jackson Street, which was vacated at some point, is aligning to Jackson Street, which
- has been constructed to the north, but is really envisioned and intended because it doesn't cut through
- to the south through Wiley. It is a dead-end street there, but it is intended to be very low speed,
- low traffic, low volume. There's two minutes left. Great. I think I'm almost done.
- The lane was previously in some iterations discussed as an alley and so we'll pick up good flags that
- we missed that change there. There was some discussion preferentially within city departments
- for administration reasons because alleys exist in other places in the city that we explore this as
- an alternative legal type, although it is functionally intended to be an alley.
- Again, the intention here is that there will be a catalog of plans that comes with this, full construction
- documents, and then relatively cited. This is the rough range of plans and architectural styles and
- scales that you are likely to see within the catalog itself. That brings us to the end of our information,
- but I'm here to answer any questions that you guys might have. Thank you so much. Thank you. Are there
- questions from commissioners either for
- Staff or for the petitioner go ahead. We'll start down here So, yeah, I had a question let me get to
- it just under qualifying standards Page 153 154
- It has 120% of the area medium income, even though like throughout all the other attachments it talks
- about 100%. And I'm kind of curious, is that just something that's being referred to what we have in
- our UDO? But my question is, is this
- where we need to address kind of that area medium income. I'm sorry, I don't see a reference to 123%.
- 120%. Oh, right. Yeah, so that is what is in the qualifying standards in the UDO right now for our PUD.
- But if we wanted to kind of bake it into the cake or into this petition, is that where we
- Want to address that commitment or well, so that's where the petitioner is kind of proposing something
- a little bit unique here and different And so they're still kind of working through some of those specifics
- So I would I would leave it up to them to try to address that specifically So I guess do we have anything
- we can review that is the language that they're committing to? Because within the
- unit mixed in types, it says affordability at 100 percent AMI, and then it refers 100 percent several
- different times. I guess where is our role of making sure that this is part of their commitment? And
- just the two conflicting numbers are confusing for me.
- Yeah, again, I would lean on the petitioners to try to address that It's if you would like to that'd
- be fine I'm just trying to understand what they're trying to commit and what they're trying to build
- out or is this kind of Influx and they haven't really is zeroed in The price points of homes are relatively
- well defined and you'll have a spreadsheet of target home target price points and where this sit on
- affordability metrics and so we have typically
- worked within more of a look at 100 percent AMI. We don't have many homes that are falling in that 100
- to 120 percent AMI. That also isn't going to change the metrics dramatically for us to look between
- those. It's labeled as page 165 within your packet. There is an affordability commitment within the
- PUD currently.
- which has been reviewed by RDC and the city attorney, which is that at least 50% of total dwelling units
- within the PUD will be affordable to home buyers under 100% AMI, with at least 15% of total dwelling
- units within the PUD permanently income limited to households earning less than 120% of AMI. So there
- is both an overall...
- I'll say too, I think we're really overshoot, like, I think we are going to really exceed that metric,
- but the guarantee within the PUD that is currently provided is that half of the houses will be at,
- you know, at or below 100% AMI and that at least 15% of them will be permanently income limited.
- And so there's a few different metrics. The thing that is in flux is the legal metric by which that
- permanent affordability is provided, but the standards for that affordability are not in flux and are
- currently listed in the PUD. I think you addressed my question, but I guess what I'm really just trying
- to get is what's going to be asked in the PUD that we're going to be looking at? Is it going to be the
- 120 area medium
- income or is it going to be the 100% and I also just I guess want to make one point of a presentation
- that was passed around from our assistant director with a hand report about workforce housing and how
- they talk about 80% to 120 doesn't really work but that 100% area medium income I think might be a good
- balance and
- You know I would if this is outdated that's fine but it talks about one hundred and twenty or one hundred
- percent for one person's around sixty three thousand for two people seventy two thousand. I think those
- are good targets and I just really want to understand what is
- going to be asked of the Plan Commission within this PUD. Is it 100% AMI or is it 120? And we just have
- conflicting numbers in the packet. So when it comes back, I just really want to know that.
- So thank you. It's a good detail to flag too that the way area,
- If y'all have never gotten really nerdy about housing affordability and what it means, if you have,
- please, excuse me, this is a repeat. One of the things that we also bake into these cost assumptions
- is that an area median income for a one person household is different than for a two person household.
- And so those standards are baked into the spreadsheet that you have where the area median income for
- a one bedroom is assumed to be for a one person household. The area median income for a two bedroom
- is assumed to be for a two person household, same for a three person,
- bedroom house. And so the numbers are specifically tied based on the size of the house to income as
- well. And so that is
- relatively well incorporated into this. And we have been able to get to a market rate buildable, financeable
- product well below 100% AMI, as long as it's a small home on a really small lot. And so a lot of these
- changes that we're asking for in the PUD are what's helping us accomplish that. But from a plan commission
- in the PUD, guaranteed requirements,
- It's that at least half of the plans, half of the homes will be provided at under a hundred percent
- AMI. So, you know, to someone making the area median income or below based on household size. And we
- are anticipating that that will likely be executed via a qualified home buyer approach, right? So it's
- an income qualified home buyer is like is anticipated to be part of the framework, but then an additional
- 15% of the homes, which ties to requirements within the UDO, will be permanently income limited to households
- making less than 120%. And so there's a permanent cap that is for a household that is slightly higher
- than the initial buyer. So there's a little flexibility long-term with resales anticipated. Can I just
- follow up on that?
- Quickly, I know you said that the legal mechanism is still a little bit in flux, but when I hear permanently
- Income limited I assume that means there has to be some sort of deed restriction on the property itself
- So I guess my question would be You're gonna pick if you're gonna just pick 15% of these to have a deed
- restriction saying Well, I can never sell this house
- In the future to anyone who doesn't meet those income requirements Yeah, how do you determine which
- which ones have that permanent restriction and Wouldn't that somehow play into the the value of the
- of the house whether you know Some of them are gonna happen or not have that permanent restriction some
- of them will That sounds like a
- like a can of worms. Can you speak to that at all? It's really complicated. As you are suggesting, it
- is very complicated. It is also something that many communities have tried lots of different things
- over the last, especially 15 to 20 years. So there are a number of legal mechanisms that people have tried.
