- Good evening. Let me call to order this meeting of the city of Bloomington Plan Commission for February
- 9th, 2026. Just a quick overview of our agenda for this evening. We have a little bit of internal
- housekeeping and then we believe only have one petition that will be heard tonight. And that is ZO 2025-12.
- Dash zero zero one eight This is the city of Bloomington petition for a PUD Approval Let's start by
- calling the roll make sure we have quorum Ballard here Bishop here seabor Here co Rodke here Holmes
- here Kinsey
- Osberg here Whistler Here I Believe that we think mr. Kinsey is joining us remotely looks like she sent
- a message on the On the on the zoom, is that correct? Looks like I can unmute now Okay, thank you Kinsey I'm here
- All right. Thank you. We do have a quorum just as a reminder since we do have a one commissioner joining
- remotely We'll need a roll call vote on everything. No voice votes tonight and To start we do have some
- minutes to be approved. We have the the minutes from the January 12th meeting Are there any questions
- or corrections to those minutes? Mr. Seaborg, I think I had a question in the
- I can't pull it up right now. The trades district hotel project, the motion in the minutes said that
- we wanted to continue it to a second hearing, but we waived the second hearing, I thought. I believe
- we did. If that sounds correct to me, let me take a look.
- It was certainly approved So if the minutes say something different than that, then we'll go back in
- and verify that I think it might be confusing because Are you talking about we're Ballard motion to
- continue? Because that's at the top of the trades page, but I think it's actually talking about the
- Dunn Street. Yeah now on page eight, I believe
- Yeah on well on page seven Ballard motion to continue to a second hearing. Oh, I see Motion passes and
- I think and that's that's incorrect, right? The motion would have been to To wave the second hearing,
- okay, why don't we If it's alright, I'd like to just Continue this we'll pick these minutes up at our
- next meeting and let's see if we can. Yeah, absolutely. Well, I
- Make sure we fix that one sentence. Okay So so no motion on those minutes here tonight we'll pick that
- up at our next meeting All right any reports resolutions or communications from commissioners tonight
- Any reports resolutions or communications from staff tonight no other than we do need to redo the plaque
- committee and
- Appointment and alternate the main representative should be Brian Blake with the alternate being Jay
- Ramey So We'd like Jay Ramey to replace Liz Carter as the alternate correct. Yes. All right Are there
- any questions?
- We have a motion to replace to have J Ramey replace Liz Carter as the alternate on the Platte committee
- Make a motion to approve J Ramey to replace Liz Carter on the Platte committee as alternate Is there
- a second? second All right any discussion Okay, please call the roll motion Bishop Yes Seabour yes
- Brotke. Yes Holmes. Yes Kinsey Stossburg. Yes Whistler. Yes Ballard. Yes All right motion passes All
- right, I believe we are then just on to our our single petition tonight the other petition that we heard
- Our last meeting sub 2025-12-0051 has been continued Eric anything you want to mention on that we do
- expect to see that again at our next meeting Certainly hope so they will be going to the Board of Zoning
- Appeals as you may recall there were a couple of variances that were required as part of that petition
- so they'll be going to the BZA to hear those and
- And then depending on the outcome of that possibly revising the plat for when it comes back to you guys
- All right Thanks. Well, then I guess we are on to zio 2025-12. Oh, I'm sorry When when does that go
- before the PCA? What's the date of that meeting? I think 22nd or 26th It's in none like it's in effect.
- It's going in the February though Yeah, February 26. Okay, great. Thanks
- All right. Go ahead Eric with zero twenty twenty five dash twelve dash double oh eighteen. Sorry. Give
- me a second. My computer is moving slow.
- There we go. All right. Thank you So this is a request from the city of Bloomington Redevelopment Commission
- for a property at several properties actually at 723 West first 709 West first and 607 West first Street
- the petitioner is here tonight to request
- Rezoning to allow for these properties to be rezoned to a planned unit development The properties encompass
- about six point three acres and are currently zoned residential urban lot are four to the west to the
- east our zone mixed-use medium scale and within the transform and redevelopment opportunity overlay
- So as I mentioned the petitioners are requesting to rezone this into a planned unit development
- we went through last hearing a general overview, so I'm not going to go too deep into the specifics
- of it, but with this request what they are looking to accomplish is a Unified development plan for this
- area that encompasses a lot of properties That were formerly occupied by the hospital use There's a
- former convalescent building that sits on the east end of the site that is part of this PUD and
- The city recently did some improvements along first Street to install some intersections sidewalks and
- tree plots Repave it and design first Street in keeping with our transportation plan also did
- some improvements along Roger Street with that
- We installed several intersections where Jackson Street and Fairview would intersect and move through
- this development so those intersections were Known and were platted to the north with right-of-way that
- would see those and envision those moving through this site as well So this petition involves three
- overall parcels or blocks blocks eight which is the east end of the site where the convalescent building are is
- And then two blocks to the west block 9 and block 10 that would encompass the majority of the residential
- component of this petition So with this petition is looking to utilize the property for a wide range
- of housing types This would include single-family detached single-family attached duplexes triplexes
- fourplexes multifamily units
- There are several unique aspects of this petition that we discussed last time that necessitated the
- use of a planned unit development here. The big one being that there is a street type that is shown
- in this development known as a lane that moves to the east.
- Side to the site moves east west. There are two of those shown And those are proposed to deviate from
- any of the cross sections that are in our transportation plan They're shown to be about 20 feet in width
- for right-of-way dedication that would include two Nine foot travel lanes to create an 18 foot travel
- lane area as well as one or two 12 inch concrete ribbons or aprons along both sides of that to create
- a 20 foot driving areas to meet
- fire code requirements so that Street type is not in our transportation plan. So this unique characteristic
- of this is one of the things that necessitated the planned unit development another component that is
- unique to this is the allowance for lots to be created that don't front on a public street and
- So specifically with this there are there's a building with five units on the southwest side of the
- site That would front on a sidewalk system or path or trail that would move through there So the PUD
- would allow for lots to be created that that don't front on the public street, which is a current requirement
- of the UDO
- So with this PD there are several aspects that we are looking to try out in a very controlled setting
- You know some of those unique characteristics besides the street types and the allowance for lots or
- Houses to be created that don't front on the street is not requiring any building setbacks for front
- or side or rear with the exception of some of the perimeter of
- Lots within here. So there are zero foot setbacks that are proposed. There is a zero foot impervious
- surface coverage proposed As well as as I mentioned the creation of loss that don't front on a street
- So ordinarily in a lot of situations, some of these things might be very challenging to work into the
- built environment. But since this is able to be envisioned as part of this planned unit development
- and incorporated and kind of planned with these deviations in mind, we're able to kind of offset some
- of the impacts that might be felt from situations where lots don't front on a public street or you've
- got zero-foot setbacks that are proposed.
- So with that, there are several slides the petitioner has included. At the last hearing in January,
- there were a lot of comments that were given regarding the accessibility and the visitability of the
- units within here. I think the petitioner has prepared a lot of slides that will deal with that component.
- But in general there will be buildings in here that will be full ADA compliant as well as buildings
- within here that include a lot of visitability components as well to meet those requirements of the
- UDO One of the other aspects that was discussed at this at the last hearing Regarding the affordability
- component. So again, the petitioner has several ideas and
- Plans with the Redevelopment Commission in order to accomplish the requirements of the UDO for affordability
- And again, they can they can speak into that in a little bit greater detail So one of the things that's
- important with this as we work through the street cross sections the lanes Specifically are proposed
- to just serve as drive access points so as we work through a lot of internal exercises of maximizing
- the buildability of
- This particular parcel we looked at reducing the typical sidewalk component that you would see on long
- streets And instead the petition has incorporated a pedestrian network that moves through the development
- that you can see on this slide here That has a central pathway moving east-west that also extends north-south
- North the first Street and south the Wiley and then also transverses the entire Development as well
- from east to west
- So we'll look at some of the specific elements of that with the final plan approval some of those Sidewalk
- systems might need to be wider than five feet Some of them as I mentioned those units in the southwest
- side are only accessed by that sidewalk system So emergency services as indicated there might be a need
- to have something wider than a five foot sidewalk
- Accessing those so that's something that we'll deal with with the final plan as that comes forward One
- of the other items that was discussed at the first hearing regard regards phasing So there are three
- overall phases that are petitioned with this development Phase one, which is the western portion does
- involve adjustment of lot lines in order to allow for some lots to be created early on while they move
- through the platting phase and
- So that is that is composed of part of phase one But is not a trigger for the final plan or primary
- plan approval and then phase two would be the center portion Those two phases might be coordinated and
- combined into one joint phase that would be worked out with the final plan And then phase three the
- east side deals with the convalescent building that may or may not be utilized by the police department
- The internal green space is where the petitioner will be able to accomplish all of their stormwater
- detention requirements. So that common space that I mentioned that moves through the center of the site
- incorporates the pedestrian path as well as creates opportunity for stormwater detention. It's also
- expected a lot of that stormwater detention will occur underneath the parking lot for the lot on the
- east side of the property. Again, fire and trash collection has been incorporated with this and worked
- out with the
- public works department and the fire department so the petition has tried to look at and solve for Some
- of the challenges that that might be in place by utilizing the lanes through here where you don't have
- a full Cross-section of the street that moves through there so that that's been worked out with the
- public works and fire department To make sure that those lanes will meet all of their needs
- So as I mentioned there are several unique characteristics to the cross sections for the streets First
- Street as I mentioned was already redone by the city So sidewalks and tree plots have been installed
- along that frontage along Roger Street The petitioner has shown the installation of a five-foot bike
- lane So that will connect to and extend a bike lane that the city just installed along Roger Street
- we've also been working with
- The petition to come up with at least the incorporation of a sidewalk component to some degree along
- the west side of the site while still respecting Space that is needed adjacent to that building So there
- will be at least a tree plot and sidewalk along the west side of Roger Street That will be at least
- five feet wide if it's possible to have something wider than that We'll try to accomplish that as we
- move through the final plan for that side of the site as well
- Jackson Street and Fairview Street would also be moving through the site again This is where these two
- streets deviate from the cross sections in the transportation plan and are shown at 48 feet rather than
- typical 60 feet that would be required So this allows for parking along one side of that street along
- the east side The petition has still been able to accomplish this side five foot sidewalk and five foot
- tree plots. So those are consistent with our transportation plan and
- And then Wiley Street on the south side of the site the petitioner is proposing to essentially leave
- that Existing in its current state. There is on-street parking on the north side of Wiley with a monolithic
- sidewalk along there that sidewalk would be replaced by
- with a five foot concrete sidewalk. And the petitioners have shown a setback of about 12 feet from that
- sidewalk in order to preserve a line of trees that are along the north side of Wiley in order to help
- provide some natural vegetative buffering between this and the neighborhood to the south. And then as
- I mentioned, the lanes, these would be platted in 20 feet of right away with two nine foot travel lanes
- and the 12 inches of concrete on each side to give the full 20 foot that the fire department needs.
- One of the other essential components to this is the housing catalog that's been prepared. This is something
- that all of the houses will be designed to and will be shared with building and planning and other agencies
- to make sure that they meet all of our requirements so that when they come time for building permits,
- these can be issued with a very expeditious review and help
- Things move along a lot faster as well as possibly being available for a little cost to homeowners so
- that they can Get moving a lot faster with getting housing in the ground As I mentioned with the last
- hearing the petitioner has included a unit mix and perspective cost For developments that's kind of
- broken down over cost of the unit various other
- Bills that are associated insurance and mortgages to help give an idea of where the actual affordability
- And the provision of the housing here that meets our affordability goals how that is accomplished So
- there's a wide mix of housing types that are included in this catalog some of the more finer details
- of this is in terms of building materials Will be spelled out with the final plan approval, but there
- is the overall housing catalog that is included and
- That that we discussed last time as well So with this The petitioner did make several changes within
- the district ordinance as we discussed at the first hearing There were some areas of cleanup that needed
- to be done within the district ordinance that the petitioner was able to accomplish they amended the
- permitted uses to list all of the uses that are shown here as permitted uses rather than conditional
- which they are in the r4 and
- All the other uses in the R4 district would be allowed as permitted or conditional based on how the
- R4 district allows for them. As I mentioned, there are also architectural standards that
- district has shown with their housing catalog accessory dwelling units are proposed to be allowed within
- this development at a maximum size of 840 square feet. So that is a greater allowance for them and they
- have removed the owner occupancy restriction to allow greater flexibility with the use of that.
- The petitioner is also proposing no parking minimums within the development. Although there are several
- references to that language in the district ordinance, we do feel like that could be cleaned up a little
- bit better to just specifically state there are no parking minimums in order to help make that a little
- bit clearer. Again, within parcel A and parcel B, they're proposing no front or side parking or building
- setbacks except along the edges of the PUD itself.
- Yep. So some of the other changes that have happened since the first hearing, the petitioner did include
- allowance for drive cuts. That was a section that was included in the portion of the district ordinance
- that says it applies to all parcels that was in the PUD. However, that really should just be with parcel
- B. So there is a notation there for that to be moved to the parcel B section. We don't want drive cuts
- on first street
- or Wiley for the residential units, those should be accessed from the lane. So there's a small change
- to the district ordinance for that, just to make that a little bit clearer.
- So with that the petition really just kind of cleaned up a little bit of the rough edges from the first
- hearing in essence remains essentially and change for the the majority of the petition itself. As I
- mentioned there are specific cross sections which I have discussed and kind of gone through as well
- as at the first hearing we discussed the qualifying standards and how this meets that.
- Certainly furthers many of the goals within the comprehensive plan and as we discuss it to first hearing
- there were several studies that were done on this site before it even came to us that both looked at
- modeling and massing for the area encouraged a mix of housing types.
