WEBVTT 00:00:00.898 --> 00:00:10.827 - Good evening. Let me call to order this meeting of the city of Bloomington Plan Commission for February 00:00:10.827 --> 00:00:20.183 - 9th, 2026. Just a quick overview of our agenda for this evening. We have a little bit of internal 00:00:20.183 --> 00:00:30.494 - housekeeping and then we believe only have one petition that will be heard tonight. And that is ZO 2025-12. 00:00:30.978 --> 00:00:44.561 - Dash zero zero one eight This is the city of Bloomington petition for a PUD Approval Let's start by 00:00:44.561 --> 00:00:58.144 - calling the roll make sure we have quorum Ballard here Bishop here seabor Here co Rodke here Holmes 00:00:58.144 --> 00:00:59.774 - here Kinsey 00:01:04.962 --> 00:01:18.852 - Osberg here Whistler Here I Believe that we think mr. Kinsey is joining us remotely looks like she sent 00:01:18.852 --> 00:01:34.078 - 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 00:01:34.914 --> 00:01:42.713 - All right. Thank you. We do have a quorum just as a reminder since we do have a one commissioner joining 00:01:42.713 --> 00:01:50.437 - remotely We'll need a roll call vote on everything. No voice votes tonight and To start we do have some 00:01:50.437 --> 00:01:58.013 - minutes to be approved. We have the the minutes from the January 12th meeting Are there any questions 00:01:58.013 --> 00:02:03.806 - or corrections to those minutes? Mr. Seaborg, I think I had a question in the 00:02:04.098 --> 00:02:13.047 - I can't pull it up right now. The trades district hotel project, the motion in the minutes said that 00:02:13.047 --> 00:02:21.995 - we wanted to continue it to a second hearing, but we waived the second hearing, I thought. I believe 00:02:21.995 --> 00:02:27.134 - we did. If that sounds correct to me, let me take a look. 00:02:39.266 --> 00:02:47.456 - It was certainly approved So if the minutes say something different than that, then we'll go back in 00:02:47.456 --> 00:02:55.565 - and verify that I think it might be confusing because Are you talking about we're Ballard motion to 00:02:55.565 --> 00:03:03.675 - continue? Because that's at the top of the trades page, but I think it's actually talking about the 00:03:03.675 --> 00:03:07.486 - Dunn Street. Yeah now on page eight, I believe 00:03:09.570 --> 00:03:17.342 - Yeah on well on page seven Ballard motion to continue to a second hearing. Oh, I see Motion passes and 00:03:17.342 --> 00:03:25.039 - I think and that's that's incorrect, right? The motion would have been to To wave the second hearing, 00:03:25.039 --> 00:03:32.737 - okay, why don't we If it's alright, I'd like to just Continue this we'll pick these minutes up at our 00:03:32.737 --> 00:03:37.566 - next meeting and let's see if we can. Yeah, absolutely. Well, I 00:03:37.666 --> 00:03:47.024 - Make sure we fix that one sentence. Okay So so no motion on those minutes here tonight we'll pick that 00:03:47.024 --> 00:03:56.291 - up at our next meeting All right any reports resolutions or communications from commissioners tonight 00:03:56.291 --> 00:04:05.830 - Any reports resolutions or communications from staff tonight no other than we do need to redo the plaque 00:04:05.830 --> 00:04:07.102 - committee and 00:04:07.266 --> 00:04:18.784 - Appointment and alternate the main representative should be Brian Blake with the alternate being Jay 00:04:18.784 --> 00:04:30.415 - Ramey So We'd like Jay Ramey to replace Liz Carter as the alternate correct. Yes. All right Are there 00:04:30.415 --> 00:04:32.126 - any questions? 00:04:36.770 --> 00:04:46.917 - We have a motion to replace to have J Ramey replace Liz Carter as the alternate on the Platte committee 00:04:46.917 --> 00:04:56.771 - Make a motion to approve J Ramey to replace Liz Carter on the Platte committee as alternate Is there 00:04:56.771 --> 00:05:06.430 - a second? second All right any discussion Okay, please call the roll motion Bishop Yes Seabour yes 00:05:06.882 --> 00:05:19.353 - Brotke. Yes Holmes. Yes Kinsey Stossburg. Yes Whistler. Yes Ballard. Yes All right motion passes All 00:05:19.353 --> 00:05:32.318 - right, I believe we are then just on to our our single petition tonight the other petition that we heard 00:05:32.802 --> 00:05:40.186 - Our last meeting sub 2025-12-0051 has been continued Eric anything you want to mention on that we do 00:05:40.186 --> 00:05:47.862 - expect to see that again at our next meeting Certainly hope so they will be going to the Board of Zoning 00:05:47.862 --> 00:05:55.392 - Appeals as you may recall there were a couple of variances that were required as part of that petition 00:05:55.392 --> 00:05:58.974 - so they'll be going to the BZA to hear those and 00:05:59.106 --> 00:06:06.748 - And then depending on the outcome of that possibly revising the plat for when it comes back to you guys 00:06:06.748 --> 00:06:14.096 - All right Thanks. Well, then I guess we are on to zio 2025-12. Oh, I'm sorry When when does that go 00:06:14.096 --> 00:06:21.738 - before the PCA? What's the date of that meeting? I think 22nd or 26th It's in none like it's in effect. 00:06:21.738 --> 00:06:27.102 - It's going in the February though Yeah, February 26. Okay, great. Thanks 00:06:30.754 --> 00:06:47.025 - All right. Go ahead Eric with zero twenty twenty five dash twelve dash double oh eighteen. Sorry. Give 00:06:47.025 --> 00:06:53.502 - me a second. My computer is moving slow. 00:07:09.826 --> 00:07:17.999 - There we go. All right. Thank you So this is a request from the city of Bloomington Redevelopment Commission 00:07:17.999 --> 00:07:25.873 - for a property at several properties actually at 723 West first 709 West first and 607 West first Street 00:07:25.873 --> 00:07:29.022 - the petitioner is here tonight to request 00:07:29.122 --> 00:07:36.399 - Rezoning to allow for these properties to be rezoned to a planned unit development The properties encompass 00:07:36.399 --> 00:07:43.272 - about six point three acres and are currently zoned residential urban lot are four to the west to the 00:07:43.272 --> 00:07:50.010 - east our zone mixed-use medium scale and within the transform and redevelopment opportunity overlay 00:07:50.010 --> 00:07:56.478 - So as I mentioned the petitioners are requesting to rezone this into a planned unit development 00:07:56.578 --> 00:08:02.953 - we went through last hearing a general overview, so I'm not going to go too deep into the specifics 00:08:02.953 --> 00:08:09.583 - of it, but with this request what they are looking to accomplish is a Unified development plan for this 00:08:09.583 --> 00:08:15.958 - area that encompasses a lot of properties That were formerly occupied by the hospital use There's a 00:08:15.958 --> 00:08:22.078 - former convalescent building that sits on the east end of the site that is part of this PUD and 00:08:22.242 --> 00:08:29.278 - The city recently did some improvements along first Street to install some intersections sidewalks and 00:08:29.278 --> 00:08:35.699 - tree plots Repave it and design first Street in keeping with our transportation plan also did 00:08:35.699 --> 00:08:38.910 - some improvements along Roger Street with that 00:08:39.650 --> 00:08:46.575 - We installed several intersections where Jackson Street and Fairview would intersect and move through 00:08:46.575 --> 00:08:53.636 - this development so those intersections were Known and were platted to the north with right-of-way that 00:08:53.636 --> 00:09:00.426 - would see those and envision those moving through this site as well So this petition involves three 00:09:00.426 --> 00:09:08.030 - overall parcels or blocks blocks eight which is the east end of the site where the convalescent building are is 00:09:08.130 --> 00:09:16.453 - And then two blocks to the west block 9 and block 10 that would encompass the majority of the residential 00:09:16.453 --> 00:09:24.383 - component of this petition So with this petition is looking to utilize the property for a wide range 00:09:24.383 --> 00:09:32.313 - of housing types This would include single-family detached single-family attached duplexes triplexes 00:09:32.313 --> 00:09:34.590 - fourplexes multifamily units 00:09:34.978 --> 00:09:41.450 - There are several unique aspects of this petition that we discussed last time that necessitated the 00:09:41.450 --> 00:09:47.923 - use of a planned unit development here. The big one being that there is a street type that is shown 00:09:47.923 --> 00:09:51.806 - in this development known as a lane that moves to the east. 00:09:51.938 --> 00:09:58.561 - Side to the site moves east west. There are two of those shown And those are proposed to deviate from 00:09:58.561 --> 00:10:05.379 - any of the cross sections that are in our transportation plan They're shown to be about 20 feet in width 00:10:05.379 --> 00:10:12.001 - for right-of-way dedication that would include two Nine foot travel lanes to create an 18 foot travel 00:10:12.001 --> 00:10:18.624 - lane area as well as one or two 12 inch concrete ribbons or aprons along both sides of that to create 00:10:18.624 --> 00:10:20.702 - a 20 foot driving areas to meet 00:10:20.866 --> 00:10:27.981 - fire code requirements so that Street type is not in our transportation plan. So this unique characteristic 00:10:27.981 --> 00:10:34.700 - of this is one of the things that necessitated the planned unit development another component that is 00:10:34.700 --> 00:10:40.958 - unique to this is the allowance for lots to be created that don't front on a public street and 00:10:41.346 --> 00:10:47.327 - So specifically with this there are there's a building with five units on the southwest side of the 00:10:47.327 --> 00:10:53.369 - site That would front on a sidewalk system or path or trail that would move through there So the PUD 00:10:53.369 --> 00:10:59.948 - would allow for lots to be created that that don't front on the public street, which is a current requirement 00:10:59.948 --> 00:11:00.606 - of the UDO 00:11:00.962 --> 00:11:07.667 - So with this PD there are several aspects that we are looking to try out in a very controlled setting 00:11:07.667 --> 00:11:14.306 - You know some of those unique characteristics besides the street types and the allowance for lots or 00:11:14.306 --> 00:11:20.945 - Houses to be created that don't front on the street is not requiring any building setbacks for front 00:11:20.945 --> 00:11:25.086 - or side or rear with the exception of some of the perimeter of 00:11:25.186 --> 00:11:31.457 - Lots within here. So there are zero foot setbacks that are proposed. There is a zero foot impervious 00:11:31.457 --> 00:11:37.790 - surface coverage proposed As well as as I mentioned the creation of loss that don't front on a street 00:11:38.434 --> 00:11:44.560 - So ordinarily in a lot of situations, some of these things might be very challenging to work into the 00:11:44.560 --> 00:11:50.567 - built environment. But since this is able to be envisioned as part of this planned unit development 00:11:50.567 --> 00:11:56.693 - and incorporated and kind of planned with these deviations in mind, we're able to kind of offset some 00:11:56.693 --> 00:12:02.819 - of the impacts that might be felt from situations where lots don't front on a public street or you've 00:12:02.819 --> 00:12:05.342 - got zero-foot setbacks that are proposed. 00:12:05.794 --> 00:12:11.756 - So with that, there are several slides the petitioner has included. At the last hearing in January, 00:12:11.756 --> 00:12:17.778 - there were a lot of comments that were given regarding the accessibility and the visitability of the 00:12:17.778 --> 00:12:24.158 - units within here. I think the petitioner has prepared a lot of slides that will deal with that component. 00:12:24.354 --> 00:12:30.788 - But in general there will be buildings in here that will be full ADA compliant as well as buildings 00:12:30.788 --> 00:12:37.223 - within here that include a lot of visitability components as well to meet those requirements of the 00:12:37.223 --> 00:12:43.914 - UDO One of the other aspects that was discussed at this at the last hearing Regarding the affordability 00:12:43.914 --> 00:12:47.646 - component. So again, the petitioner has several ideas and 00:12:47.810 --> 00:12:55.026 - Plans with the Redevelopment Commission in order to accomplish the requirements of the UDO for affordability 00:12:55.026 --> 00:13:01.910 - And again, they can they can speak into that in a little bit greater detail So one of the things that's 00:13:01.910 --> 00:13:08.596 - important with this as we work through the street cross sections the lanes Specifically are proposed 00:13:08.596 --> 00:13:15.282 - to just serve as drive access points so as we work through a lot of internal exercises of maximizing 00:13:15.282 --> 00:13:16.606 - the buildability of 00:13:16.706 --> 00:13:23.108 - This particular parcel we looked at reducing the typical sidewalk component that you would see on long 00:13:23.108 --> 00:13:29.697 - streets And instead the petition has incorporated a pedestrian network that moves through the development 00:13:29.697 --> 00:13:36.535 - that you can see on this slide here That has a central pathway moving east-west that also extends north-south 00:13:36.535 --> 00:13:42.751 - North the first Street and south the Wiley and then also transverses the entire Development as well 00:13:42.751 --> 00:13:43.870 - from east to west 00:13:44.130 --> 00:13:51.005 - So we'll look at some of the specific elements of that with the final plan approval some of those Sidewalk 00:13:51.005 --> 00:13:57.623 - systems might need to be wider than five feet Some of them as I mentioned those units in the southwest 00:13:57.623 --> 00:14:04.305 - side are only accessed by that sidewalk system So emergency services as indicated there might be a need 00:14:04.305 --> 00:14:07.518 - to have something wider than a five foot sidewalk 00:14:07.970 --> 00:14:14.127 - Accessing those so that's something that we'll deal with with the final plan as that comes forward One 00:14:14.127 --> 00:14:20.164 - of the other items that was discussed at the first hearing regard regards phasing So there are three 00:14:20.164 --> 00:14:26.260 - overall phases that are petitioned with this development Phase one, which is the western portion does 00:14:26.260 --> 00:14:32.417 - involve adjustment of lot lines in order to allow for some lots to be created early on while they move 00:14:32.417 --> 00:14:34.270 - through the platting phase and 00:14:34.402 --> 00:14:40.652 - So that is that is composed of part of phase one But is not a trigger for the final plan or primary 00:14:40.652 --> 00:14:47.089 - plan approval and then phase two would be the center portion Those two phases might be coordinated and 00:14:47.089 --> 00:14:53.338 - combined into one joint phase that would be worked out with the final plan And then phase three the 00:14:53.338 --> 00:14:59.838 - east side deals with the convalescent building that may or may not be utilized by the police department 00:15:00.002 --> 00:15:05.658 - The internal green space is where the petitioner will be able to accomplish all of their stormwater 00:15:05.658 --> 00:15:11.540 - detention requirements. So that common space that I mentioned that moves through the center of the site 00:15:11.540 --> 00:15:17.196 - incorporates the pedestrian path as well as creates opportunity for stormwater detention. It's also 00:15:17.196 --> 00:15:22.909 - expected a lot of that stormwater detention will occur underneath the parking lot for the lot on the 00:15:22.909 --> 00:15:28.735 - east side of the property. Again, fire and trash collection has been incorporated with this and worked 00:15:28.735 --> 00:15:29.470 - out with the 00:15:29.570 --> 00:15:35.266 - public works department and the fire department so the petition has tried to look at and solve for Some 00:15:35.266 --> 00:15:40.907 - of the challenges that that might be in place by utilizing the lanes through here where you don't have 00:15:40.907 --> 00:15:46.383 - a full Cross-section of the street that moves through there so that that's been worked out with the 00:15:46.383 --> 00:15:51.422 - public works and fire department To make sure that those lanes will meet all of their needs 00:15:51.906 --> 00:15:57.677 - So as I mentioned there are several unique characteristics to the cross sections for the streets First 00:15:57.677 --> 00:16:03.336 - Street as I mentioned was already redone by the city So sidewalks and tree plots have been installed 00:16:03.336 --> 00:16:08.994 - along that frontage along Roger Street The petitioner has shown the installation of a five-foot bike 00:16:08.994 --> 00:16:14.597 - lane So that will connect to and extend a bike lane that the city just installed along Roger Street 00:16:14.597 --> 00:16:16.222 - we've also been working with 00:16:16.354 --> 00:16:21.990 - The petition to come up with at least the incorporation of a sidewalk component to some degree along 00:16:21.990 --> 00:16:27.850 - the west side of the site while still respecting Space that is needed adjacent to that building So there 00:16:27.850 --> 00:16:33.430 - will be at least a tree plot and sidewalk along the west side of Roger Street That will be at least 00:16:33.430 --> 00:16:39.066 - five feet wide if it's possible to have something wider than that We'll try to accomplish that as we 00:16:39.066 --> 00:16:42.526 - move through the final plan for that side of the site as well 00:16:43.330 --> 00:16:49.032 - Jackson Street and Fairview Street would also be moving through the site again This is where these two 00:16:49.032 --> 00:16:54.790 - streets deviate from the cross sections in the transportation plan and are shown at 48 feet rather than 00:16:54.790 --> 00:17:00.437 - typical 60 feet that would be required So this allows for parking along one side of that street along 00:17:00.437 --> 00:17:06.194 - the east side The petition has still been able to accomplish this side five foot sidewalk and five foot 00:17:06.194 --> 00:17:10.014 - tree plots. So those are consistent with our transportation plan and 00:17:10.498 --> 00:17:16.717 - And then Wiley Street on the south side of the site the petitioner is proposing to essentially leave 00:17:16.717 --> 00:17:23.366 - that Existing in its current state. There is on-street parking on the north side of Wiley with a monolithic 00:17:23.366 --> 00:17:26.814 - sidewalk along there that sidewalk would be replaced by 00:17:27.042 --> 00:17:32.781 - with a five foot concrete sidewalk. And the petitioners have shown a setback of about 12 feet from that 00:17:32.781 --> 00:17:38.409 - sidewalk in order to preserve a line of trees that are along the north side of Wiley in order to help 00:17:38.409 --> 00:17:44.037 - provide some natural vegetative buffering between this and the neighborhood to the south. And then as 00:17:44.037 --> 00:17:49.776 - I mentioned, the lanes, these would be platted in 20 feet of right away with two nine foot travel lanes 00:17:49.776 --> 00:17:55.294 - and the 12 inches of concrete on each side to give the full 20 foot that the fire department needs. 00:17:55.714 --> 00:18:02.698 - One of the other essential components to this is the housing catalog that's been prepared. This is something 00:18:02.698 --> 00:18:09.618 - that all of the houses will be designed to and will be shared with building and planning and other agencies 00:18:09.618 --> 00:18:16.154 - to make sure that they meet all of our requirements so that when they come time for building permits, 00:18:16.154 --> 00:18:19.998 - these can be issued with a very expeditious review and help 00:18:20.130 --> 00:18:27.148 - Things move along a lot faster as well as possibly being available for a little cost to homeowners so 00:18:27.148 --> 00:18:34.167 - that they can Get moving a lot faster with getting housing in the ground As I mentioned with the last 00:18:34.167 --> 00:18:41.047 - hearing the petitioner has included a unit mix and perspective cost For developments that's kind of 00:18:41.047 --> 00:18:44.350 - broken down over cost of the unit various other 00:18:44.610 --> 00:18:51.001 - Bills that are associated insurance and mortgages to help give an idea of where the actual affordability 00:18:51.001 --> 00:18:57.149 - And the provision of the housing here that meets our affordability goals how that is accomplished So 00:18:57.149 --> 00:19:03.296 - there's a wide mix of housing types that are included in this catalog some of the more finer details 00:19:03.296 --> 00:19:09.505 - of this is in terms of building materials Will be spelled out with the final plan approval, but there 00:19:09.505 --> 00:19:12.670 - is the overall housing catalog that is included and 00:19:12.770 --> 00:19:19.566 - That that we discussed last time as well So with this The petitioner did make several changes within 00:19:19.566 --> 00:19:26.631 - the district ordinance as we discussed at the first hearing There were some areas of cleanup that needed 00:19:26.631 --> 00:19:33.427 - to be done within the district ordinance that the petitioner was able to accomplish they amended the 00:19:33.427 --> 00:19:40.223 - permitted uses to list all of the uses that are shown here as permitted uses rather than conditional 00:19:40.223 --> 00:19:42.174 - which they are in the r4 and 00:19:42.370 --> 00:19:49.513 - All the other uses in the R4 district would be allowed as permitted or conditional based on how the 00:19:49.513 --> 00:19:55.870 - R4 district allows for them. As I mentioned, there are also architectural standards that 00:19:56.034 --> 00:20:02.037 - district has shown with their housing catalog accessory dwelling units are proposed to be allowed within 00:20:02.037 --> 00:20:07.982 - this development at a maximum size of 840 square feet. So that is a greater allowance for them and they 00:20:07.982 --> 00:20:13.470 - have removed the owner occupancy restriction to allow greater flexibility with the use of that. 00:20:13.858 --> 00:20:20.392 - The petitioner is also proposing no parking minimums within the development. Although there are several 00:20:20.392 --> 00:20:26.990 - references to that language in the district ordinance, we do feel like that could be cleaned up a little 00:20:26.990 --> 00:20:33.524 - bit better to just specifically state there are no parking minimums in order to help make that a little 00:20:33.524 --> 00:20:40.122 - bit clearer. Again, within parcel A and parcel B, they're proposing no front or side parking or building 00:20:40.122 --> 00:20:43.326 - setbacks except along the edges of the PUD itself. 00:20:43.650 --> 00:20:50.625 - Yep. So some of the other changes that have happened since the first hearing, the petitioner did include 00:20:50.625 --> 00:20:57.534 - allowance for drive cuts. That was a section that was included in the portion of the district ordinance 00:20:57.534 --> 00:21:04.509 - that says it applies to all parcels that was in the PUD. However, that really should just be with parcel 00:21:04.509 --> 00:21:11.351 - B. So there is a notation there for that to be moved to the parcel B section. We don't want drive cuts 00:21:11.351 --> 00:21:12.414 - on first street 00:21:12.514 --> 00:21:18.471 - or Wiley for the residential units, those should be accessed from the lane. So there's a small change 00:21:18.471 --> 00:21:22.910 - to the district ordinance for that, just to make that a little bit clearer. 00:21:23.170 --> 00:21:28.931 - So with that the petition really just kind of cleaned up a little bit of the rough edges from the first 00:21:28.931 --> 00:21:34.471 - hearing in essence remains essentially and change for the the majority of the petition itself. As I 00:21:34.471 --> 00:21:40.011 - mentioned there are specific cross sections which I have discussed and kind of gone through as well 00:21:40.011 --> 00:21:44.830 - as at the first hearing we discussed the qualifying standards and how this meets that. 00:21:45.090 --> 00:21:51.845 - Certainly furthers many of the goals within the comprehensive plan and as we discuss it to first hearing 00:21:51.845 --> 00:21:58.343 - there were several studies that were done on this site before it even came to us that both looked at 00:21:58.343 --> 00:22:02.782 - modeling and massing for the area encouraged a mix of housing types. 