- None of them are perfect, right, like everything that we do. Nothing is perfect, but there are some
- kind of leaders in the pack of things that lots of communities are seeing as not just practical and
- implementable upfront, but maintainable long term. So one of the most popular ones that has been discussed,
- which I'm not saying will be the final one, but one of the
- Various options to give an example is a that the deed restriction is actually a first rate of refusal
- to purchase the house at a pre agreed upon appreciation rate so that the house is appreciating the home
- buyer is building equity.
- And then at the time of sale, they know what they can sell it for and they're selling it back on a predefined
- timeline back to an entity. Sometimes that's a community land trust. Sometimes that's an entity like
- the RDC. Sometimes that is an entity like the city. Lots of different places have tried this one in
- lots of different ways. And it is one of the ones that is working best in communities long term through
- many resales.
- A strict deed restriction that the homebuyer has to be income qualified is also common. But as you're
- saying, puts a little bit more onus on the seller to be able to execute that. A version in which an
- entity has first right of refusal back, you've pre-negotiated what the terms are before you buy the
- house. You know what the terms are for you to resell it, you know what you'll be able to make from it.
- When you sell it and then a new qualified home buyer income qualified and there are some communities
- that limit. There's a community in Colorado that's been one of the case studies that they require that
- for this deed restricted set of units. It has to be somebody who is working at least 30.
- 30 hours a week within the community. They're specifically struggling with workforce housing. I think
- we're also seeing senior housing being a big component of this, and so those kinds of details are getting
- worked out and balanced. But the first right of refusal version is a version that has worked for a lot
- of communities as a way to be able to have some flexibility too in what the main problem 15 years from now is,
- who are the home buyers that we're struggling the most to be able to provide housing to. And so as long
- as we've got the income qualification that appropriate home buyers can be selected and that resales
- can happen in an orderly, timely, predictable way.
- In terms of which plans are selected for those those cats, typically we're going to recommend that they're
- scattered throughout the neighborhood. We don't want like one corner of the neighborhood to be,
- you know, defined as the permanently affordable. We're also typically going to recommend that a variety
- of plant types are selected.
- I think with the focus on aging in place and seniors, I think there is also likely to be some percentage
- of those that really want to be some of the accessible units. Typically, we're going to want to recommend
- a blend of units size-wise, format-wise, and then location-wise, and then they're built to the same
- standards as everything else. They just have a little bit of a different metric worked within them.
- Thank you.
- Other questions. Can I follow up on the AMA? We're good. Um, thank you. Uh, so the current, uh, uh,
- PD requirement with regard to AMI
- the 15 percent below 120 percent AMI but there's a proposal that came from the Plan Commission that
- the council is hearing this Wednesday actually to change that to 90 percent or sorry 15 percent below
- 90 percent AMI is that a commitment that y'all can make in terms of that permanent affordability to
- do the 15 percent below 90 percent of AMI which is what the UDO is gonna Probably say in the future
- I'm going to need to defer to RDC on final decision for that. But from our look at numbers, I don't
- know that moving from 120% to 90%, especially for 15% of the units, would dramatically change anything
- on our end. We have enough units that are already at market rate tagged to be below 90% AMI that that
- seems achievable if that's something that is important. But I'll defer to RDC on final decision for
- that. Does anyone from RDC in the room want
- take that RDC is obviously sorry and a Killian Hansen hand department RDC is obviously a commissioning
- board which doesn't have a consensus here tonight so I cannot speak on behalf of them. I can only weigh
- in with my personal opinion that
- In particular when you're talking about ownership models the lower that AMI the harder it is to achieve
- We're high construction costs. I mean, we're really trying to get affordable units on site. I don't
- know what those numbers are I think it's achievable, but I'm this is the first that I've heard about
- this and slightly concerned long-term Thanks, if you could maybe look into that for the next hearing
- that would be great. Thanks Other questions from commissioners
- Question about the ownership models, deed restrictions, so forth. Deed restrictions particularly are
- difficult for individuals to finance and get mortgages on those properties. Given that broad view from
- the financing community, what is the most likely direction that you're going to go with the home ownership
- restrictions as far as the affordability piece. Is it going to be the right of first refusal or is there
- still some world where a deed restriction looks like it's a realistic approach even though it's not
- an applicable path forward for most homeowners? I'm not being able to see if Anna is still at the podium.
- I'm going to defer to her first on that question.
- I think a lot of the affordability framework is tricky because there are obviously state law requirements
- that we are having to work within as that framework is developed. Yeah, Steve, can you please repeat that?
- Generalizing can we not do deed restrictions? Because it makes it very difficult for the people you
- want to be in those affordable houses to afford those houses through a financing mechanism of traditional
- mortgages You you're asking me if traditional mortgages are hard to get with a deed restriction. I'm
- asking if we will Find another route other than deed restriction Well, look the UDO or the PUD UDO requires
- in PUDs that 15% are permanently
- Deed restricted. I mean it's it's in there. We're just conforming with what's there. I will draw attention
- to habitat homes which have deed restrictions that are forgiven over a period of time. Right. There's
- an affordability period which they have to conform with. So they still get mortgages. They are financed
- differently though.
- Their finance privately and then sold to a bank after a year of seasoning Which is a specific way that
- you have to operate when it comes to Freddie and Fannie and you know anything backed by the federal
- government Sure, I think that there's mechanisms mechanisms though that we can provide to help Make
- them qualify. So would the city propose a similar structure to habitat? Which is where they bankroll
- those mortgages and then eventually sell them after a 12 month. I don't know yet We haven't gotten there. Okay
- These are really valid concerns to probably raise at the meeting on Wednesday when the discussion is
- a more stringent deed restriction. If there's a different wording that you think might want to be added
- to align that last deadbolt on that door that we showed earlier was financing. If there's a different
- verbiage that could achieve the same long-term structure with better alignment with financing, that
- would be worth probably presenting Wednesday. Are there other questions?
- Commissioner Kinsey. I had a question about the fronting on things other than streets. And I really
- like this idea. And I wonder if there are any concerns that I'm trying to think about the rationale
- for why things have to front on streets and then what we gain from this.