- And especially encouraged a very compact urban dense form here given the location here Location to resources
- and close to downtown. It's built out. There's great access to roads and utility infrastructure This
- certainly marks a great location to try a lot of ideas that might be able to be something incorporated
- into the UDO in other zoning districts and as I mentioned with being able to plan for
- some of the effects of properties not fronting on the street, the zero foot setbacks and coming forward
- as a planned unit development really represents the best opportunity to utilize the planned unit development
- component of the UDO. And so we are recommending that the planning commission forward this to the common
- council with a favorable recommendation with the conditions that are listed in staff's report. And I'm
- happy to answer any questions.
- Thank you Eric. Are there any questions from commissioners? Is I guess before that is there someone
- from the petitioner that wanted to add anything to the presentation On just one second we can't quite
- hear you here Try again, let's see if we can hear you now
- Can you hear me now? Yes, that's better. Thank you. Go ahead. OK, great. Eric, if you don't mind, I'm
- going to pull up slides on my screen. I think I can do that. And waiting to see if those are showing
- up. Let me know if you guys can see those.
- Not yet, we're still waiting. All right, my apologies about the delay. Well, I'll be short on this a
- little bit. I think you guys really saw me at the last meeting, and we've got some refinements based
- on staff report comments that Erica's run through really well for us. And we also have some additional
- exhibits to show some of our accessibility, which I know is one of our big questions previously.
- Answering a couple of questions while we wait on what appears to be some technical issues here. We do
- have one of the questions that was outstanding at the last meeting was the way that we were handling that.
- Apologies. Let me try one more. Okay, there we go. So we shortened the slides a little bit. Just reminding,
- kind of as a base setting, that our zoning in UDO is fully new and really vetted, and even that once
- we often, and we see this in many cities,
- Zoning is often not the only limitation to getting the housing that we need and the locations that we
- want. And so this kind of project can be a great opportunity to pilot some resolving some of the additional
- issues that often get uncovered once the zoning has been addressed. So we've got a number of things
- we're trying to test within this pilot project that as a city project has a great opportunity to kind
- of test and streamline some of these things, but hopefully they can be rolled out city-wide in later
- code changes.
- One of the other things that we're really focusing on on this project, as a reminder, is homeownership.
- We've got a really high rental population, and so additional opportunities for homeownership within
- the city are really valuable, specifically in Bloomington. And we've got lots of study on testing of
- things that are kind of new approaches, even in our original master plans for the Hopewell South blocks
- here, and so we're looking within the overall Hopewell plan at blocks eight, nine, and 10.
- proposing starting our phasing on the west in block 10 and moving our way east to block eight.
- So kind of, you know, again, giving at least a little bit of a quick level set, we're really trying
- to get to a mix of housing types and a mix of housing price points. We're trying to get to a pre-approved
- home design for each lot that streamlines permitting and reduces costs. One clarification from the previous
- meeting is that while this has been built in to have a little bit of flexibility for swapping of houses
- on the lots
- If in five years one of the plans is much more popular than another, the intention is that that is controlled
- by RDC and that when the lot is RFP'd out, a specific home is intended to be built on that lot and that
- they're only swapping within other plans in the catalog for future flexibility as this won't be built
- all. In one year, market absorption will take a few years of phasing. This is also really intended to
- expand our opportunities for local builders.
- I'm really bringing in kind of small scale local developers who can implement the houses, you know,
- likely a few at a time. And this is coming alongside with training from the nonprofit incremental development
- alliance in local development by local. And so we've got some training opportunities coming up for that
- as well. I think there was an article today in the paper about the lecture, which is happening, I believe,
- later this week.
- There are also legal frameworks to support permanently affordable and market-grade houses. This is a
- blended income neighborhood and there will be a percentage of the houses which is specified in the PUD
- that will be affordable long-term. We got some really good feedback in the last meeting about some of
- the limitations of those being done via deed restriction for financing. There will also be ongoing community
- outreach and developer training as part of this program.
- And so this is really intended to be a very comprehensive solution to trying to not just get affordable
- housing and attainable and desirable workforce housing on this site, but really expanding it throughout
- the city. So as part of that, we're working on smaller streets for the neighborhood, maintaining slower
- car speeds and making a more pedestrian-friendly environment. We're also then being much more efficient
- with the land area, reducing those right-of-way widths
- notably ticked up our number of units that we were able to pick up, which is great for overall infrastructure
- costs relative to the value generated by the development instead of right of way. We're also looking
- at diverse housing frontages. And so that is both efficient from an infrastructure standpoint, but it
- is also really desirable for a lot of households. You've got the option to face onto a street with a
- sidewalk, like a typical development.
- You also have the option to face those internal pedestrian geared streets, which can be much quieter
- and really, you know, little kid friendly as well as a mom of young kids having the front door open
- into green space instead of a street can be great for young families, you know, people with pets. We're
- also working on reintroducing some housing types and densities. So one of the use changes that was done
- in this revision was to ensure that some of the multifamily housing, which is relatively small, like
- 12 unit buildings, we've got a couple four unit buildings,
- are able to be built within the residential neighborhood, and you can see those are really intended
- to have a good fit with kind of residential character and scale. From a site plan, again, we're looking
- at these three blocks. Block eight and block nine have been combined, and so Jackson is being rededicated,
- aligning to the existing
- Intersection here on first as it moves into the northern sections of Hopewell. But then it dead ends,
- there's not a connecting street down in Wiley, so it does jog over slightly to pick up an extra couple
- of house lots. We did run this through kind of what we were allowed to do from base R4 zoning. And so
- as a reminder, that's 28 homes with an average price point of all of the houses around $425,000. And so by
- Adopting our first round of kind of proposed code changes and we were able to get up to 84 homes and
- bring the overall average price down to about $315,000. This was an early iteration and then working
- with the city back and forth both to increase some of the kind of right-of-way widths again to bring
- back some of the standards to ask for a little bit less but then introducing a little bit of multifamily
- to balance
- that overall reduction, we were able to end at about 100 homes just under, with an average price point
- around $270,000. The price points analysis that has been done here is based purely on market rate comps
- within town, and so we're not committing that this is what this house will come on the market for. At
- this time, we do have commitments on exact price points in terms of affordability metrics. Those will
- be based on the area median incomes at the time that they come online.
- But we are basing all of this on kind of no subsidy. Here's just what it would sell for based on comps
- in town to get all of our averages and our price points. Accessibility was a really big question at
- the last meeting, so we're hoping to provide a little bit of additional context on that. We do have
- two different kinds of accessible units, which we refer to as full AVA and fair housing standards.
- Those are two of the most common standards that we see nationally. It's two national codes. Those tend
- to be really broad standards. And I'll show some examples to the way that those two differ. But generally,
- we've clustered our accessible units up onto the flattest area of the site, kind of here in the middle
- along Fairview. The full ADA compliant units are shown in the light blue. And the fair housing units
- are shown in the dark blue.
- So I've got some slides about exactly which ones of those meet. We have a 20% threshold by PUD standards
- for accessible kind of universal design under the city code. And so both of these unit types well exceed
- that set of standards. And then we're proposing 29% of the units would be either ADA or FHA standards.
- So those will be a full zero step entrance. Generally, that is provided from the parking space.
- So that's something that we could definitely adjust as we go if there are preferences there. But,
- you know, for instance, this unit has an accessible parking space with full ADA accessibility in terms
- of loading zone for a van next to it. And then access to the home is from the rear because that's the
- high side. So then we've got a few feet of fall to the front side. And so we are looking at a zero-step
- entrance into each of these accessible homes from either the front or the back, depending on grading.
- As a background to the types of units and the names that we're giving, we call them ADA units because
- that's the base code that this standard is based on. So an ADA type unit is exactly equivalent to an
- ANSI type A unit. And so ANSI is a company that writes codes and sells codes. And so they have taken,
- they have their own accessible definition that came up in the 70s and so that's their type C now.
- So they republish the ADA standards and call it a type A, but every time the ADA standards are updated,
- ANSI updates them to match. And so we call this an ADA unit, but it's also an ANSI type A unit. They're
- exactly the same standards. This is the standard that is used for hotels, for hospitals, for dorms,
- nursing homes. And so there are residential standards within the ADA standards. They're much more extensive
- than an FHA standard. And we'll show you two examples. The bathrooms and the kitchens
- are the two things that most vary in a universal designed home versus a fair housing home versus an
- ADA home. And so we're going to show you some examples of what that bathroom looks like. So an ADA bathroom
- needs to have at least six feet around the toilet with grab bars, which is a really different change
- for most residential layouts. And so an ADA bathroom really has to be designed from scratch.
- It takes up a very different amount of space than a typical residential bathroom, and often the space
- between the toilet and the sink is one of the biggest elements of that. There is, you know,
- entry to the pool, kind of pull up to the sink, knee space under the sink requirements, a curbless shower
- is a requirement, a seat in the shower is a requirement, and then you need a full five-foot turnaround.
- So an ADA bathroom has the most stringent standards of any of the standards. Fair Housing Act.
- One of the things, you know, so Fair Housing Act is also in ANSI Type B. Same thing, this is a federally
- published code. Both of these codes are actually civil rights acts. It's legally the way that they get
- structured. And so every time that the Fair Housing Act standards are updated, ANSI then updates their
- standards to follow. So we can use either name, they're the same thing. So a Fair Housing Act or a Type
- B unit is much easier to accomplish. And one of the things that we see about Fair Housing units
- that should make us really pro-multi-family housing is anytime you have a building that has four or
- more units as a national civil rights requirement, all of your ground floor units are required to be
- fair housing compliant. And so anytime we have a building with more than four units, we will always
- have some accessible units. Those do need an accessible route from a public sidewalk, and so they are
- also visitable units.
- And so this is a standard that is required regardless of local standards. Anytime we've got four or
- more units in a building. So a fair housing standards bathroom and kitchen doesn't have the full turnaround.
- We don't have full grab bars around the toilet. The toilet and the sink are more related to where you
- would see them in a typical house. But you do have this 30 by 48 area that you have to be able to pull
- into the bathroom, close the door, and have access to each of the fixtures.
- A fair housing bathroom is slightly bigger or requires a little bit different customized layout, but
- not nearly as much as that ADA. ADA hallways also need to be much wider. A fair housing hallway doesn't
- have standards the same way at push and pull. And so both of these are useful, and both of these increase
- accessibility. They are slightly different standards. And so we do have units that meet both of these
- standards in the neighborhood.
- So again, that ANSI type A is the most stringent, the highest bar, that's our ADA compliance. Type B
- is still a really good accessibility standard, FHA requirements. And then the ANSI type C, which is
- what that one is called, is their old accessibility standard. And that one is not, I've never seen anybody
- use that one.
- So we have three accessible units that are full type A ADA units. You know, they're designed from scratch
- with that set of standards. And so we've got the eGrit, which is a two-bedroom, one-bathroom, one-story
- house. And so it's intended to be designed with a rear zero-entry stair. And so it is shown with stairs
- at the front. From a standardized version, it does typically, when it is built, have a rear entry.
- That might be flipped in some of these situations. I think this one is also always kind of rear entry
- and you're entering into a main space from your parking there. That can be flipped though so that that
- is done slightly differently if that's desired. The gardenia is a one bedroom, one bath, one story house.
- Same thing. This one is that will be the standard plans are shown on the stairs and that's a good flag
- that those will in our zero entry situations be built as a slab on grade with a zero entry.
- front door. And then the B-bomb is another one bedroom, one bath, slightly different layout. And we're
- proposing doing that as a duplex in a couple of locations. And so we've got these three plans in currently
- as our ADA plans. And then we also have a number of plans that are fully visitable, have a ground floor
- bathroom, and do need FHA standards. So about 29% of the plans meet one of these two standards.
- The pedestrian network within the neighborhood is a really important component of this. And so we've
- got the blue kind of car circulation. The front doors of all of our center lane houses here do face
- onto the shared pathway, this kind of central spine. So our phase one lots that we're proposing, we
- are proposing starting one with a lot line adjustment, first phase of houses up to the northern section.
- call with civil engineers today where they were confirming that there is then intended to install the
- rest of the infrastructure likely while these houses are still under construction and then we will generally
- be moving from west to east on housing development. Conceptual green infrastructure is shown in this
- hatched dark green and so drainage will be compliant with city standards and will be designed
- in combination with both block eight and block nine and 10 together. So there will be one comprehensive
- drainage design where a lot of the water quality is being handled within the residential areas and then
- water quantity storage is being handled more in the block eight commercial areas. Fire and trash collection.
- So fire access to all of these is within the blue hatch.
- And then this dark green hatch. We are keeping trash trucks on our North South, Fairview and Jackson.
- Those have larger turn radii than the lanes do. And the fire truck has a much smaller turn radius than
- the trash truck does. And so the fire trucks are coming into the lanes and then meet standard Appendix
- D requirements in terms of turn radii.
- We've got one small dead end section here, which again needs that appendix D maximum 150 foot length.
- And then we do have a full 150 foot pole from the lane to this lower section of houses. So those should
- be all fully compliant with typical standards. And then we've got street sections, if there are any
- questions about those, but those remain relatively unchanged. And then we're here to answer any questions
- you guys might have.
