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