- Option to not front on streets. I mean I I get the gains in terms of space and and making Things more
- buildable, but is there anything that we lose from not fronting on a street?
- Yep, so the reasons for that are manyfold. One certainly is emergency services access and accessibility
- and visibility. If you can't see a house from a street or it's behind another house, you have a much
- harder time finding it. Fire trucks can't go down alleys, and so they have to pull their hoses from
- the street. Having houses front on the street
- also gives them a place to bring their trash cans amongst many things. You know, there's not one particular
- reason, there are many reasons. You know, having them address from a street, you know, the visibility
- and the accessibility is a huge one. You know, if an ambulance needs to get to the house and they can't
- find it and they can't see it, you know, that delays their response time likewise with the fire department,
- you know, sanitation services. You know, obviously there is having houses front on streets creates
- eyes on the street. You know it gives you a presence as you're moving down the street. Certainly a house
- behind another house that doesn't change that perspective. You know it's mostly just being able to access
- that house and serve that house if it's not on the street. There are a lot more difficulties that come
- from that. You know the alleys are not maintained by the city and so you know
- owner has trouble getting down there or even getting their trash cans, you know, let's say there were
- a house on an alley and it wasn't on a street, you know, it's a lot harder for them to get their trash
- to where it would be serviced. You know, the sanitation department has spent a lot of money on automating
- their sanitation trucks so that they can all be served by the arm. So if you don't have that ability,
- you know, that challenges that department as well. It's not that it can't be overcome, but it is a real thing.
- So this particular development has worked through that by the houses or the units within here that don't
- directly front on a street like, for instance, those five that I mentioned at the west, the houses have
- been arranged around there to have that view of them. You do have a direct access through that sidewalk
- system that connects to that lane. So that's why I mentioned in the staff report that that particular
- sidewalk system might need to be wider than five feet to accommodate
- greater accessibility for a wide range of things. So because this is coming forward as a planned unit
- development and we can predict and plan for where those houses that don't have direct street frontage
- are and accommodate that, that's where it can work in this particular situation. Yeah, I guess I'm just
- thinking about all of the pickup and delivery and ride share and all of those things that could be more
- difficult in that arrangement. But okay, thank you for thinking through all of these
- Issues, okay. The other thing I just want to clarify is Fairview is if I heard this right or I'm reading
- in the packet following this it is Fairview is narrow now at it's it's 60 Feet right-of-way.
- Is that right? Do I have that right? I just want to make sure he's currently a 16 a 1 6 foot wide right
- away and it's being proposed at a 48 foot wide right-of-way and so it is widening
- Pretty significantly but in a way that respects the existing property line for that the existing home
- that is directly Yeah along its western border Yeah, thank you. Okay. Thank you other questions Just
- quickly and I apologize for going back to the affordability so fine 15% of them have deed restrictions
- yet, but you also said 50 50 percent would be at a hundred percent AMI and
- or less, is that just because they're gonna be at market rate, they're gonna go for that much, there's
- no restrictions on that 50% that we're referred to, right? Those are just market rate. But is it commitment
- in the sale, it is a commitment in the PUD that at first sale, half of them will be sold at or below
- 100% AMI. And so we are working through various ways that's gonna be achieved. But that is a commitment
- at first sale. Okay, but it's only first sale, then they can be sold at market rate after that.
- Just a question. We are exploring a long term affordability metric for that, but for those as well,
- that if there is a if there is a non-de-restriction program set up, likely more units will be in it.
- But because that framework is not complete, we're starting with a more conservative codified limitation.
- But RDC's goal is promoting long term housing affordability and ownership within Bloomington. OK,
- that's good. Thank you. Any other questions?
- I've got one. Eric, could you just talk about the, when we adopted the transform redevelopment overlay,
- about half of this was in that overlay, maybe? Is there any reason why this whole area wasn't in that
- overlay? That's part one of my question. Part two is, does this PUD supersede the overlay, or does that
- Still have an impact on the portion of this that is within the overlay The TRO was not included on the
- west half and you can see the zoning map here so the hatched portion on the east side is
- is the TRO, the west half was not, so that was zoned with the R4 with the anticipation that it would
- just be built with the R4 standard, so it would be a traditional subdivision type. It has smaller lots,
- and so the east half was envisioning more of a mixed-use medium-scale development. It has some of the
- same provisions, but it's not as less as the TRO.
- Yeah, did that answer both of them at once? Oh yeah, sorry, thank you, David. So the PUD, so they are
- adopting the R4 standards with the modifications that are in their district ordinance. So those
- modifications, as I mentioned, are the zero foot building setbacks, the no impervious surface, you know,
- allowing lots to, so to answer your question, yes, those override for anything that they are specific to.
- Thank you. All right, let's call for questions from commissioners All right, let's oh Commissioner Braille
- good just a quick question. So we're calling lanes, correct because they are 48 feet wide instead of
- 60, correct? Well, so that yes, so the lanes are being proposed to be in 20 feet or right away rather
- than a 60 foot right away and
- which is the narrowest cross section that the transportation plan has for a street. So why are we not
- calling them alleys?
- So allies have a different challenge in that title 15 allows for people to park on an alley for 30 minutes
- or some length of time So because these have to stay free and clear for driving and fire access, you
- know We can't have a situation where people can park in them So it's important that they have a different
- designation than that. So a different designation. So there's no parking there. Yeah Okay. Thank you
- There's parking directly off of them. A lot of the driveways the same way an alley would work. A lot
- of the driveways pull directly off of them, but calling them lanes both gives us the opportunity to
- provide addresses off of them, which should resolve.
- some of the questions about emergency response and door dash, etc. That your lane will have a name and
- you will have a number off of that lane, but it does also prevent some of the parking and blocking things
- that are allowed on an alley that the police raised as a concern through the review process of this.
- Any more questions?
- All right, time for public comment. If you are here in the chambers and you'd like to make public comment,
- please step up to the podium, state your name for the record. You will have up to five minutes to make
- your comments. If you are joining us online, click the react button, look for the raise hand option,
- or just send a chat message to the meeting host and we will recognize you when it is your turn to speak.