- Thank you. Are there any questions from commissioners? Mr. Ballard First I really appreciate in value
- your presentation and the updates You I feel like you listen to are giving us, you know feedback and
- changes that we were asking about So thank you for that. Just a couple quick ones This is the overall
- project how much time will this save in terms of breaking ground and
- with this goes through as a PUD versus if this stays as a buy-write development. That's one. And then,
- two, how much time will this save in the permitting process for developers? Three, how much money can
- be saved with the cuts in the time to the permitting process for developers and then for the owners
- who will be buying these? And if you don't have numbers for that, I would ask,
- for those at some point as a quantifiable average per unit We we can provide that overall as an average
- per unit which might take a little bit of doing but I think the easiest way to think about this too
- is that the PD the PD is saving time by being able to tackle this is one big development with
- the standardized set of details significantly easier and faster to run through the process than in a
- you know, lots of little developers purchased a chunk and then we're trying to entitle them all individually.
- But one of the largest cost savings that we're going to see is, let me come back to our number of units,
- the largest cost savings that we are seeing is in sharing the land cost, the infrastructure cost, among
- more houses of different sizes. And so that
- The biggest set of things that the PUD are legalizing is increasing us from 28 lots, in which we've
- got an average house cost of $425,000, down to 98 homes. We do have some multi-family within that, and
- so it's not 98 lots, so we switched it to homes. But that brings our average cost down to about $270,000.
- And so that is accomplished primarily by being able to incorporate
- additional small lot homes, small format homes, which don't make any sense if we're looking at a standard
- lot size and lot size cost, in which case you've got to build a certain size house to make the cost
- and value of the lot make sense. And so the overall process in PUD is dropping the cost of the homes
- in this neighborhood on average from about 425 to about 270. So it's a really significant difference.
- And we're looking before any type of subsidy is introduced
- at relatively market rates. But a really large percentage of these homes are designated as affordable
- under 100% AMI, even with standard assumptions on land cost and construction cost. I was trying to pull
- that number. It's 70% of houses currently at market rate price per square foot would be under 100% AMI.
- I'm trying to do a quick follow-up. Thank you for that. So in essence, with this cost savings and the
- comparables you're pulling for market values, you should be under the going rate per square foot of
- your comparables, correct? That is a little bit tricky because typically in most communities, a one-bedroom
- has sort of a value. And so often, a direct price per square foot
- A smaller house that is still still providing all of the things that you were looking for in that you
- know one bedroom house might sell for more price per square foot overall cost might be lower if that
- makes sense. So it's not entirely a direct drop. For instance, our smallest houses, which we have,
- you know, we have some tiers of the one bedroom houses have one price per square foot assumption. They're
- smaller. So it's a little bit higher than the two bedroom, right?
- more affordable, but the price per square foot might be 10 or 20% higher. When we looked at comps for
- the smallest houses, which are little studios, there are 10 houses that have sold in the last three
- years in Bloomington that are under 800 square feet, a studio or one bedroom that has sold for under
- $125,000. Some of them have sold for $50,000 to $70,000. And so there's lots of that type of very small house
- They tend to not be in great condition So the assumption is that that total purchase price is still
- very attainable and there are many buyers for that But the price per square foot is not a direct,
- you know, this is what it sells for commodity type price Sure, and I appreciate that I'm in real estate
- myself. So I'm pretty clear and I appreciate what you're saying I just want to make sure we're if this
- is an apples to apples comparison of you know the unit by the bed and
- Comparing one beds to one beds two to two three to three that kind of thing to be able to see and quantify
- the cost savings percentage wise For this project. So because I think that's just a really really key
- piece. So thank you for that Thank you So just to confirm this is the second hearing for this this submission
- has not changed since the first time right? This is exactly the same submission. No
- In general, it's the same submission. Yes, as I mentioned there were a few Refinements to some of the
- language within the district ordinance, but that's no change. Yeah, okay. Okay So the main question
- we talked a lot about affordability indeed restrictions last time And my understanding I believe this
- was passed before the recent UDO amendment and so it goes under the older
- affordability requirements My question is if in the future we decide okay We don't like deed restrictions
- and it seems like there may be some will towards moving that way Which I think personally is a good
- thing if there are future changes To deed restrictions and we get rid of them or come up with another
- way to impose a portability Will this will we be able to change it for this PUD? like will we be able
- to come back will will housing or plan planning have
- The discretion to come back and change the requirements that are currently being imposed on this Yeah,
- so the PUD is not locking in a specific procedure to accomplish the affordability So the petitioner
- is looking to accomplish that through a lot of the different mechanisms that the RDC is exploring So
- they you know, they could certainly again talk to that a little bit more in depth if you have questions
- about that
- I mean our PU like this the UDO talks about PUDs and there's an affordability requirement in there of
- 15% of the houses have to be deed restricted to sell at 120% of AMI those maybe I don't have those numbers
- right, but that's in the UDO, right? Correct. Yes So in the future if we decide we don't like
- deed restrictions, we want to do it differently Will we be able to come back and retroactively change
- it? Are those can we get rid of those deed restrictions later or if we agree to them now?
- they're there and they're going to stay there regardless of future changes we make. I would say as long
- as they are meeting the requirement to provide that affordability component how they're doing that is
- I think something that we certainly can explore at that time. You know deed restrictions or you know
- that specific language isn't dictated explicitly. You know it's just an affordability requirement that is there.
- You answered my question about The advertised pricing so you don't have builders That will that have
- agreed to build houses and be able to sell them at the market prices that are being advertised in here
- These were done by comparables and I guess that's fair enough. I understand that the one question How
- did you get comparables for this? There's no neighborhood like this in Bloomington. Was it just purely
- square foot or maybe the the consultant can answer? How did you guys find comparables for places like this? I
- We were looking at consoles within the last 12 months within Bloomington. There are a couple of neighborhoods
- that are a little bit more walkable or that are more walkable type neighborhoods. And so some of our
- historic districts, we were typically looking for, you know, renovated in decent condition, relatively
- comparable in terms of square footage and city center.
- But yes, I would consider these sort of budgeting numbers and target numbers that are confirming that
- the standards that are within the PUD in terms of affordability and price points are able to be met.
- But these are definitely based on what I would call budget version of comps, which typically what we've
- seen is that ends up relatively conservative. We've developed a number of neighborhoods that are this
- type of format that is
- more walkable, smaller yards, more communal green space, higher quality of architecture. And typically
- the problem that we have in there is restricting overall price points from growing too high, but typically
- they are relatively in demand. And so there isn't anything like it. There is, as we talked about in
- the first set of meetings, there's a huge number of households that are one in two people.
- that would like a smaller, nice, low maintenance new construction house if there was one available in
- their neighborhood, but that's not something that's available on the market. And so typically we work
- within what are things selling for price per square foot that houses about this size in roughly this
- neighborhood. But typically what we actually see in sales is that that's a pretty conservative estimate.
- Thank you.
- Can I just a quick follow-up on that? Were you able to find comps that were new construction? Or were
- you comparing mostly to older construction? I would say it's probably 50-50. There were some new construction
- infill units. There were both some condos that would be comps to the multi-family buildings. And there
- were also, is it Dunn Street? I think there's one really cute little neighborhood that is more walkable
- that wasn't PB.
- So there were a couple of places that we were able to find something that is new construction to validate
- those weren't Dramatically varying from our renovating the high-quality older construction price per
- square foot Thanks Commissioner Stossberg good I just want to follow up on that minute too and it might
- be better for city staff in the room as opposed to the Consultant, but if actual build prices end up
- exceeding those expectations for prices and the comparables that we've done
- Does the RDC have a plan for how to supplement that to maintain that affordability? Thanks Offerings
- for these lots, right? So we can put whatever details and guardrails that we need to in our public offering
- but there's also
- Many ways to protect affordability And so we are exploring that it could be a silent second mortgage.
- It could be an equity share They're they're right of first refusals There's a lot of different creative
- mechanisms to try and protect affordability beyond the deed restrictions But yes, we are putting guardrails
- on it. We are Working to address that but we haven't come up with the exact mechanism yet Thanks
- Yeah, so the the topic of comps have come up a number of times I'm curious where you found comparable
- properties for the Astor house You know roughly similar right which is a very small house that we found
- are typically very poor construction
- They are old and have not been renovated, but we found those selling from 25,000 up to 125,000 depending
- on location. And so the thing that we found with the Aster is there's typically a floor at which both
- you can get a mortgage for that house and your price to own it, your monthly price of ownership, utilities,
- insurance, mortgage payment, HOA payment in this case, is dramatically lower than your rental price
- for something of a similar size. And so that has been a unit that we've built before that creates a
- really good floor for entry into homeownership at a completely different price point than we would otherwise
- be able to achieve in something like this. And so there aren't a lot of the asters. There's a couple.
- And so they bring in a really good additional price point into the neighborhood.
- I guess my concern is that when no comps are available, that oftentimes leaves a gap between what's
- financeable for a mortgage and what the purchase price is, which leaves the buyer left to come up with
- that difference. So given the lack of comps of that size and the fact that we're kind of using maybe
- poorly constructed aging, you know,
- Comparable properties to kind of ramshackle together a value. Is that going to create a problem for
- the end user being able to buy the house? We built a lot of new construction houses 300 to 600 square
- feet in a variety of communities and it is typical that we can action for this first couple of sales use
- older homes that are selling or yeah, it's a 600 square foot house and it's sold for $90,000 typically
- with a value adjustment that does work fine for standard underwriting rules to you know, we'll have
- sold it in the last 12 months. We can we can typically use that for our first comp and then the first
- couple of sales become the cost for the later ones. But we have not typically seen that as a problem.
- We have never had one of our smaller houses that was not able to get a typical secondary market mortgage
- even the first one to sell.
- What what's the size of that sample group that you're basing that off of is that you know ten projects
- is that a hundred So in nine years, it's 15 to 20 units is the comp size that we're basing off of from
- a national standpoint of
- And when when the appraisals came through on those were there significant line adjustments for those
- appraisals to make them within market tolerance Because we've got
- Several houses that are 600 square feet, 500 to 600 square feet in Bloomington within the last 12 months
- that are selling for more than this is kind of slated to. They're selling for up to $125,000. We would
- not anticipate significant line adjustments that would be needed in that appraisal. Okay, thank you.
- That's helpful.
- This one is more for the approval of this So if based on the recommendation item one says that the final
- approver for block eight shall be heard by the Planning Commission final approver for all other phases
- would be delegated to staff So is that where we would approve block eight? Which is the last to be developed
- and then everything else which is the first to be developed would be delegated to staff Yes, that's
- correct that that's the condition that staff is proposing tonight, yes
- So does that remove the recourse of this governing body to be able to have an impact on those final
- plans for the Very beginning edge of this development In essence, yes, it allows for that to be done
- at staff level So that's that is our proposal. Certainly if that's something that the Plaint Commission
- feels that they would rather have a particular phase or section
- Heard at the Plain Commission then you can modify that condition of approval and I the use of lanes
- is you know a novel Idea that we're doing here for this PUD. Is there any plan for transportation to
- codify lanes into their usage?
- So that's certainly something we can look at when we update the transportation plan, you know That's
- a much broader undertaking to update and go through that plan. So certainly we can look at this as CFR
- elements of this PD that we want to incorporate as an additional street typology Is approving any of
- this in the current format? setting a precedence for kind of leapfrogging over any of those formal approvals
- in the future and
- I wouldn't say leapfrogging but it does present an opportunity to try them out to see how they might
- function in this scenario Thank you Any other questions from commissioners I'm just looking at the the
- UDO it does it does say deed restrictions right for the affordability must be permanently income limited
- through deed restrictions to the household and
- Yes, the reason I'm bringing this up is because like some of these are imposed through agreement with
- with the city and We and they we have discretion to release those later if we choose to but it once
- a deed restriction is in place Is that who can change that once it's put in there? Does anybody have
- the ability to change that? That's really my question Yeah, so that language it goes on to additionally
- say unless forfeited by the city and
- So with this petition, you know to propose the petitioners are brought forward a plan to accomplish
- that affordability through a wide range of different paths You know this specific length of time hasn't
- hasn't been given by the petitioner in terms of how long that affordability Would be carried out. So
- that's something certainly the Planning Commission feels like they need some level of commitment from
- You know, that's something they could pursue
- I don't I don't read it that way. I think the city's ability to otherwise adjust to release the requirement
- that applies to subsection 2004 110 see the deed restriction is earlier in the paragraph. And again,
- I don't know that the city will have the discretion to undo a deed restriction. That's really my question.
- Maybe legal can input on that. I don't know enough about deed restrictions, but once you've put a deed
- restriction in place, my question is, can we ever get rid of it?
- Like it's not just an agreement with the city where we can say we're not going to enforce that's a deed
- restriction Get someone from legal to weigh in here I and if the language says the city can forfeit
- and and it's in a deed We'd obviously have to work with the property owner in that, you know the deed
- is going to be binding on whoever owns that home and so You know that's
- That there will have we can't just you know, we unilaterally change a deed that you know and Alter somebody's
- property rights without conversation that property owner Does that answer your question? Just to follow
- up on that then so but in this case the district ordinance would supersede Whatever is in the UDO, right?
- So if we wanted to allow Some other method of assuring affordability other than a deed restriction. Yeah
- We can do that But we have to make that decision before the properties are Yes, and there is obviously
- we're here tonight for this, you know PUD but there are Continuing conversations we're gonna have to
- have and I don't know if Ali who's online Wants to talk about I think this is a conversation we've had
- with her if you'd like to jump in here and talk about some of the other creative things that have happened
- in other communities
- regarding affordability. I'd be happy to. I'll also point out that the PUD language here within our
- PUD we propose does not state that it may have deed restriction. The only place that the word
- deed restriction are used is as one of the optional ways that this might be accomplished. And so the
- standard itself is fixed. That at least 50% of the total dwelling area units within the PUD will be
- affordable to home buyers under 100% AMI.