00:22:02.850 --> 00:22:10.585 - And especially encouraged a very compact urban dense form here given the location here Location to resources 00:22:10.585 --> 00:22:17.753 - and close to downtown. It's built out. There's great access to roads and utility infrastructure This 00:22:17.753 --> 00:22:25.063 - certainly marks a great location to try a lot of ideas that might be able to be something incorporated 00:22:25.063 --> 00:22:31.166 - into the UDO in other zoning districts and as I mentioned with being able to plan for 00:22:31.266 --> 00:22:37.531 - some of the effects of properties not fronting on the street, the zero foot setbacks and coming forward 00:22:37.531 --> 00:22:44.097 - as a planned unit development really represents the best opportunity to utilize the planned unit development 00:22:44.097 --> 00:22:50.422 - component of the UDO. And so we are recommending that the planning commission forward this to the common 00:22:50.422 --> 00:22:56.627 - council with a favorable recommendation with the conditions that are listed in staff's report. And I'm 00:22:56.627 --> 00:22:58.494 - happy to answer any questions. 00:22:59.554 --> 00:23:10.186 - Thank you Eric. Are there any questions from commissioners? Is I guess before that is there someone 00:23:10.186 --> 00:23:21.031 - from the petitioner that wanted to add anything to the presentation On just one second we can't quite 00:23:21.031 --> 00:23:27.198 - hear you here Try again, let's see if we can hear you now 00:23:28.994 --> 00:23:38.041 - Can you hear me now? Yes, that's better. Thank you. Go ahead. OK, great. Eric, if you don't mind, I'm 00:23:38.041 --> 00:23:47.000 - going to pull up slides on my screen. I think I can do that. And waiting to see if those are showing 00:23:47.000 --> 00:23:50.814 - up. Let me know if you guys can see those. 00:23:59.202 --> 00:24:05.512 - Not yet, we're still waiting. All right, my apologies about the delay. Well, I'll be short on this a 00:24:05.512 --> 00:24:11.822 - little bit. I think you guys really saw me at the last meeting, and we've got some refinements based 00:24:11.822 --> 00:24:18.258 - on staff report comments that Erica's run through really well for us. And we also have some additional 00:24:18.258 --> 00:24:24.318 - exhibits to show some of our accessibility, which I know is one of our big questions previously. 00:24:25.698 --> 00:24:38.096 - Answering a couple of questions while we wait on what appears to be some technical issues here. We do 00:24:38.096 --> 00:24:51.102 - have one of the questions that was outstanding at the last meeting was the way that we were handling that. 00:25:10.626 --> 00:25:20.758 - Apologies. Let me try one more. Okay, there we go. So we shortened the slides a little bit. Just reminding, 00:25:20.758 --> 00:25:30.234 - kind of as a base setting, that our zoning in UDO is fully new and really vetted, and even that once 00:25:30.234 --> 00:25:34.174 - we often, and we see this in many cities, 00:25:34.498 --> 00:25:39.749 - Zoning is often not the only limitation to getting the housing that we need and the locations that we 00:25:39.749 --> 00:25:45.310 - want. And so this kind of project can be a great opportunity to pilot some resolving some of the additional 00:25:45.310 --> 00:25:50.458 - issues that often get uncovered once the zoning has been addressed. So we've got a number of things 00:25:50.458 --> 00:25:55.709 - we're trying to test within this pilot project that as a city project has a great opportunity to kind 00:25:55.709 --> 00:26:00.909 - of test and streamline some of these things, but hopefully they can be rolled out city-wide in later 00:26:00.909 --> 00:26:01.630 - code changes. 00:26:01.858 --> 00:26:07.768 - One of the other things that we're really focusing on on this project, as a reminder, is homeownership. 00:26:07.768 --> 00:26:13.450 - We've got a really high rental population, and so additional opportunities for homeownership within 00:26:13.450 --> 00:26:19.189 - the city are really valuable, specifically in Bloomington. And we've got lots of study on testing of 00:26:19.189 --> 00:26:25.099 - things that are kind of new approaches, even in our original master plans for the Hopewell South blocks 00:26:25.099 --> 00:26:30.270 - here, and so we're looking within the overall Hopewell plan at blocks eight, nine, and 10. 00:26:30.722 --> 00:26:35.788 - proposing starting our phasing on the west in block 10 and moving our way east to block eight. 00:26:35.788 --> 00:26:41.121 - So kind of, you know, again, giving at least a little bit of a quick level set, we're really trying 00:26:41.121 --> 00:26:46.773 - to get to a mix of housing types and a mix of housing price points. We're trying to get to a pre-approved 00:26:46.773 --> 00:26:52.532 - home design for each lot that streamlines permitting and reduces costs. One clarification from the previous 00:26:52.532 --> 00:26:58.078 - meeting is that while this has been built in to have a little bit of flexibility for swapping of houses 00:26:58.078 --> 00:26:58.718 - on the lots 00:26:58.850 --> 00:27:05.623 - If in five years one of the plans is much more popular than another, the intention is that that is controlled 00:27:05.623 --> 00:27:12.026 - by RDC and that when the lot is RFP'd out, a specific home is intended to be built on that lot and that 00:27:12.026 --> 00:27:18.307 - they're only swapping within other plans in the catalog for future flexibility as this won't be built 00:27:18.307 --> 00:27:24.587 - all. In one year, market absorption will take a few years of phasing. This is also really intended to 00:27:24.587 --> 00:27:27.358 - expand our opportunities for local builders. 00:27:27.778 --> 00:27:32.920 - I'm really bringing in kind of small scale local developers who can implement the houses, you know, 00:27:32.920 --> 00:27:38.577 - likely a few at a time. And this is coming alongside with training from the nonprofit incremental development 00:27:38.577 --> 00:27:43.925 - alliance in local development by local. And so we've got some training opportunities coming up for that 00:27:43.925 --> 00:27:49.428 - as well. I think there was an article today in the paper about the lecture, which is happening, I believe, 00:27:49.428 --> 00:27:50.302 - later this week. 00:27:51.266 --> 00:27:56.668 - There are also legal frameworks to support permanently affordable and market-grade houses. This is a 00:27:56.668 --> 00:28:02.177 - blended income neighborhood and there will be a percentage of the houses which is specified in the PUD 00:28:02.177 --> 00:28:07.632 - that will be affordable long-term. We got some really good feedback in the last meeting about some of 00:28:07.632 --> 00:28:13.461 - the limitations of those being done via deed restriction for financing. There will also be ongoing community 00:28:13.461 --> 00:28:16.510 - outreach and developer training as part of this program. 00:28:17.186 --> 00:28:22.979 - And so this is really intended to be a very comprehensive solution to trying to not just get affordable 00:28:22.979 --> 00:28:28.772 - housing and attainable and desirable workforce housing on this site, but really expanding it throughout 00:28:28.772 --> 00:28:34.565 - the city. So as part of that, we're working on smaller streets for the neighborhood, maintaining slower 00:28:34.565 --> 00:28:40.358 - car speeds and making a more pedestrian-friendly environment. We're also then being much more efficient 00:28:40.358 --> 00:28:43.422 - with the land area, reducing those right-of-way widths 00:28:43.746 --> 00:28:50.396 - notably ticked up our number of units that we were able to pick up, which is great for overall infrastructure 00:28:50.396 --> 00:28:56.501 - costs relative to the value generated by the development instead of right of way. We're also looking 00:28:56.501 --> 00:29:02.667 - at diverse housing frontages. And so that is both efficient from an infrastructure standpoint, but it 00:29:02.667 --> 00:29:08.773 - is also really desirable for a lot of households. You've got the option to face onto a street with a 00:29:08.773 --> 00:29:11.070 - sidewalk, like a typical development. 00:29:11.170 --> 00:29:16.327 - You also have the option to face those internal pedestrian geared streets, which can be much quieter 00:29:16.327 --> 00:29:21.433 - and really, you know, little kid friendly as well as a mom of young kids having the front door open 00:29:21.433 --> 00:29:26.743 - into green space instead of a street can be great for young families, you know, people with pets. We're 00:29:26.743 --> 00:29:32.053 - also working on reintroducing some housing types and densities. So one of the use changes that was done 00:29:32.053 --> 00:29:37.210 - in this revision was to ensure that some of the multifamily housing, which is relatively small, like 00:29:37.210 --> 00:29:40.222 - 12 unit buildings, we've got a couple four unit buildings, 00:29:40.418 --> 00:29:47.255 - are able to be built within the residential neighborhood, and you can see those are really intended 00:29:47.255 --> 00:29:54.365 - to have a good fit with kind of residential character and scale. From a site plan, again, we're looking 00:29:54.365 --> 00:30:01.681 - at these three blocks. Block eight and block nine have been combined, and so Jackson is being rededicated, 00:30:01.681 --> 00:30:03.390 - aligning to the existing 00:30:03.650 --> 00:30:10.082 - Intersection here on first as it moves into the northern sections of Hopewell. But then it dead ends, 00:30:10.082 --> 00:30:16.578 - there's not a connecting street down in Wiley, so it does jog over slightly to pick up an extra couple 00:30:16.578 --> 00:30:23.010 - of house lots. We did run this through kind of what we were allowed to do from base R4 zoning. And so 00:30:23.010 --> 00:30:29.758 - as a reminder, that's 28 homes with an average price point of all of the houses around $425,000. And so by 00:30:30.530 --> 00:30:36.669 - Adopting our first round of kind of proposed code changes and we were able to get up to 84 homes and 00:30:36.669 --> 00:30:42.808 - bring the overall average price down to about $315,000. This was an early iteration and then working 00:30:42.808 --> 00:30:48.947 - with the city back and forth both to increase some of the kind of right-of-way widths again to bring 00:30:48.947 --> 00:30:55.329 - back some of the standards to ask for a little bit less but then introducing a little bit of multifamily 00:30:55.329 --> 00:30:55.998 - to balance 00:30:56.450 --> 00:31:02.733 - that overall reduction, we were able to end at about 100 homes just under, with an average price point 00:31:02.733 --> 00:31:09.078 - around $270,000. The price points analysis that has been done here is based purely on market rate comps 00:31:09.078 --> 00:31:15.300 - within town, and so we're not committing that this is what this house will come on the market for. At 00:31:15.300 --> 00:31:21.523 - this time, we do have commitments on exact price points in terms of affordability metrics. Those will 00:31:21.523 --> 00:31:25.854 - be based on the area median incomes at the time that they come online. 00:31:25.986 --> 00:31:32.462 - But we are basing all of this on kind of no subsidy. Here's just what it would sell for based on comps 00:31:32.462 --> 00:31:38.750 - in town to get all of our averages and our price points. Accessibility was a really big question at 00:31:38.750 --> 00:31:45.037 - the last meeting, so we're hoping to provide a little bit of additional context on that. We do have 00:31:45.037 --> 00:31:51.262 - two different kinds of accessible units, which we refer to as full AVA and fair housing standards. 00:31:51.554 --> 00:31:58.123 - Those are two of the most common standards that we see nationally. It's two national codes. Those tend 00:31:58.123 --> 00:32:04.946 - to be really broad standards. And I'll show some examples to the way that those two differ. But generally, 00:32:04.946 --> 00:32:11.515 - we've clustered our accessible units up onto the flattest area of the site, kind of here in the middle 00:32:11.515 --> 00:32:17.956 - along Fairview. The full ADA compliant units are shown in the light blue. And the fair housing units 00:32:17.956 --> 00:32:19.742 - are shown in the dark blue. 00:32:20.226 --> 00:32:27.783 - So I've got some slides about exactly which ones of those meet. We have a 20% threshold by PUD standards 00:32:27.783 --> 00:32:35.340 - for accessible kind of universal design under the city code. And so both of these unit types well exceed 00:32:35.340 --> 00:32:42.753 - that set of standards. And then we're proposing 29% of the units would be either ADA or FHA standards. 00:32:42.753 --> 00:32:49.662 - So those will be a full zero step entrance. Generally, that is provided from the parking space. 00:32:49.922 --> 00:32:55.411 - So that's something that we could definitely adjust as we go if there are preferences there. But, 00:32:55.411 --> 00:33:01.180 - you know, for instance, this unit has an accessible parking space with full ADA accessibility in terms 00:33:01.180 --> 00:33:06.892 - of loading zone for a van next to it. And then access to the home is from the rear because that's the 00:33:06.892 --> 00:33:12.717 - 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 00:33:12.717 --> 00:33:18.430 - entrance into each of these accessible homes from either the front or the back, depending on grading. 00:33:20.706 --> 00:33:27.759 - As a background to the types of units and the names that we're giving, we call them ADA units because 00:33:27.759 --> 00:33:34.744 - that's the base code that this standard is based on. So an ADA type unit is exactly equivalent to an 00:33:34.744 --> 00:33:41.797 - ANSI type A unit. And so ANSI is a company that writes codes and sells codes. And so they have taken, 00:33:41.797 --> 00:33:48.574 - they have their own accessible definition that came up in the 70s and so that's their type C now. 00:33:48.706 --> 00:33:54.818 - So they republish the ADA standards and call it a type A, but every time the ADA standards are updated, 00:33:54.818 --> 00:34:00.929 - ANSI updates them to match. And so we call this an ADA unit, but it's also an ANSI type A unit. They're 00:34:00.929 --> 00:34:06.806 - exactly the same standards. This is the standard that is used for hotels, for hospitals, for dorms, 00:34:06.806 --> 00:34:13.152 - nursing homes. And so there are residential standards within the ADA standards. They're much more extensive 00:34:13.152 --> 00:34:18.206 - than an FHA standard. And we'll show you two examples. The bathrooms and the kitchens 00:34:18.306 --> 00:34:23.766 - are the two things that most vary in a universal designed home versus a fair housing home versus an 00:34:23.766 --> 00:34:29.662 - ADA home. And so we're going to show you some examples of what that bathroom looks like. So an ADA bathroom 00:34:29.662 --> 00:34:35.176 - needs to have at least six feet around the toilet with grab bars, which is a really different change 00:34:35.176 --> 00:34:40.254 - for most residential layouts. And so an ADA bathroom really has to be designed from scratch. 00:34:40.514 --> 00:34:46.341 - It takes up a very different amount of space than a typical residential bathroom, and often the space 00:34:46.341 --> 00:34:51.597 - between the toilet and the sink is one of the biggest elements of that. There is, you know, 00:34:51.597 --> 00:34:57.653 - entry to the pool, kind of pull up to the sink, knee space under the sink requirements, a curbless shower 00:34:57.653 --> 00:35:03.595 - is a requirement, a seat in the shower is a requirement, and then you need a full five-foot turnaround. 00:35:03.595 --> 00:35:09.022 - So an ADA bathroom has the most stringent standards of any of the standards. Fair Housing Act. 00:35:09.154 --> 00:35:15.032 - One of the things, you know, so Fair Housing Act is also in ANSI Type B. Same thing, this is a federally 00:35:15.032 --> 00:35:20.797 - published code. Both of these codes are actually civil rights acts. It's legally the way that they get 00:35:20.797 --> 00:35:26.563 - structured. And so every time that the Fair Housing Act standards are updated, ANSI then updates their 00:35:26.563 --> 00:35:32.384 - standards to follow. So we can use either name, they're the same thing. So a Fair Housing Act or a Type 00:35:32.384 --> 00:35:37.758 - B unit is much easier to accomplish. And one of the things that we see about Fair Housing units 00:35:37.890 --> 00:35:44.018 - that should make us really pro-multi-family housing is anytime you have a building that has four or 00:35:44.018 --> 00:35:50.207 - more units as a national civil rights requirement, all of your ground floor units are required to be 00:35:50.207 --> 00:35:56.335 - fair housing compliant. And so anytime we have a building with more than four units, we will always 00:35:56.335 --> 00:36:02.586 - have some accessible units. Those do need an accessible route from a public sidewalk, and so they are 00:36:02.586 --> 00:36:03.934 - also visitable units. 00:36:04.290 --> 00:36:09.958 - And so this is a standard that is required regardless of local standards. Anytime we've got four or 00:36:09.958 --> 00:36:16.136 - more units in a building. So a fair housing standards bathroom and kitchen doesn't have the full turnaround. 00:36:16.136 --> 00:36:21.917 - We don't have full grab bars around the toilet. The toilet and the sink are more related to where you 00:36:21.917 --> 00:36:27.755 - would see them in a typical house. But you do have this 30 by 48 area that you have to be able to pull 00:36:27.755 --> 00:36:32.062 - into the bathroom, close the door, and have access to each of the fixtures. 00:36:32.258 --> 00:36:38.306 - A fair housing bathroom is slightly bigger or requires a little bit different customized layout, but 00:36:38.306 --> 00:36:44.534 - not nearly as much as that ADA. ADA hallways also need to be much wider. A fair housing hallway doesn't 00:36:44.534 --> 00:36:50.882 - have standards the same way at push and pull. And so both of these are useful, and both of these increase 00:36:50.882 --> 00:36:56.990 - accessibility. They are slightly different standards. And so we do have units that meet both of these 00:36:56.990 --> 00:36:58.846 - standards in the neighborhood. 00:36:59.202 --> 00:37:06.046 - So again, that ANSI type A is the most stringent, the highest bar, that's our ADA compliance. Type B 00:37:06.046 --> 00:37:12.823 - is still a really good accessibility standard, FHA requirements. And then the ANSI type C, which is 00:37:12.823 --> 00:37:20.073 - what that one is called, is their old accessibility standard. And that one is not, I've never seen anybody 00:37:20.073 --> 00:37:21.022 - use that one. 00:37:22.210 --> 00:37:28.862 - So we have three accessible units that are full type A ADA units. You know, they're designed from scratch 00:37:28.862 --> 00:37:35.388 - with that set of standards. And so we've got the eGrit, which is a two-bedroom, one-bathroom, one-story 00:37:35.388 --> 00:37:41.914 - house. And so it's intended to be designed with a rear zero-entry stair. And so it is shown with stairs 00:37:41.914 --> 00:37:48.126 - at the front. From a standardized version, it does typically, when it is built, have a rear entry. 00:37:48.226 --> 00:37:54.121 - That might be flipped in some of these situations. I think this one is also always kind of rear entry 00:37:54.121 --> 00:38:00.074 - and you're entering into a main space from your parking there. That can be flipped though so that that 00:38:00.074 --> 00:38:06.200 - is done slightly differently if that's desired. The gardenia is a one bedroom, one bath, one story house. 00:38:06.200 --> 00:38:12.153 - Same thing. This one is that will be the standard plans are shown on the stairs and that's a good flag 00:38:12.153 --> 00:38:17.470 - that those will in our zero entry situations be built as a slab on grade with a zero entry. 00:38:18.050 --> 00:38:23.942 - front door. And then the B-bomb is another one bedroom, one bath, slightly different layout. And we're 00:38:23.942 --> 00:38:30.062 - proposing doing that as a duplex in a couple of locations. And so we've got these three plans in currently 00:38:30.062 --> 00:38:36.011 - as our ADA plans. And then we also have a number of plans that are fully visitable, have a ground floor 00:38:36.011 --> 00:38:41.502 - bathroom, and do need FHA standards. So about 29% of the plans meet one of these two standards. 00:38:43.298 --> 00:38:50.056 - The pedestrian network within the neighborhood is a really important component of this. And so we've 00:38:50.056 --> 00:38:56.746 - got the blue kind of car circulation. The front doors of all of our center lane houses here do face 00:38:56.746 --> 00:39:03.437 - onto the shared pathway, this kind of central spine. So our phase one lots that we're proposing, we 00:39:03.437 --> 00:39:10.462 - are proposing starting one with a lot line adjustment, first phase of houses up to the northern section. 00:39:10.658 --> 00:39:16.879 - call with civil engineers today where they were confirming that there is then intended to install the 00:39:16.879 --> 00:39:23.528 - rest of the infrastructure likely while these houses are still under construction and then we will generally 00:39:23.528 --> 00:39:29.688 - be moving from west to east on housing development. Conceptual green infrastructure is shown in this 00:39:29.688 --> 00:39:35.422 - hatched dark green and so drainage will be compliant with city standards and will be designed 00:39:35.522 --> 00:39:41.954 - in combination with both block eight and block nine and 10 together. So there will be one comprehensive 00:39:41.954 --> 00:39:48.387 - drainage design where a lot of the water quality is being handled within the residential areas and then 00:39:48.387 --> 00:39:55.129 - water quantity storage is being handled more in the block eight commercial areas. Fire and trash collection. 00:39:55.129 --> 00:39:58.654 - So fire access to all of these is within the blue hatch. 00:39:58.978 --> 00:40:05.599 - And then this dark green hatch. We are keeping trash trucks on our North South, Fairview and Jackson. 00:40:05.599 --> 00:40:12.285 - Those have larger turn radii than the lanes do. And the fire truck has a much smaller turn radius than 00:40:12.285 --> 00:40:18.970 - the trash truck does. And so the fire trucks are coming into the lanes and then meet standard Appendix 00:40:18.970 --> 00:40:21.502 - D requirements in terms of turn radii. 00:40:21.762 --> 00:40:28.244 - We've got one small dead end section here, which again needs that appendix D maximum 150 foot length. 00:40:28.244 --> 00:40:34.853 - And then we do have a full 150 foot pole from the lane to this lower section of houses. So those should 00:40:34.853 --> 00:40:41.207 - be all fully compliant with typical standards. And then we've got street sections, if there are any 00:40:41.207 --> 00:40:47.944 - questions about those, but those remain relatively unchanged. And then we're here to answer any questions 00:40:47.944 --> 00:40:49.278 - you guys might have. 00:40:51.938 --> 00:40:59.303 - Thank you. Are there any questions from commissioners? Mr. Ballard First I really appreciate in value 00:40:59.303 --> 00:41:06.595 - your presentation and the updates You I feel like you listen to are giving us, you know feedback and 00:41:06.595 --> 00:41:13.960 - changes that we were asking about So thank you for that. Just a couple quick ones This is the overall 00:41:13.960 --> 00:41:18.942 - project how much time will this save in terms of breaking ground and 00:41:19.618 --> 00:41:27.170 - with this goes through as a PUD versus if this stays as a buy-write development. That's one. And then, 00:41:27.170 --> 00:41:34.649 - two, how much time will this save in the permitting process for developers? Three, how much money can 00:41:34.649 --> 00:41:41.981 - be saved with the cuts in the time to the permitting process for developers and then for the owners 00:41:41.981 --> 00:41:47.774 - who will be buying these? And if you don't have numbers for that, I would ask, 00:41:47.906 --> 00:41:55.153 - for those at some point as a quantifiable average per unit We we can provide that overall as an average 00:41:55.153 --> 00:42:02.122 - per unit which might take a little bit of doing but I think the easiest way to think about this too 00:42:02.122 --> 00:42:08.672 - is that the PD the PD is saving time by being able to tackle this is one big development with 00:42:08.672 --> 00:42:15.710 - the standardized set of details significantly easier and faster to run through the process than in a 00:42:16.066 --> 00:42:22.930 - you know, lots of little developers purchased a chunk and then we're trying to entitle them all individually. 