- I'm Paul Ash. I am one of the
- Equal members the executive committee and the McDowell Gardens neighborhood association, but I cannot
- speak for the McDowell Gardens neighborhood Association tonight because we really had this has just
- been Thrown at us We will meet on Wednesday and and and address this with Isabel Fiedemott Smith but
- for those who wanted increased density and
- Be careful what you wish for, because here you go kids. Thank you. Thank you.
- OK, thank you. I'm Leslie Davis. I am here representing the Council for Community Accessibility, of
- which I am the chair. And I am joined by two of my CCA colleagues, Karen Willison, who we hope can speak
- right after me, and Deborah Meyerson for a quick little overview of the Council for Community Accessibility's concerns.
- I wanted to address universal design principles and how they show up in the UDO, how they show up in
- terms of this project, and add a bit of clarity to that. Eric, if you would go to the next slide and
- actually keep going. Okay, so the CCA has been a huge supporter of the Hopewell Project since the beginning.
- and its promise of affordable slash attainable housing and inclusive housing is very, very important
- to us because of course there is a lack of affordable, attainable, and accessible housing in Bloomington
- as there is in many cities. We're also very excited about the prospect of what we do here could be a
- model and a pilot for other developments in Bloomington.
- So the Council for Community Accessibility has been talking about Hopewell since our big signature annual
- event in October 2024, specifically about making Hopewell accessible to as many people as possible.
- I would like to point out that our city has come a very long way in terms of recognizing that input
- from people with disabilities needs to be part of decisions that impact the livability of our communities,
- and we certainly expect that the Hopewell project and future development projects will be no different.
- Okay, let's go to the next slide please. So I really appreciated hearing from Ali and Flintlock's stated
- commitment is that the proposed development provides a total of 98 units with around 29% of units meeting
- universal design standards, exceeding the minimum 20% threshold. That 20% is what is in Bloomington's UDO.
- Okay, that's not some national or universal threshold. That's what we say in our current UDO. And it
- says half of the universal design standard homes are fully ADA compliant, providing ample opportunities
- for ensuring homes for seniors and those with mobility limitations. And one of my colleagues will point
- out to a greater extent the fact that while the ADA is very, very important legislation, it does not
- Specifically cover single-family homes. So I was happy to hear Ali say that That I believe what they're
- thinking about is sort of full commercial ADA compliance, but That's not entirely clear Let's go to
- the next slide, please So the relevant part of the city of Bloomington's UDO is this chapter 20.4
- development standards and incentives, and site building design. Under universal design, we say 20% of
- the dwelling units shall incorporate at least one entrance at grade level and not requiring any steps
- up or down or a ramp for entry. That's great. But in addition, only one of the following additional
- elements of, quote, universal design is required.
- we would like to point out the fact that if you have no steps to get in, but then once you're inside,
- the only one element of universal design that has been chosen is the fact that all light switches are
- less than four feet high. That does not help somebody in a wheelchair get further than the front door.
- or maybe not even in the front door if the 32 inch door width is not the one element that has been selected.
- So this is the same for the single family and the multi-family dwelling unit. Let's go to the next slide.
- Okay, so these, and I've given you all a handout, these are the seven principles of universal design.
- They don't apply specifically to housing, but pay special attention to equitable use so that the design
- does not disadvantage or stigmatize any group of users. And flexibility in use, so it accommodates a
- wide range of individual preferences and abilities.
- and also tolerance for error. The design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental
- or unintended actions. So we talk about universal design a lot of times without realizing that there
- are actual established principles of universal design, so I wanted to share what these are. Quickly,
- let's go to the next slide.
- I wanted to offer, as I've done many times in this room, that the people with lived experience of disability
- really are your experts in this regard, and every disabled person has a lifetime of stories exemplifying
- unfulfilled accessibility promises, often unintended, but there is a huge gulf between tossing around
- casually accessible ADA
- universal design and what that really means to people who need it is something very particular. And
- we need to pay attention to that. And the beauty of universal design and those seven principles is that
- it benefits everyone, not just people with disabilities. And I want to share with you all, and maybe
- in your spare time you will look at this,
- City of Davis, California, another college town, wrestled with this same thing in 2015, and it is incredibly
- impressive what they came up with in the end, is they applied some universal design principles to their
- single-family dwelling units, as well as multi-family dwelling units that go beyond what I've seen in
- many other places.
- we on the CCA would love to see Bloomington seriously consider doing something like this. But it's not
- that they should include one of these elements, is that all new single family housing, and there are
- opportunities to have variances, okay, but they should do all of these things. Low threshold entry,
- accessible exterior route, accessible interior route, next page.
- bathrooms, one accessible bathroom or three-quarter bath on the floor accessible from the interior and
- exterior paths of travel. So you're accessible, full bath is on the ground level. This allows people
- to age in place. And there are several other things, light switches are included, but the really important
- things are part of that city's UDO.
- And so we here at the CCA. Yes last slide. We are here to help We are here to advise and we're here
- to represent the interests of all disabled and not yet disabled because we all get there eventually
- Citizens of Bloomington. Thanks very much. Thank you So additional public comment
- Do we have that person in the queue? Hi, I'm here. Go ahead, we can hear you. Hi, my name is Karen Willison
- and I am a lifelong wheelchair user. I'm a member of the CCA and I'm also co-president of the Mobility
- AIDS Lending Library, which provides donated medical equipment for free to people in need in our area.
- I've moved several times and I've
- faced crushing expenses each time because I need an accessible bathroom, and I've had to modify a home
- that was not designed with people with disabilities or seniors in mind. I'm fortunate to have an accessible
- home now, but the vast majority of disabled people that I know or that I've worked with through our
- organization are not so fortunate. And I'm here to advocate for those people
- I see the harm caused by inaccessible housing every day. We have clients who can't get out of their
- homes without calling the fire department. We have clients who have to sponge bathe or shower with wet
- wipes because they can't get in their bathroom door. What is really heartbreaking and frustrating about
- these situations is that they're preventable. They're preventable by choosing what we build carefully.
- Hopewell provides a unique opportunity to prove that housing can be accessible and affordable.