- And then at least 15% of the total dwelling units will be permanently income limited to households earning
- less than 120% of area median income. So we are committing to the percentages that will be done,
- you know, a larger percentage at first sale, a smaller percentage that is permanently protected. But
- then we are not within the PUD itself limiting this to be restrictions and we are listing a number of
- ways that this can be done. So there are,
- There is a nested section, right, of kind of affordability that is being discussed within REC that will
- require their final kind of review on options. But yeah, so a silent second mortgage has sort of down
- payment assistance is one of the ways that that is typically discussed is one way that that has been
- discussed as being available, that functionally the REC would be given, giving basic, on the land value
- functionally is like the way this would be done.
- would be giving a forgivable second mortgage so that the longer that you're in the house, that that
- is a tiered release functionally of that being paid back. And so that would be one form of this that
- is common. Right of first refusal is another version that is relatively permanent but does have a lot
- of flexibility because if at some point that is not, the RAC sort of fails to execute their right of
- first refusal, a market rate sale can happen.
- And then that can actually come back. The next owner would still also own that. So there's some good
- flexible ways that that can be done. We do hear you on the de-restriction limitations. But the PUD as
- it is currently written does not commit to a de-restriction as the method by which that will be done.
- It does commit to the standards that will be met in terms of percentages of homes and AMI. So just to
- clarify that then,
- There's nothing in the PUD that's going to codify the methodologies that are gonna be used. We'll simply,
- someone at the staff level will just review to make sure that as these are sold, they're still meeting
- that affordability requirement. Yes, and that's section three, that's, I guess, item three under section
- two, qualify standards and eligibility
- Is the section of which the optional variety of ways this can be achieved is committed to and then the
- percentages are committed to Okay, it's when you refer to that are you referring to the udo the the
- pud qualifying standards in the udo or is this part of the pud? Modifying that because the deed restriction
- Okay. Thank thank you the deed restriction
- Language is part of the qualifying standard to qualify for a PUD So there are things say if you want
- a PUD do ABCDEFG One of those things is to have a deed restriction. So can the PUD agreement Undo and
- supersede the requirements to have a PUD like can could they also say we're gonna have a PUD and it's
- only gonna be one acre because it's supposed to be so many acres, but
- we're gonna agree in the PUD to have less than that. So are all these requirements for a qualifying
- standard to have a PUD, all of those can be modified by the PUD itself? Is that what's happening? I
- would say that staff's interpretation of that has been here is the qualifying standard that you have
- to accomplish the deed restriction and we are saying that they are meeting the intent of that through
- the affordability
- Methods that they have outlined to achieve that affordability over a long term And so we had made that
- determination that they are meeting the qualifying standard by what they have proposed in their Petitioner
- statement and how they kind of explained it hearing tonight and last time So yes, you know the PUD is
- this is offering an allowance for something different something that's not envisioned and
- With the UDO the UDO is envisioned for affordability multifamily residences So that's that's a little
- bit different than the single family component that's here tonight and so we've approached that with
- a degree of flexibility in terms of Applying and interpreting what the language in the UDO is trying
- to accomplish Okay, thank you Mr. Stossberg
- Well, I just wanted to clarify that point to you I guess that under that qualifying standards and eligibility
- of the petition that that affordability commitment and then that language that doesn't actually include
- deed restrictions at all but Includes all of these other concepts of how to maintain that affordability
- like that overrules the udio, which is I think what you just said and
- Yes, I was trying to try to listen to what you were saying as well as read the qualifying standards
- and wanted to make sure to point out You know that the last sentence in that qualifying standards section
- talks about you know, unless the city relinquishes Or releases that requirement and so that is where
- we're building it again So what what I was saying last time is you know if the city wanted to install
- or the Plain Commission? Wanted to have a condition of approval that you know necessitated a certain
- time period length of time and
- You know right now it's just kind of been left, you know, I'll say somewhat open-ended in terms of the
- length of that commitment You know in terms of how many property owners how long? You know
- is the affordability component of this, you know that specificity isn't included Well, but it says that
- 15% Will be permanently income limited. Yeah, so it's the permanently, you know that specific element of
- Is not something that has been specifically clarified. They're meeting the percentage requirements.
- Yes, it's the length of time I'm confused because you're saying that like they haven't clarified in
- the petition how long That these units will be permanently afforded or will be affordable, but it says
- that they'll be permanently affordable. So that Tells me that the length of time is forever So now I'm confused
- Yes, and I think the petitioner has been hesitant to say that it will be permanently affordable because
- at some point, you know, there is a Time period where the property owner will receive a return on investment
- So it's not a permanent affordability restriction, but it says permanent affordability in this in this document
- Correct. And so, again, that's where I was saying, you know, with the PUD process, you know, we are
- trying to approach this as a different path towards single family residences and how to balance,
- you know, the affordability, but also a single family. You know, you do have a realization of investment
- and equity that has to be realized at some point. So, you know, again, like I said, there's not a length
- of time that's been specifically called out.
- If the Planning Commission feels that they need to have something, I mean right now, yes, it would be
- permanent. So I don't know that the petitioner has made a commitment to that, so I look to them to try
- to address that. I guess I would look to them to address that too, because the document says that they're,
- to me they're making a permanent commitment to 15% of those units.
- And that's your intention. Yes. Great. Thanks at this point. Yes. I mean there's no question that This
- needs to be updated in the udio period but for this project we're committing to what our standard is
- But how we're achieving it there are many different mechanisms in which we can achieve that Not just
- deed restrictions, right? Thank you Just quit
- Follow-up director Killian Hansen. I appreciate you saying that because I think that's that's nail in
- the head The UDO needs to change we have to work within the context of what we're what we what we're
- dealing with with the UDO with this PUD I just want to ask though this In my mind and I'm in the real
- estate industry. This could turn into a quagmire of sorts If is there going to be an educational component?
- Eventually for the developers of all of these so they can fully be on very clear that
- To what they're undertaking and then the consumers of these products be very very clear in terms of
- what they're getting in a deed because I can tell you Being in the industry deed restrictions. They
- don't always get analyzed the way they should and that creates some real Headaches, so I'm just maybe
- you're not there yet and that's completely fine but if you could just speak to it what the plans may
- might be and
- Kerry Thompson mayor I'm just giving in a break We have We actually have boot camps for developers coming
- up as well as public sessions that that sort of educate the public and developers about this I Will
- just agree with you publicly deed restrictions or poison pills for getting houses developed because
- you can't resell them and
- And so unless you have a non-conventional mortgage you Once you once you get somebody in it
- with a non-conventional mortgage, they're stuck so It's something I'm serious about looking at as we
- look at our UDO changes How do we ensure some affordability? without a deed restriction Thank you
- UDO have a formal definition of what a deed restriction is No, it does not does it have any form of
- limitations or guardrails around how it is implemented So deed restrictions and we don't
- With those I guess that's not true. We do in terms of zoning commitment So we have zoning commitments,
- which is very similar to a deed restriction in terms of it's something that is recorded on a property
- and lays forth You know, whatever restrictions are in place so the zoning commitment is the closest
- thing to a deed commitment or deed restriction and that requires affordability or Sustainable developments
- that is there anything that is a requirement that needs to be made sure that it's aware of for future
- property owners
- So we're hinging on a loose association with that for the month for the time being Yes, so, you know
- the the PUD requires that so, you know, that's something that would be laid out certainly on the plan
- and But and with the zoning approval, but we could look to do a deed restriction in more novel ways.
- Is that right?
- We can do zone. I mean, these are things that we work heavily with the legal department on, you know,
- in terms of what they feel comfortable with, you know, so certain things that are requirements within
- the UDO, you know, those are not things that
- You know, I'm gonna say our negotiator necessarily that are discretionary, you know, it's it's a standard
- that's in the UDO So therefore, you know, it's just being reiterated in that zoning commitment. There's
- a situation where we have a zoning commitment You know, obviously we make sure that the property owner
- is aware that you know We're not just placing a restriction on a property without their knowledge or
- consent It's not so much that concern more where I'm thinking of
- Going is the that's kind of like a forgivable second or soft second behind that wouldn't that be tantamount
- to a deed restriction because You can't sell a property if all parties are not willing to sell therefore
- if they're the city is on one of these seconds and they're unwilling to relinquish that a credit facility
- or however, it's going to be posed then they could basically restrict the deed of that property is that right and
- So we don't have to have a legitimate deed restriction in the hard sense that we're all kind of thinking
- about it because there is no legal definition that we've defined it to. So that leaves us to our own
- mechanisms to define what that's going to be. And specific to a putt, it sounds like we can kind of
- craft that on the fly. Is that more or less correct?
- We come up with conditions of approval certainly that would accomplish the same things, you know a deed
- restriction We're you know, like I said a zoning commitment. It's just a further Element that helps
- ensure that that is known for future owners And but but we don't have to treat everything like a nail
- and only have a hammer, right? right Dana Kerr with the legal department I assist sometimes with planning
- and we have a
- Works on this and we do believe that the unless the city why otherwise adjust to releases this requirement
- gives you the ability to release the requirement of deed restrictions and I also agree with you that
- even if it you didn't release that by approving the various the PUD as it is listing the various ways
- to achieve that Yes, it restricts how
- The property is going to move forward Stepwise in the future. So it does restrict what's going to happen
- with that property in the future. So So either you can use a loose definition of these restrictions
- or you can use the language that says that you can release that you don't have to use that and Again,
- this has been stated tonight those, you know getting away from strict deed restrictions Will help
- the RDC to be able to adjust as they go along in the development, see what's working really well, what
- people are more willing to do so that we can attain the affordability that we're committing to.
- Yeah, I see the lack of definition as an intentional gray area allows for malleability for situations
- specifically like this, where you have a new vision for something that doesn't quite fit the box, and
- so you purposely leave it open for interpretation. Now, of course, everybody has to agree on what that
- interpretation looks like each time, but it also sets the precedent going forward. But as it sits, it
- sounds like
- There is a pretty open interpretation for what this could be right and again done so because this is
- trying something new and to me Just when you try something new doesn't mean that you liked it and want
- to keep going with it Or it may be so I don't believe that it sets a hard precedent I think it gives
- the opportunity
- for that flexibility to see what works as the development goes through. And that will actually in turn
- help figure out what maybe a permanent changes to the UDO may want to look like. All right, thanks.
- Thank you. Any other questions from commissioners? Mr. Stosberg. I have kind of a new topic of question.
- So I only want to go if nobody else wants to follow up on the financial end Okay, I wanted to talk about
- parking So after I left the meeting I did I did watch the end comments and there were a couple
- of commissioners who mentioned the on-street parking and it still says that on-street parking may be
- provided on all lanes and
- Fairview and Jackson, so I'm the lanes are very narrow and there was discussed last time that parking
- along the side of those lanes would be Potentially problematic and I guess I'm I'm trying to wonder
- like I'm trying to understand exactly what that means that on-street parking is allowed because then
- there's other like along Jackson and along Fairview there's some specific spots that are on-street parking
- spots, but
- The way this sounds it kind of sounds like you could park alongside the street anywhere. And so I'm
- just trying to understand First of all exactly what you mean by on-street parking may be provided Everywhere
- Yeah, let me let me answer that that's a relatively simple one that was something that came up with
- the reason these aren't Which was the first version of this?
- is that in an alley within Bloomington's current code, you can block an alley by parking within the
- drive lane for a certain amount of time. And so because these are also fire access routes, that whole
- 20 feet has to be maintained clear at all times. And so because it now is functioning as streets, it's
- a street type, it's not an alley, we wouldn't have been able to have the pull-in driveways right off
- of it the way that you would to be off of an alley, the way that it's shown.
- And so what that section of UD is legalizing is letting us pull a driveway directly off of the alley.
- The alley itself will be striped as a fire lane and will not be able to be blocked. And that's the reason
- it's a lane. And while we did sort of go around and around about adjusting parking requirements, because
- parking gets discussed in a couple of different ways. And so we've been using on-street parking,
- you know, legalizing that as a
- form of parking towards the parking minimums, and I think in the latest round of comments, we've gotten
- all the way to, okay, there are no parking minimums. We are parking at one space per bedroom, and it's
- a one and a half space per unit standard, and so we do feel really comfortable that there is enough
- parking that is provided that is not counting on-street parking on Jackson Street, which is intended
- for daytime use by police department or safety department, kind of use of our block eight building for
- office workday parking.
- That does mean there's some additional overflow of guest parking in those on-street spaces that is not
- being counted towards that one space per bedroom. But the intention with the lanes is, you know, they
- are fire access routes, and so they will be signed, and you will be able to be towed if you block the
- lane, but that there are parking spaces dedicated for each unit that are off of those, as well as some
- additional guest parking spaces in the middle of the block that will also be signed.
- So with that you don't mean that like people so I'll just say so in my neighborhood I live in Park Ridge
- and I'm Parker Jesus the same thing like people can just park alongside the roads. They're not parking
- spots There's nothing like official but you can park alongside The road anywhere and so that's what
- this sounds like to me when you say on-street parking is a lot anywhere It sounds like you can just
- park on the side anywhere and that you don't need a designated parking spot Do you understand what I mean?
- I do, and we can clean up that language in the revision that we're picking up this round of staff comments
- because the intention is you would not typically be able to have a driveway that just pulls directly
- off of a street the way that we're currently showing because the lane is kind of more like an alley.
- And so that's a normal way a driveway would work off of an alley. It would not be allowed that way off
- of a street. And so we can clean up that language to create much more clarity on the intention because
- the lanes themselves are fire lanes and will be signs that you cannot block them.