00:42:22.930 --> 00:42:29.482 - But one of the largest cost savings that we're going to see is, let me come back to our number of units, 00:42:29.482 --> 00:42:35.972 - the largest cost savings that we are seeing is in sharing the land cost, the infrastructure cost, among 00:42:35.972 --> 00:42:38.718 - more houses of different sizes. And so that 00:42:38.946 --> 00:42:46.511 - The biggest set of things that the PUD are legalizing is increasing us from 28 lots, in which we've 00:42:46.511 --> 00:42:54.303 - got an average house cost of $425,000, down to 98 homes. We do have some multi-family within that, and 00:42:54.303 --> 00:43:02.322 - so it's not 98 lots, so we switched it to homes. But that brings our average cost down to about $270,000. 00:43:02.322 --> 00:43:07.390 - And so that is accomplished primarily by being able to incorporate 00:43:07.586 --> 00:43:14.043 - additional small lot homes, small format homes, which don't make any sense if we're looking at a standard 00:43:14.043 --> 00:43:20.134 - lot size and lot size cost, in which case you've got to build a certain size house to make the cost 00:43:20.134 --> 00:43:26.287 - and value of the lot make sense. And so the overall process in PUD is dropping the cost of the homes 00:43:26.287 --> 00:43:32.500 - in this neighborhood on average from about 425 to about 270. So it's a really significant difference. 00:43:32.500 --> 00:43:36.094 - And we're looking before any type of subsidy is introduced 00:43:36.418 --> 00:43:44.987 - at relatively market rates. But a really large percentage of these homes are designated as affordable 00:43:44.987 --> 00:43:53.725 - under 100% AMI, even with standard assumptions on land cost and construction cost. I was trying to pull 00:43:53.725 --> 00:44:02.462 - that number. It's 70% of houses currently at market rate price per square foot would be under 100% AMI. 00:44:07.170 --> 00:44:14.982 - I'm trying to do a quick follow-up. Thank you for that. So in essence, with this cost savings and the 00:44:14.982 --> 00:44:22.640 - comparables you're pulling for market values, you should be under the going rate per square foot of 00:44:22.640 --> 00:44:30.911 - your comparables, correct? That is a little bit tricky because typically in most communities, a one-bedroom 00:44:30.911 --> 00:44:35.966 - has sort of a value. And so often, a direct price per square foot 00:44:36.226 --> 00:44:42.154 - A smaller house that is still still providing all of the things that you were looking for in that you 00:44:42.154 --> 00:44:48.024 - know one bedroom house might sell for more price per square foot overall cost might be lower if that 00:44:48.024 --> 00:44:53.778 - makes sense. So it's not entirely a direct drop. For instance, our smallest houses, which we have, 00:44:53.778 --> 00:44:59.938 - you know, we have some tiers of the one bedroom houses have one price per square foot assumption. They're 00:44:59.938 --> 00:45:03.774 - smaller. So it's a little bit higher than the two bedroom, right? 00:45:03.906 --> 00:45:10.243 - more affordable, but the price per square foot might be 10 or 20% higher. When we looked at comps for 00:45:10.243 --> 00:45:16.456 - the smallest houses, which are little studios, there are 10 houses that have sold in the last three 00:45:16.456 --> 00:45:22.732 - years in Bloomington that are under 800 square feet, a studio or one bedroom that has sold for under 00:45:22.732 --> 00:45:29.566 - $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 00:45:29.890 --> 00:45:35.690 - They tend to not be in great condition So the assumption is that that total purchase price is still 00:45:35.690 --> 00:45:41.373 - very attainable and there are many buyers for that But the price per square foot is not a direct, 00:45:41.373 --> 00:45:47.405 - you know, this is what it sells for commodity type price Sure, and I appreciate that I'm in real estate 00:45:47.405 --> 00:45:53.378 - myself. So I'm pretty clear and I appreciate what you're saying I just want to make sure we're if this 00:45:53.378 --> 00:45:57.438 - is an apples to apples comparison of you know the unit by the bed and 00:45:58.178 --> 00:46:05.764 - Comparing one beds to one beds two to two three to three that kind of thing to be able to see and quantify 00:46:05.764 --> 00:46:12.996 - the cost savings percentage wise For this project. So because I think that's just a really really key 00:46:12.996 --> 00:46:20.795 - piece. So thank you for that Thank you So just to confirm this is the second hearing for this this submission 00:46:20.795 --> 00:46:26.750 - has not changed since the first time right? This is exactly the same submission. No 00:46:27.202 --> 00:46:34.592 - In general, it's the same submission. Yes, as I mentioned there were a few Refinements to some of the 00:46:34.592 --> 00:46:41.838 - language within the district ordinance, but that's no change. Yeah, okay. Okay So the main question 00:46:41.838 --> 00:46:49.228 - we talked a lot about affordability indeed restrictions last time And my understanding I believe this 00:46:49.228 --> 00:46:54.590 - was passed before the recent UDO amendment and so it goes under the older 00:46:55.330 --> 00:47:01.600 - affordability requirements My question is if in the future we decide okay We don't like deed restrictions 00:47:01.600 --> 00:47:07.516 - and it seems like there may be some will towards moving that way Which I think personally is a good 00:47:07.516 --> 00:47:13.549 - thing if there are future changes To deed restrictions and we get rid of them or come up with another 00:47:13.549 --> 00:47:19.583 - way to impose a portability Will this will we be able to change it for this PUD? like will we be able 00:47:19.583 --> 00:47:22.718 - to come back will will housing or plan planning have 00:47:22.818 --> 00:47:29.165 - The discretion to come back and change the requirements that are currently being imposed on this Yeah, 00:47:29.165 --> 00:47:35.327 - so the PUD is not locking in a specific procedure to accomplish the affordability So the petitioner 00:47:35.327 --> 00:47:41.551 - is looking to accomplish that through a lot of the different mechanisms that the RDC is exploring So 00:47:41.551 --> 00:47:47.960 - they you know, they could certainly again talk to that a little bit more in depth if you have questions 00:47:47.960 --> 00:47:48.638 - about that 00:47:49.218 --> 00:47:55.172 - I mean our PU like this the UDO talks about PUDs and there's an affordability requirement in there of 00:47:55.172 --> 00:48:01.417 - 15% of the houses have to be deed restricted to sell at 120% of AMI those maybe I don't have those numbers 00:48:01.417 --> 00:48:06.903 - right, but that's in the UDO, right? Correct. Yes So in the future if we decide we don't like 00:48:06.903 --> 00:48:12.857 - deed restrictions, we want to do it differently Will we be able to come back and retroactively change 00:48:12.857 --> 00:48:18.110 - it? Are those can we get rid of those deed restrictions later or if we agree to them now? 00:48:18.210 --> 00:48:23.875 - they're there and they're going to stay there regardless of future changes we make. I would say as long 00:48:23.875 --> 00:48:29.430 - as they are meeting the requirement to provide that affordability component how they're doing that is 00:48:29.430 --> 00:48:34.931 - I think something that we certainly can explore at that time. You know deed restrictions or you know 00:48:34.931 --> 00:48:41.086 - that specific language isn't dictated explicitly. You know it's just an affordability requirement that is there. 00:48:47.458 --> 00:48:52.825 - You answered my question about The advertised pricing so you don't have builders That will that have 00:48:52.825 --> 00:48:58.299 - agreed to build houses and be able to sell them at the market prices that are being advertised in here 00:48:58.299 --> 00:49:03.719 - These were done by comparables and I guess that's fair enough. I understand that the one question How 00:49:03.719 --> 00:49:09.193 - did you get comparables for this? There's no neighborhood like this in Bloomington. Was it just purely 00:49:09.193 --> 00:49:15.038 - square foot or maybe the the consultant can answer? How did you guys find comparables for places like this? I 00:49:16.162 --> 00:49:22.781 - We were looking at consoles within the last 12 months within Bloomington. There are a couple of neighborhoods 00:49:22.781 --> 00:49:28.859 - that are a little bit more walkable or that are more walkable type neighborhoods. And so some of our 00:49:28.859 --> 00:49:35.056 - historic districts, we were typically looking for, you know, renovated in decent condition, relatively 00:49:35.056 --> 00:49:38.366 - comparable in terms of square footage and city center. 00:49:38.626 --> 00:49:44.760 - But yes, I would consider these sort of budgeting numbers and target numbers that are confirming that 00:49:44.760 --> 00:49:50.834 - the standards that are within the PUD in terms of affordability and price points are able to be met. 00:49:50.834 --> 00:49:57.089 - But these are definitely based on what I would call budget version of comps, which typically what we've 00:49:57.089 --> 00:50:03.223 - seen is that ends up relatively conservative. We've developed a number of neighborhoods that are this 00:50:03.223 --> 00:50:04.606 - type of format that is 00:50:04.898 --> 00:50:10.585 - more walkable, smaller yards, more communal green space, higher quality of architecture. And typically 00:50:10.585 --> 00:50:16.493 - the problem that we have in there is restricting overall price points from growing too high, but typically 00:50:16.493 --> 00:50:22.014 - they are relatively in demand. And so there isn't anything like it. There is, as we talked about in 00:50:22.014 --> 00:50:27.038 - the first set of meetings, there's a huge number of households that are one in two people. 00:50:27.234 --> 00:50:32.869 - that would like a smaller, nice, low maintenance new construction house if there was one available in 00:50:32.869 --> 00:50:38.505 - their neighborhood, but that's not something that's available on the market. And so typically we work 00:50:38.505 --> 00:50:44.085 - within what are things selling for price per square foot that houses about this size in roughly this 00:50:44.085 --> 00:50:49.886 - neighborhood. But typically what we actually see in sales is that that's a pretty conservative estimate. 00:50:49.886 --> 00:50:50.494 - Thank you. 00:50:52.898 --> 00:50:58.915 - Can I just a quick follow-up on that? Were you able to find comps that were new construction? Or were 00:50:58.915 --> 00:51:05.404 - you comparing mostly to older construction? I would say it's probably 50-50. There were some new construction 00:51:05.404 --> 00:51:11.479 - infill units. There were both some condos that would be comps to the multi-family buildings. And there 00:51:11.479 --> 00:51:17.614 - were also, is it Dunn Street? I think there's one really cute little neighborhood that is more walkable 00:51:17.614 --> 00:51:18.558 - that wasn't PB. 00:51:18.946 --> 00:51:25.444 - So there were a couple of places that we were able to find something that is new construction to validate 00:51:25.444 --> 00:51:31.636 - those weren't Dramatically varying from our renovating the high-quality older construction price per 00:51:31.636 --> 00:51:38.011 - square foot Thanks Commissioner Stossberg good I just want to follow up on that minute too and it might 00:51:38.011 --> 00:51:44.203 - be better for city staff in the room as opposed to the Consultant, but if actual build prices end up 00:51:44.203 --> 00:51:48.862 - exceeding those expectations for prices and the comparables that we've done 00:51:49.250 --> 00:52:01.819 - Does the RDC have a plan for how to supplement that to maintain that affordability? Thanks Offerings 00:52:01.819 --> 00:52:15.258 - for these lots, right? So we can put whatever details and guardrails that we need to in our public offering 00:52:15.258 --> 00:52:17.374 - but there's also 00:52:17.474 --> 00:52:24.914 - Many ways to protect affordability And so we are exploring that it could be a silent second mortgage. 00:52:24.914 --> 00:52:32.500 - It could be an equity share They're they're right of first refusals There's a lot of different creative 00:52:32.500 --> 00:52:40.378 - mechanisms to try and protect affordability beyond the deed restrictions But yes, we are putting guardrails 00:52:40.378 --> 00:52:47.454 - on it. We are Working to address that but we haven't come up with the exact mechanism yet Thanks 00:52:51.202 --> 00:53:01.745 - Yeah, so the the topic of comps have come up a number of times I'm curious where you found comparable 00:53:01.745 --> 00:53:12.494 - properties for the Astor house You know roughly similar right which is a very small house that we found 00:53:12.494 --> 00:53:16.318 - are typically very poor construction 00:53:16.514 --> 00:53:23.346 - They are old and have not been renovated, but we found those selling from 25,000 up to 125,000 depending 00:53:23.346 --> 00:53:29.983 - on location. And so the thing that we found with the Aster is there's typically a floor at which both 00:53:29.983 --> 00:53:37.011 - you can get a mortgage for that house and your price to own it, your monthly price of ownership, utilities, 00:53:37.011 --> 00:53:43.518 - insurance, mortgage payment, HOA payment in this case, is dramatically lower than your rental price 00:53:43.618 --> 00:53:49.062 - for something of a similar size. And so that has been a unit that we've built before that creates a 00:53:49.062 --> 00:53:54.996 - really good floor for entry into homeownership at a completely different price point than we would otherwise 00:53:54.996 --> 00:54:00.548 - be able to achieve in something like this. And so there aren't a lot of the asters. There's a couple. 00:54:00.548 --> 00:54:04.958 - And so they bring in a really good additional price point into the neighborhood. 00:54:05.890 --> 00:54:12.392 - I guess my concern is that when no comps are available, that oftentimes leaves a gap between what's 00:54:12.392 --> 00:54:19.090 - financeable for a mortgage and what the purchase price is, which leaves the buyer left to come up with 00:54:19.090 --> 00:54:25.657 - that difference. So given the lack of comps of that size and the fact that we're kind of using maybe 00:54:25.657 --> 00:54:27.998 - poorly constructed aging, you know, 00:54:28.130 --> 00:54:35.310 - Comparable properties to kind of ramshackle together a value. Is that going to create a problem for 00:54:35.310 --> 00:54:42.635 - the end user being able to buy the house? We built a lot of new construction houses 300 to 600 square 00:54:42.635 --> 00:54:50.174 - feet in a variety of communities and it is typical that we can action for this first couple of sales use 00:54:50.370 --> 00:54:55.863 - older homes that are selling or yeah, it's a 600 square foot house and it's sold for $90,000 typically 00:54:55.863 --> 00:55:01.195 - with a value adjustment that does work fine for standard underwriting rules to you know, we'll have 00:55:01.195 --> 00:55:06.634 - sold it in the last 12 months. We can we can typically use that for our first comp and then the first 00:55:06.634 --> 00:55:12.074 - couple of sales become the cost for the later ones. But we have not typically seen that as a problem. 00:55:12.074 --> 00:55:17.673 - We have never had one of our smaller houses that was not able to get a typical secondary market mortgage 00:55:17.673 --> 00:55:19.166 - even the first one to sell. 00:55:19.874 --> 00:55:31.430 - What what's the size of that sample group that you're basing that off of is that you know ten projects 00:55:31.430 --> 00:55:42.985 - 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 00:55:42.985 --> 00:55:45.790 - a national standpoint of 00:55:45.986 --> 00:55:58.699 - And when when the appraisals came through on those were there significant line adjustments for those 00:55:58.699 --> 00:56:07.006 - appraisals to make them within market tolerance Because we've got 00:56:07.138 --> 00:56:13.112 - Several houses that are 600 square feet, 500 to 600 square feet in Bloomington within the last 12 months 00:56:13.112 --> 00:56:18.973 - that are selling for more than this is kind of slated to. They're selling for up to $125,000. We would 00:56:18.973 --> 00:56:24.720 - not anticipate significant line adjustments that would be needed in that appraisal. Okay, thank you. 00:56:24.720 --> 00:56:25.630 - That's helpful. 00:56:25.826 --> 00:56:32.242 - This one is more for the approval of this So if based on the recommendation item one says that the final 00:56:32.242 --> 00:56:38.536 - approver for block eight shall be heard by the Planning Commission final approver for all other phases 00:56:38.536 --> 00:56:45.197 - would be delegated to staff So is that where we would approve block eight? Which is the last to be developed 00:56:45.197 --> 00:56:51.307 - and then everything else which is the first to be developed would be delegated to staff Yes, that's 00:56:51.307 --> 00:56:55.646 - correct that that's the condition that staff is proposing tonight, yes 00:56:55.938 --> 00:57:03.109 - So does that remove the recourse of this governing body to be able to have an impact on those final 00:57:03.109 --> 00:57:10.351 - plans for the Very beginning edge of this development In essence, yes, it allows for that to be done 00:57:10.351 --> 00:57:17.809 - at staff level So that's that is our proposal. Certainly if that's something that the Plaint Commission 00:57:17.809 --> 00:57:22.398 - feels that they would rather have a particular phase or section 00:57:22.658 --> 00:57:29.511 - Heard at the Plain Commission then you can modify that condition of approval and I the use of lanes 00:57:29.511 --> 00:57:36.433 - is you know a novel Idea that we're doing here for this PUD. Is there any plan for transportation to 00:57:36.433 --> 00:57:38.558 - codify lanes into their usage? 00:57:39.458 --> 00:57:45.719 - So that's certainly something we can look at when we update the transportation plan, you know That's 00:57:45.719 --> 00:57:52.104 - a much broader undertaking to update and go through that plan. So certainly we can look at this as CFR 00:57:52.104 --> 00:57:58.365 - elements of this PD that we want to incorporate as an additional street typology Is approving any of 00:57:58.365 --> 00:58:05.122 - this in the current format? setting a precedence for kind of leapfrogging over any of those formal approvals 00:58:05.122 --> 00:58:06.238 - in the future and 00:58:06.690 --> 00:58:14.978 - I wouldn't say leapfrogging but it does present an opportunity to try them out to see how they might 00:58:14.978 --> 00:58:23.429 - function in this scenario Thank you Any other questions from commissioners I'm just looking at the the 00:58:23.429 --> 00:58:32.045 - UDO it does it does say deed restrictions right for the affordability must be permanently income limited 00:58:32.045 --> 00:58:35.902 - through deed restrictions to the household and 00:58:36.034 --> 00:58:41.253 - Yes, the reason I'm bringing this up is because like some of these are imposed through agreement with 00:58:41.253 --> 00:58:46.369 - with the city and We and they we have discretion to release those later if we choose to but it once 00:58:46.369 --> 00:58:51.536 - a deed restriction is in place Is that who can change that once it's put in there? Does anybody have 00:58:51.536 --> 00:58:56.857 - the ability to change that? That's really my question Yeah, so that language it goes on to additionally 00:58:56.857 --> 00:58:58.750 - say unless forfeited by the city and 00:58:58.882 --> 00:59:05.189 - So with this petition, you know to propose the petitioners are brought forward a plan to accomplish 00:59:05.189 --> 00:59:11.748 - that affordability through a wide range of different paths You know this specific length of time hasn't 00:59:11.748 --> 00:59:18.119 - hasn't been given by the petitioner in terms of how long that affordability Would be carried out. So 00:59:18.119 --> 00:59:24.552 - that's something certainly the Planning Commission feels like they need some level of commitment from 00:59:24.552 --> 00:59:27.390 - You know, that's something they could pursue 00:59:27.842 --> 00:59:33.739 - I don't I don't read it that way. I think the city's ability to otherwise adjust to release the requirement 00:59:33.739 --> 00:59:39.254 - that applies to subsection 2004 110 see the deed restriction is earlier in the paragraph. And again, 00:59:39.254 --> 00:59:45.097 - I don't know that the city will have the discretion to undo a deed restriction. That's really my question. 00:59:45.097 --> 00:59:50.721 - Maybe legal can input on that. I don't know enough about deed restrictions, but once you've put a deed 00:59:50.721 --> 00:59:54.270 - restriction in place, my question is, can we ever get rid of it? 00:59:54.914 --> 01:00:02.485 - Like it's not just an agreement with the city where we can say we're not going to enforce that's a deed 01:00:02.485 --> 01:00:09.764 - restriction Get someone from legal to weigh in here I and if the language says the city can forfeit 01:00:09.764 --> 01:00:17.189 - and and it's in a deed We'd obviously have to work with the property owner in that, you know the deed 01:00:17.189 --> 01:00:22.430 - is going to be binding on whoever owns that home and so You know that's 01:00:22.690 --> 01:00:30.334 - That there will have we can't just you know, we unilaterally change a deed that you know and Alter somebody's 01:00:30.334 --> 01:00:37.560 - property rights without conversation that property owner Does that answer your question? Just to follow 01:00:37.560 --> 01:00:44.926 - up on that then so but in this case the district ordinance would supersede Whatever is in the UDO, right? 