- It's really up to this commission to get things right and that's what we're here to help with. My biggest
- concern right now is that when I looked over all of the catalog designs that were presented in the packet,
- they're all fundamentally problematic, they're incompatible with universal design principles. I'm just
- going to briefly give some examples of that. First of all, all of them have steps
- every single one of those homes in the pictures has steps to get in and none of those homes should have
- steps. There's no reason to build a step on a new construction home. You can grade the lots properly
- even if the lots cannot feasibly be graded to say the ANSI standards for slopes, you could still make
- them slightly steeper and that will still allow a lot of
- people with disabilities and seniors to access the home. For example, I'm a power wheelchair user. A
- slight slope is not a problem for me at all. Then the other major thing is that they're supposed to
- be accessible units and see ADA, whatever standard you want to use. Those are not shown in the catalog.
- The biggest issue, again, that I saw with units is that the sink is placed right next to the toilet.
- That is a major problem because when you're in a wheelchair, you need to sit next to the toilet. You
- need to park your wheelchair next to the toilet to transfer. And to remodel that bathroom, if one were
- to purchase that unit, you'd have to move the plumbing. It would be extremely expensive. So these catalog
- homes that are being presented, they should all have adaptable features. They should all be designed
- in the first place with a good footprint that
- provides basic accessibility and can be modified from there without having to tear out walls, without
- having to move plumbing to work for everybody. There also don't appear to be any single-family, single-story
- units that have more than one bedroom and bathroom, which is disappointing because people with disabilities
- have kids. Some people are parents and some families have kids with disabilities and they need
- a multi-bedroom, single-floor home.
- Or they may have a caregiver. They may need a space for caregiver, which could potentially be handled
- by an ADU, but not necessarily. And also the multi-story catalog designs, they'll have half baths. So
- if you have an older person living there or someone breaks a hip or breaks a leg, they're not gonna
- be able to shower without having to climb a flight of stairs. So those units need to have a shower on
- those levels. Now, of course, the issue that
- you know, always gets a problem, isn't this going to be expensive? Well, the answer is no. So we have,
- we can provide sources to the commission that show that making an entrance with zero steps on a concrete
- slab does not cost extra. It's the same price. It's like $2 extra to put in 36 inch doors versus like
- a 30 inch door. And we have been able to find a very significant number of
- homes catalog type homes that are already accessible. And I don't know what Flintlock has in their library,
- but it should be possible to have the entire catalog of homes as zero steps as well as many that are
- fully compliant. So yeah, that's really what we're talking about here. And when we talk about affordability,
- we have to remember that the people who need it most often also have limited mobility.
- and building homes that are accessible creates a community that welcomes everyone. Everyone can use
- a ramp, everyone can use a flat entrance, not everyone can use steps. So let's build things that work
- for everybody. Thank you. Thank you.
- Thanks, Karen. And I'll be the last for the CCA contingency. My name's Deborah Meyerson. I am here as
- a member of the Council for Community Accessibility. And we are really excited about Hopewell South.
- We really hope that you understand that these are constructive comments to really make Hopewell South
- accessible for people of all ages, abilities, and incomes. So I'm going to focus on the planning process
- we'd like to recommend to the planning commission.
- And that includes these elements. One, Institute design review requirements. Engage a universal design
- specialist to advise on Hopewell South plans prior to any further steps forward. Include at least two
- wheelchair users as part of the consultation. Lived experience is not optional. It's essential to good design.
- Two, establish visitability as a baseline for all homes at Hopewell South, including using the Indiana
- visitability rule, which is a great resource and should absolutely be used at Hopewell South. This standard
- ensures that everybody can enter and use every home in the neighborhood. Three, adopt an aging in place
- standard that requires, as Karen was mentioning, all multi-story units to include a full bathroom with
- a shower on the main floor.
- Otherwise residents who develop mobility limitations due to injury illness or aging will be unable to
- be safely in their own homes. For require measurable standards. We've talked about.
- whether ADA compliant is a sufficient description, it's misleading. ADA standards, as mentioned earlier,
- are primarily for public accommodations and commercial facilities to ensure that people with disabilities
- can enter, use, and exit spaces. The ADA is not intended to regulate private housing or ensure long-term
- livability.
- For accessibility to be truly a goal, it needs to be defined using the correct standard. This standard
- is ANSI, as was mentioned earlier, which stands for American National Standards Institute A117.1, which
- is a very clinical way of talking about it, but it exists precisely because residential accessibility
- requires different design criteria, one that support daily use, independence, and aging in place.
- Accessible homes must be required to meet this standard, the ANSI A117.1 or equivalent residential standard,
- to provide objective, measurable criteria for real-world usability. The current floor plans for the
- homes labeled ADA-accessible, as provided in the Plan Commission packet, don't appear to meet
- ANSI residential standards, and they risk producing homes that wheelchair users can't live in safely
- or independently.
- Five, conduct a site-wide accessibility review that looks beyond unit interiors to include pedestrian
- paths, lanes, parking, trash access, and connectivity. A home is only as accessible as the route to
- it. And last, establish accountability mechanisms. The Hopewell South PUD must have a public tracking
- system so that accessibility commitments can be verified and reported as each phase is built.
- We are offering these recommendations not as obstacles, but as safeguards. This is a very important
- opportunity for Blooming to demonstrate leadership. If accessibility is embedded into the policy framework
- now, Hopewell South can become a true model for inclusive development for this and future projects.
- We want Hopewell South to succeed as a prototype of an inclusive, attainable neighborhood where residents
- of all ages, abilities, and incomes can thrive.
- We believe it can and we look forward to working collaboratively to make sure it does. Thank you Thank
- you Is there additional public comment Excuse me Before he starts I just I'm getting a migraine and
- I have to excuse myself for the rest of the evening So I'm will tune in on cats tomorrow. Thank you.
- Thank you. I
- Go ahead, please state your name for the record and give your comments. Hi, I'm Ryan still with Summit
- Hill Community Development Corporation in the Bloomington Housing Authority. We keep this really short
- We're affordable housing developer As far as we mentioned deed restrictions earlier as a big question
- We run a community land trust in town and we've found multiple banks that will work within those restrictions
- slightly different But if you put in some work, especially starting early, you can really get it rolling
- Beyond that
- the process here the goals laid out in this process and program are absolutely essential to Helping
- the housing problem that we have smaller lots smaller houses different housing styles and simplified
- Processes are just absolutely essential moving forward if we want to actually solve this problem we
- ourselves are creating a community and pre-development right now that really resembles this and
- We have community and corporate partners that are looking at investing in this and the PUD here passing
- is Would be very helpful moving forward with our own project. Thank you Thank you We do have one person
- online that we can get as soon as we get this next person
- Good evening, Mr. President. This is Christopher MG again from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce.