- Okay Mr. Grulick, how is that like generally framed and the rest of our code in terms of that like on-street
- parking versus like parking spots off of
- Yes, so that those are those situations are codified where you can have on-street parking So in this
- particular cross-section for lanes, you know, it does not show an on-street parking lane being accommodated
- So, you know, this is certainly something that we can clean up as Ali mentioned You know, we'll go through
- and just remove that reference to on-street parking being allowed on lanes so that it's not confusing
- Okay, is it is that what it's usually called though is on-street parking when you can like park on the
- side of the street Yes on-street parking would allow for parallel or angled spaces that are within the
- right-of-way So the parking spaces that Ali was mentioning are outside the right-of-way So they really
- would not be considered on-street parking in that situation. Okay, great Thank you that that clarity
- would be great. I have a few more parking things to follow up on if that works for Okay
- Was wondering what the parking plan is for those two multi-unit buildings up there I can't remember
- what they're called right now, and I don't have them. I don't have That note highlighted, but you know
- which ones I'm talking about I do the fun Some of those are dedicated to those units and then likely
- There will be this is sort of one of those elements this
- to be determined as the civil engineers get started, but we are looking at either adding on-street parking
- to 1st Street, just in this section of this block, or whether we would need to have these units use
- these spaces at night. And so that is an element that is, we currently have enough spaces that are surface
- within the neighborhood to accommodate those, but there is an opportunity within the flexibility of
- the way the street sections are done, and we may add some additional parking onto 1st Street.
- Adding more on-street parking on 1st Street. Do you actually mean parking on the side of 1st Street
- at this point? Okay And I think I have another parking question too, let me see if I can find it. Oh I know
- It says somewhere at the end, I think it's, oh no, it's PUD standards common to both parcels. It says
- parking is required to comply with base zoning requirements and is exempt from TRO parking standards.
- And I don't know what TRO parking standards are, and I kind of feel like it's kind of problematic for
- me to go, oh yeah, I totally approve this. And it says something that I have no idea what it's talking
- about. It doesn't have a definition anywhere. It doesn't link to anything, and that just is troubling.
- Yeah, so I can help you with that. So in the TRO district, it says that parking maximums are half of
- what the typical parking maximums are in the UDO because I was expecting the use of the parking garage.
- So any properties that are within the TRO overlay have a further 50% reduction from what the parking
- maximums typically would be. So that was being included because it obviously would have
- great impacts on the use of block eight In terms of the number of parking spaces that can be there if
- instead the language has been included that If it's used as a police fire rescue station that it's exempt
- from that requirement in order to give allowance for the police department or other rescue services
- to have a higher parking on-site parking allowance Well, but that's that's under a part that says both
- parcels are exempt from that
- But is it only block 8 that's part of the yes. Yep. So that's that's the only place where there are
- Maximums UDO does not have parking whether our maximums are duplexes. So that is Yeah, that would just
- apply to block 8 because that's in that section. Okay I'll wait for now. I do have other questions,
- but I'll give somebody else chance. Thanks Any other questions
- Nobody else has other questions. Um, I want to clarify first all of these streets and lanes are gonna
- be the Responsibility of the city for things like snow clearing and maintenance and all that stuff.
- They're all gonna be city rights away Yes, they are all shown to be public. So they would be maintained
- by us Okay, and has public works like weighed in on like snow clearing and that kind of stuff because
- snow is such an issue right this second
- Yeah, so, you know obviously with Fairview and Jackson Street those being more of a typical Street,
- you know snow plowing won't be an issue, you know on the lanes You know with the lack of a tree plot
- and other areas in order to locate snow that might be a little bit more challenging but with the shorter
- length of those hopefully that's not a significant challenge Thanks And then I wanted to dig into the ADA
- accessibility stuff as I think my last, like, substantive kind of comment. So I'm just trying to understand
- both the pieces of presentation. Ali, I really appreciate that you
- responding to some comments from the public specifically included some Accessibility comments and some
- of those differences and I appreciate that but it really like when I'm looking at the different cross
- sections like as they're included in the packet it doesn't really seem as though those cross sections
- are actually the Accessible ones or the full ADU or either of those is that an accurate assumption or
- is it just that they're not
- Exactly to scale or like word. Yeah The stairs were included from another project and so that the stairs
- on the front of the gardenia are just a standardized elevation error and so that's That is on us and
- reasonable interpretation question on that Yes, there is a commitment within these that those will have
- a zero-step entry and they've been cited and graded to be able to achieve that from the parking lot
- and from sidewalks
- Okay, and I guess that like allows us follow up because I thought that one of the things that I heard
- you say when you were doing that presentation was that the rear entry would be ADA accessible would
- be zero step but not necessarily the front would be and then I was like wait so so somebody in a wheelchair
- would be able to get in one door and not the other and
- We've got one unit right now that we we need to finalize grading with civil engineers that getting from
- why we up to this front door is the only one that from an existing grading tree preservation existing
- sidewalk kind of routing is looking challenging all of the rest of these appear to have you know an
- entry guarantee from the back and we think we can get to a kind of slope sidewalk situation against
- your entry in the front So that's kind of like specific to this site then
- That's right. And and the units are very much sighted on the lots where they can go right? There's a
- huge section of kind of this entire portion of the area that you know We've got four to six feet of
- slope across some of those lower lots And so the 88 units are located on the lots that are able to be
- graded to be level enough to get that visibility access Okay, I guess I
- I'm really interested and you're actually like publishing those plans for those accessible units. It
- really feels like an oversight Especially given the public questions that we've had over the last longer
- than a month honestly at least two months that I've been at various meetings that Members of our CCA
- have been at who have been mentioning this and then we still don't have the actual plans and similarly
- like I appreciate the bathroom thing and all of those
- Notes, but that that also feels a little bit Like once again, maybe these just aren't quite to scale
- maybe they're not perfect but I think that The community would feel a whole lot more assured if they
- actually saw those plans And I guess similarly You know you have the difference there between the full
- ADA compliance and then the universal design and as I you know was trying to
- Look at and understand the differences and kind of look as closely as I could at the images that you
- gave and I will Give the aster and gardenia as my two examples, okay because they're on the same page
- of my packet and
- The aster does not look like it has enough space in the bathroom for somebody in a wheelchair to access
- it So that would just be universal design, but if you can't access the bathroom, then really you just
- can't be there But it does look like the gardenia does have that So is that like one of those big differences
- between say like the ADA? compliance in universal design because that really seems like a failure of
- universal design if somebody can't even get into the bathroom and
- So the Aster is a good example of, yes, it's the dark blue universal design, and so it's got a 30 by
- 48, you know, it has at least a 34-inch wide door, so you have at least 32 inches clear to get in there,
- and so you can, you don't have a full ADA turnaround, right? Those are only the light blue units, the
- Gardenia and the eGrid.
- that have full wheelchair turnaround. But what is standard within kind of universal design and you can
- call FHA really a step up from kind of generalized universal design standards because it does have,
- you know, area required at each fixture is provided, yes, within the dark blue. And so, yes, that's
- the big difference in those two standards. And the three plans that are accessible are in that full
- catalog. And so the Gardenia, the E-Grip, the B-Bomb are the three that are full wheelchair accessible.
- full ADA standards, and then the dark blue, the Aster, the, we renamed these at some point during the
- process, so they're not our typical names for them. So I think it starts with a G. This one in the corner
- is also brown floor bathroom, has a 30 by 48 wheelchair, has the wider doorways, is fully visitable,
- but is not a full ADA bathroom. It does not have a full five foot turnaround on that purple shower.
- Okay, so and then in terms of the Faulkner that's also in that dark blue and So those is are are they
- gonna be condo buildings things if all of this is theoretically like made for ownership So those are
- gonna be condo buildings And they're ADA accessible, but they're not gonna have actual like accessible
- bathrooms would like turn around space in them and
- So the ground floor, because they're multi-family buildings, the ground floor of those are already FHA
- compliance, floor plans. And so they're fully visitable and they have a 30 by 48 area within the bathroom
- to FHA standards. And that provides a full turnaround? It does not. So FHA standards is pull in,
- back out. ADA standards are full five foot turnaround. So the light blue are full turnaround, five foot radius,
- Shower that's curbless and a seat in the shower The dark blue are a more typical residential bathroom,
- but that is adaptable Swapped out to provide me area more pulling back out Right, I guess it feels a
- little frustrating and I think too many of our community members to you that there's not More adaptability
- and some of those especially the condos. Um, but you said the b-bomb is
- Does have that full ADA compliance, right? But there's not actually But there's not actually any B bombs
- in this plan Okay, so there's a couple that are
- And that one but they're not in light blue there Okay, so there should act okay, that's also frustrating
- um, I Think that those are my accessibility Questions All right, any other questions from commissioners
- I Have one more random question of what the trash plan is for the Faulkner buildings because of their
- condo buildings and there's like ten of them then we wouldn't be picking them up with our sanitation
- department, but then like so in theory would there be like a dumpster somewhere on that property and
- then would you expect that dumpster to be facing first Street or facing the lane and is the lane big
- enough for a trash truck to get down there and empty a dumpster and
- Okay, so are you anticipating then that That Bloomington sanitation would be picking those up even though
- they're in a building that has more than four units
- Can staff address that at all because they're the ones that know our local sanitation rules Yeah, I
- don't think based on the number units the sanitation would pick that up So that would have to be a private
- arrangement Has the petitioner had conversations about that
- Kerry Thompson mayor we have already addressed this with public works That they will be picking up sanitation
- for the entire neighborhood Okay, thank you All right, I Think we are ready then for public comment
- if you're here in the chambers and you'd like to make comment Just make your way to the podium state
- your name for the record You'll have up to five minutes to comment if you're joining us online and you
- would like to comment
- Click on the reactions button and then raise hand Or you can send a chat message to the meeting host
- and we will recognize you when it is your turn to speak Great. Thank you Can you hear me? Yes, okay.
- My name is Susan Sizer I'm co-president of the mobility aids lending library and a member of the CCA and
- but I'm speaking here tonight solely as a concerned citizen. I have MS and I've been using a wheelchair
- for over 20 years. I own a 1957 single family home in the SOMAX neighborhood of Bloomington. When we
- bought our house, it had four concrete steps to the front door like most older homes in town. To make
- it accessible, we had to build a 30 foot
- concrete ramp to cover the 30 inch rise of the stairs following the ADA code of one foot to one inch
- of height. One inch of length to one inch of height. In addition, we had to widen and reframe all exterior
- and interior doorways. With these costly experiences in mind, when I look at the preliminary plans for
- housing at Hopewell South, my immediate question is,
- Why put stairs in the entranceways of new home constructions? Is there anything that prevents grading
- the site for no-step entrances? Prevents that. All of the drawings have steps for every, even the dark
- blue and light blue. I also think of the South Dunn Project. I know you have comps for that.
- a similarly dense new neighborhood with lovely colorful homes and equally touted 20 years ago as a model
- housing project for Bloomington. But there too, all the entrances have stairs and the bathrooms are
- tiny. A good friend living on Dunn Street had to build a ramp with her own money so I could visit her
- at home, something not many people can do. Rather than piecemeal retrofits that rely on homeowners
- Homeowners own goodwill and budgets. Why not plan for all the homes in the new? Hopewell South neighborhood
- to be visitable My experience as a resident of Bloomington for the past 20 years is that what most limits
- my participation in community life here is
- is the lack of visitability in most homes and some social venues. To avoid repeating such barriers,
- planning no-step entrances for all homes in the Homewell South project would greatly benefit community
- life for people with mobility disabilities in the new neighborhood. And I would point out, as would
- many others, that disabilities of all types can happen to anyone at any time
- and then of course we all age and aging in place is what most of us would choose to do. With all this
- in mind, I suggest that developers consult directly with people with disabilities that would benefit
- the stated goals of the planners and avoid the burden and cost of future retrofitting for homeowners
- who want to age in place and or invite their friends to visit. Thank you.
- There's there's a spot there's one that's down on the side that actually goes a little lower and you
- can also be off to the side and Speak into it For community accessibility
- but the opinions I'm sharing are my own. I support the Hopewell South project, but I'm asking you to
- approve it with the caveat and condition that people with disabilities must be involved in the process
- going forward. The most important work for our community lies ahead, which is developing and finalizing
- the housing catalog that will contain the pre-approved plans. What do people with disabilities want
- for Hopewell? It's really very simple. We want to be consulted on projects like this.
- One in four people in the United States has a disability We should be in every important conversation
- about every issue that affects us. We shouldn't be an afterthought The Council for Community Accessibility
- was formed in 1990
- Provide professional and lived expertise to the city and local businesses on behalf of the 25% of Bloomington
- residents who have disabilities We should be proactively invited and welcomed by the city in Flintlock
- to help with this project Unfortunately, there have been some communication failures and so we didn't
- even know about that any of these housing catalog plans existed if they if we had we could have Talked
- to you about the fact that those FHA bathroom plans really do not provide
- Meaningful accessibility, you know, if you can't park a wheelchair next to the toilet, it's really not
- usable But there are some other bathroom designs that utilize a small footprint but can still provide
- that full accessibility and you know, we could help you find a universal design professional as well
- who could who could you know come up with plans that would work while still maintaining all the cost
- and affordability goals and
- And that's why we're asking the Plan Commission to include a requirement for ongoing reporting compliance
- review and engagement with people with disabilities in the Hopewell South PUD.