01:00:44.926 --> 01:00:52.222 - So if we wanted to allow Some other method of assuring affordability other than a deed restriction. Yeah 01:00:52.482 --> 01:00:59.513 - We can do that But we have to make that decision before the properties are Yes, and there is obviously 01:00:59.513 --> 01:01:06.407 - we're here tonight for this, you know PUD but there are Continuing conversations we're gonna have to 01:01:06.407 --> 01:01:13.437 - have and I don't know if Ali who's online Wants to talk about I think this is a conversation we've had 01:01:13.437 --> 01:01:20.741 - with her if you'd like to jump in here and talk about some of the other creative things that have happened 01:01:20.741 --> 01:01:22.174 - in other communities 01:01:22.850 --> 01:01:29.051 - regarding affordability. I'd be happy to. I'll also point out that the PUD language here within our 01:01:29.051 --> 01:01:34.881 - PUD we propose does not state that it may have deed restriction. The only place that the word 01:01:34.881 --> 01:01:41.144 - deed restriction are used is as one of the optional ways that this might be accomplished. And so the 01:01:41.144 --> 01:01:47.345 - standard itself is fixed. That at least 50% of the total dwelling area units within the PUD will be 01:01:47.345 --> 01:01:49.950 - affordable to home buyers under 100% AMI. 01:01:50.370 --> 01:01:56.569 - And then at least 15% of the total dwelling units will be permanently income limited to households earning 01:01:56.569 --> 01:02:02.188 - less than 120% of area median income. So we are committing to the percentages that will be done, 01:02:02.188 --> 01:02:08.040 - you know, a larger percentage at first sale, a smaller percentage that is permanently protected. But 01:02:08.040 --> 01:02:13.949 - then we are not within the PUD itself limiting this to be restrictions and we are listing a number of 01:02:13.949 --> 01:02:16.382 - ways that this can be done. So there are, 01:02:16.770 --> 01:02:22.535 - There is a nested section, right, of kind of affordability that is being discussed within REC that will 01:02:22.535 --> 01:02:28.190 - require their final kind of review on options. But yeah, so a silent second mortgage has sort of down 01:02:28.190 --> 01:02:33.788 - payment assistance is one of the ways that that is typically discussed is one way that that has been 01:02:33.788 --> 01:02:39.554 - discussed as being available, that functionally the REC would be given, giving basic, on the land value 01:02:39.554 --> 01:02:42.270 - functionally is like the way this would be done. 01:02:42.498 --> 01:02:48.734 - would be giving a forgivable second mortgage so that the longer that you're in the house, that that 01:02:48.734 --> 01:02:55.031 - is a tiered release functionally of that being paid back. And so that would be one form of this that 01:02:55.031 --> 01:03:01.392 - is common. Right of first refusal is another version that is relatively permanent but does have a lot 01:03:01.392 --> 01:03:07.690 - of flexibility because if at some point that is not, the RAC sort of fails to execute their right of 01:03:07.690 --> 01:03:10.558 - first refusal, a market rate sale can happen. 01:03:10.722 --> 01:03:17.830 - And then that can actually come back. The next owner would still also own that. So there's some good 01:03:17.830 --> 01:03:25.008 - flexible ways that that can be done. We do hear you on the de-restriction limitations. But the PUD as 01:03:25.008 --> 01:03:32.187 - it is currently written does not commit to a de-restriction as the method by which that will be done. 01:03:32.187 --> 01:03:39.365 - It does commit to the standards that will be met in terms of percentages of homes and AMI. So just to 01:03:39.365 --> 01:03:40.702 - clarify that then, 01:03:41.602 --> 01:03:50.201 - There's nothing in the PUD that's going to codify the methodologies that are gonna be used. We'll simply, 01:03:50.201 --> 01:03:58.556 - someone at the staff level will just review to make sure that as these are sold, they're still meeting 01:03:58.556 --> 01:04:07.074 - that affordability requirement. Yes, and that's section three, that's, I guess, item three under section 01:04:07.074 --> 01:04:10.238 - two, qualify standards and eligibility 01:04:11.106 --> 01:04:18.777 - Is the section of which the optional variety of ways this can be achieved is committed to and then the 01:04:18.777 --> 01:04:26.224 - percentages are committed to Okay, it's when you refer to that are you referring to the udo the the 01:04:26.224 --> 01:04:34.268 - pud qualifying standards in the udo or is this part of the pud? Modifying that because the deed restriction 01:04:34.268 --> 01:04:37.470 - Okay. Thank thank you the deed restriction 01:04:37.602 --> 01:04:44.763 - Language is part of the qualifying standard to qualify for a PUD So there are things say if you want 01:04:44.763 --> 01:04:51.995 - a PUD do ABCDEFG One of those things is to have a deed restriction. So can the PUD agreement Undo and 01:04:51.995 --> 01:04:59.227 - supersede the requirements to have a PUD like can could they also say we're gonna have a PUD and it's 01:04:59.227 --> 01:05:04.190 - only gonna be one acre because it's supposed to be so many acres, but 01:05:04.418 --> 01:05:11.083 - we're gonna agree in the PUD to have less than that. So are all these requirements for a qualifying 01:05:11.083 --> 01:05:17.748 - standard to have a PUD, all of those can be modified by the PUD itself? Is that what's happening? I 01:05:17.748 --> 01:05:24.480 - would say that staff's interpretation of that has been here is the qualifying standard that you have 01:05:24.480 --> 01:05:31.278 - to accomplish the deed restriction and we are saying that they are meeting the intent of that through 01:05:31.278 --> 01:05:32.478 - the affordability 01:05:34.786 --> 01:05:41.500 - Methods that they have outlined to achieve that affordability over a long term And so we had made that 01:05:41.500 --> 01:05:48.475 - determination that they are meeting the qualifying standard by what they have proposed in their Petitioner 01:05:48.475 --> 01:05:55.123 - statement and how they kind of explained it hearing tonight and last time So yes, you know the PUD is 01:05:55.123 --> 01:06:00.990 - this is offering an allowance for something different something that's not envisioned and 01:06:01.154 --> 01:06:09.135 - With the UDO the UDO is envisioned for affordability multifamily residences So that's that's a little 01:06:09.135 --> 01:06:17.037 - bit different than the single family component that's here tonight and so we've approached that with 01:06:17.037 --> 01:06:24.939 - a degree of flexibility in terms of Applying and interpreting what the language in the UDO is trying 01:06:24.939 --> 01:06:28.382 - to accomplish Okay, thank you Mr. Stossberg 01:06:28.674 --> 01:06:36.139 - Well, I just wanted to clarify that point to you I guess that under that qualifying standards and eligibility 01:06:36.139 --> 01:06:43.197 - of the petition that that affordability commitment and then that language that doesn't actually include 01:06:43.197 --> 01:06:50.255 - deed restrictions at all but Includes all of these other concepts of how to maintain that affordability 01:06:50.255 --> 01:06:55.006 - like that overrules the udio, which is I think what you just said and 01:06:57.602 --> 01:07:02.866 - Yes, I was trying to try to listen to what you were saying as well as read the qualifying standards 01:07:02.866 --> 01:07:08.445 - and wanted to make sure to point out You know that the last sentence in that qualifying standards section 01:07:08.445 --> 01:07:13.761 - talks about you know, unless the city relinquishes Or releases that requirement and so that is where 01:07:13.761 --> 01:07:19.130 - we're building it again So what what I was saying last time is you know if the city wanted to install 01:07:19.130 --> 01:07:24.446 - or the Plain Commission? Wanted to have a condition of approval that you know necessitated a certain 01:07:24.446 --> 01:07:26.078 - time period length of time and 01:07:26.466 --> 01:07:33.409 - You know right now it's just kind of been left, you know, I'll say somewhat open-ended in terms of the 01:07:33.409 --> 01:07:39.542 - length of that commitment You know in terms of how many property owners how long? You know 01:07:39.542 --> 01:07:46.553 - is the affordability component of this, you know that specificity isn't included Well, but it says that 01:07:46.553 --> 01:07:53.630 - 15% Will be permanently income limited. Yeah, so it's the permanently, you know that specific element of 01:07:53.890 --> 01:08:00.443 - Is not something that has been specifically clarified. They're meeting the percentage requirements. 01:08:00.443 --> 01:08:06.997 - Yes, it's the length of time I'm confused because you're saying that like they haven't clarified in 01:08:06.997 --> 01:08:13.746 - the petition how long That these units will be permanently afforded or will be affordable, but it says 01:08:13.746 --> 01:08:21.086 - that they'll be permanently affordable. So that Tells me that the length of time is forever So now I'm confused 01:08:21.250 --> 01:08:28.908 - Yes, and I think the petitioner has been hesitant to say that it will be permanently affordable because 01:08:28.908 --> 01:08:36.935 - at some point, you know, there is a Time period where the property owner will receive a return on investment 01:08:36.935 --> 01:08:45.182 - So it's not a permanent affordability restriction, but it says permanent affordability in this in this document 01:08:45.570 --> 01:08:51.282 - Correct. And so, again, that's where I was saying, you know, with the PUD process, you know, we are 01:08:51.282 --> 01:08:56.823 - trying to approach this as a different path towards single family residences and how to balance, 01:08:56.823 --> 01:09:02.821 - you know, the affordability, but also a single family. You know, you do have a realization of investment 01:09:02.821 --> 01:09:08.819 - and equity that has to be realized at some point. So, you know, again, like I said, there's not a length 01:09:08.819 --> 01:09:11.390 - of time that's been specifically called out. 01:09:15.042 --> 01:09:21.414 - If the Planning Commission feels that they need to have something, I mean right now, yes, it would be 01:09:21.414 --> 01:09:27.848 - permanent. So I don't know that the petitioner has made a commitment to that, so I look to them to try 01:09:27.848 --> 01:09:34.533 - to address that. I guess I would look to them to address that too, because the document says that they're, 01:09:34.533 --> 01:09:38.718 - to me they're making a permanent commitment to 15% of those units. 01:09:41.026 --> 01:09:48.800 - And that's your intention. Yes. Great. Thanks at this point. Yes. I mean there's no question that This 01:09:48.800 --> 01:09:56.423 - needs to be updated in the udio period but for this project we're committing to what our standard is 01:09:56.423 --> 01:10:04.046 - But how we're achieving it there are many different mechanisms in which we can achieve that Not just 01:10:04.046 --> 01:10:07.518 - deed restrictions, right? Thank you Just quit 01:10:07.714 --> 01:10:13.738 - Follow-up director Killian Hansen. I appreciate you saying that because I think that's that's nail in 01:10:13.738 --> 01:10:19.702 - the head The UDO needs to change we have to work within the context of what we're what we what we're 01:10:19.702 --> 01:10:25.726 - dealing with with the UDO with this PUD I just want to ask though this In my mind and I'm in the real 01:10:25.726 --> 01:10:32.103 - estate industry. This could turn into a quagmire of sorts If is there going to be an educational component? 01:10:32.103 --> 01:10:37.182 - Eventually for the developers of all of these so they can fully be on very clear that 01:10:37.346 --> 01:10:43.376 - To what they're undertaking and then the consumers of these products be very very clear in terms of 01:10:43.376 --> 01:10:49.406 - what they're getting in a deed because I can tell you Being in the industry deed restrictions. They 01:10:49.406 --> 01:10:55.556 - don't always get analyzed the way they should and that creates some real Headaches, so I'm just maybe 01:10:55.556 --> 01:11:01.646 - you're not there yet and that's completely fine but if you could just speak to it what the plans may 01:11:01.646 --> 01:11:02.430 - might be and 01:11:08.482 --> 01:11:17.032 - Kerry Thompson mayor I'm just giving in a break We have We actually have boot camps for developers coming 01:11:17.032 --> 01:11:25.099 - up as well as public sessions that that sort of educate the public and developers about this I Will 01:11:25.099 --> 01:11:33.165 - just agree with you publicly deed restrictions or poison pills for getting houses developed because 01:11:33.165 --> 01:11:35.262 - you can't resell them and 01:11:35.394 --> 01:11:43.678 - And so unless you have a non-conventional mortgage you Once you once you get somebody in it 01:11:43.678 --> 01:11:52.773 - with a non-conventional mortgage, they're stuck so It's something I'm serious about looking at as we 01:11:52.773 --> 01:12:01.598 - look at our UDO changes How do we ensure some affordability? without a deed restriction Thank you 01:12:04.898 --> 01:12:16.460 - UDO have a formal definition of what a deed restriction is No, it does not does it have any form of 01:12:16.460 --> 01:12:26.750 - limitations or guardrails around how it is implemented So deed restrictions and we don't 01:12:27.042 --> 01:12:32.707 - With those I guess that's not true. We do in terms of zoning commitment So we have zoning commitments, 01:12:32.707 --> 01:12:38.316 - which is very similar to a deed restriction in terms of it's something that is recorded on a property 01:12:38.316 --> 01:12:43.816 - and lays forth You know, whatever restrictions are in place so the zoning commitment is the closest 01:12:43.816 --> 01:12:49.700 - thing to a deed commitment or deed restriction and that requires affordability or Sustainable developments 01:12:49.700 --> 01:12:55.310 - that is there anything that is a requirement that needs to be made sure that it's aware of for future 01:12:55.310 --> 01:12:56.190 - property owners 01:12:57.378 --> 01:13:04.803 - So we're hinging on a loose association with that for the month for the time being Yes, so, you know 01:13:04.803 --> 01:13:12.302 - the the PUD requires that so, you know, that's something that would be laid out certainly on the plan 01:13:12.302 --> 01:13:19.727 - and But and with the zoning approval, but we could look to do a deed restriction in more novel ways. 01:13:19.727 --> 01:13:20.830 - Is that right? 01:13:22.754 --> 01:13:28.022 - We can do zone. I mean, these are things that we work heavily with the legal department on, you know, 01:13:28.022 --> 01:13:33.290 - in terms of what they feel comfortable with, you know, so certain things that are requirements within 01:13:33.290 --> 01:13:35.614 - the UDO, you know, those are not things that 01:13:35.874 --> 01:13:41.248 - You know, I'm gonna say our negotiator necessarily that are discretionary, you know, it's it's a standard 01:13:41.248 --> 01:13:46.520 - that's in the UDO So therefore, you know, it's just being reiterated in that zoning commitment. There's 01:13:46.520 --> 01:13:51.742 - a situation where we have a zoning commitment You know, obviously we make sure that the property owner 01:13:51.742 --> 01:13:56.863 - is aware that you know We're not just placing a restriction on a property without their knowledge or 01:13:56.863 --> 01:14:00.158 - consent It's not so much that concern more where I'm thinking of 01:14:00.226 --> 01:14:06.874 - Going is the that's kind of like a forgivable second or soft second behind that wouldn't that be tantamount 01:14:06.874 --> 01:14:13.337 - to a deed restriction because You can't sell a property if all parties are not willing to sell therefore 01:14:13.337 --> 01:14:19.861 - if they're the city is on one of these seconds and they're unwilling to relinquish that a credit facility 01:14:19.861 --> 01:14:26.878 - or however, it's going to be posed then they could basically restrict the deed of that property is that right and 01:14:30.210 --> 01:14:36.274 - So we don't have to have a legitimate deed restriction in the hard sense that we're all kind of thinking 01:14:36.274 --> 01:14:42.106 - about it because there is no legal definition that we've defined it to. So that leaves us to our own 01:14:42.106 --> 01:14:47.881 - mechanisms to define what that's going to be. And specific to a putt, it sounds like we can kind of 01:14:47.881 --> 01:14:50.942 - craft that on the fly. Is that more or less correct? 01:14:51.746 --> 01:14:58.612 - We come up with conditions of approval certainly that would accomplish the same things, you know a deed 01:14:58.612 --> 01:15:05.214 - restriction We're you know, like I said a zoning commitment. It's just a further Element that helps 01:15:05.214 --> 01:15:11.948 - ensure that that is known for future owners And but but we don't have to treat everything like a nail 01:15:11.948 --> 01:15:18.946 - and only have a hammer, right? right Dana Kerr with the legal department I assist sometimes with planning 01:15:18.946 --> 01:15:19.870 - and we have a 01:15:20.098 --> 01:15:29.100 - Works on this and we do believe that the unless the city why otherwise adjust to releases this requirement 01:15:29.100 --> 01:15:37.596 - gives you the ability to release the requirement of deed restrictions and I also agree with you that 01:15:37.596 --> 01:15:46.177 - even if it you didn't release that by approving the various the PUD as it is listing the various ways 01:15:46.177 --> 01:15:49.374 - to achieve that Yes, it restricts how 01:15:49.538 --> 01:15:57.261 - The property is going to move forward Stepwise in the future. So it does restrict what's going to happen 01:15:57.261 --> 01:16:04.616 - with that property in the future. So So either you can use a loose definition of these restrictions 01:16:04.616 --> 01:16:12.118 - or you can use the language that says that you can release that you don't have to use that and Again, 01:16:12.118 --> 01:16:19.326 - this has been stated tonight those, you know getting away from strict deed restrictions Will help 01:16:19.906 --> 01:16:29.013 - the RDC to be able to adjust as they go along in the development, see what's working really well, what 01:16:29.013 --> 01:16:37.502 - people are more willing to do so that we can attain the affordability that we're committing to. 01:16:38.722 --> 01:16:45.125 - Yeah, I see the lack of definition as an intentional gray area allows for malleability for situations 01:16:45.125 --> 01:16:51.528 - specifically like this, where you have a new vision for something that doesn't quite fit the box, and 01:16:51.528 --> 01:16:57.994 - so you purposely leave it open for interpretation. Now, of course, everybody has to agree on what that 01:16:57.994 --> 01:17:04.397 - interpretation looks like each time, but it also sets the precedent going forward. But as it sits, it 01:17:04.397 --> 01:17:05.150 - sounds like 01:17:05.442 --> 01:17:13.445 - There is a pretty open interpretation for what this could be right and again done so because this is 01:17:13.445 --> 01:17:21.607 - trying something new and to me Just when you try something new doesn't mean that you liked it and want 01:17:21.607 --> 01:17:29.610 - to keep going with it Or it may be so I don't believe that it sets a hard precedent I think it gives 01:17:29.610 --> 01:17:30.878 - the opportunity 01:17:31.106 --> 01:17:39.987 - for that flexibility to see what works as the development goes through. And that will actually in turn 01:17:39.987 --> 01:17:48.609 - help figure out what maybe a permanent changes to the UDO may want to look like. All right, thanks. 01:17:48.609 --> 01:17:57.662 - Thank you. Any other questions from commissioners? Mr. Stosberg. I have kind of a new topic of question. 01:17:57.794 --> 01:18:05.602 - So I only want to go if nobody else wants to follow up on the financial end Okay, I wanted to talk about 01:18:05.602 --> 01:18:12.666 - parking So after I left the meeting I did I did watch the end comments and there were a couple 01:18:12.666 --> 01:18:20.177 - of commissioners who mentioned the on-street parking and it still says that on-street parking may be 01:18:20.177 --> 01:18:22.110 - provided on all lanes and 01:18:22.274 --> 01:18:28.375 - Fairview and Jackson, so I'm the lanes are very narrow and there was discussed last time that parking 01:18:28.375 --> 01:18:34.356 - along the side of those lanes would be Potentially problematic and I guess I'm I'm trying to wonder 01:18:34.356 --> 01:18:40.396 - like I'm trying to understand exactly what that means that on-street parking is allowed because then 01:18:40.396 --> 01:18:46.796 - there's other like along Jackson and along Fairview there's some specific spots that are on-street parking 01:18:46.796 --> 01:18:47.454 - spots, but 01:18:47.554 --> 01:18:53.789 - The way this sounds it kind of sounds like you could park alongside the street anywhere. And so I'm 01:18:53.789 --> 01:19:00.584 - just trying to understand First of all exactly what you mean by on-street parking may be provided Everywhere 01:19:00.584 --> 01:19:06.819 - Yeah, let me let me answer that that's a relatively simple one that was something that came up with 01:19:06.819 --> 01:19:10.622 - the reason these aren't Which was the first version of this? 01:19:11.010 --> 01:19:17.157 - is that in an alley within Bloomington's current code, you can block an alley by parking within the 01:19:17.157 --> 01:19:23.428 - drive lane for a certain amount of time. And so because these are also fire access routes, that whole 01:19:23.428 --> 01:19:29.760 - 20 feet has to be maintained clear at all times. And so because it now is functioning as streets, it's 01:19:29.760 --> 01:19:35.968 - a street type, it's not an alley, we wouldn't have been able to have the pull-in driveways right off 01:19:35.968 --> 01:19:40.702 - of it the way that you would to be off of an alley, the way that it's shown. 01:19:41.154 --> 01:19:46.534 - And so what that section of UD is legalizing is letting us pull a driveway directly off of the alley. 01:19:46.534 --> 01:19:52.125 - The alley itself will be striped as a fire lane and will not be able to be blocked. And that's the reason 01:19:52.125 --> 01:19:57.663 - it's a lane. And while we did sort of go around and around about adjusting parking requirements, because 01:19:57.663 --> 01:20:02.779 - parking gets discussed in a couple of different ways. And so we've been using on-street parking, 01:20:02.779 --> 01:20:04.414 - you know, legalizing that as a 01:20:04.578 --> 01:20:10.263 - form of parking towards the parking minimums, and I think in the latest round of comments, we've gotten 01:20:10.263 --> 01:20:15.893 - all the way to, okay, there are no parking minimums. We are parking at one space per bedroom, and it's 01:20:15.893 --> 01:20:21.359 - a one and a half space per unit standard, and so we do feel really comfortable that there is enough 01:20:21.359 --> 01:20:26.880 - parking that is provided that is not counting on-street parking on Jackson Street, which is intended 01:20:26.880 --> 01:20:32.510 - for daytime use by police department or safety department, kind of use of our block eight building for 01:20:32.510 --> 01:20:33.822 - office workday parking. 01:20:34.178 --> 01:20:39.824 - That does mean there's some additional overflow of guest parking in those on-street spaces that is not 01:20:39.824 --> 01:20:45.414 - being counted towards that one space per bedroom. But the intention with the lanes is, you know, they 01:20:45.414 --> 01:20:51.005 - are fire access routes, and so they will be signed, and you will be able to be towed if you block the 01:20:51.005 --> 01:20:56.651 - lane, but that there are parking spaces dedicated for each unit that are off of those, as well as some 01:20:56.651 --> 01:21:01.310 - additional guest parking spaces in the middle of the block that will also be signed. 01:21:02.338 --> 01:21:08.346 - So with that you don't mean that like people so I'll just say so in my neighborhood I live in Park Ridge 01:21:08.346 --> 01:21:14.240 - and I'm Parker Jesus the same thing like people can just park alongside the roads. They're not parking 01:21:14.240 --> 01:21:19.962 - spots There's nothing like official but you can park alongside The road anywhere and so that's what 01:21:19.962 --> 01:21:25.684 - this sounds like to me when you say on-street parking is a lot anywhere It sounds like you can just 01:21:25.684 --> 01:21:31.806 - park on the side anywhere and that you don't need a designated parking spot Do you understand what I mean? 01:21:32.194 --> 01:21:37.430 - I do, and we can clean up that language in the revision that we're picking up this round of staff comments 01:21:37.430 --> 01:21:42.372 - because the intention is you would not typically be able to have a driveway that just pulls directly 01:21:42.372 --> 01:21:47.314 - off of a street the way that we're currently showing because the lane is kind of more like an alley. 