- I'm here to express the chamber support for the Hopewell South Pew UD and urge its approval. I think
- one thing I got as a resident from Ali's presentation was a sense of excitement on a Hopewell neighborhood
- that I had consistently cynical thoughts. And I think a path forward where we didn't have one is a success.
- I first want to acknowledge the collaborative work behind the scenes that I've sort of seen at the RDC.
- The Chamber appreciates the leadership of ESD of hand, and of course the RDC members in this. From a
- business and economic perspective, Bloomington's at a pivotal point. We hear this all the time, but
- employers are seriously navigating workforce shortages, rising costs, and uncertainty in a tight housing
- market with very competitive neighbors. Housing is no longer a secondary issue, it's the core economic
- Development issue directly tied to long-term community stability. The Hopewell South PUD represents
- an important and necessary new direction one that promotes homeownership We are against the Those dead
- bolts you saw in Ali's presentation and this is a step forward for that For years that chambers heard
- consistent concern from employers about the concerning zoning framework that tends to proceed either
- a large student oriented development or high and low density housing
- What's missing is attainable and criminal housing that allows people to live near where they work and
- fully participate in our community. Recent findings from the interim 2026 Monroe County Housing Study
- that appeared on my desk today really reinforces this same argument that the limited housing supply,
- particularly that missing middle option has constrained labor force participation, it's pushed workers
- to neighboring counties, weakened long-term economic
- Growth, hopeful south, helps move toward a broader mix of housing types, serves working households who
- want to own more efficient land use and gentle density, predictability in both standards and developmental
- process. This all matters fiscally. Said it earlier today, but the Indiana's SB1 has local governments
- increasingly dependent on local income tax tied to the people who live here, not work here, not just
- county residents in a percentage,
- work in the incorporated area. Communities do not provide the housing for their workforce, risk losing
- residents, and long-term revenue stability that provides the quality of life that we all depend on here.
- These strategies are not untested. The peer communities in South Bend have used similar approaches to
- support attainable home ownership with neighborhood compatibility. Using the PUD as a pilot
- allows Bloomington to test these ideas responsibly.
- From a Chamber's perspective, I get it. PUDs are not the ideal long-term solution. They are complex
- and often use work-around development code that no longer reflects today's needs. This is exactly why
- Hopewell South matters. This project is a bridge to strategy allowing for progress now while the City
- continues to work
- Essentially for that updating the udo to make it more bris more business friendly and be pro-growth
- So proving the hope well south pud signals at Bloomington is willing to move forward. The door is open
- The pilot is a new approach to create attainable housing pathways, and I thank you. Good night Thank
- you Nate you should be able to unmute
- We're not hearing you here in the chambers if you're speaking All right, let's go ahead and take comment
- here in the chambers while we work on the Connectivity issue there go ahead. Please say your name make
- your comment
- Thanks, my name's Greg Alexander. This design's main weakness is its focus on parking. Everywhere they're
- cutting corners to ensure that cars can access each lot. For example, they're allowing 100% impervious
- surface so that there can be parking on most lots, and that means almost all of the green space has
- to be in common areas, and that means they have to have an H-way to maintain those common areas. H-ways
- are less affordable. Car access to each lot is less affordable. On-site parking is less affordable.
- But mostly, this ordinance is a great example of what is possible. We can reduce setbacks to zero. You
- can reduce minimum lot size to zero. You can allow fronting onto alleys. You can allow ADUs, duplexes,
- row houses.
- These things should all be allowed in the existing R4 zoning. We need that. Everybody here knows that.
- We need that. And that's the fundamental problem here. The UDO specifies Pewdies are only supposed to
- be for unique circumstances, and there's nothing less unique than a developer that might want to make
- affordable housing. This is something we want across the whole city. The irony is the most unique design
- facets are all forced by this insistence on serving every lot with a car.
- which is the least unique need possible. They're just making a mixed street. It's not even truly an
- alley. It's gonna have, it's basically a street without sidewalks. It's too wide to calm traffic, but
- too narrow to share with cars and pedestrians. One of the signs PewDieZoning isn't right for this project
- is it doesn't even meet the minimum size requirement of five acres. The only way they meet that requirement
- on paper is by including the police station. But the police station isn't planned. They don't know what
- they're gonna do with that. It's explicitly not planned as part of this unit.
- it is going to be decided later. It's not part of a planned unit development. It shouldn't be in it.
- I say that's dishonest. I say the petitioner is bending our law in a way that you wouldn't accept if
- a private petitioner tried it. I don't think it's a good way to do business, but it's not up to me.
- The UDO says there's a formal requirement that the director of planning and transportation has to say.
- that he has determined that it meets that standard. We'll make him come here and say that it's appropriate
- to bend the law that way because it isn't, he knows it isn't, you know it isn't. We've been here before.
- We know the most important factor in PewDieApproval is the mayor's support. It politicizes this process.
- It puts pressure from the mayor on staff who has a sworn ethical duty to be impartial, but they can't
- because their boss's boss's boss is literally breathing down their necks.
- It excludes smaller developers and smaller landowners. It leads to segregation. It makes development
- more expensive and more time consuming. It doesn't provide a sufficient supply of housing to make a
- dent in our supply problem. It doesn't work. The goal of this proposal is to make it look like the mayor
- is doing something while avoiding the controversy that would come with real progress. That's what we're
- trying to do here. We're not trying to build affordable housing. There's an illusion there
- will be comprehensive zoning reform in the near future.
- But we all know the mayor intends to be timid. We know that we are going to see a ribbon cutting at
- Hopewell instead of substantive progress that will actually help the city. If we didn't know that, we'd
- have the fig leaf. We could say this is a step in the right direction, but we know this is a step, but
- we know where we're going. And now you've heard someone say that out loud, so we all know it. Thanks.
- Thank you.