- The data shows that building new homes with basic accessibility features like step-free entrances cost
- the same as homes without those features. The cost comes from having to renovate, from having to tear
- things out. If you had to make one of those quote FHA accessible bathrooms accessible, you'd probably
- be looking at $6,000 in renovations because you'd have to tear out all that plumbing where that sink
- is that's right next to the toilet. So those are just a really, really terrible design, I'm sorry. But
- if you build it right the first time, then if someone needs to save
- Put in a roll-in shower where they had a tub then that's very easy to do So again, I'm asking you to
- do everything you can to ensure that the city works with the disability community going forward to address
- these designs and any cost concerns that may be associated with them and
- You know people with disabilities we care about affordability. We don't want to make this into some
- expensive project because as a community we're twice as likely to live in poverty and a lot of us can't
- drive so a neighborhood like Hope wall is really perfect for for people with disabilities and for seniors
- who need this accessibility and
- You know my colleagues and I were all here to passionately advocate for hopeful accessibility because
- we've personally experienced the challenges of finding accessible and affordable housing I know I'm
- incredibly fortunate compared to a lot of people with disabilities and I still had to utilize state
- funding sources and family support to make my home accessible
- Also, I mean I know people a lot of people who have to use a commode or take bed baths because they
- can't get into their bathroom I know people who have to spend 80% of their income on an accessible house
- or apartment Because they otherwise they can't use their own bathroom You know, you might hear from
- some of those folks here
- Or via emails or you might not because this is kind of intimidating to get up in front of the city and
- you know Not everybody probably is up for that, but that doesn't mean that they don't care You know,
- they might also think that this isn't a project for them This isn't something that they would be included
- then that they're going to be excluded excluded Because that happens so often so I guess I've seen I'm
- coming here with relative privilege to say that you know we need this people with disabilities need
- this and if you build it and
- We will come I want hopeful to be a shining example of a community that is welcoming to everyone
- Accessibility should be the default not the exception the hopeful South PUD should reflect these values
- and ensure that people with disabilities Can be meaningful partners with the city as the neighborhood
- takes shape. That's really what we want to do We want to work with you. Thank you Thank you
- Hi again, I'm Leslie Davis, and I don't have much new to add. The rest of the Wheelchair Brigade has
- done that very nicely. I would like to say thank you to Allie and to the Commission for the additional
- detail on the housing catalog, especially the detail about at least one of these entrances being at grade.
- I'd also like to thank especially Anna Killian Hansen for reaching out to the Council for Community
- Accessibility to solicit our input on the housing catalog because we have now come to understand that
- what you are voting on today is not the housing catalog. And that was not imminently clear at the last
- planned commission meeting.
- That being said, there have been some housing designs proposed. They are perhaps, as we see them, not
- exactly as how we're meant to be seeing them. So that would be really important to see the housing plans
- actually without the steps or with different bathrooms, for example.
- But our remaining big question is one that maybe somebody here can answer, which is if 29% of the homes
- are slated to be either visitable or fully accessible, is there a reason why a larger percentage of
- the homes cannot meet the visitability standard of being step-free in some
- at some entrance. You know, I haven't scrutinized the land. I do know there is a slope, but is there
- a substantial slope between two houses that are marked as potentially accessible and the two next door
- to it, for example? So I don't know that you have that information, but as my colleagues rightly pointed out,
- Who does it hurt to not have steps if that's topographically feasible? And then again, we want Hopewell.
- We want this Hopewell, we want the other Hopewells. The fact is less than 4% of housing stock in the
- United States is accessible or even visitable.
- And that's just unacceptable, especially as people live longer. So we think you, or I think, and I think
- my colleagues agree with me, that you should approve the PUD, but with added enforcement verification
- or monitoring language to ensure accessibility and visitability outcomes. So something like the Hopeville
- South PUD will require
- ongoing reporting, compliance review, and engagement with people with disabilities. So that, as much
- as can be done, can be done. And we do understand that sometimes there are things that drive prices
- up, and we very much want these homes to be affordable. But sometimes it's just the fact that people
- build things with steps, because that's how we've always done it.
- I'm here to say all of us who have modified a home are here to say you that's not where you have to
- start So, thank you very much. Thank you Eric do we have any online commenters?
- If there is anybody online that would like to speak to this petition, please use the raise hand function
- and we can recognize you. I'm not seeing anybody. All right. There is one person online, but we can
- get them after Randy.
- We'll take comment here first and then we'll go to the online comment or next good evening Appreciate
- all you guys participation such Randy Cassidy. I am a member of the RDC But I'm said I'm here tonight
- as an individual so I'd like to address the aspect of as we look at this and we look at what Hope well
- is what we have and what we as a community have invested in it and how soon we can get something done
- in order to provide the affordable housing in the close
- proximity to the downtown to the services that are needed walkability and accessibility So I would propose
- that as you the Planning Commission move this forward we see where it's financeable affordable and accessible
- the accessibility will be based upon the reviews that go on the affordability while it has not all been done and
- We need to be able to move this project forward in order to show as a community that all of these components
- that we want as Bloomington, Indiana are met, but we have to take that first step, and that first step
- is approving the PUD. So I'd appreciate if you guys would approve it. One comment I wanna make based
- upon our people that have said the accessibility, as a grandfather of a grandson,
- That was born at 27 weeks and 1.4 pounds and and will never walk You have an advocate on the RDC. That's
- me as an individual. Thank you Thank you Let's go to the online commenter and then we'll we'll come
- back to any additional comments here in the chambers Seth you should be able to speak I want to start
- by just saying I really appreciate everything the full
- about accessibility and disability justice have said, and I just want to really echo their concerns
- and say thank you to all of them for speaking up. My comment is going to be a little bit more assertive
- than all, but so I actually live adjacent to the Hopewell PUD that's proposed and adjacent specifically
- to the little jut out in the most westmost plot.
- And I was looking at the plan and I saw that there was two avocets and a trillium, plans to be put in
- there. And I was looking at it and said, I don't know how that's going to fit. Because it is not that
- large of a space. And I actually went out this afternoon and I got my tape measure. And I measured that
- space. And the measure is 98 feet wide.
- Diagrams for those buildings measure 114 feet wide which is 16 feet wider than the space permitted It's
- doesn't fit and I understand this preliminary some of the things are not to scale but And I guess I
- guess I want to say this. I really want to love this plan. I really want it I don't want to live backing
- up against the parking lot. I want to live backing up against neighbors and
- I believe in affordability. I believe in density. I was excited about having a neighborhood next to
- me. But it just seems to me that this is one example that's adjacent to me. But it really makes me question
- a lot of the way that this plan is. And it just makes me feel like maybe we need to reconsider how this
- has been approached.
- I'm not a huge expert in how zoning and planning works. I don't know if this is necessarily even the
- time to bring up concerns like this, but that's just sort of where I'm at with this process and the
- concerns that's brought up. The other big component of it for me is I'm very concerned about, and I
- understand a lot of it is provisional, but I'm really concerned about, just from looking at it, almost
- a third of this section being designated for a future police headquarters.
- You know, it feels like a lot of this is just really crammed in. We can have a little bit more space,
- have things not be quite so on top of each other if we weren't putting a police headquarters that is
- slated to be three times the square footage of our current police headquarters. We don't need that kind
- of police expansion in our community. We need affordable housing, and we need neighborhoods. And I'm
- not excited about having
- the police down the street for me and I'm not excited about being down the street from such a significant
- component of police expansion in our community when authoritarianism and police expansion is on the
- rise across the entire country. So that's kind of the things that I have thinking about this. I appreciate
- everybody's time. And I've got my housemate here. So if you see my hand raised again, I'm not trying
- to talk twice.
- That'll be the other person. So thank you very much. Thank you. Would you mind stating your name for
- the record, please? Oh, yes Thank you Hi, thank you, my name is Greg Alexander the first problem with
- this proposed district is It's overly focused on cars, you know every unique aspect of the design is
- downstream of a focus on serving each one of these lots with cars
- The actually unique thing about the site itself is that it's two blocks from the beeline. It's walkable
- to downtown easily. It's bikeable to campus easily. It's walkable to campus if you're a little bit patient.
- It's a very good location for people who don't have cars, and that makes it a lot more affordable if
- you don't design around the car. The second problem, it should not be a PUD. There's nothing unique
- about the need to develop infill urban housing that could be affordable.
- That's not unique. And it doesn't even meet the formal requirements. The only way that it meets the
- formal requirement for five acre minimum is by including parcel B, which is a red herring for this.
- The police station in parcel B is literally not planned. So how could it be part of a planned
- unit development? It's not planned as part of this development. It's not part of the same unit. It's
- just something that's tacked on to meet that pro forma requirement. I don't think that's proper.
- I don't think that's proper. I think that, well, I know that the UDO requires that the person of the
- department head of planning and transportation to make that determination, and I think you need to actually
- require him to say that, to put his name on this proposal, because that's what the law requires. Another
- way you can tell a PUD isn't right is there's no way to satisfy the permanent affordability.
- There's none. There's shifting hands. It's not gonna be possible.
- The correct solution to all of these problems is really simple. We need to amend the R4 district. We
- need to have the same allowances for no minimum lot size. We need to remove setbacks, allow high impervious
- coverage, unrestricted ADUs and plexes. Discard the lane concept. The only reason we need that is because
- of this design decision very early on to focus on the car.
- If we have, for example, row houses instead of a driveway beside every house, we don't need all of these
- unusual access to each lot. It's basically an alley that prioritizes cars much more, even though it's
- gonna carry pedestrian traffic. It's not good design. It's just as easy to amend the UDO as to pass
- a PUD. PUDs are extraordinarily difficult procedurally.
- The only thing stopping you from doing that right thing is a lack of support from staff and staff knows
- everything I'm saying They're not gonna agree with me on the details But they know that we need to actually
- reform the r4 district and the only reason they're not doing that is they're waiting for permission
- from the mayor and Now you're waiting for permission from the mayor, but we have a crisis a housing
- crisis in our community It's very broadly agreed among the voters and the residents that we need to
- do something about this and we're not instead we're doing another one-off spot rezone and
- So I'm asking you, even though I know who appointed you, but you work for the people. You don't work
- for the mayor. Demand a good proposal that actually addresses our problems. Instead of a one-off spot
- rezone, using PUDs this way, we've been down this path. It makes all affordable housing subject to a
- personal relationship with the mayor. It's bad policy. It creates segregation and leapfrog development.
- We've seen that in abundance. And it invites corruption.
- Definitely creates the appearance of corruption inexorably Builders should be on a level playing field
- regardless of their personal relationship with the mayor. Thank you Thank you Is there any other public
- comment If there's anybody else online that would like to speak please use the raise hand function or
- send a message via chat we can recognize you and
- I'm not seeing anybody else online. All right, last call for public comment. I'm sorry, Seth has raised
- his hand again. I believe he indicated there might be somebody else in the house. Sure. Seth, you can
- go ahead and speak again. Hi, not Seth. My name is Megan Taylor. So you can have that for the record.
- So again, I also live
- adjacent to the proposed development directly adjacent And my concerns are brief my primary concern
- Is with affordability Just looking at the proposed cost of the units. I Don't believe that they are
- affordable I'm also a person living with disabilities and I know that if I didn't share housing with
- another person the house we live in wouldn't be affordable in this neighborhood
- And it is that cost is low in comparison to the proposed costs of the new units so You know again, I
- value I also value living in a community and value my neighbors You know, I want to live in livable
- diverse vibrant communities as well neighborhoods
- And so I just see the proposed cost of these new units as highly exclusionary In addition to living
- in the neighborhood. My other perspective is that I'm a licensed clinical social worker I've been working
- in our community for over 20 years helping people in various respects at local organizations Prior to
- being a therapist what I do now is
- And I work with a lot of people in our community in a lot of different situations. And again, nobody
- that I've served in all of this time could even dream of affording any of these houses. And so I just
- don't think it's fair to call them affordable. And we need real, real affordable housing. And speaking
- to Seth's prior point about the proposed development directly,
- behind us That proposed development in that 90 square feet is two duplexes and the triplex And so again,
- I think similar to the last commentary, you know, I would say I'm not interested in sort of You know
- spotty solutions for larger problems I I don't think Like you know, I'm all again. I'm all for increased
- density because we have to solve the problem somehow and
- But I don't think cramming people into tiny, unaffordable, exorbitantly unaffordable spaces is the answer.
- And so I would like us to be a little more thoughtful than that. And then, yeah, I think just lastly,
- I just want to really say that I appreciate the people that spoke out for people with disabilities and
- making the units accessible. And I want that to.
- not just for physical disability, but also I think emotional and mental disability as well. Again, I
- don't think we serve people who have various diagnoses, sensory sensitivities. I don't think we serve
- them by cramming them into sort of small spaces on top of each other either. So again, I really support
- the idea of making the spaces physically accessible.
- Really just accessible to all members of our community. Thank you Thank you Is there any other public
- comment Okay seeing none we are back to the Commission for any Additional questions or comments or motions
- start with Commissioner Stossberg Thank you
- Plan this comment out super well, so hopefully you guys can bear with me. I First of all, I want to
- say I'm generally like really supportive of this concept like conceptually I'm all good with
- nearly everything in it, but I have some concerns with the actual document itself. And so I kind of
- debated coming into this. I was like, do I mention this stuff during the question and answer period?
- Because they're not really questions.
- But I can't support moving it forward tonight and now I'm just gonna go through all of the places that
- I have concerns with so And this is gonna take me a minute and this is where I have to find all the
- things First of all in January there were a few different staff references to the fact that there are
- so many references to our current UDO within
- this petition and I find that extremely challenging to read and understand and it's kind of one of those
- things like the TRO thing that I mentioned that if If this is the document that is supposed to define
- this district Then I think all of it needs to be within this document and I shouldn't have to refer
- to some other document while I'm trying to read and understand this one and I kind of assumed after
- the January meeting that because that was mentioned in the staff report that that would be
- Changed and it was not substantially changed So and I'm sorry that I had that migraine at the end of
- that last meeting and I wasn't able to say that then during the comments But once again because it was
- in the staff comments I thought that there would be a response from the petitioner and I was kind of
- disappointed that that
- There was not similarly there's not an allowed use table in any of this which also makes it really difficult
- to go Okay, so it's a base zoning of r4 but what's actually allowed because the first thing it says
- and allowable uses are ad use dwelling duplexes triplexes multifamily and it doesn't actually say that
- you can put in single-family homes or like attached or detached but
- Then you have to go. Oh, I guess that's maybe assumed in the r4 district, but it's not actually stated
- and that makes it really confusing and then similarly That just makes it extremely confusing. I don't
- think that those kinds of references should be in there I don't think that it's useful especially because
- there's always the possibility that those UDO sections could change and then suddenly like what you're
- exempting your
- Like maybe that's not actually what you intended to exempt and and I just find that an incredibly problematic
- also under architectural design standards I could not find you do twenty point oh four point. Oh seven.