01:21:47.314 --> 01:21:52.354 - And so that's a normal way a driveway would work off of an alley. It would not be allowed that way off 01:21:52.354 --> 01:21:57.394 - of a street. And so we can clean up that language to create much more clarity on the intention because 01:21:57.394 --> 01:22:01.406 - the lanes themselves are fire lanes and will be signs that you cannot block them. 01:22:01.730 --> 01:22:16.958 - Okay Mr. Grulick, how is that like generally framed and the rest of our code in terms of that like on-street 01:22:16.958 --> 01:22:22.686 - parking versus like parking spots off of 01:22:23.714 --> 01:22:29.149 - Yes, so that those are those situations are codified where you can have on-street parking So in this 01:22:29.149 --> 01:22:34.960 - particular cross-section for lanes, you know, it does not show an on-street parking lane being accommodated 01:22:34.960 --> 01:22:40.718 - So, you know, this is certainly something that we can clean up as Ali mentioned You know, we'll go through 01:22:40.718 --> 01:22:46.206 - and just remove that reference to on-street parking being allowed on lanes so that it's not confusing 01:22:46.530 --> 01:22:52.420 - Okay, is it is that what it's usually called though is on-street parking when you can like park on the 01:22:52.420 --> 01:22:58.309 - side of the street Yes on-street parking would allow for parallel or angled spaces that are within the 01:22:58.309 --> 01:23:04.199 - right-of-way So the parking spaces that Ali was mentioning are outside the right-of-way So they really 01:23:04.199 --> 01:23:09.974 - would not be considered on-street parking in that situation. Okay, great Thank you that that clarity 01:23:09.974 --> 01:23:15.006 - would be great. I have a few more parking things to follow up on if that works for Okay 01:23:15.874 --> 01:23:23.673 - Was wondering what the parking plan is for those two multi-unit buildings up there I can't remember 01:23:23.673 --> 01:23:31.707 - what they're called right now, and I don't have them. I don't have That note highlighted, but you know 01:23:31.707 --> 01:23:39.584 - which ones I'm talking about I do the fun Some of those are dedicated to those units and then likely 01:23:39.584 --> 01:23:44.030 - There will be this is sort of one of those elements this 01:23:44.162 --> 01:23:50.140 - to be determined as the civil engineers get started, but we are looking at either adding on-street parking 01:23:50.140 --> 01:23:55.726 - to 1st Street, just in this section of this block, or whether we would need to have these units use 01:23:55.726 --> 01:24:01.704 - these spaces at night. And so that is an element that is, we currently have enough spaces that are surface 01:24:01.704 --> 01:24:07.291 - within the neighborhood to accommodate those, but there is an opportunity within the flexibility of 01:24:07.291 --> 01:24:12.542 - the way the street sections are done, and we may add some additional parking onto 1st Street. 01:24:13.634 --> 01:24:26.740 - Adding more on-street parking on 1st Street. Do you actually mean parking on the side of 1st Street 01:24:26.740 --> 01:24:40.894 - at this point? Okay And I think I have another parking question too, let me see if I can find it. Oh I know 01:24:41.538 --> 01:24:47.141 - It says somewhere at the end, I think it's, oh no, it's PUD standards common to both parcels. It says 01:24:47.141 --> 01:24:52.744 - parking is required to comply with base zoning requirements and is exempt from TRO parking standards. 01:24:52.744 --> 01:24:58.346 - And I don't know what TRO parking standards are, and I kind of feel like it's kind of problematic for 01:24:58.346 --> 01:25:04.004 - me to go, oh yeah, I totally approve this. And it says something that I have no idea what it's talking 01:25:04.004 --> 01:25:09.662 - about. It doesn't have a definition anywhere. It doesn't link to anything, and that just is troubling. 01:25:09.858 --> 01:25:17.076 - Yeah, so I can help you with that. So in the TRO district, it says that parking maximums are half of 01:25:17.076 --> 01:25:24.508 - what the typical parking maximums are in the UDO because I was expecting the use of the parking garage. 01:25:24.508 --> 01:25:31.725 - So any properties that are within the TRO overlay have a further 50% reduction from what the parking 01:25:31.725 --> 01:25:38.014 - maximums typically would be. So that was being included because it obviously would have 01:25:38.146 --> 01:25:44.562 - great impacts on the use of block eight In terms of the number of parking spaces that can be there if 01:25:44.562 --> 01:25:51.229 - instead the language has been included that If it's used as a police fire rescue station that it's exempt 01:25:51.229 --> 01:25:57.519 - from that requirement in order to give allowance for the police department or other rescue services 01:25:57.519 --> 01:26:03.998 - to have a higher parking on-site parking allowance Well, but that's that's under a part that says both 01:26:03.998 --> 01:26:05.822 - parcels are exempt from that 01:26:06.818 --> 01:26:14.458 - But is it only block 8 that's part of the yes. Yep. So that's that's the only place where there are 01:26:14.458 --> 01:26:22.328 - Maximums UDO does not have parking whether our maximums are duplexes. So that is Yeah, that would just 01:26:22.328 --> 01:26:29.969 - apply to block 8 because that's in that section. Okay I'll wait for now. I do have other questions, 01:26:29.969 --> 01:26:34.782 - but I'll give somebody else chance. Thanks Any other questions 01:26:38.530 --> 01:26:44.795 - Nobody else has other questions. Um, I want to clarify first all of these streets and lanes are gonna 01:26:44.795 --> 01:26:50.937 - be the Responsibility of the city for things like snow clearing and maintenance and all that stuff. 01:26:50.937 --> 01:26:57.324 - They're all gonna be city rights away Yes, they are all shown to be public. So they would be maintained 01:26:57.324 --> 01:27:03.589 - by us Okay, and has public works like weighed in on like snow clearing and that kind of stuff because 01:27:03.589 --> 01:27:06.046 - snow is such an issue right this second 01:27:07.330 --> 01:27:14.374 - Yeah, so, you know obviously with Fairview and Jackson Street those being more of a typical Street, 01:27:14.374 --> 01:27:21.488 - you know snow plowing won't be an issue, you know on the lanes You know with the lack of a tree plot 01:27:21.488 --> 01:27:28.884 - and other areas in order to locate snow that might be a little bit more challenging but with the shorter 01:27:28.884 --> 01:27:36.350 - length of those hopefully that's not a significant challenge Thanks And then I wanted to dig into the ADA 01:27:36.738 --> 01:27:47.183 - accessibility stuff as I think my last, like, substantive kind of comment. So I'm just trying to understand 01:27:47.183 --> 01:27:53.662 - both the pieces of presentation. Ali, I really appreciate that you 01:27:53.794 --> 01:28:00.724 - responding to some comments from the public specifically included some Accessibility comments and some 01:28:00.724 --> 01:28:07.588 - of those differences and I appreciate that but it really like when I'm looking at the different cross 01:28:07.588 --> 01:28:14.451 - sections like as they're included in the packet it doesn't really seem as though those cross sections 01:28:14.451 --> 01:28:21.314 - are actually the Accessible ones or the full ADU or either of those is that an accurate assumption or 01:28:21.314 --> 01:28:23.198 - is it just that they're not 01:28:23.778 --> 01:28:30.849 - Exactly to scale or like word. Yeah The stairs were included from another project and so that the stairs 01:28:30.849 --> 01:28:37.652 - on the front of the gardenia are just a standardized elevation error and so that's That is on us and 01:28:37.652 --> 01:28:44.656 - reasonable interpretation question on that Yes, there is a commitment within these that those will have 01:28:44.656 --> 01:28:51.390 - a zero-step entry and they've been cited and graded to be able to achieve that from the parking lot 01:28:51.390 --> 01:28:52.670 - and from sidewalks 01:28:53.570 --> 01:28:59.051 - Okay, and I guess that like allows us follow up because I thought that one of the things that I heard 01:28:59.051 --> 01:29:04.424 - you say when you were doing that presentation was that the rear entry would be ADA accessible would 01:29:04.424 --> 01:29:10.227 - be zero step but not necessarily the front would be and then I was like wait so so somebody in a wheelchair 01:29:10.227 --> 01:29:13.182 - would be able to get in one door and not the other and 01:29:14.434 --> 01:29:20.611 - We've got one unit right now that we we need to finalize grading with civil engineers that getting from 01:29:20.611 --> 01:29:26.669 - why we up to this front door is the only one that from an existing grading tree preservation existing 01:29:26.669 --> 01:29:32.608 - sidewalk kind of routing is looking challenging all of the rest of these appear to have you know an 01:29:32.608 --> 01:29:38.547 - entry guarantee from the back and we think we can get to a kind of slope sidewalk situation against 01:29:38.547 --> 01:29:42.942 - your entry in the front So that's kind of like specific to this site then 01:29:44.098 --> 01:29:50.449 - That's right. And and the units are very much sighted on the lots where they can go right? There's a 01:29:50.449 --> 01:29:56.737 - huge section of kind of this entire portion of the area that you know We've got four to six feet of 01:29:56.737 --> 01:30:03.151 - slope across some of those lower lots And so the 88 units are located on the lots that are able to be 01:30:03.151 --> 01:30:07.678 - graded to be level enough to get that visibility access Okay, I guess I 01:30:07.778 --> 01:30:14.102 - I'm really interested and you're actually like publishing those plans for those accessible units. It 01:30:14.102 --> 01:30:20.676 - really feels like an oversight Especially given the public questions that we've had over the last longer 01:30:20.676 --> 01:30:27.000 - than a month honestly at least two months that I've been at various meetings that Members of our CCA 01:30:27.000 --> 01:30:33.449 - have been at who have been mentioning this and then we still don't have the actual plans and similarly 01:30:33.449 --> 01:30:36.830 - like I appreciate the bathroom thing and all of those 01:30:36.930 --> 01:30:44.797 - Notes, but that that also feels a little bit Like once again, maybe these just aren't quite to scale 01:30:44.797 --> 01:30:52.665 - maybe they're not perfect but I think that The community would feel a whole lot more assured if they 01:30:52.665 --> 01:31:00.688 - actually saw those plans And I guess similarly You know you have the difference there between the full 01:31:00.688 --> 01:31:06.686 - ADA compliance and then the universal design and as I you know was trying to 01:31:06.850 --> 01:31:14.487 - Look at and understand the differences and kind of look as closely as I could at the images that you 01:31:14.487 --> 01:31:22.200 - gave and I will Give the aster and gardenia as my two examples, okay because they're on the same page 01:31:22.200 --> 01:31:23.486 - of my packet and 01:31:24.098 --> 01:31:29.975 - The aster does not look like it has enough space in the bathroom for somebody in a wheelchair to access 01:31:29.975 --> 01:31:35.738 - it So that would just be universal design, but if you can't access the bathroom, then really you just 01:31:35.738 --> 01:31:41.954 - can't be there But it does look like the gardenia does have that So is that like one of those big differences 01:31:41.954 --> 01:31:47.661 - between say like the ADA? compliance in universal design because that really seems like a failure of 01:31:47.661 --> 01:31:51.390 - universal design if somebody can't even get into the bathroom and 01:31:53.378 --> 01:31:59.666 - So the Aster is a good example of, yes, it's the dark blue universal design, and so it's got a 30 by 01:31:59.666 --> 01:32:06.202 - 48, you know, it has at least a 34-inch wide door, so you have at least 32 inches clear to get in there, 01:32:06.202 --> 01:32:12.552 - and so you can, you don't have a full ADA turnaround, right? Those are only the light blue units, the 01:32:12.552 --> 01:32:14.046 - Gardenia and the eGrid. 01:32:14.370 --> 01:32:20.435 - that have full wheelchair turnaround. But what is standard within kind of universal design and you can 01:32:20.435 --> 01:32:26.323 - call FHA really a step up from kind of generalized universal design standards because it does have, 01:32:26.323 --> 01:32:32.211 - you know, area required at each fixture is provided, yes, within the dark blue. And so, yes, that's 01:32:32.211 --> 01:32:38.099 - the big difference in those two standards. And the three plans that are accessible are in that full 01:32:38.099 --> 01:32:44.222 - catalog. And so the Gardenia, the E-Grip, the B-Bomb are the three that are full wheelchair accessible. 01:32:44.386 --> 01:32:51.767 - full ADA standards, and then the dark blue, the Aster, the, we renamed these at some point during the 01:32:51.767 --> 01:32:59.437 - process, so they're not our typical names for them. So I think it starts with a G. This one in the corner 01:32:59.437 --> 01:33:06.746 - is also brown floor bathroom, has a 30 by 48 wheelchair, has the wider doorways, is fully visitable, 01:33:06.746 --> 01:33:13.982 - but is not a full ADA bathroom. It does not have a full five foot turnaround on that purple shower. 01:33:16.002 --> 01:33:22.218 - Okay, so and then in terms of the Faulkner that's also in that dark blue and So those is are are they 01:33:22.218 --> 01:33:28.373 - gonna be condo buildings things if all of this is theoretically like made for ownership So those are 01:33:28.373 --> 01:33:34.650 - gonna be condo buildings And they're ADA accessible, but they're not gonna have actual like accessible 01:33:34.650 --> 01:33:37.758 - bathrooms would like turn around space in them and 01:33:38.498 --> 01:33:45.696 - So the ground floor, because they're multi-family buildings, the ground floor of those are already FHA 01:33:45.696 --> 01:33:53.104 - compliance, floor plans. And so they're fully visitable and they have a 30 by 48 area within the bathroom 01:33:53.104 --> 01:33:59.883 - to FHA standards. And that provides a full turnaround? It does not. So FHA standards is pull in, 01:33:59.883 --> 01:34:07.710 - back out. ADA standards are full five foot turnaround. So the light blue are full turnaround, five foot radius, 01:34:08.130 --> 01:34:15.788 - Shower that's curbless and a seat in the shower The dark blue are a more typical residential bathroom, 01:34:15.788 --> 01:34:23.297 - but that is adaptable Swapped out to provide me area more pulling back out Right, I guess it feels a 01:34:23.297 --> 01:34:31.253 - little frustrating and I think too many of our community members to you that there's not More adaptability 01:34:31.253 --> 01:34:36.606 - and some of those especially the condos. Um, but you said the b-bomb is 01:34:36.962 --> 01:34:57.031 - Does have that full ADA compliance, right? But there's not actually But there's not actually any B bombs 01:34:57.031 --> 01:35:06.206 - in this plan Okay, so there's a couple that are 01:35:06.402 --> 01:35:20.081 - And that one but they're not in light blue there Okay, so there should act okay, that's also frustrating 01:35:20.081 --> 01:35:33.630 - um, I Think that those are my accessibility Questions All right, any other questions from commissioners 01:35:36.258 --> 01:35:42.309 - I Have one more random question of what the trash plan is for the Faulkner buildings because of their 01:35:42.309 --> 01:35:48.301 - condo buildings and there's like ten of them then we wouldn't be picking them up with our sanitation 01:35:48.301 --> 01:35:54.292 - department, but then like so in theory would there be like a dumpster somewhere on that property and 01:35:54.292 --> 01:36:00.284 - then would you expect that dumpster to be facing first Street or facing the lane and is the lane big 01:36:00.284 --> 01:36:04.318 - enough for a trash truck to get down there and empty a dumpster and 01:36:06.818 --> 01:36:26.566 - Okay, so are you anticipating then that That Bloomington sanitation would be picking those up even though 01:36:26.566 --> 01:36:36.254 - they're in a building that has more than four units 01:36:38.338 --> 01:36:46.834 - Can staff address that at all because they're the ones that know our local sanitation rules Yeah, I 01:36:46.834 --> 01:36:55.924 - don't think based on the number units the sanitation would pick that up So that would have to be a private 01:36:55.924 --> 01:37:01.022 - arrangement Has the petitioner had conversations about that 01:37:02.338 --> 01:37:09.458 - Kerry Thompson mayor we have already addressed this with public works That they will be picking up sanitation 01:37:09.458 --> 01:37:15.930 - for the entire neighborhood Okay, thank you All right, I Think we are ready then for public comment 01:37:15.930 --> 01:37:22.467 - if you're here in the chambers and you'd like to make comment Just make your way to the podium state 01:37:22.467 --> 01:37:29.134 - your name for the record You'll have up to five minutes to comment if you're joining us online and you 01:37:29.134 --> 01:37:30.558 - would like to comment 01:37:30.658 --> 01:37:39.500 - Click on the reactions button and then raise hand Or you can send a chat message to the meeting host 01:37:39.500 --> 01:37:48.342 - and we will recognize you when it is your turn to speak Great. Thank you Can you hear me? Yes, okay. 01:37:48.342 --> 01:37:57.534 - My name is Susan Sizer I'm co-president of the mobility aids lending library and a member of the CCA and 01:37:57.954 --> 01:38:06.569 - but I'm speaking here tonight solely as a concerned citizen. I have MS and I've been using a wheelchair 01:38:06.569 --> 01:38:14.936 - for over 20 years. I own a 1957 single family home in the SOMAX neighborhood of Bloomington. When we 01:38:14.936 --> 01:38:23.386 - bought our house, it had four concrete steps to the front door like most older homes in town. To make 01:38:23.386 --> 01:38:26.782 - it accessible, we had to build a 30 foot 01:38:27.138 --> 01:38:35.315 - concrete ramp to cover the 30 inch rise of the stairs following the ADA code of one foot to one inch 01:38:35.315 --> 01:38:43.977 - of height. One inch of length to one inch of height. In addition, we had to widen and reframe all exterior 01:38:43.977 --> 01:38:52.315 - and interior doorways. With these costly experiences in mind, when I look at the preliminary plans for 01:38:52.315 --> 01:38:56.606 - housing at Hopewell South, my immediate question is, 01:38:56.770 --> 01:39:06.320 - Why put stairs in the entranceways of new home constructions? Is there anything that prevents grading 01:39:06.320 --> 01:39:15.963 - the site for no-step entrances? Prevents that. All of the drawings have steps for every, even the dark 01:39:15.963 --> 01:39:24.670 - blue and light blue. I also think of the South Dunn Project. I know you have comps for that. 01:39:25.250 --> 01:39:32.970 - a similarly dense new neighborhood with lovely colorful homes and equally touted 20 years ago as a model 01:39:32.970 --> 01:39:40.323 - housing project for Bloomington. But there too, all the entrances have stairs and the bathrooms are 01:39:40.323 --> 01:39:47.823 - tiny. A good friend living on Dunn Street had to build a ramp with her own money so I could visit her 01:39:47.823 --> 01:39:55.102 - at home, something not many people can do. Rather than piecemeal retrofits that rely on homeowners 01:39:55.266 --> 01:40:04.772 - Homeowners own goodwill and budgets. Why not plan for all the homes in the new? Hopewell South neighborhood 01:40:04.772 --> 01:40:14.101 - to be visitable My experience as a resident of Bloomington for the past 20 years is that what most limits 01:40:14.101 --> 01:40:17.886 - my participation in community life here is 01:40:18.146 --> 01:40:25.134 - is the lack of visitability in most homes and some social venues. To avoid repeating such barriers, 01:40:25.134 --> 01:40:32.332 - planning no-step entrances for all homes in the Homewell South project would greatly benefit community 01:40:32.332 --> 01:40:39.321 - life for people with mobility disabilities in the new neighborhood. And I would point out, as would 01:40:39.321 --> 01:40:44.702 - many others, that disabilities of all types can happen to anyone at any time 01:40:45.058 --> 01:40:52.690 - and then of course we all age and aging in place is what most of us would choose to do. With all this 01:40:52.690 --> 01:41:00.248 - in mind, I suggest that developers consult directly with people with disabilities that would benefit 01:41:00.248 --> 01:41:07.805 - the stated goals of the planners and avoid the burden and cost of future retrofitting for homeowners 01:41:07.805 --> 01:41:13.342 - who want to age in place and or invite their friends to visit. Thank you. 01:41:32.610 --> 01:41:49.008 - There's there's a spot there's one that's down on the side that actually goes a little lower and you 01:41:49.008 --> 01:42:01.022 - can also be off to the side and Speak into it For community accessibility 01:42:01.154 --> 01:42:07.126 - but the opinions I'm sharing are my own. I support the Hopewell South project, but I'm asking you to 01:42:07.126 --> 01:42:13.217 - approve it with the caveat and condition that people with disabilities must be involved in the process 01:42:13.217 --> 01:42:19.367 - going forward. The most important work for our community lies ahead, which is developing and finalizing 01:42:19.367 --> 01:42:25.281 - the housing catalog that will contain the pre-approved plans. What do people with disabilities want 01:42:25.281 --> 01:42:30.366 - for Hopewell? It's really very simple. We want to be consulted on projects like this. 01:42:30.530 --> 01:42:37.128 - One in four people in the United States has a disability We should be in every important conversation 01:42:37.128 --> 01:42:44.049 - about every issue that affects us. We shouldn't be an afterthought The Council for Community Accessibility 01:42:44.049 --> 01:42:45.278 - was formed in 1990 01:42:45.378 --> 01:42:52.074 - Provide professional and lived expertise to the city and local businesses on behalf of the 25% of Bloomington 01:42:52.074 --> 01:42:58.343 - residents who have disabilities We should be proactively invited and welcomed by the city in Flintlock 01:42:58.343 --> 01:43:04.552 - to help with this project Unfortunately, there have been some communication failures and so we didn't 01:43:04.552 --> 01:43:10.822 - even know about that any of these housing catalog plans existed if they if we had we could have Talked 01:43:10.822 --> 01:43:15.326 - to you about the fact that those FHA bathroom plans really do not provide 01:43:15.426 --> 01:43:21.835 - Meaningful accessibility, you know, if you can't park a wheelchair next to the toilet, it's really not 01:43:21.835 --> 01:43:28.182 - usable But there are some other bathroom designs that utilize a small footprint but can still provide 01:43:28.182 --> 01:43:34.467 - that full accessibility and you know, we could help you find a universal design professional as well 01:43:34.467 --> 01:43:40.752 - who could who could you know come up with plans that would work while still maintaining all the cost 01:43:40.752 --> 01:43:42.494 - and affordability goals and 01:43:42.722 --> 01:43:49.339 - And that's why we're asking the Plan Commission to include a requirement for ongoing reporting compliance 01:43:49.339 --> 01:43:54.270 - review and engagement with people with disabilities in the Hopewell South PUD. 01:43:55.202 --> 01:44:00.533 - The data shows that building new homes with basic accessibility features like step-free entrances cost 01:44:00.533 --> 01:44:05.812 - the same as homes without those features. The cost comes from having to renovate, from having to tear 01:44:05.812 --> 01:44:11.091 - things out. If you had to make one of those quote FHA accessible bathrooms accessible, you'd probably 01:44:11.091 --> 01:44:16.318 - be looking at $6,000 in renovations because you'd have to tear out all that plumbing where that sink 01:44:16.318 --> 01:44:21.649 - is that's right next to the toilet. So those are just a really, really terrible design, I'm sorry. But 01:44:21.649 --> 01:44:25.168 - if you build it right the first time, then if someone needs to save 01:44:25.168 --> 01:44:31.016 - 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 01:44:31.016 --> 01:44:37.211 - do everything you can to ensure that the city works with the disability community going forward to address 01:44:37.211 --> 01:44:41.438 - these designs and any cost concerns that may be associated with them and 01:44:44.194 --> 01:44:50.022 - You know people with disabilities we care about affordability. We don't want to make this into some 01:44:50.022 --> 01:44:56.083 - expensive project because as a community we're twice as likely to live in poverty and a lot of us can't 01:44:56.083 --> 01:45:02.261 - drive so a neighborhood like Hope wall is really perfect for for people with disabilities and for seniors 01:45:02.261 --> 01:45:04.126 - who need this accessibility and 01:45:04.738 --> 01:45:10.323 - You know my colleagues and I were all here to passionately advocate for hopeful accessibility because 01:45:10.323 --> 01:45:15.799 - we've personally experienced the challenges of finding accessible and affordable housing I know I'm 01:45:15.799 --> 01:45:21.275 - incredibly fortunate compared to a lot of people with disabilities and I still had to utilize state 01:45:21.275 --> 01:45:24.670 - funding sources and family support to make my home accessible 01:45:24.866 --> 01:45:31.139 - Also, I mean I know people a lot of people who have to use a commode or take bed baths because they 01:45:31.139 --> 01:45:37.725 - can't get into their bathroom I know people who have to spend 80% of their income on an accessible house 01:45:37.725 --> 01:45:43.998 - or apartment Because they otherwise they can't use their own bathroom You know, you might hear from 01:45:43.998 --> 01:45:45.566 - some of those folks here 01:45:45.666 --> 01:45:51.169 - Or via emails or you might not because this is kind of intimidating to get up in front of the city and 01:45:51.169 --> 01:45:56.565 - you know Not everybody probably is up for that, but that doesn't mean that they don't care You know, 01:45:56.565 --> 01:46:02.228 - they might also think that this isn't a project for them This isn't something that they would be included 01:46:02.228 --> 01:46:07.730 - then that they're going to be excluded excluded Because that happens so often so I guess I've seen I'm 01:46:07.730 --> 01:46:13.073 - coming here with relative privilege to say that you know we need this people with disabilities need 01:46:13.073 --> 01:46:14.622 - this and if you build it and 01:46:14.850 --> 01:46:20.790 - We will come I want hopeful to be a shining example of a community that is welcoming to everyone 01:46:20.790 --> 01:46:27.158 - Accessibility should be the default not the exception the hopeful South PUD should reflect these values 01:46:27.158 --> 01:46:33.404 - and ensure that people with disabilities Can be meaningful partners with the city as the neighborhood 01:46:33.404 --> 01:46:39.038 - takes shape. That's really what we want to do We want to work with you. Thank you Thank you 01:46:50.690 --> 01:47:00.115 - Hi again, I'm Leslie Davis, and I don't have much new to add. The rest of the Wheelchair Brigade has 01:47:00.115 --> 01:47:09.726 - done that very nicely. I would like to say thank you to Allie and to the Commission for the additional 01:47:09.726 --> 01:47:19.710 - detail on the housing catalog, especially the detail about at least one of these entrances being at grade. 