- We'd like to try the online commenter again. Nate, you should be able to unmute again if you want to
- try. Can you hear me? Yes, we got you now. Awesome. Sorry about that. My name is Nathan Ferrer. I'm
- the executive director of the Bloomington Housing Authority and Summit Hill Community Development
- Corporation. Commissioners, thank you for staying late
- and continuing to engage in this important process. As a nonprofit developer, we have limited funding
- for pre-development costs. For a small housing development, we can easily spend $100,000 of pre-development
- before we even know if a project is viable. I want to express my support for the pre-approved plans.
- It significantly lowers costs, soft costs, and directly improves project feasibility.
- And reduces the need for for additional subsidy when we get to the point of selling houses. This would
- also speed up the approval process, meaning we can break ground more quickly. And then some of the design
- elements that are proposed in this beauty smaller lots with frontage on public spaces and lanes. This
- allows more families to be housed.
- This allows developers like us to build more homes that are attainable for lower and moderate income
- households. The amenities that are in proximity to Hopewell should be made available to all income levels.
- So for all these reasons, I am definitely supporting this PUD. I think this is a rare opportunity in
- Bloomington to deliver much needed housing for a range of income.
- As Ryan mentioned earlier, we've attempted a single-family development and have been learning as we
- go. I would urge the council to not get bogged down in trying to get the lowest AMI possible
- as an affordability requirement for this PUD. The more flexibility you can give the developers, the
- better in terms of getting all income levels into this development.
- So it's just want to, again, stress my support for this project and moving along quickly. We do have
- some urgency here in terms of getting housing built at Hopewell. So thank you for your time. Thank you.
- Good evening. I'm Kristen Weida, the CEO of Indiana Uplands Realtor Association.
- I am here to speak in support of Hopewell PUD and the proof that I am here so late past my bedtime kind
- of reinforces how important I think this is. So earlier today I was talking to a colleague of mine about
- the Hoosiers.
- and how successful we are, how great IU's doing, how the country is looking at us, at how amazing we
- are at having this achievement, how our alumni are super excited about us and about this community.
- And what we also talked about was the fact that if you look at our actual community of Monroe County,
- we are not doing well. He actually said, Google us,
- We aren't winning. I work in multiple counties around Monroe County. And when I go to those areas, they
- talk about how they don't want to be Monroe County because of our housing issue. That is not something
- we should be proud of. And that is something that we have created. That is something that our mayor
- inherited. She did not create this. This is a problem from the UDO.
- that we have in place and the mayor's office is being super creative at trying to get outside of that
- box that has constrained us, that has put this huge burden on our housing supply, that has made Monroe
- County the most expensive city in the entire state, the most expensive county in the entire state for
- housing. That is not something to be proud of. That is something that shows that we are not winning.
- So our mayor and her team are trying their hardest and work put this plan together to think outside
- the box, to figure out how to get outside of these constraints, to figure out how to unlock all of those
- locks that our previous leadership has put on our community, making it impossible for the citizens of
- Monroe County to attain housing that is appropriate for them.
- So we are here as realtors today to ask for you guys to consider supporting this PUD to allow the mayor's
- office to actually try something new and different, to see if we can make something work. I know it's
- not a guarantee, they said flat out it's not a guarantee, but they're trying their very best to make
- obtainable housing for your constituents. So please, we ask that you support this,
- That we can actually move forward in a timely manner to get some housing into our market. Thank you
- Thank you We have one other person we'll get to mr. Fernandez first I can defer Yeah, go ahead. Okay.
- Thanks. Yeah, John Fernandez back from CEO of the mill Wanted to first thank the commissioners. I think
- tonight's been a really thoughtful
- Discussion some of the input from the public it was informative to me. So I'm sure You think these things
- more than I do but I know this is a first step in adopting a PUD so there'll be more opportunities to
- refine some of the planning but I certainly support the Hopewell South PUD and would encourage a plan
- commission to move forward with this proposal and
- As Ben mentioned by others, Bloomington has been experiencing a population decline and part of it is
- related directly to the lack of attainable housing. As written, our UDO invites large student housing
- developments or large lot or high-end single-family homes. The Hopewell South PUD offers a number of
- strategies that will deliver attainable housing through more incremental developments.
- It offers a wider range of housing types from tiny homes or 80 used to larger three-bedroom houses and
- small apartments the PD PD offers pre-approved designs that will expedite the process of getting housing
- built with a predictable aesthetic that Bloomington likes and will embrace of the scale of the project
- I think is appropriate and it blends well with the neighborhood to the south with McDowell Gardens,
- as well as some of the other neighborhoods to the north. It encourages more gentle density by offering
- these smaller footprints on smaller lots, organically driving down housing costs and creating more attainable
- ownership opportunities. The PD also tests more efficient land use approaches.
- conversation you had about the lanes I think is really innovative and interesting and appropriate for
- the kind of development Bloomington wants. There are other communities that are doing similar strategies
- that we can learn from. South Bend has a bunch of while their whole zoning code is more form based which
- I think is an interesting way to go in the future because it really does create a more predictable process.
- You know, my organization is focused on an entrepreneur-centric economic development strategy. One of
- the things we really like about this proposal is that it's going to create opportunities for our construction
- entrepreneurs to be able to participate in helping to solve one of the big problems we have in Bloomington,
- that being attainable housing.
- Many of our entrepreneurs, they don't have the capacity to advance large-scale subdivision developments
- or multi-lap projects. This will create an opportunity for some of these smaller entrepreneurs to be
- able to take on housing development and build homes here in their own community, and that's really exciting
- to us. Finally, I think there's a lot of aspects of the design
- that kind of harken back to some of our historic neighborhoods that people really cherish in Bloomington.
- The problem we have, frankly, is our UDO. There are many projects that we love in Bloomington, neighborhoods
- in Bloomington, that if you tried to build them today, you can't. And to me, that's a problem that we
- should be thinking about addressing.
- and ultimately it's gonna require some serious revamps to our current UDO. The UDO is incredibly complex.
