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