01:47:20.066 --> 01:47:28.973 - I'd also like to thank especially Anna Killian Hansen for reaching out to the Council for Community 01:47:28.973 --> 01:47:38.058 - Accessibility to solicit our input on the housing catalog because we have now come to understand that 01:47:38.058 --> 01:47:47.232 - what you are voting on today is not the housing catalog. And that was not imminently clear at the last 01:47:47.232 --> 01:47:49.726 - planned commission meeting. 01:47:49.922 --> 01:48:00.375 - That being said, there have been some housing designs proposed. They are perhaps, as we see them, not 01:48:00.375 --> 01:48:11.135 - exactly as how we're meant to be seeing them. So that would be really important to see the housing plans 01:48:11.135 --> 01:48:18.206 - actually without the steps or with different bathrooms, for example. 01:48:19.042 --> 01:48:30.003 - But our remaining big question is one that maybe somebody here can answer, which is if 29% of the homes 01:48:30.003 --> 01:48:40.542 - are slated to be either visitable or fully accessible, is there a reason why a larger percentage of 01:48:40.542 --> 01:48:48.446 - the homes cannot meet the visitability standard of being step-free in some 01:48:48.770 --> 01:48:58.238 - at some entrance. You know, I haven't scrutinized the land. I do know there is a slope, but is there 01:48:58.238 --> 01:49:07.894 - a substantial slope between two houses that are marked as potentially accessible and the two next door 01:49:07.894 --> 01:49:18.206 - to it, for example? So I don't know that you have that information, but as my colleagues rightly pointed out, 01:49:18.626 --> 01:49:31.042 - Who does it hurt to not have steps if that's topographically feasible? And then again, we want Hopewell. 01:49:31.042 --> 01:49:42.984 - We want this Hopewell, we want the other Hopewells. The fact is less than 4% of housing stock in the 01:49:42.984 --> 01:49:48.542 - United States is accessible or even visitable. 01:49:49.538 --> 01:49:58.857 - And that's just unacceptable, especially as people live longer. So we think you, or I think, and I think 01:49:58.857 --> 01:50:07.909 - my colleagues agree with me, that you should approve the PUD, but with added enforcement verification 01:50:07.909 --> 01:50:17.317 - or monitoring language to ensure accessibility and visitability outcomes. So something like the Hopeville 01:50:17.317 --> 01:50:19.358 - South PUD will require 01:50:19.458 --> 01:50:27.572 - ongoing reporting, compliance review, and engagement with people with disabilities. So that, as much 01:50:27.572 --> 01:50:35.606 - as can be done, can be done. And we do understand that sometimes there are things that drive prices 01:50:35.606 --> 01:50:43.720 - up, and we very much want these homes to be affordable. But sometimes it's just the fact that people 01:50:43.720 --> 01:50:49.022 - build things with steps, because that's how we've always done it. 01:50:50.274 --> 01:51:02.538 - 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 01:51:02.538 --> 01:51:12.350 - start So, thank you very much. Thank you Eric do we have any online commenters? 01:51:14.626 --> 01:51:28.419 - If there is anybody online that would like to speak to this petition, please use the raise hand function 01:51:28.419 --> 01:51:41.556 - and we can recognize you. I'm not seeing anybody. All right. There is one person online, but we can 01:51:41.556 --> 01:51:44.446 - get them after Randy. 01:51:46.722 --> 01:51:53.186 - We'll take comment here first and then we'll go to the online comment or next good evening Appreciate 01:51:53.186 --> 01:51:59.650 - all you guys participation such Randy Cassidy. I am a member of the RDC But I'm said I'm here tonight 01:51:59.650 --> 01:52:06.177 - as an individual so I'd like to address the aspect of as we look at this and we look at what Hope well 01:52:06.177 --> 01:52:12.641 - is what we have and what we as a community have invested in it and how soon we can get something done 01:52:12.641 --> 01:52:16.190 - in order to provide the affordable housing in the close 01:52:16.354 --> 01:52:24.778 - proximity to the downtown to the services that are needed walkability and accessibility So I would propose 01:52:24.778 --> 01:52:33.438 - that as you the Planning Commission move this forward we see where it's financeable affordable and accessible 01:52:33.438 --> 01:52:42.334 - the accessibility will be based upon the reviews that go on the affordability while it has not all been done and 01:52:42.658 --> 01:52:50.242 - We need to be able to move this project forward in order to show as a community that all of these components 01:52:50.242 --> 01:52:57.409 - that we want as Bloomington, Indiana are met, but we have to take that first step, and that first step 01:52:57.409 --> 01:53:04.436 - is approving the PUD. So I'd appreciate if you guys would approve it. One comment I wanna make based 01:53:04.436 --> 01:53:10.142 - upon our people that have said the accessibility, as a grandfather of a grandson, 01:53:10.434 --> 01:53:19.093 - That was born at 27 weeks and 1.4 pounds and and will never walk You have an advocate on the RDC. That's 01:53:19.093 --> 01:53:27.339 - me as an individual. Thank you Thank you Let's go to the online commenter and then we'll we'll come 01:53:27.339 --> 01:53:35.750 - back to any additional comments here in the chambers Seth you should be able to speak I want to start 01:53:35.750 --> 01:53:40.286 - by just saying I really appreciate everything the full 01:53:41.218 --> 01:53:48.397 - about accessibility and disability justice have said, and I just want to really echo their concerns 01:53:48.397 --> 01:53:55.863 - and say thank you to all of them for speaking up. My comment is going to be a little bit more assertive 01:53:55.863 --> 01:54:03.328 - than all, but so I actually live adjacent to the Hopewell PUD that's proposed and adjacent specifically 01:54:03.328 --> 01:54:06.846 - to the little jut out in the most westmost plot. 01:54:07.106 --> 01:54:14.646 - And I was looking at the plan and I saw that there was two avocets and a trillium, plans to be put in 01:54:14.646 --> 01:54:22.186 - there. And I was looking at it and said, I don't know how that's going to fit. Because it is not that 01:54:22.186 --> 01:54:29.873 - large of a space. And I actually went out this afternoon and I got my tape measure. And I measured that 01:54:29.873 --> 01:54:32.830 - space. And the measure is 98 feet wide. 01:54:33.058 --> 01:54:39.652 - Diagrams for those buildings measure 114 feet wide which is 16 feet wider than the space permitted It's 01:54:39.652 --> 01:54:45.993 - doesn't fit and I understand this preliminary some of the things are not to scale but And I guess I 01:54:45.993 --> 01:54:52.651 - guess I want to say this. I really want to love this plan. I really want it I don't want to live backing 01:54:52.651 --> 01:54:57.470 - up against the parking lot. I want to live backing up against neighbors and 01:54:57.858 --> 01:55:04.843 - I believe in affordability. I believe in density. I was excited about having a neighborhood next to 01:55:04.843 --> 01:55:12.387 - me. But it just seems to me that this is one example that's adjacent to me. But it really makes me question 01:55:12.387 --> 01:55:19.651 - a lot of the way that this plan is. And it just makes me feel like maybe we need to reconsider how this 01:55:19.651 --> 01:55:21.118 - has been approached. 01:55:21.442 --> 01:55:27.500 - I'm not a huge expert in how zoning and planning works. I don't know if this is necessarily even the 01:55:27.500 --> 01:55:33.499 - time to bring up concerns like this, but that's just sort of where I'm at with this process and the 01:55:33.499 --> 01:55:39.497 - concerns that's brought up. The other big component of it for me is I'm very concerned about, and I 01:55:39.497 --> 01:55:45.675 - understand a lot of it is provisional, but I'm really concerned about, just from looking at it, almost 01:55:45.675 --> 01:55:50.174 - a third of this section being designated for a future police headquarters. 01:55:50.370 --> 01:55:56.746 - You know, it feels like a lot of this is just really crammed in. We can have a little bit more space, 01:55:56.746 --> 01:56:03.060 - have things not be quite so on top of each other if we weren't putting a police headquarters that is 01:56:03.060 --> 01:56:09.561 - slated to be three times the square footage of our current police headquarters. We don't need that kind 01:56:09.561 --> 01:56:15.875 - of police expansion in our community. We need affordable housing, and we need neighborhoods. And I'm 01:56:15.875 --> 01:56:17.438 - not excited about having 01:56:17.954 --> 01:56:24.247 - the police down the street for me and I'm not excited about being down the street from such a significant 01:56:24.247 --> 01:56:30.183 - component of police expansion in our community when authoritarianism and police expansion is on the 01:56:30.183 --> 01:56:36.536 - rise across the entire country. So that's kind of the things that I have thinking about this. I appreciate 01:56:36.536 --> 01:56:42.532 - everybody's time. And I've got my housemate here. So if you see my hand raised again, I'm not trying 01:56:42.532 --> 01:56:43.422 - to talk twice. 01:56:43.586 --> 01:56:51.560 - That'll be the other person. So thank you very much. Thank you. Would you mind stating your name for 01:56:51.560 --> 01:56:59.613 - the record, please? Oh, yes Thank you Hi, thank you, my name is Greg Alexander the first problem with 01:56:59.613 --> 01:57:07.587 - this proposed district is It's overly focused on cars, you know every unique aspect of the design is 01:57:07.587 --> 01:57:12.798 - downstream of a focus on serving each one of these lots with cars 01:57:12.962 --> 01:57:19.124 - The actually unique thing about the site itself is that it's two blocks from the beeline. It's walkable 01:57:19.124 --> 01:57:25.523 - to downtown easily. It's bikeable to campus easily. It's walkable to campus if you're a little bit patient. 01:57:25.523 --> 01:57:31.508 - It's a very good location for people who don't have cars, and that makes it a lot more affordable if 01:57:31.508 --> 01:57:37.433 - you don't design around the car. The second problem, it should not be a PUD. There's nothing unique 01:57:37.433 --> 01:57:41.758 - about the need to develop infill urban housing that could be affordable. 01:57:42.210 --> 01:57:48.173 - That's not unique. And it doesn't even meet the formal requirements. The only way that it meets the 01:57:48.173 --> 01:57:54.137 - formal requirement for five acre minimum is by including parcel B, which is a red herring for this. 01:57:54.137 --> 01:57:59.742 - The police station in parcel B is literally not planned. So how could it be part of a planned 01:57:59.742 --> 01:58:05.765 - unit development? It's not planned as part of this development. It's not part of the same unit. It's 01:58:05.765 --> 01:58:11.550 - just something that's tacked on to meet that pro forma requirement. I don't think that's proper. 01:58:12.194 --> 01:58:18.596 - I don't think that's proper. I think that, well, I know that the UDO requires that the person of the 01:58:18.596 --> 01:58:25.441 - department head of planning and transportation to make that determination, and I think you need to actually 01:58:25.441 --> 01:58:32.096 - require him to say that, to put his name on this proposal, because that's what the law requires. Another 01:58:32.096 --> 01:58:37.991 - way you can tell a PUD isn't right is there's no way to satisfy the permanent affordability. 01:58:37.991 --> 01:58:42.174 - There's none. There's shifting hands. It's not gonna be possible. 01:58:42.402 --> 01:58:47.932 - The correct solution to all of these problems is really simple. We need to amend the R4 district. We 01:58:47.932 --> 01:58:53.844 - need to have the same allowances for no minimum lot size. We need to remove setbacks, allow high impervious 01:58:53.844 --> 01:58:59.648 - coverage, unrestricted ADUs and plexes. Discard the lane concept. The only reason we need that is because 01:58:59.648 --> 01:59:02.878 - of this design decision very early on to focus on the car. 01:59:03.330 --> 01:59:10.234 - If we have, for example, row houses instead of a driveway beside every house, we don't need all of these 01:59:10.234 --> 01:59:16.941 - unusual access to each lot. It's basically an alley that prioritizes cars much more, even though it's 01:59:16.941 --> 01:59:23.516 - gonna carry pedestrian traffic. It's not good design. It's just as easy to amend the UDO as to pass 01:59:23.516 --> 01:59:27.198 - a PUD. PUDs are extraordinarily difficult procedurally. 01:59:27.330 --> 01:59:32.233 - The only thing stopping you from doing that right thing is a lack of support from staff and staff knows 01:59:32.233 --> 01:59:37.324 - everything I'm saying They're not gonna agree with me on the details But they know that we need to actually 01:59:37.324 --> 01:59:42.039 - reform the r4 district and the only reason they're not doing that is they're waiting for permission 01:59:42.039 --> 01:59:46.753 - from the mayor and Now you're waiting for permission from the mayor, but we have a crisis a housing 01:59:46.753 --> 01:59:51.467 - crisis in our community It's very broadly agreed among the voters and the residents that we need to 01:59:51.467 --> 01:59:55.710 - do something about this and we're not instead we're doing another one-off spot rezone and 01:59:56.898 --> 02:00:03.354 - So I'm asking you, even though I know who appointed you, but you work for the people. You don't work 02:00:03.354 --> 02:00:09.874 - for the mayor. Demand a good proposal that actually addresses our problems. Instead of a one-off spot 02:00:09.874 --> 02:00:16.330 - rezone, using PUDs this way, we've been down this path. It makes all affordable housing subject to a 02:00:16.330 --> 02:00:22.978 - personal relationship with the mayor. It's bad policy. It creates segregation and leapfrog development. 02:00:22.978 --> 02:00:26.622 - We've seen that in abundance. And it invites corruption. 02:00:27.010 --> 02:00:34.365 - Definitely creates the appearance of corruption inexorably Builders should be on a level playing field 02:00:34.365 --> 02:00:41.791 - regardless of their personal relationship with the mayor. Thank you Thank you Is there any other public 02:00:41.791 --> 02:00:49.075 - comment If there's anybody else online that would like to speak please use the raise hand function or 02:00:49.075 --> 02:00:52.574 - send a message via chat we can recognize you and 02:00:59.298 --> 02:01:08.040 - I'm not seeing anybody else online. All right, last call for public comment. I'm sorry, Seth has raised 02:01:08.040 --> 02:01:16.614 - his hand again. I believe he indicated there might be somebody else in the house. Sure. Seth, you can 02:01:16.614 --> 02:01:25.189 - go ahead and speak again. Hi, not Seth. My name is Megan Taylor. So you can have that for the record. 02:01:25.189 --> 02:01:27.038 - So again, I also live 02:01:27.170 --> 02:01:35.014 - adjacent to the proposed development directly adjacent And my concerns are brief my primary concern 02:01:35.014 --> 02:01:42.857 - Is with affordability Just looking at the proposed cost of the units. I Don't believe that they are 02:01:42.857 --> 02:01:50.779 - affordable I'm also a person living with disabilities and I know that if I didn't share housing with 02:01:50.779 --> 02:01:57.054 - another person the house we live in wouldn't be affordable in this neighborhood 02:01:57.218 --> 02:02:06.693 - And it is that cost is low in comparison to the proposed costs of the new units so You know again, I 02:02:06.693 --> 02:02:16.075 - value I also value living in a community and value my neighbors You know, I want to live in livable 02:02:16.075 --> 02:02:20.766 - diverse vibrant communities as well neighborhoods 02:02:21.538 --> 02:02:28.814 - And so I just see the proposed cost of these new units as highly exclusionary In addition to living 02:02:28.814 --> 02:02:36.526 - in the neighborhood. My other perspective is that I'm a licensed clinical social worker I've been working 02:02:36.526 --> 02:02:43.947 - in our community for over 20 years helping people in various respects at local organizations Prior to 02:02:43.947 --> 02:02:46.494 - being a therapist what I do now is 02:02:47.106 --> 02:02:55.224 - And I work with a lot of people in our community in a lot of different situations. And again, nobody 02:02:55.224 --> 02:03:03.423 - that I've served in all of this time could even dream of affording any of these houses. And so I just 02:03:03.423 --> 02:03:11.702 - don't think it's fair to call them affordable. And we need real, real affordable housing. And speaking 02:03:11.702 --> 02:03:16.766 - to Seth's prior point about the proposed development directly, 02:03:16.994 --> 02:03:25.329 - behind us That proposed development in that 90 square feet is two duplexes and the triplex And so again, 02:03:25.329 --> 02:03:33.346 - I think similar to the last commentary, you know, I would say I'm not interested in sort of You know 02:03:33.346 --> 02:03:41.681 - spotty solutions for larger problems I I don't think Like you know, I'm all again. I'm all for increased 02:03:41.681 --> 02:03:46.206 - density because we have to solve the problem somehow and 02:03:46.338 --> 02:03:54.949 - But I don't think cramming people into tiny, unaffordable, exorbitantly unaffordable spaces is the answer. 02:03:54.949 --> 02:04:03.158 - And so I would like us to be a little more thoughtful than that. And then, yeah, I think just lastly, 02:04:03.158 --> 02:04:11.447 - I just want to really say that I appreciate the people that spoke out for people with disabilities and 02:04:11.447 --> 02:04:15.390 - making the units accessible. And I want that to. 02:04:15.778 --> 02:04:23.893 - not just for physical disability, but also I think emotional and mental disability as well. Again, I 02:04:23.893 --> 02:04:32.088 - don't think we serve people who have various diagnoses, sensory sensitivities. I don't think we serve 02:04:32.088 --> 02:04:40.444 - them by cramming them into sort of small spaces on top of each other either. So again, I really support 02:04:40.444 --> 02:04:44.702 - the idea of making the spaces physically accessible. 02:04:44.898 --> 02:04:55.462 - Really just accessible to all members of our community. Thank you Thank you Is there any other public 02:04:55.462 --> 02:05:06.545 - comment Okay seeing none we are back to the Commission for any Additional questions or comments or motions 02:05:06.545 --> 02:05:11.102 - start with Commissioner Stossberg Thank you 02:05:12.674 --> 02:05:20.896 - Plan this comment out super well, so hopefully you guys can bear with me. I First of all, I want to 02:05:20.896 --> 02:05:28.542 - say I'm generally like really supportive of this concept like conceptually I'm all good with 02:05:28.642 --> 02:05:35.308 - nearly everything in it, but I have some concerns with the actual document itself. And so I kind of 02:05:35.308 --> 02:05:42.041 - debated coming into this. I was like, do I mention this stuff during the question and answer period? 02:05:42.041 --> 02:05:44.574 - Because they're not really questions. 02:05:44.706 --> 02:05:50.779 - But I can't support moving it forward tonight and now I'm just gonna go through all of the places that 02:05:50.779 --> 02:05:56.675 - I have concerns with so And this is gonna take me a minute and this is where I have to find all the 02:05:56.675 --> 02:06:02.689 - things First of all in January there were a few different staff references to the fact that there are 02:06:02.689 --> 02:06:05.342 - so many references to our current UDO within 02:06:05.442 --> 02:06:11.264 - this petition and I find that extremely challenging to read and understand and it's kind of one of those 02:06:11.264 --> 02:06:16.919 - things like the TRO thing that I mentioned that if If this is the document that is supposed to define 02:06:16.919 --> 02:06:22.464 - this district Then I think all of it needs to be within this document and I shouldn't have to refer 02:06:22.464 --> 02:06:28.008 - to some other document while I'm trying to read and understand this one and I kind of assumed after 02:06:28.008 --> 02:06:33.054 - the January meeting that because that was mentioned in the staff report that that would be 02:06:33.282 --> 02:06:38.612 - Changed and it was not substantially changed So and I'm sorry that I had that migraine at the end of 02:06:38.612 --> 02:06:44.047 - that last meeting and I wasn't able to say that then during the comments But once again because it was 02:06:44.047 --> 02:06:49.376 - in the staff comments I thought that there would be a response from the petitioner and I was kind of 02:06:49.376 --> 02:06:50.590 - disappointed that that 02:06:50.946 --> 02:06:57.407 - There was not similarly there's not an allowed use table in any of this which also makes it really difficult 02:06:57.407 --> 02:07:03.334 - to go Okay, so it's a base zoning of r4 but what's actually allowed because the first thing it says 02:07:03.334 --> 02:07:09.439 - and allowable uses are ad use dwelling duplexes triplexes multifamily and it doesn't actually say that 02:07:09.439 --> 02:07:13.470 - you can put in single-family homes or like attached or detached but 02:07:13.538 --> 02:07:19.584 - Then you have to go. Oh, I guess that's maybe assumed in the r4 district, but it's not actually stated 02:07:19.584 --> 02:07:25.570 - and that makes it really confusing and then similarly That just makes it extremely confusing. I don't 02:07:25.570 --> 02:07:31.792 - think that those kinds of references should be in there I don't think that it's useful especially because 02:07:31.792 --> 02:07:37.838 - there's always the possibility that those UDO sections could change and then suddenly like what you're 02:07:37.838 --> 02:07:38.718 - exempting your 02:07:38.978 --> 02:07:47.417 - Like maybe that's not actually what you intended to exempt and and I just find that an incredibly problematic 02:07:47.417 --> 02:07:55.396 - also under architectural design standards I could not find you do twenty point oh four point. Oh seven. 