- Oh three H through K Maybe I just couldn't find it but you do twenty point. Oh three point. Oh three.
- Oh five does not exist Doesn't exist in our you do
- There's a couple other those 80 you Under accessory dealt dwelling unit requirements that are not cited
- I think that that five maybe should be a G instead of a five But that is what is that a typo is that
- sloppiness? Does that mean that somebody didn't check their stuff either way? I find that incredibly
- problematic and unacceptable to sent to council in that way Okay, I've had as the council representative
- I feel lots of council complaints over the last two years about things that got sent to council from
- planning commission that weren't ready This isn't ready
- There's there's too much uncertainty in it Next under miscellaneous provisions It says single-family
- attached access only one entrance facing the street frontage is required But somewhere else it says
- that you don't have to have street frontage because you can also Front on a lane or front on the pedestrian
- access. So once again, that's maybe just like
- An offhand sort of thing and we all know what we mean, but this is a guiding document It is a legal
- guiding document and we can't just hand wave and go. Well, we know what we mean. It's just a little
- sloppy Let me see if there's more The TRO thing at the end I think that we thought needs to be defined
- Within the document itself. I think that I already mentioned that and
- The other thing is the phasing plan It very vaguely says the subdivision will be completed in multiple
- phases over a period of several years depending on market conditions and absorption of units and I feel
- like there needs to be a little bit more specificity in that the phasing plan that we had for summit
- was incredibly detailed and I think that we demanded it to be incredibly detailed and I I'm not saying
- that this has to have the same kind of detail as summit had but I think that there's a big middle ground
- there in the middle and that's
- Kind of problematic similarly. It doesn't say anything about phasing and utility standards and it does
- seem like earlier in the language there's some assumption that part of what that I think it's block
- eight where the convalescent home is like my understanding based on this other document is part of the
- reason why we need that block is not just to make it the
- Big enough for the PUD, but it might be necessary to help deal with stormwater and drainage and that
- kind of thing But there's nothing in here in terms of phasing around utility stuff except that we have
- to meet CBU standards and so that's another piece of like this phasing thing I feel like it's kind of
- hand-waved because well the city is doing it themselves and once again I'm gonna go back to what I said
- in the beginning is that I'm super supportive of this conceptually but in terms of a legal PUD document that
- That is going to guide and may live beyond the current administration the current staff the current
- Plan Commission the current City Council Like this has to live in such a way that people in the future
- will know what on earth we're talking about and
- That is all of them now. I've gotten to the bottom. So I cannot support moving into council tonight
- for those reasons Just because the document itself feels too sloppy It does not feel like we can possibly
- put enough conditions of approval on to to make this document cleaned up enough to go to council. Thanks
- Commissioner Kinsey Yes, I just have a couple of questions that follow up from some of the
- comments that were offered in the chamber and online from our public and I guess I have a question first
- for the Either the staff or the petitioner regarding why more of the home? Can't meet the standard of
- visibility Visitability and I wonder if any thought has gone into What would it take to assure that
- standard across the board that
- Visit ability. I think was the term that was used. Is that possible? Who's your your question? Directed
- to I think it could go to the petitioner or staff and probably the petitioner since those that's where
- the major changes occurred or the
- new emphasis on ADA and other standards started today. I'm happy to answer that. Grading and topography
- is the primary limitation on that. And so we've got a decent fall across the site. And so there are
- two challenging things working against one another where if we're keeping one side of the site fairly
- level, it means we then need to
- like come off of that level, you know, section that we've made. And so we end up then needing stairs
- in a public sidewalk, which we can't do. And so there's sort of this balance of we need the overall
- grading to be more gentle to get across the site, but then that's creating some challenges with there
- are, you know, there is more or less a level kind of know sort of right around the southern half of
- Fairview. And so the lots right around that we are more able to get
- you know, only 12 to 24 inches of fall across the entire lot, which is relatively level for a lot of
- this size. And so we're able to get the, you know, wheelchair accessible as was discussed, right? Even
- just a 30 inch rise, we've got a 30 foot long ramp. If we need to switch back that ramp, it means we've
- got five turnarounds on either end, and so those ramps get really big. And so the balance of keeping
- the lot relatively level, but keeping sidewalks compliant with ADA slopes,
- I mean that we are relatively limited to our visitable sites from a grading standpoint. There's more
- great than there like there is to those that section right there in the middle. Yeah, I guess I just
- wonder, you know, it's it's been a really educating conversation with so many members of the public
- and also representing the Commission on communities accessibility. And I just wonder if we started with
- could we try and
- and achieve greater percentage of visibility. What would that take? And I don't know if you ever played
- out that whole scenario in the review since the last meeting, but I do think it's a really, it would
- be a useful thing to do even more. I understand what you're describing here, but I don't know if you've
- fully played out the
- and to it and can really say for certain that there's no way to make at least a single entrance. I think
- there's there's some opportunity to we can definitely take a look at that again and see if there any
- of those in our initial grading that was not possible but the civil engineers came on board this week
- and so that's something that we can as we detail grading on the site take into account and increase
- to the extent of any of them are possible.
- Yeah, it just seems like that would be an appropriate thing to try and do in this really hopeful, hope
- well project. I had one other question for staff, if I could. Well, it's more of a procedural question,
- if I might. OK, here it is. And Eric, I think this might be for you and staff regarding the interest in
- Creating some sort of condition that would require some sort of enforcement or monitoring language That
- would require maybe on review or reporting and I know we you know, we can't dictate in conditions necessarily
- how something gets done or who decides something or who is involved in things except maybe when it comes to
- a disability engineer or some sort of really technical expertise and I'm wondering if there was any
- consideration for such language in a condition given all of the concerns that were raised the last time
- we did this is there any possibility for doing something like that and setting that as a condition to
- move this forward.
- Yep, so great question. So obviously the units that are shown to be accessible Whether it's the exact
- ones that are on the screen or you know, it moves one lot to the west or east or something like that
- You know, we'll be reviewing compliance with the ADA accessibility and all the accessibility components
- of this with the building permit So that is obviously something that happens when it's built certainly
- with the plans to get done
- You know, we don't typically inspect single-family residences or something of this nature So that's
- something we obviously catch and look at and review when we review the building permits beyond that,
- you know a monitoring study of some sort You know, we can look at that maybe outside of the PUD something
- within the department as a whole in terms of ways to increase accessibility requirements within the
- UDO I certainly think that's something that's within staffs capabilities
- Thank you So About the accessibility piece of this What what is the purpose of having the two different
- types of accessibility between the universal design standard and the ADA compliance? Why why can't we
- just have a single?
- Assuming Ali's probably the appropriate party here There are two different legal standards in which
- those two are used Pretty common to see a mix of those the
- Visitable standards, the FHA compliant units take up significantly less space than the full ADA units
- do, right? The bathrooms and kitchens are half the size, the hallways are more of a normal residential
- hallway size, and so we had previously looked at, we have a couple other students that we had done that
- had more fully accessible units, but because it was cutting down our total number of units, it was driving
- overall costs up. You know, average cost of units
- going up as we have those larger units. And so the balance of affordability and accessibility, we came
- down to, I think we did a scheme that was as much as 40% universal design, and then the standard minimum
- is 20% accessible or universal design. And so we landed at about 30% middle ground between affordability
- and accessibility, and then increased our number of fully accessible units. But the short answer is
- we have to cut units out
- we have fully accessible units. One of the things that's driving that is they need to be fully one story.
- And in most neighborhoods, once you've paid for the foundation, you've paid for the foundation, you've
- paid for the roof, so getting effective floor is typically less expensive square footage to build. And
- so we start to run into some overall reduced unit areas, reduced unit counts, so increased costs. And
- so we're really balancing between those two things and just the
- And we talked about increased cost if you were to do Contrary to what we proposed here. What how much
- are we talking? We're talking a few thousand dollars. Are we talking about doubling the project cost?
- I mean, give me a scope and scale I'm speaking from memory several months old so I'll do my best on
- Remembering that but I think that in the scheme that we have 40% accessible units. I think we had lost
- 15 overall units
- in order to increase that by a few and giving extra space for grading and ramps was one of the things
- that was driving that. Even if we look at those two bathrooms side by side, it's twice as big. If you
- stay in a hotel and you stay in an accessible unit, it's twice as many square feet. And so you do end
- up with a larger house that is all one story that needs more space around it. And so in a constrained area,
- like this, you do end up losing some units and having a higher foundation cost and roof cost relative
- to the total square footage of the house. So your price per square foot does go up a little bit. And
- so we were trying to balance that. Balance that by finding the middle ground between accessibility and
- affordability, working with the city authorities.
- For a minor cost increase It seems like that's reasonable for anyone with a disability to be able to
- look at these and say oh I can move into these as opposed to oh I can only move into five of these and
- then also Who can come to be in their place of residence and who they can sell it to in the future?
- so it seems like it's
- You know more limiting than helpful to create these two classes of folks that have disabilities You
- know ones that can access them and ones that cannot and similarly along the same line I'm not originally
- from the area. So I you know, the walkout basement is foreign to me when I first came here But for everybody
- else Indiana, especially this part of it has rolling hills and a lot of topography So the fact that
- grading is an issue is mystifying to me because it seems like we could grade
- that out given the barren nature of the the plots of land that we're looking at Is that just more of
- a we didn't want to grade this out? Was it? Significantly costly and I would want some sort of a figure
- to attach to that if we say it is But I'm just kind of curious what the calculus was there As well
- We've got similar topography to Bloomington, so we're used to also working in lots of walk-out ways,
- so lots of topography. And I'm licensed as an architect and as a landscape architect. So we do a lot
- of work in which we are doing the grading, the handle on the architecture, and figuring out what do
- we need to handle with the site and what needs to be handled with the house. And again, part of the
- problem is not grading it out to be smooth. It's the overall fall that we've got constrained edges of
- the street.
- And so if we have 20 feet of fall across the site, we have to make up that 20 feet somewhere. And so
- if we start at the high end and grade at a 5% grade or 4.8% grade that is ADA compliant, and then just
- put a retaining wall down on the low side, we've still got to get a way to connect back down to existing
- grade. And so in a fully green field site, you might have more of an opportunity to sort of grade out
- to the edges and take up some of that grade.
- But in a constrained situation like this where we need to connect all of our sidewalks, all of our streets
- into existing rates that we can't adjust, you end up with pretty significant retaining walls that do
- add hundreds of thousands of dollars of cost to the project overall. But you also end up unable to connect
- pedestrians up into that neighborhood other than them coming around to the high side to then get onto.
- So I guess I'm not entirely clear on Is it just absolutely an in feasible? Not feasible for this to
- be graded out in a way that all of these could be potentially ADA compliant I don't believe from my
- professional experience possible to grade the entire site with its current and
- Topography at the edges which are fixed points on the right right away to Terrace the site and get sort
- of switch back Ramps in between the terrace heights in a way that is a VA compliant. I I don't believe
- that that is feasible from a technical standpoint But we certainly can pursue that if a wholly AVA accessible
- site is something the complaint commission is saying is a standard
- Okay is at least feasible to say that there should be two accessible entrances to the property
- My thought here is that if there's a fire in the one entrance that they do have accessible use of and
- not the the other one was stairs To me, that's a safety issue So I'm just curious if it is reasonable
- that we could remove stairs from all the ADA or other accessible compliant designs in a way that makes
- them more approachable for anybody we
- We do, to repeat this comment, we do have that provided for at all but one of the units. There is one
- of the units in which a rear accessible entrance from the accessible parking is possible. We were trying
- to get another accessible unit, and so it's on an edge condition site, where we've got a little bit
- more grades than some of the other ones, but that's that balance of would we prefer to have one more
- additional unit that is accessible with
- Accessible entry from the parking or we prefer a ring to the front or we prefer that that Site is not
- able to have front-end back. Oh, you know exactly rubble And so we we would prefer to have that be a
- non accessible unit. I think those are some of the trade-offs that we can work through Thank you Any
- other questions or comments Thank you
- Just went ahead and type this out I've got a few things to say and then I would like to make a motion
- So this petition for me is close very close to the vest As I've been on the front line of this housing
- market for over a decade this petition is the ultimate balance of the essence of time given our housing
- epidemic and giving accessibility for all citizens, which I'm fully in support of we have to start somewhere
- beyond meetings just like this and
- the ongoing ad nauseum conversations throughout City Hall in the city itself about affordable housing
- The reason we are in this situation in large part and this is proven by data is because projects like
- this have not come forward yet I feel this is the best plan that's been put forward now without its
- idiosyncrasies in many years We need to have the macro micro balance, but also let our other parties
- Have their say in this structure in the best way possible. I for them. I firmly believe our purview is
- Planning Commission again, my own opinion isn't as wide or as vast as our conversations comments and
- questions seem to be around it I Say, let's let others such as all the working parties who have brought
- it to this point And people that are in entrusted leadership positions to move it forward we need to
- include The Council for Community Accessibility. I believe those comments for me and I think for all
- of us are incredibly helpful and insightful and
- Especially given 4% of nationwide units only 4% are ADA accessible. That's shocking and I've been in
- real estate along a long time I'd consider making that a condition of approval Finally this petition
- needs to include deep consideration for public education on the title deed restrictions from day one
- specifically for the future developers and buyers Which I know is already happening as I'll be attending
- a meeting this Thursday put on by Anna Killian Hansen with hand
- I believe does a phenomenal job educating the public about the housing crisis. We're in and the solutions
- This to me is going to avoid any entrapment or legal quagmire, which we have to trust will happen will
- get addressed I believe we need this city. We need this as a tool to work within the confines of the
- UTO to bring housing that can be attainable to fruition and therefore I would move to forward this to
- City Council with the positive recommendation of
- the nine conditions of approval and adding a tenth Which is that? the council for community accessibility
- is included in these ongoing means however that gets Set up its communication 101 so But including them
- to me would be the tenth that I would add and that's one of the most important ones of all those conditions
- Thank you All right. I think we need if you want to make that motion, I think we need
- Specific language for that that tenth condition of approval. I have language I have language you have
- exactly I was thinking exactly the same thing Tenth condition for approval could be prior to the approval
- of any primary plat or final plan in the hopeful PUD Petitioners shall prepare and include in the project
- record written documentation describing how visitability and accessibility were evaluated and how people
- with disabilities were engaged I like that
- It's not too burdensome required, but it elevates this to the explicit concern that has to be thought
- of Staff were you able to get that in writing or do we need to state that again? Yes, sorry I was writing
- down there so yes, we did get that I
- Obviously, you know that condition will just kind of be a report of sorts That that lives in the final
- plan approval You know unless it's you know something that was Desired in some of the form, you know,
- it just be something that position gives and lives with final plan approval Comfortable with that.