- It's like a lot of legislation, I've been involved with legislation for years and often a lot of really
- good intentions create documents that are so focused on planning theoretical bad things from happening
- that it creates obstacles to doing the good things a community actually wants. And I think I'm hopeful,
- pun intended, that this PUD can be a learning opportunity for us to go back and actually develop a UDO
- that enables the kind of community that Bloomingtonians want, that facilitates, that makes it easier
- to get a yes
- Because right now it is so hard that most of the projects you see coming to Bloomington are well-financed
- very large-scale projects because those owners and investors have deep enough pockets
- to manage a complex process that typically takes 18 to 24 months. That time and uncertainty adds a phenomenal
- amount of cost to our housing supply. So I hope this can be a learning opportunity that we can take
- forward and apply more broadly throughout the community. So thanks for your consideration. Thank you.
- Is there any additional public comment? Yes, Clark, you should be able to unmute.
- Good evening. My name is Clark Greiner. I'm the interim director for the Bloomington economic development
- corporation. And I want to encourage the planning commission to approve the Hopewell South PUD this
- evening. I think the BEDC believes it's doing it will enhance our attainable housing for our workforce.
- and for the community overall. And then the other thing I want to make sure to point out is I want to
- thank the mayor and her staff, Mr. Hittle, the planning department, the team, and also the ESD department
- and everybody else that's really been engaged and involved in this. I can't stress enough when we are
- attracting and helping business, large traded sector businesses,
- come to the community or expand to the community, one of the things that they're always asking is, what
- about your housing? We recently had a large organization come in to kind of look to determine if Monroe
- County Bloomington was the right location for them. And one of the things that they asked for is, where
- are my workforce gonna sleep? Where are they gonna live, right? And jobs and housing is where our jobs
- sleep, right? It's a very important thing. And so the CEOs and their senior leadership
- are very interested in that. And so I think this is a innovative step forward. As John and some of the
- other people have mentioned, this is a very, very important element for the community overall. And I
- think the innovative step that we're taking, it's not going to solve all the problems. And yes, it is
- a small bite of a bigger problem. But I think that's very important to kind of take a look at that.
- And again, I applaud the team for being able to take a look at this and say, hey, how can we do better?
- What's this mean for our community for the future and to continue to maybe reverse some of the population
- declines address SEA one and some of the implications that has and the impact on the revenue. So again
- I want to respectfully request that the applying commission give this a favorable consideration and
- pass this to move this forward for the greater good of the community. Thank you. Thank you.
- Hi, I'm Carrie Thompson. I just wanted to take a couple of minutes first to thank you above and beyond
- the call of duty tonight. It's almost 11 o'clock. Thank you for the hours you pour into thinking through
- what our built environment looks like and lives like in Bloomington. Hopewell is a critical step for
- our community. When I first moved here in 1997,
- Bloomington was already the least affordable place to live in the state of Indiana. It is a statistic
- that I have been trying a lot of my professional life to change and I think Hopewell builds a future
- for the possibility of what it can look like to be more attainable living in Bloomington and
- in a neighborhood that is really welcoming and inviting.
- Our team has worked incredibly hard, both with the neighborhoods surrounding Hopewell, with professionals
- across the country, with developers here in town, with builders, with financiers, to try to figure out
- the way to really crack the code to creating more attainable housing that's gonna live well in our community.
- More than 60% of college graduates want to live in the communities where they graduate. We're not even
- in single digits in Bloomington long term. We need those graduates to be able to stay here and work
- in our community, but they leave mostly because they can't find an affordable way to stay here. We need
- people retiring
- to be able to downsize. Hopewell provides pathways to both of those things. For 20 years, I led Habitat
- for Humanity here in Bloomington. We were the number one private home developer for the last 10 years
- I was leading that organization. If you had told me that without donor support and volunteers,
- we could produce any kind of home at $83,000, even with the expertise that I had at the time, I wouldn't
- have believed you. We have something here that's truly remarkable, and it can serve as a prototype for
- how we envision housing and how we envision our neighborhoods and how we welcome all kinds of people
- to Bloomington, to stay here,
- to live here long term, to start companies here, and to really be part of our thriving community. So
- I hope you give careful consideration, and I do ask that you approve this PUD. Thank you. Is there any
- additional public comment? Nothing online, no. Last call for public comment.
- All right, we are back to the commission for any final questions or comments or motion. I will just
- remind the commission that the staff recommendation is simply that we forward this petition to a second
- hearing, which means we'll get another chance to ask lots of questions and make lots of comments next
- meeting. So it'd be great if we could keep our
- comments here focused on what do we want to see at the next meeting? What are the things that we really
- feel like we didn't get out of this meeting? We'll have lots of opportunity to give our deep thoughts
- next month at an earlier time, hopefully. But with that, any final questions or comments or motions?
- Go ahead, Commissioner Kinsey.
- Thank you, I appreciate the presentations and the public comments. Two things for me that I'd like to
- see more of is about the parking. There are some concerns even raised in the packet about parking exceeding
- what is required in this PUD. Some concerns from engineering about parking on lanes. So I think we could
- use a little more consideration for parking, particularly
- Reducing it and what and how we could do that And I also would like to see more consideration for the
- really excellent Universal design standards that were presented and shared with us tonight So I hope
- we can have more conversations about adopting more of those necessary standards of universal design
- Those are two things for me Thanks. Thank you Mr. Burrell In
- In theory the the lanes are a great idea. But as you know and I know people are going to park all over
- them. So is is is it by just calling them lanes is that are we preventing people from parking.
- I don't know. So there's something I am with you some consideration about parking how this is going to work.
- People have usually more cars than they that what is allowed for their homes. And I am also very interested
- in some presentation about the accessibility standards that for those homes that are accessible homes.
- The presentation was very good and I understand because
- Most of the time accessibility for a builder is very different from what accessibility is required for
- somebody that uses the place. So it would be nice to hear what those what those homes look like and
- how they function. So thank you. Thank you. Anyone else.
- Anyone like to make a motion a Motion to forward this petition to the required second hearing Is there
- a second second? All right any final discussion before we call the roll All right, please call the roll
- on the motion to forward to a second hearing Ballard yes Bishop yes for real. Yes
- Yes Holmes. Yes Kinsey. Yes Whistler. Yes Motion carries. Thank you. That is our final petition for
- the evening. Thank you all for your patience Have a great night. We'll see you next month