02:07:55.396 --> 02:08:03.221 - Oh three H through K Maybe I just couldn't find it but you do twenty point. Oh three point. Oh three. 02:08:03.221 --> 02:08:07.134 - Oh five does not exist Doesn't exist in our you do 02:08:07.458 --> 02:08:12.801 - There's a couple other those 80 you Under accessory dealt dwelling unit requirements that are not cited 02:08:12.801 --> 02:08:17.990 - I think that that five maybe should be a G instead of a five But that is what is that a typo is that 02:08:17.990 --> 02:08:23.178 - sloppiness? Does that mean that somebody didn't check their stuff either way? I find that incredibly 02:08:23.178 --> 02:08:28.572 - problematic and unacceptable to sent to council in that way Okay, I've had as the council representative 02:08:28.572 --> 02:08:33.761 - I feel lots of council complaints over the last two years about things that got sent to council from 02:08:33.761 --> 02:08:36.638 - planning commission that weren't ready This isn't ready 02:08:36.834 --> 02:08:44.043 - There's there's too much uncertainty in it Next under miscellaneous provisions It says single-family 02:08:44.043 --> 02:08:51.181 - attached access only one entrance facing the street frontage is required But somewhere else it says 02:08:51.181 --> 02:08:58.891 - that you don't have to have street frontage because you can also Front on a lane or front on the pedestrian 02:08:58.891 --> 02:09:02.174 - access. So once again, that's maybe just like 02:09:02.338 --> 02:09:10.238 - An offhand sort of thing and we all know what we mean, but this is a guiding document It is a legal 02:09:10.238 --> 02:09:18.139 - guiding document and we can't just hand wave and go. Well, we know what we mean. It's just a little 02:09:18.139 --> 02:09:26.276 - sloppy Let me see if there's more The TRO thing at the end I think that we thought needs to be defined 02:09:26.276 --> 02:09:31.806 - Within the document itself. I think that I already mentioned that and 02:09:33.186 --> 02:09:38.566 - The other thing is the phasing plan It very vaguely says the subdivision will be completed in multiple 02:09:38.566 --> 02:09:43.998 - phases over a period of several years depending on market conditions and absorption of units and I feel 02:09:43.998 --> 02:09:49.274 - like there needs to be a little bit more specificity in that the phasing plan that we had for summit 02:09:49.274 --> 02:09:54.654 - was incredibly detailed and I think that we demanded it to be incredibly detailed and I I'm not saying 02:09:54.654 --> 02:10:00.139 - that this has to have the same kind of detail as summit had but I think that there's a big middle ground 02:10:00.139 --> 02:10:01.758 - there in the middle and that's 02:10:01.858 --> 02:10:07.641 - Kind of problematic similarly. It doesn't say anything about phasing and utility standards and it does 02:10:07.641 --> 02:10:13.255 - seem like earlier in the language there's some assumption that part of what that I think it's block 02:10:13.255 --> 02:10:19.038 - eight where the convalescent home is like my understanding based on this other document is part of the 02:10:19.038 --> 02:10:22.238 - reason why we need that block is not just to make it the 02:10:22.338 --> 02:10:27.593 - Big enough for the PUD, but it might be necessary to help deal with stormwater and drainage and that 02:10:27.593 --> 02:10:32.952 - kind of thing But there's nothing in here in terms of phasing around utility stuff except that we have 02:10:32.952 --> 02:10:38.259 - to meet CBU standards and so that's another piece of like this phasing thing I feel like it's kind of 02:10:38.259 --> 02:10:43.671 - hand-waved because well the city is doing it themselves and once again I'm gonna go back to what I said 02:10:43.671 --> 02:10:49.342 - in the beginning is that I'm super supportive of this conceptually but in terms of a legal PUD document that 02:10:49.410 --> 02:10:55.847 - That is going to guide and may live beyond the current administration the current staff the current 02:10:55.847 --> 02:11:02.476 - Plan Commission the current City Council Like this has to live in such a way that people in the future 02:11:02.476 --> 02:11:05.566 - will know what on earth we're talking about and 02:11:06.242 --> 02:11:13.493 - That is all of them now. I've gotten to the bottom. So I cannot support moving into council tonight 02:11:13.493 --> 02:11:21.179 - for those reasons Just because the document itself feels too sloppy It does not feel like we can possibly 02:11:21.179 --> 02:11:28.792 - put enough conditions of approval on to to make this document cleaned up enough to go to council. Thanks 02:11:28.792 --> 02:11:35.390 - Commissioner Kinsey Yes, I just have a couple of questions that follow up from some of the 02:11:35.490 --> 02:11:44.595 - comments that were offered in the chamber and online from our public and I guess I have a question first 02:11:44.595 --> 02:11:53.439 - for the Either the staff or the petitioner regarding why more of the home? Can't meet the standard of 02:11:53.439 --> 02:12:02.110 - visibility Visitability and I wonder if any thought has gone into What would it take to assure that 02:12:02.110 --> 02:12:04.798 - standard across the board that 02:12:05.218 --> 02:12:16.636 - Visit ability. I think was the term that was used. Is that possible? Who's your your question? Directed 02:12:16.636 --> 02:12:27.945 - to I think it could go to the petitioner or staff and probably the petitioner since those that's where 02:12:27.945 --> 02:12:31.678 - the major changes occurred or the 02:12:31.842 --> 02:12:39.570 - new emphasis on ADA and other standards started today. I'm happy to answer that. Grading and topography 02:12:39.570 --> 02:12:47.001 - is the primary limitation on that. And so we've got a decent fall across the site. And so there are 02:12:47.001 --> 02:12:54.580 - two challenging things working against one another where if we're keeping one side of the site fairly 02:12:54.580 --> 02:12:56.958 - level, it means we then need to 02:12:57.154 --> 02:13:03.398 - like come off of that level, you know, section that we've made. And so we end up then needing stairs 02:13:03.398 --> 02:13:09.579 - in a public sidewalk, which we can't do. And so there's sort of this balance of we need the overall 02:13:09.579 --> 02:13:15.885 - grading to be more gentle to get across the site, but then that's creating some challenges with there 02:13:15.885 --> 02:13:22.066 - are, you know, there is more or less a level kind of know sort of right around the southern half of 02:13:22.066 --> 02:13:26.270 - Fairview. And so the lots right around that we are more able to get 02:13:26.562 --> 02:13:32.551 - you know, only 12 to 24 inches of fall across the entire lot, which is relatively level for a lot of 02:13:32.551 --> 02:13:38.659 - this size. And so we're able to get the, you know, wheelchair accessible as was discussed, right? Even 02:13:38.659 --> 02:13:44.826 - 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 02:13:44.826 --> 02:13:50.815 - got five turnarounds on either end, and so those ramps get really big. And so the balance of keeping 02:13:50.815 --> 02:13:55.262 - the lot relatively level, but keeping sidewalks compliant with ADA slopes, 02:13:55.554 --> 02:14:02.674 - I mean that we are relatively limited to our visitable sites from a grading standpoint. There's more 02:14:02.674 --> 02:14:09.794 - great than there like there is to those that section right there in the middle. Yeah, I guess I just 02:14:09.794 --> 02:14:16.844 - wonder, you know, it's it's been a really educating conversation with so many members of the public 02:14:16.844 --> 02:14:24.176 - and also representing the Commission on communities accessibility. And I just wonder if we started with 02:14:24.176 --> 02:14:25.374 - could we try and 02:14:25.538 --> 02:14:33.786 - and achieve greater percentage of visibility. What would that take? And I don't know if you ever played 02:14:33.786 --> 02:14:41.796 - out that whole scenario in the review since the last meeting, but I do think it's a really, it would 02:14:41.796 --> 02:14:50.045 - be a useful thing to do even more. I understand what you're describing here, but I don't know if you've 02:14:50.045 --> 02:14:51.710 - fully played out the 02:14:52.002 --> 02:14:58.639 - and to it and can really say for certain that there's no way to make at least a single entrance. I think 02:14:58.639 --> 02:15:05.023 - there's there's some opportunity to we can definitely take a look at that again and see if there any 02:15:05.023 --> 02:15:11.471 - of those in our initial grading that was not possible but the civil engineers came on board this week 02:15:11.471 --> 02:15:17.792 - and so that's something that we can as we detail grading on the site take into account and increase 02:15:17.792 --> 02:15:20.510 - to the extent of any of them are possible. 02:15:20.994 --> 02:15:30.192 - Yeah, it just seems like that would be an appropriate thing to try and do in this really hopeful, hope 02:15:30.192 --> 02:15:39.479 - well project. I had one other question for staff, if I could. Well, it's more of a procedural question, 02:15:39.479 --> 02:15:48.766 - if I might. OK, here it is. And Eric, I think this might be for you and staff regarding the interest in 02:15:49.026 --> 02:15:56.580 - Creating some sort of condition that would require some sort of enforcement or monitoring language That 02:15:56.580 --> 02:16:04.570 - would require maybe on review or reporting and I know we you know, we can't dictate in conditions necessarily 02:16:04.570 --> 02:16:12.414 - how something gets done or who decides something or who is involved in things except maybe when it comes to 02:16:12.706 --> 02:16:19.046 - a disability engineer or some sort of really technical expertise and I'm wondering if there was any 02:16:19.046 --> 02:16:25.639 - consideration for such language in a condition given all of the concerns that were raised the last time 02:16:25.639 --> 02:16:32.105 - we did this is there any possibility for doing something like that and setting that as a condition to 02:16:32.105 --> 02:16:33.310 - move this forward. 02:16:34.658 --> 02:16:40.834 - Yep, so great question. So obviously the units that are shown to be accessible Whether it's the exact 02:16:40.834 --> 02:16:46.949 - ones that are on the screen or you know, it moves one lot to the west or east or something like that 02:16:46.949 --> 02:16:53.247 - You know, we'll be reviewing compliance with the ADA accessibility and all the accessibility components 02:16:53.247 --> 02:16:59.483 - of this with the building permit So that is obviously something that happens when it's built certainly 02:16:59.483 --> 02:17:01.118 - with the plans to get done 02:17:01.250 --> 02:17:07.496 - You know, we don't typically inspect single-family residences or something of this nature So that's 02:17:07.496 --> 02:17:13.804 - something we obviously catch and look at and review when we review the building permits beyond that, 02:17:13.804 --> 02:17:20.425 - you know a monitoring study of some sort You know, we can look at that maybe outside of the PUD something 02:17:20.425 --> 02:17:26.671 - within the department as a whole in terms of ways to increase accessibility requirements within the 02:17:26.671 --> 02:17:31.230 - UDO I certainly think that's something that's within staffs capabilities 02:17:35.266 --> 02:17:45.867 - Thank you So About the accessibility piece of this What what is the purpose of having the two different 02:17:45.867 --> 02:17:56.263 - types of accessibility between the universal design standard and the ADA compliance? Why why can't we 02:17:56.263 --> 02:17:58.302 - just have a single? 02:18:07.010 --> 02:18:24.275 - Assuming Ali's probably the appropriate party here There are two different legal standards in which 02:18:24.275 --> 02:18:34.462 - those two are used Pretty common to see a mix of those the 02:18:35.298 --> 02:18:41.706 - Visitable standards, the FHA compliant units take up significantly less space than the full ADA units 02:18:41.706 --> 02:18:48.177 - do, right? The bathrooms and kitchens are half the size, the hallways are more of a normal residential 02:18:48.177 --> 02:18:54.711 - hallway size, and so we had previously looked at, we have a couple other students that we had done that 02:18:54.711 --> 02:19:01.433 - had more fully accessible units, but because it was cutting down our total number of units, it was driving 02:19:01.433 --> 02:19:04.574 - overall costs up. You know, average cost of units 02:19:04.738 --> 02:19:11.600 - going up as we have those larger units. And so the balance of affordability and accessibility, we came 02:19:11.600 --> 02:19:18.595 - down to, I think we did a scheme that was as much as 40% universal design, and then the standard minimum 02:19:18.595 --> 02:19:25.590 - is 20% accessible or universal design. And so we landed at about 30% middle ground between affordability 02:19:25.590 --> 02:19:32.252 - and accessibility, and then increased our number of fully accessible units. But the short answer is 02:19:32.252 --> 02:19:33.918 - we have to cut units out 02:19:34.178 --> 02:19:40.613 - we have fully accessible units. One of the things that's driving that is they need to be fully one story. 02:19:40.613 --> 02:19:46.867 - And in most neighborhoods, once you've paid for the foundation, you've paid for the foundation, you've 02:19:46.867 --> 02:19:53.120 - paid for the roof, so getting effective floor is typically less expensive square footage to build. And 02:19:53.120 --> 02:19:59.312 - so we start to run into some overall reduced unit areas, reduced unit counts, so increased costs. And 02:19:59.312 --> 02:20:03.198 - so we're really balancing between those two things and just the 02:20:03.426 --> 02:20:10.053 - And we talked about increased cost if you were to do Contrary to what we proposed here. What how much 02:20:10.053 --> 02:20:16.680 - are we talking? We're talking a few thousand dollars. Are we talking about doubling the project cost? 02:20:16.680 --> 02:20:23.177 - I mean, give me a scope and scale I'm speaking from memory several months old so I'll do my best on 02:20:23.177 --> 02:20:29.869 - Remembering that but I think that in the scheme that we have 40% accessible units. I think we had lost 02:20:29.869 --> 02:20:30.974 - 15 overall units 02:20:31.362 --> 02:20:38.244 - in order to increase that by a few and giving extra space for grading and ramps was one of the things 02:20:38.244 --> 02:20:45.126 - that was driving that. Even if we look at those two bathrooms side by side, it's twice as big. If you 02:20:45.126 --> 02:20:52.007 - stay in a hotel and you stay in an accessible unit, it's twice as many square feet. And so you do end 02:20:52.007 --> 02:20:59.294 - up with a larger house that is all one story that needs more space around it. And so in a constrained area, 02:20:59.426 --> 02:21:04.688 - like this, you do end up losing some units and having a higher foundation cost and roof cost relative 02:21:04.688 --> 02:21:09.898 - to the total square footage of the house. So your price per square foot does go up a little bit. And 02:21:09.898 --> 02:21:15.211 - so we were trying to balance that. Balance that by finding the middle ground between accessibility and 02:21:15.211 --> 02:21:17.790 - affordability, working with the city authorities. 02:21:19.330 --> 02:21:26.249 - For a minor cost increase It seems like that's reasonable for anyone with a disability to be able to 02:21:26.249 --> 02:21:33.305 - look at these and say oh I can move into these as opposed to oh I can only move into five of these and 02:21:33.305 --> 02:21:40.155 - then also Who can come to be in their place of residence and who they can sell it to in the future? 02:21:40.155 --> 02:21:41.662 - so it seems like it's 02:21:42.050 --> 02:21:48.153 - You know more limiting than helpful to create these two classes of folks that have disabilities You 02:21:48.153 --> 02:21:54.561 - know ones that can access them and ones that cannot and similarly along the same line I'm not originally 02:21:54.561 --> 02:22:01.214 - from the area. So I you know, the walkout basement is foreign to me when I first came here But for everybody 02:22:01.214 --> 02:22:07.317 - else Indiana, especially this part of it has rolling hills and a lot of topography So the fact that 02:22:07.317 --> 02:22:12.016 - grading is an issue is mystifying to me because it seems like we could grade 02:22:12.016 --> 02:22:20.366 - that out given the barren nature of the the plots of land that we're looking at Is that just more of 02:22:20.366 --> 02:22:28.965 - a we didn't want to grade this out? Was it? Significantly costly and I would want some sort of a figure 02:22:28.965 --> 02:22:37.150 - to attach to that if we say it is But I'm just kind of curious what the calculus was there As well 02:22:37.314 --> 02:22:42.882 - We've got similar topography to Bloomington, so we're used to also working in lots of walk-out ways, 02:22:42.882 --> 02:22:48.449 - so lots of topography. And I'm licensed as an architect and as a landscape architect. So we do a lot 02:22:48.449 --> 02:22:53.961 - of work in which we are doing the grading, the handle on the architecture, and figuring out what do 02:22:53.961 --> 02:22:59.474 - we need to handle with the site and what needs to be handled with the house. And again, part of the 02:22:59.474 --> 02:23:05.097 - problem is not grading it out to be smooth. It's the overall fall that we've got constrained edges of 02:23:05.097 --> 02:23:05.758 - the street. 02:23:06.018 --> 02:23:12.637 - And so if we have 20 feet of fall across the site, we have to make up that 20 feet somewhere. And so 02:23:12.637 --> 02:23:19.387 - if we start at the high end and grade at a 5% grade or 4.8% grade that is ADA compliant, and then just 02:23:19.387 --> 02:23:26.268 - put a retaining wall down on the low side, we've still got to get a way to connect back down to existing 02:23:26.268 --> 02:23:32.953 - grade. And so in a fully green field site, you might have more of an opportunity to sort of grade out 02:23:32.953 --> 02:23:35.902 - to the edges and take up some of that grade. 02:23:36.098 --> 02:23:42.380 - But in a constrained situation like this where we need to connect all of our sidewalks, all of our streets 02:23:42.380 --> 02:23:48.309 - into existing rates that we can't adjust, you end up with pretty significant retaining walls that do 02:23:48.309 --> 02:23:54.591 - add hundreds of thousands of dollars of cost to the project overall. But you also end up unable to connect 02:23:54.591 --> 02:24:00.638 - pedestrians up into that neighborhood other than them coming around to the high side to then get onto. 02:24:06.466 --> 02:24:16.214 - So I guess I'm not entirely clear on Is it just absolutely an in feasible? Not feasible for this to 02:24:16.214 --> 02:24:25.961 - be graded out in a way that all of these could be potentially ADA compliant I don't believe from my 02:24:25.961 --> 02:24:33.662 - professional experience possible to grade the entire site with its current and 02:24:34.114 --> 02:24:41.627 - Topography at the edges which are fixed points on the right right away to Terrace the site and get sort 02:24:41.627 --> 02:24:49.068 - of switch back Ramps in between the terrace heights in a way that is a VA compliant. I I don't believe 02:24:49.068 --> 02:24:57.014 - that that is feasible from a technical standpoint But we certainly can pursue that if a wholly AVA accessible 02:24:57.014 --> 02:25:01.854 - site is something the complaint commission is saying is a standard 02:25:02.530 --> 02:25:09.790 - Okay is at least feasible to say that there should be two accessible entrances to the property 02:25:09.922 --> 02:25:17.537 - My thought here is that if there's a fire in the one entrance that they do have accessible use of and 02:25:17.537 --> 02:25:25.152 - not the the other one was stairs To me, that's a safety issue So I'm just curious if it is reasonable 02:25:25.152 --> 02:25:32.841 - that we could remove stairs from all the ADA or other accessible compliant designs in a way that makes 02:25:32.841 --> 02:25:35.678 - them more approachable for anybody we 02:25:36.194 --> 02:25:42.539 - We do, to repeat this comment, we do have that provided for at all but one of the units. There is one 02:25:42.539 --> 02:25:49.071 - of the units in which a rear accessible entrance from the accessible parking is possible. We were trying 02:25:49.071 --> 02:25:55.291 - to get another accessible unit, and so it's on an edge condition site, where we've got a little bit 02:25:55.291 --> 02:26:01.574 - more grades than some of the other ones, but that's that balance of would we prefer to have one more 02:26:01.574 --> 02:26:04.062 - additional unit that is accessible with 02:26:04.226 --> 02:26:13.101 - Accessible entry from the parking or we prefer a ring to the front or we prefer that that Site is not 02:26:13.101 --> 02:26:21.888 - able to have front-end back. Oh, you know exactly rubble And so we we would prefer to have that be a 02:26:21.888 --> 02:26:30.676 - non accessible unit. I think those are some of the trade-offs that we can work through Thank you Any 02:26:30.676 --> 02:26:33.982 - other questions or comments Thank you 02:26:34.114 --> 02:26:40.194 - Just went ahead and type this out I've got a few things to say and then I would like to make a motion 02:26:40.194 --> 02:26:46.334 - So this petition for me is close very close to the vest As I've been on the front line of this housing 02:26:46.334 --> 02:26:52.534 - market for over a decade this petition is the ultimate balance of the essence of time given our housing 02:26:52.534 --> 02:26:59.032 - epidemic and giving accessibility for all citizens, which I'm fully in support of we have to start somewhere 02:26:59.032 --> 02:27:01.118 - beyond meetings just like this and 02:27:01.730 --> 02:27:07.595 - the ongoing ad nauseum conversations throughout City Hall in the city itself about affordable housing 02:27:07.595 --> 02:27:13.461 - The reason we are in this situation in large part and this is proven by data is because projects like 02:27:13.461 --> 02:27:19.211 - this have not come forward yet I feel this is the best plan that's been put forward now without its 02:27:19.211 --> 02:27:25.019 - idiosyncrasies in many years We need to have the macro micro balance, but also let our other parties 02:27:25.019 --> 02:27:30.942 - Have their say in this structure in the best way possible. I for them. I firmly believe our purview is 02:27:31.234 --> 02:27:37.491 - Planning Commission again, my own opinion isn't as wide or as vast as our conversations comments and 02:27:37.491 --> 02:27:43.934 - questions seem to be around it I Say, let's let others such as all the working parties who have brought 02:27:43.934 --> 02:27:50.191 - it to this point And people that are in entrusted leadership positions to move it forward we need to 02:27:50.191 --> 02:27:56.448 - include The Council for Community Accessibility. I believe those comments for me