- I mean, I mean I think you're right. I think I want I want it to be clear I want it to be there these
- meetings that are happening
- However often they don't have to be everybody has the council for community accessibility doesn't have
- to be at every moment It should be at a minimum, you know amount of these meetings I feel like and I
- guess I can't really quantify that off the top of my head, but I would just Maybe you could help me
- on If I could speak David Hiddle planning transportation director, I think there's two different planes
- you're speaking on one is global and
- and acknowledging the fact that our UDO treats accessibility via the requirement for universal standards
- primitively and needs to be fixed. I think that's something that needs to happen. And then there's the
- more specific case specific one having to do with hope. Well, in that case, you know, they are over.
- They are meeting. The petitioner is providing more accessibility
- They're meeting they're meeting the standard with a 30% accessibility rating rather than the required
- 20 where I personally see that we we can do a lot of work and and most of that with CCA is looking at
- how the ordinance can be amended to take it, you know away from the fifth of a page right now that we
- have dealing with
- With the entire subject to something with more meat and more substance that can serve the city Long-term
- without them having to you know, come and speak at every hearing Because they're just not represented
- in the law So I would see clarification there What Tim was describing initially sounded like something
- that would lead towards UDO amendments. No, I think it's it's the concerns that have been presented and
- By community members that they'd be actively engaged as part of this evolving ongoing process So it's
- it's specific to but the condition would be that they're included community for The accessibility is
- included As part of these regular Meetings yeah, I think just to to be fair I think that
- It's gonna be very difficult for us to quantify exactly how many meetings there are. We don't know how
- many things are left in the process. I think it would be probably, you know, it would be, I don't think
- anybody wants to hold up the process because we haven't met the, we just have to have another meeting
- just to meet that requirement. And I think what has been proposed here is that the staff has to outline
- exactly how the engagement happened and that creates, you know,
- I think an accountability that the engagement will happen because they'll have to report on on how it
- happened sure and I think that's about probably as as good as we can and do to create that accountability
- without Yeah, I don't want to hold this up burdening things and then holding up the process. Yeah, so
- I'm good with what?
- Director Hanson, did you want to yeah, I I do just I'm sorry Anna killing Hanson hand I do just want
- to say that I am committed to working with the CCNA to try and evaluate the site to see what we can
- do I do also want to go back to one of the points about grading grading We live in a area that has quite
- a bit of karst Karst can limit great grading. So there's other considerations that you don't know until
- you get out there and
- So I just want to say digging down is not necessarily as easy as you may think it is if you're not used
- to the building business. The other thing that I would really like to address, I would like an opportunity
- to talk about the housing market and the need for this kind of project. As you guys are well aware,
- Bloomington is the most housing cost-burdened metro area in the state of Indiana.
- We are I mean, it's not theoretical. It's a housing crisis that is already reshaping who can live work
- and remain in our city. Housing scarcity is now an economic issue. 72% of Bloomington jobs are filled
- by workers who live outside the city.
- Employers struggle to recruit and retain talent. Young professionals cannot find starter homes. Long-term
- residents cannot downsize. Workers commute longer distances, weakening their tax base and eroding community
- stability. This is what happens when housing ladder is missing rungs. Without entry-level homes, young
- families cannot enter the market. Without smaller ownership options, older adults cannot right size
- when turnover stalls
- prices rise everywhere. A key misunderstanding in the housing debate is the role of new construction.
- New homes are often criticized for not being affordable enough.
- But new construction does not exist in isolation. It reshapes the entire market. When new homes come
- online at higher price points, they relieve pressure on the existing housing stock. A buyer choosing
- a new home competes directly with older homes, which naturally moderates prices and stabilizes the broader
- market. Without new supply, all price levels and prices rise everywhere. I think it's also important
- to draw attention
- No, I think are there any other questions Well, I want to get control of this a little bit here we sorry
- we we were I wanted stuff trying to get a motion on the table here and This is we've got a little bit
- out of order here. So I would like to get back to Mr. Ballard's motion and We'll have some more time
- for for comment and questions once we get that on the table what?
- Is it your would you like to include the proposed language here as you were number 10 as your number
- 10 you're comfortable with that language. Yes. Okay. So your motion just to summarize again is to forward
- this to the common council with a favorable favorable recommendation and 10 commission conditions of
- approval the nine that were in the packet and the 10th that was just read aloud here by Commissioner Holmes.
- Okay, is there a second for that motion? Second all right Real quick. I'm so sorry. I just want to make
- sure that I'm understanding and writing down what this condition is explicitly and this is related to
- future plans or plats in this petition moving forward and how the CCA is involved with those Do you
- want to read?
- Your language it's a little squishier than than that prior to approval and this may need wordsmithing
- Please do correct if some of this doesn't make sense prior to approval of any primary plat or final
- plan in the Hopewell PUD Petitioners shall prepare and include in the project record written documentation
- describing how visitability and accessibility were Evaluated and how people with disabilities were engaged
- Okay, thank you All right
- We have a motion in a second. We have any discussion on that motion Commissioner Stossberg I'm just
- gonna reiterate again that I'm gonna have to vote no on this right now because what you're doing is
- you're forwarding the exact Language that is in that PUD right now and I pointed out multiple areas
- where that language has to change So I appreciate that you want to speed things up But you're not speeding
- things up by sending something to council that's not ready because if it was ready then council could
- hear it and
- Quickly if it's not ready, then I'm just gonna be like president. I'm sorry Please drag this out slowly
- so that there is time to deal with amendments because the petitioner cannot change anything Once you
- forward it until council has it in front of them So you're not saving any time by forwarding something
- to council that is not ready and I appreciate the sentiment and like I said like I like I
- We are in a housing crisis. We have a problem, but but we have a petition right now that is not ready
- that needs amending the Language the grammar the the like nuts and bolts need editing It's not about
- the substance or the content that's going to be its own discussion at council in terms of so many pieces
- of it but the actual language
- what it's describing as problematic right now and and it You can forward this to council if you want
- to I Have to vote no because my colleagues will be really disappointed if I let something go to them
- That is not ready in this way. Thanks. Thank you. All right This motion I got it this this motion is
- on the table so if you agree with that then vote no on this motion and
- Someone at that point we need to propose another motion to continue this to another hearing Commissioner
- Bishop was up next and then we'll go to Commissioner Kinsey
- I just want to point out this is not supposed to be a housing panacea for Bloomington. It is a prototype
- It is the very first version of something that we intend to replicate successfully in better iterations
- over time and Just like everything else you have to start somewhere, you know deliberative bodies political
- Groups are not great at being very precise at what they do. They're not German auto manufacturers But
- what they do do is they?
- with some good ideas to some big problems and They do their good faith efforts to try and put those
- forward to where the public Can either decide that those are good ideas are not good ideas So with that
- I'm just pointing out that this is not supposed to be the end of this Project it is just the beginning
- Commissioner Kinsey
- Yeah, I appreciate what Commissioner Stoffberg is pointing out and you know, it doesn't serve the project
- or us well to sell to send and forward ill-formed ideas because they just get stalled at another level.
- So I share the concern and I mean this has been a concern of mine with whether this should have been
- a PUD in the first place because it does require a lot more specificity and it requires that there's
- and allowed use table in the document itself to assure that we're not losing track of decision and what
- allowed in this space. So I share the concern and and disappointed that we don't have something that
- is more buttoned up in that way. But I also don't want to hold this up. So I will be supporting it and
- but understand that this is not ideal.
- The other thing I really appreciate is the public comment about the community, the involvement of the
- community, the community commission on accessibility. And I also appreciate all of the public expertise
- in the room tonight and the week before and what got submitted in the packet. And I do think that including
- a condition
- Despite the fact that I might have some questions about its enforceability in terms of who is involved
- in decision-making. I think it's the right thing to signal before we send it to council that this is
- a serious issue and it deserves more attention both for this project itself and in the UDL as a future
- Initiative and I really appreciate
- Project lander director Hiddles comments about the need to address this in more than just a fifth of
- the page in the UTO So I hope we can move forward on something like that, but I thank everybody for
- their comments tonight Thank you Commissioner seaborne, I guess just Whenever we have petitions and
- we propose adding or modifying conditions I always like to explicitly make sure the petitioner is okay
- with us adding the condition and I don't think we've expected
- and I just asked if the petitioner is Comfortable with the added condition as proposed Carrie Thompson,
- yes, we absolutely are and actually have already been in conversations outside of this meeting about
- how to get that done So we were already headed that way Thank you All right any other
- Comments discussion on this motion before we call the roll I'm gonna ask one more question just of staff
- if you have any Thing you'd like to add about this being ready for council is there Given more time
- if this were back for another hearing a month from now What?
- What might change? Sure, so obviously, you know the Plain Commission can impose conditions of approval
- to clarify certain language and those have to be done before it goes to council So if there are specific
- things in the district ordinance that need to be revised citations or things like that You know, we
- are required and petitioners required to make those changes and clean up the ordinance before it goes
- to council so we can
- Certainly work with them to clean up some of the citations that have been referenced to make this cleaner.
- I mean, that's what I'm hearing. What we're hearing tonight are, you know, the major hesitations from
- some of the aspects of it or just a language that's in the district ordinance. But it's not your opinion
- that we need another hearing in order to do those things. No, you know, certainly petitioner wants to
- make things as clear as the department does as well. So we'll work.
- Expediently with them to get this done as fast as possible and get it on to the council with those changes.
- All right. Thank you So procedurally do we need to add that condition to the current? That new condition
- is included in the motion that is on the table right now So if you 10th Commission condition, but what
- about the changes that Commissioner Sasberg? requested abuse table some of the text edits defining the TRO and
- That to the current motion or We have to turn this one down and then add an 11th condition if to make
- those text changes I think correct me if I'm wrong Eric, I think you're saying you can make some of
- those clarifications No, we need you we would need a condition that specifies those it would certainly
- be helpful to have a condition to some regard whether it be very general or
- that the petitioner will work with staff to Clarify some of the inconsistencies in the district ordinance
- or to even clarify it more specifically, you know as I mentioned You know, I did make notes of what
- Commissioner Stossberg mentioned some of those were things that were in the staff report and we have
- a Small list that we can use to guide us. So then if there are additional Specific requirements that
- we want to see before it goes to council and you want to
- then you would need to amend the motion that is currently on the table to add another condition or Throw
- this motion down and make a motion to Make another motion after this if and when this one would fail
- Then I guess I would Propose an amendment to the motion on the table to include the text changes
- Commissioner Stossberg has suggested to clarify the language and correct citations. Oh Okay, so our
- 11th condition would be that the petitioner would work with staff and Commissioner Stossberg to clarify
- language and correct the citations in the document
- Second is that sufficient? Did you get that? Okay, so the motion is to amend the motion to include an
- 11th condition that staff would work with The petitioner petitioner and mr. Stossberg to Clarify the changes
- And correct the citations. Okay. All right Everybody understand what that is And we have a second any
- discussion on that I Suppose to Commissioner Stossbert seaboard's point our staff. Okay with that request
- Yes, okay. All right. So what we're gonna do now is we're gonna call the roll on the amendment to the
- motion to add this 11th condition and
- Seaborg, yes Co Rodkey. Yes Holmes. Yes Kinsey Stossburg. Yes Whistler. Yes Ballard. Yes Bishop. Yes
- All right, so that motion carries now we are back to the original motion as amended Any final discussion
- before we call the roll on that?
- I'm sorry the time for public comment has passed and We happy to talk to you after the meeting but we're
- past that part of the the agenda any other Discussion here All right. Let's call the roll then on the
- motion as amended Co Rodkey. Yes Holmes. Yes Kinsey Yeah Stossburg. Yes, it's easier than my having
- to do an amendment later. Thank you. I
- Whistler. Yes Ballard. Yes Bishop. Yes Seaborg. Yes All right. I believe the motion carries that is
- our final petition for the evening. Thank you all for your patience We will see you next month