and I think for all 02:27:56.448 --> 02:27:59.422 - of us are incredibly helpful and insightful and 02:27:59.650 --> 02:28:05.716 - Especially given 4% of nationwide units only 4% are ADA accessible. That's shocking and I've been in 02:28:05.716 --> 02:28:11.782 - real estate along a long time I'd consider making that a condition of approval Finally this petition 02:28:11.782 --> 02:28:17.848 - needs to include deep consideration for public education on the title deed restrictions from day one 02:28:17.848 --> 02:28:24.154 - specifically for the future developers and buyers Which I know is already happening as I'll be attending 02:28:24.154 --> 02:28:27.998 - a meeting this Thursday put on by Anna Killian Hansen with hand 02:28:28.834 --> 02:28:35.440 - I believe does a phenomenal job educating the public about the housing crisis. We're in and the solutions 02:28:35.440 --> 02:28:41.860 - This to me is going to avoid any entrapment or legal quagmire, which we have to trust will happen will 02:28:41.860 --> 02:28:48.155 - get addressed I believe we need this city. We need this as a tool to work within the confines of the 02:28:48.155 --> 02:28:54.512 - UTO to bring housing that can be attainable to fruition and therefore I would move to forward this to 02:28:54.512 --> 02:28:57.566 - City Council with the positive recommendation of 02:28:58.050 --> 02:29:05.731 - the nine conditions of approval and adding a tenth Which is that? the council for community accessibility 02:29:05.731 --> 02:29:13.268 - is included in these ongoing means however that gets Set up its communication 101 so But including them 02:29:13.268 --> 02:29:21.094 - to me would be the tenth that I would add and that's one of the most important ones of all those conditions 02:29:21.094 --> 02:29:27.326 - Thank you All right. I think we need if you want to make that motion, I think we need 02:29:27.554 --> 02:29:34.053 - Specific language for that that tenth condition of approval. I have language I have language you have 02:29:34.053 --> 02:29:40.807 - exactly I was thinking exactly the same thing Tenth condition for approval could be prior to the approval 02:29:40.807 --> 02:29:47.560 - of any primary plat or final plan in the hopeful PUD Petitioners shall prepare and include in the project 02:29:47.560 --> 02:29:54.250 - record written documentation describing how visitability and accessibility were evaluated and how people 02:29:54.250 --> 02:29:56.990 - with disabilities were engaged I like that 02:29:59.138 --> 02:30:10.447 - It's not too burdensome required, but it elevates this to the explicit concern that has to be thought 02:30:10.447 --> 02:30:22.200 - of Staff were you able to get that in writing or do we need to state that again? Yes, sorry I was writing 02:30:22.200 --> 02:30:26.302 - down there so yes, we did get that I 02:30:27.010 --> 02:30:34.004 - Obviously, you know that condition will just kind of be a report of sorts That that lives in the final 02:30:34.004 --> 02:30:40.929 - plan approval You know unless it's you know something that was Desired in some of the form, you know, 02:30:40.929 --> 02:30:47.651 - it just be something that position gives and lives with final plan approval Comfortable with that. 02:30:47.651 --> 02:30:54.577 - 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 02:30:54.577 --> 02:30:56.478 - meetings that are happening 02:30:56.802 --> 02:31:03.097 - However often they don't have to be everybody has the council for community accessibility doesn't have 02:31:03.097 --> 02:31:09.269 - to be at every moment It should be at a minimum, you know amount of these meetings I feel like and I 02:31:09.269 --> 02:31:15.381 - guess I can't really quantify that off the top of my head, but I would just Maybe you could help me 02:31:15.381 --> 02:31:21.737 - on If I could speak David Hiddle planning transportation director, I think there's two different planes 02:31:21.737 --> 02:31:23.998 - you're speaking on one is global and 02:31:24.354 --> 02:31:31.810 - and acknowledging the fact that our UDO treats accessibility via the requirement for universal standards 02:31:31.810 --> 02:31:39.123 - primitively and needs to be fixed. I think that's something that needs to happen. And then there's the 02:31:39.123 --> 02:31:46.295 - more specific case specific one having to do with hope. Well, in that case, you know, they are over. 02:31:46.295 --> 02:31:50.910 - They are meeting. The petitioner is providing more accessibility 02:31:51.458 --> 02:31:58.730 - They're meeting they're meeting the standard with a 30% accessibility rating rather than the required 02:31:58.730 --> 02:32:06.002 - 20 where I personally see that we we can do a lot of work and and most of that with CCA is looking at 02:32:06.002 --> 02:32:13.275 - how the ordinance can be amended to take it, you know away from the fifth of a page right now that we 02:32:13.275 --> 02:32:14.558 - have dealing with 02:32:14.850 --> 02:32:21.610 - With the entire subject to something with more meat and more substance that can serve the city Long-term 02:32:21.610 --> 02:32:28.176 - without them having to you know, come and speak at every hearing Because they're just not represented 02:32:28.176 --> 02:32:34.807 - in the law So I would see clarification there What Tim was describing initially sounded like something 02:32:34.807 --> 02:32:41.502 - that would lead towards UDO amendments. No, I think it's it's the concerns that have been presented and 02:32:42.242 --> 02:32:51.518 - By community members that they'd be actively engaged as part of this evolving ongoing process So it's 02:32:51.518 --> 02:33:00.704 - it's specific to but the condition would be that they're included community for The accessibility is 02:33:00.704 --> 02:33:08.798 - included As part of these regular Meetings yeah, I think just to to be fair I think that 02:33:08.994 --> 02:33:15.184 - It's gonna be very difficult for us to quantify exactly how many meetings there are. We don't know how 02:33:15.184 --> 02:33:21.435 - many things are left in the process. I think it would be probably, you know, it would be, I don't think 02:33:21.435 --> 02:33:27.565 - anybody wants to hold up the process because we haven't met the, we just have to have another meeting 02:33:27.565 --> 02:33:33.816 - just to meet that requirement. And I think what has been proposed here is that the staff has to outline 02:33:33.816 --> 02:33:37.662 - exactly how the engagement happened and that creates, you know, 02:33:38.114 --> 02:33:44.374 - I think an accountability that the engagement will happen because they'll have to report on on how it 02:33:44.374 --> 02:33:50.879 - happened sure and I think that's about probably as as good as we can and do to create that accountability 02:33:50.879 --> 02:33:57.139 - without Yeah, I don't want to hold this up burdening things and then holding up the process. Yeah, so 02:33:57.139 --> 02:33:58.366 - I'm good with what? 02:33:58.594 --> 02:34:05.207 - Director Hanson, did you want to yeah, I I do just I'm sorry Anna killing Hanson hand I do just want 02:34:05.207 --> 02:34:11.754 - to say that I am committed to working with the CCNA to try and evaluate the site to see what we can 02:34:11.754 --> 02:34:18.629 - do I do also want to go back to one of the points about grading grading We live in a area that has quite 02:34:18.629 --> 02:34:25.438 - a bit of karst Karst can limit great grading. So there's other considerations that you don't know until 02:34:25.438 --> 02:34:26.878 - you get out there and 02:34:27.234 --> 02:34:34.312 - So I just want to say digging down is not necessarily as easy as you may think it is if you're not used 02:34:34.312 --> 02:34:41.595 - to the building business. The other thing that I would really like to address, I would like an opportunity 02:34:41.595 --> 02:34:48.401 - to talk about the housing market and the need for this kind of project. As you guys are well aware, 02:34:48.401 --> 02:34:53.982 - Bloomington is the most housing cost-burdened metro area in the state of Indiana. 02:34:54.114 --> 02:35:02.156 - We are I mean, it's not theoretical. It's a housing crisis that is already reshaping who can live work 02:35:02.156 --> 02:35:10.119 - and remain in our city. Housing scarcity is now an economic issue. 72% of Bloomington jobs are filled 02:35:10.119 --> 02:35:13.086 - by workers who live outside the city. 02:35:13.186 --> 02:35:20.349 - Employers struggle to recruit and retain talent. Young professionals cannot find starter homes. Long-term 02:35:20.349 --> 02:35:27.646 - residents cannot downsize. Workers commute longer distances, weakening their tax base and eroding community 02:35:27.646 --> 02:35:34.606 - stability. This is what happens when housing ladder is missing rungs. Without entry-level homes, young 02:35:34.606 --> 02:35:41.363 - families cannot enter the market. Without smaller ownership options, older adults cannot right size 02:35:41.363 --> 02:35:42.782 - when turnover stalls 02:35:42.914 --> 02:35:50.167 - prices rise everywhere. A key misunderstanding in the housing debate is the role of new construction. 02:35:50.167 --> 02:35:54.718 - New homes are often criticized for not being affordable enough. 02:35:54.882 --> 02:36:01.632 - But new construction does not exist in isolation. It reshapes the entire market. When new homes come 02:36:01.632 --> 02:36:08.382 - online at higher price points, they relieve pressure on the existing housing stock. A buyer choosing 02:36:08.382 --> 02:36:15.533 - a new home competes directly with older homes, which naturally moderates prices and stabilizes the broader 02:36:15.533 --> 02:36:22.283 - market. Without new supply, all price levels and prices rise everywhere. I think it's also important 02:36:22.283 --> 02:36:23.486 - to draw attention 02:36:24.674 --> 02:36:32.974 - No, I think are there any other questions Well, I want to get control of this a little bit here we sorry 02:36:32.974 --> 02:36:41.037 - we we were I wanted stuff trying to get a motion on the table here and This is we've got a little bit 02:36:41.037 --> 02:36:49.021 - out of order here. So I would like to get back to Mr. Ballard's motion and We'll have some more time 02:36:49.021 --> 02:36:54.238 - for for comment and questions once we get that on the table what? 02:36:54.402 --> 02:37:01.299 - Is it your would you like to include the proposed language here as you were number 10 as your number 02:37:01.299 --> 02:37:08.538 - 10 you're comfortable with that language. Yes. Okay. So your motion just to summarize again is to forward 02:37:08.538 --> 02:37:15.435 - this to the common council with a favorable favorable recommendation and 10 commission conditions of 02:37:15.435 --> 02:37:22.878 - approval the nine that were in the packet and the 10th that was just read aloud here by Commissioner Holmes. 02:37:23.362 --> 02:37:32.471 - Okay, is there a second for that motion? Second all right Real quick. I'm so sorry. I just want to make 02:37:32.471 --> 02:37:41.405 - sure that I'm understanding and writing down what this condition is explicitly and this is related to 02:37:41.405 --> 02:37:50.164 - future plans or plats in this petition moving forward and how the CCA is involved with those Do you 02:37:50.164 --> 02:37:51.390 - want to read? 02:37:51.554 --> 02:37:58.266 - Your language it's a little squishier than than that prior to approval and this may need wordsmithing 02:37:58.266 --> 02:38:04.846 - Please do correct if some of this doesn't make sense prior to approval of any primary plat or final 02:38:04.846 --> 02:38:11.886 - plan in the Hopewell PUD Petitioners shall prepare and include in the project record written documentation 02:38:11.886 --> 02:38:18.927 - describing how visitability and accessibility were Evaluated and how people with disabilities were engaged 02:38:18.927 --> 02:38:20.638 - Okay, thank you All right 02:38:21.506 --> 02:38:27.113 - We have a motion in a second. We have any discussion on that motion Commissioner Stossberg I'm just 02:38:27.113 --> 02:38:32.720 - gonna reiterate again that I'm gonna have to vote no on this right now because what you're doing is 02:38:32.720 --> 02:38:38.327 - you're forwarding the exact Language that is in that PUD right now and I pointed out multiple areas 02:38:38.327 --> 02:38:44.326 - where that language has to change So I appreciate that you want to speed things up But you're not speeding 02:38:44.326 --> 02:38:50.045 - things up by sending something to council that's not ready because if it was ready then council could 02:38:50.045 --> 02:38:50.718 - hear it and 02:38:51.394 --> 02:38:58.158 - Quickly if it's not ready, then I'm just gonna be like president. I'm sorry Please drag this out slowly 02:38:58.158 --> 02:39:04.726 - so that there is time to deal with amendments because the petitioner cannot change anything Once you 02:39:04.726 --> 02:39:11.425 - forward it until council has it in front of them So you're not saving any time by forwarding something 02:39:11.425 --> 02:39:17.278 - to council that is not ready and I appreciate the sentiment and like I said like I like I 02:39:17.570 --> 02:39:26.212 - We are in a housing crisis. We have a problem, but but we have a petition right now that is not ready 02:39:26.212 --> 02:39:34.769 - that needs amending the Language the grammar the the like nuts and bolts need editing It's not about 02:39:34.769 --> 02:39:43.664 - the substance or the content that's going to be its own discussion at council in terms of so many pieces 02:39:43.664 --> 02:39:46.206 - of it but the actual language 02:39:46.370 --> 02:39:54.155 - what it's describing as problematic right now and and it You can forward this to council if you want 02:39:54.155 --> 02:40:01.940 - to I Have to vote no because my colleagues will be really disappointed if I let something go to them 02:40:01.940 --> 02:40:09.725 - That is not ready in this way. Thanks. Thank you. All right This motion I got it this this motion is 02:40:09.725 --> 02:40:15.198 - on the table so if you agree with that then vote no on this motion and 02:40:16.066 --> 02:40:21.643 - Someone at that point we need to propose another motion to continue this to another hearing Commissioner 02:40:21.643 --> 02:40:24.830 - Bishop was up next and then we'll go to Commissioner Kinsey 02:40:25.154 --> 02:40:32.241 - I just want to point out this is not supposed to be a housing panacea for Bloomington. It is a prototype 02:40:32.241 --> 02:40:39.260 - It is the very first version of something that we intend to replicate successfully in better iterations 02:40:39.260 --> 02:40:46.549 - over time and Just like everything else you have to start somewhere, you know deliberative bodies political 02:40:46.549 --> 02:40:53.433 - Groups are not great at being very precise at what they do. They're not German auto manufacturers But 02:40:53.433 --> 02:40:55.120 - what they do do is they? 02:40:55.120 --> 02:41:02.611 - with some good ideas to some big problems and They do their good faith efforts to try and put those 02:41:02.611 --> 02:41:10.401 - forward to where the public Can either decide that those are good ideas are not good ideas So with that 02:41:10.401 --> 02:41:18.116 - I'm just pointing out that this is not supposed to be the end of this Project it is just the beginning 02:41:18.116 --> 02:41:19.614 - Commissioner Kinsey 02:41:21.218 --> 02:41:28.808 - Yeah, I appreciate what Commissioner Stoffberg is pointing out and you know, it doesn't serve the project 02:41:28.808 --> 02:41:36.254 - or us well to sell to send and forward ill-formed ideas because they just get stalled at another level. 02:41:36.254 --> 02:41:43.486 - So I share the concern and I mean this has been a concern of mine with whether this should have been 02:41:43.486 --> 02:41:50.718 - a PUD in the first place because it does require a lot more specificity and it requires that there's 02:41:50.914 --> 02:41:59.535 - and allowed use table in the document itself to assure that we're not losing track of decision and what 02:41:59.535 --> 02:42:07.907 - allowed in this space. So I share the concern and and disappointed that we don't have something that 02:42:07.907 --> 02:42:16.445 - is more buttoned up in that way. But I also don't want to hold this up. So I will be supporting it and 02:42:16.445 --> 02:42:19.678 - but understand that this is not ideal. 02:42:20.130 --> 02:42:27.618 - The other thing I really appreciate is the public comment about the community, the involvement of the 02:42:27.618 --> 02:42:35.253 - community, the community commission on accessibility. And I also appreciate all of the public expertise 02:42:35.253 --> 02:42:43.181 - in the room tonight and the week before and what got submitted in the packet. And I do think that including 02:42:43.181 --> 02:42:44.062 - a condition 02:42:44.994 --> 02:42:52.124 - Despite the fact that I might have some questions about its enforceability in terms of who is involved 02:42:52.124 --> 02:42:59.117 - in decision-making. I think it's the right thing to signal before we send it to council that this is 02:42:59.117 --> 02:43:06.247 - a serious issue and it deserves more attention both for this project itself and in the UDL as a future 02:43:06.247 --> 02:43:08.670 - Initiative and I really appreciate 02:43:09.186 --> 02:43:15.614 - Project lander director Hiddles comments about the need to address this in more than just a fifth of 02:43:15.614 --> 02:43:21.979 - the page in the UTO So I hope we can move forward on something like that, but I thank everybody for 02:43:21.979 --> 02:43:28.344 - their comments tonight Thank you Commissioner seaborne, I guess just Whenever we have petitions and 02:43:28.344 --> 02:43:34.900 - we propose adding or modifying conditions I always like to explicitly make sure the petitioner is okay 02:43:34.900 --> 02:43:38.846 - with us adding the condition and I don't think we've expected 02:43:40.034 --> 02:43:50.646 - and I just asked if the petitioner is Comfortable with the added condition as proposed Carrie Thompson, 02:43:50.646 --> 02:44:00.951 - yes, we absolutely are and actually have already been in conversations outside of this meeting about 02:44:00.951 --> 02:44:09.726 - how to get that done So we were already headed that way Thank you All right any other 02:44:10.818 --> 02:44:22.147 - Comments discussion on this motion before we call the roll I'm gonna ask one more question just of staff 02:44:22.147 --> 02:44:32.936 - if you have any Thing you'd like to add about this being ready for council is there Given more time 02:44:32.936 --> 02:44:39.518 - if this were back for another hearing a month from now What? 02:44:40.354 --> 02:44:46.127 - What might change? Sure, so obviously, you know the Plain Commission can impose conditions of approval 02:44:46.127 --> 02:44:52.012 - to clarify certain language and those have to be done before it goes to council So if there are specific 02:44:52.012 --> 02:44:57.616 - things in the district ordinance that need to be revised citations or things like that You know, we 02:44:57.616 --> 02:45:03.333 - are required and petitioners required to make those changes and clean up the ordinance before it goes 02:45:03.333 --> 02:45:04.510 - to council so we can 02:45:05.410 --> 02:45:11.854 - Certainly work with them to clean up some of the citations that have been referenced to make this cleaner. 02:45:11.854 --> 02:45:17.997 - I mean, that's what I'm hearing. What we're hearing tonight are, you know, the major hesitations from 02:45:17.997 --> 02:45:24.320 - some of the aspects of it or just a language that's in the district ordinance. But it's not your opinion 02:45:24.320 --> 02:45:30.463 - that we need another hearing in order to do those things. No, you know, certainly petitioner wants to 02:45:30.463 --> 02:45:34.558 - make things as clear as the department does as well. So we'll work. 02:45:34.658 --> 02:45:42.055 - Expediently with them to get this done as fast as possible and get it on to the council with those changes. 02:45:42.055 --> 02:45:49.246 - All right. Thank you So procedurally do we need to add that condition to the current? That new condition 02:45:49.246 --> 02:45:56.300 - is included in the motion that is on the table right now So if you 10th Commission condition, but what 02:45:56.300 --> 02:46:03.902 - about the changes that Commissioner Sasberg? requested abuse table some of the text edits defining the TRO and 02:46:05.762 --> 02:46:12.469 - That to the current motion or We have to turn this one down and then add an 11th condition if to make 02:46:12.469 --> 02:46:19.044 - those text changes I think correct me if I'm wrong Eric, I think you're saying you can make some of 02:46:19.044 --> 02:46:25.817 - those clarifications No, we need you we would need a condition that specifies those it would certainly 02:46:25.817 --> 02:46:30.814 - be helpful to have a condition to some regard whether it be very general or 02:46:30.914 --> 02:46:37.303 - that the petitioner will work with staff to Clarify some of the inconsistencies in the district ordinance 02:46:37.303 --> 02:46:43.331 - or to even clarify it more specifically, you know as I mentioned You know, I did make notes of what 02:46:43.331 --> 02:46:49.419 - Commissioner Stossberg mentioned some of those were things that were in the staff report and we have 02:46:49.419 --> 02:46:55.506 - a Small list that we can use to guide us. So then if there are additional Specific requirements that 02:46:55.506 --> 02:46:58.942 - we want to see before it goes to council and you want to 02:46:59.170 --> 02:47:09.382 - then you would need to amend the motion that is currently on the table to add another condition or Throw 02:47:09.382 --> 02:47:19.204 - this motion down and make a motion to Make another motion after this if and when this one would fail 02:47:19.204 --> 02:47:28.638 - Then I guess I would Propose an amendment to the motion on the table to include the text changes 02:47:29.730 --> 02:47:39.492 - Commissioner Stossberg has suggested to clarify the language and correct citations. Oh Okay, so our 02:47:39.492 --> 02:47:49.644 - 11th condition would be that the petitioner would work with staff and Commissioner Stossberg to clarify 02:47:49.644 --> 02:47:54.622 - language and correct the citations in the document 02:47:59.842 --> 02:48:13.809 - Second is that sufficient? Did you get that? Okay, so the motion is to amend the motion to include an 02:48:13.809 --> 02:48:28.734 - 11th condition that staff would work with The petitioner petitioner and mr. Stossberg to Clarify the changes 02:48:29.666 --> 02:48:37.497 - And correct the citations. Okay. All right Everybody understand what that is And we have a second any 02:48:37.497 --> 02:48:45.634 - discussion on that I Suppose to Commissioner Stossbert seaboard's point our staff. Okay with that request 02:48:45.634 --> 02:48:53.465 - Yes, okay. All right. So what we're gonna do now is we're gonna call the roll on the amendment to the 02:48:53.465 --> 02:48:56.382 - motion to add this 11th condition and 02:49:00.066 --> 02:49:11.978 - Seaborg, yes Co Rodkey. Yes Holmes. Yes Kinsey Stossburg. Yes Whistler. Yes Ballard. Yes Bishop. Yes 02:49:11.978 --> 02:49:24.362 - All right, so that motion carries now we are back to the original motion as amended Any final discussion 02:49:24.362 --> 02:49:28.254 - before we call the roll on that? 02:49:29.314 --> 02:49:38.354 - I'm sorry the time for public comment has passed and We happy to talk to you after the meeting but we're 02:49:38.354 --> 02:49:47.135 - past that part of the the agenda any other Discussion here All right. Let's call the roll then on the 02:49:47.135 --> 02:49:55.744 - motion as amended Co Rodkey. Yes Holmes. Yes Kinsey Yeah Stossburg. Yes, it's easier than my having 02:49:55.744 --> 02:49:59.102 - to do an amendment later. Thank you. I 02:49:59.906 --> 02:50:08.339 - Whistler. Yes Ballard. Yes Bishop. Yes Seaborg. Yes All right. I believe the motion carries that is 02:50:08.339 --> 02:50:16.350 - our final petition for the evening. Thank you all for your patience We will see you next month