OK. Good evening everyone. Let me call to order this special hearing of the city of Bloomington Plan
Commission for October 28th 2026. Let's start just with a roll call for attendance. Burrell here.
Bishop here. Seabourn. Co Brodke here. Holmes here.
Here Smith here Stossberg Whistler here Morris here no Kinsey All right Looks like we do have a quorum.
So with that we'll continue the meeting and I'm gonna turn it over to our director link going Tell us
why we're here Lynn
I'll sort of turn this way because it's as much for our audience today as it is for us. So purpose of
this meeting this is a special hearing that the plan commission the city of Bloomington is holding pursuant
to House Bill 1001 that was passed last year by the Indiana legislature. The Indiana legislature did
a lot of work on what they thought they could do to
improve the availability and affordability of housing. And they adopted several statutes. There's a
great deal of data collection that we're going to do that will get submitted to the state. Every community
is doing this, not just us. So all the units of government are doing the same thing that we're doing
here tonight. And one of the requirements of the statute was is that we hold a hearing and get input
from the community on our unified development ordinance.
specifically related to housing. So Eric, could you pop up that first slide? Just a second here. Yeah.
Next. There you go. Nope, back one. There you go.
So what this is, you don't have to read this. This is the actual text of the statute, and it talks about
what we would like to do here today. And there's a bunch of things we wanna get input on. It doesn't
have to be specifically to each one of these, but it's general input, but this is what the state is
sort of looking for us to consider. And so we wanna hear from you tonight. This is your meeting, this
is why we're holding this, is for you to tell us
any thoughts you may have about the unified development ordinance of housing, attainability, affordability,
and so forth. It's a very high priority for the mayor. So this affords us with a great opportunity to
do this. And that's what we're about. So the next thing I'd like to do is I will turn it over to Eric
Grulick, our management of development services, who will explain what we have done so far. And it may,
maybe this will trigger something that
You'll think of and you can have a comment based on on what you hear. But we have already done quite
a few things to move housing forward. So with that Mr. President I will turn it over to Eric Grulick
and he will give you this quick report. Thank you.
services manager. So as our director explained, you know, we are required to have this hearing to go
through certain aspects of HB.
that were directed toward all communities within Indiana to look at their unified development ordinance
for certain areas of improvement to promote housing within the community. We had already started to
initiate a lot of these aspects, and some of these were already things that were allowed by our zoning
code. So by the time the legislation ended up being passed and enacted, we were well on our way towards
bringing forward legislation that was looking to amend some of the sections
of our zoning code that were addressed with House Bill 10 0 1. So one of the things that the House Bill
directed us to do or communities specifically was to look for areas to allow additional housing.
in a variety of different housing types within the community. And so there is language in there, as
I mentioned, that was already enabled within the zoning code, for instance, allowing buildings and mixed
use districts to have multifamily dwellings within there. So our unified development ordinance already
allowed for that. There was language that directed us, directed communities to allow for accessory dwelling
units in all zoning districts where residential units are allowed. Again, our UDO already allowed for that.
provide a path for duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes in residential zoning districts. And so our unified
development ordinance allowed for that as well. And then there was also language regarding certain other
aspects regarding floor area ratio, minimum garage sizes, and roof pitches. A lot of those were things
that the unified development ordinance did not restrict. So we were already kind of ahead of the curve on that.
We have two packages of amendments that were in the works or were coming forward around the time that
this was coming in. Some of those have already been passed. So the count of the Plain Commission heard.
amendments to the zoning code related to the council resolution which directed us to look at several
things setbacks minimum lot size minimum lot area subdivision standards parking minimums. Those were
all things that were addressed in the council resolution. There were also components of HB 10 0 1 and
I'll briefly kind of step through some of those in a minute.
And then there were other aspects that were part of the U.D.O. amendments related to housing
and sustainability that the Plain Commission just heard on October 12th that is making its way to city
council that attended to lead to be heard on November 4th. And that was related to some of the standards
regarding duplexes accessory dwelling units and then also cottage homes.
So real briefly, I'll just kind of step through some of the things that were specifically mentioned
in HB1001, how those might already be allowed by the Unified Development Ordinance, and then how some
of the changes that we were bringing forward addressed some of those. So the first statement was provide
for a higher density development of duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes.
So density we don't really regulate within the UDO as we had historically done in terms of units per
acre. Instead of the number of units or the houses that you can get on a lot is controlled by setbacks,
impervious surface coverage, and just the raw amount of lots that are available to be developed. So
we addressed a lot of those standards that were limiting how much could be done on a property by
Removing or reducing a lot of the side yard setback standards increasing the impervious surface coverage
and then adjusting the Minimal lot area and minimum lot with standards to allow for new lots to be created
that would allow for new housing to be
constructed on those lots. So some of those standards with the setbacks and previous surface coverage
was addressed with the council resolution. The language specifically regarding duplexes triplexes and
fourplexes was just most recently heard at the October meeting where the staff is proposing to remove
the 150 foot buffer and the maximum maximum number of
duplexes that are allowed within a calendar year. So that will be heard by the council soon. So that
is how we address that particular aspect. Again as I mentioned with the minimum lot sizes and minimum
lot width we propose several reductions within the code and the
City Council amended those a little bit as well to allow for new lofts to be created that were substantially
smaller than what they had historically been to mimic a lot of the historic development patterns that
we had seen within the neighborhoods within Bloomington. So we were we were addressing that criteria
with those two series of amendments.
Um, the next regarding, uh, attached dwelling units, uh, accessory dwelling units. Again, this has been
in the zoning code, uh, the unified development ordinance for a long time. Um, so we were already ahead
of the curve with that. Uh, some of the language within HB 10 01 addressed, uh, the definition and size,
um, that went along with accessory dwelling units. Um, so in the housing attainability amendment package
that the planning commission just heard, um, we were proposing to amend our definition.
of accessory dwelling units to reflect that new language within the HP-1001 regarding the maximum size.
So we were already kind of working with that language. As I mentioned, the third, one of the other things
was the adaptive reuse of commercial buildings to allow for multifamily units within those. Again, our
zoning code already allowed for that. We did make some changes several years ago that removed the requirement
or the restriction on ground floor dwelling units. So within all of our multifamily and commercial districts
now you can have ground floor dwelling units and dwelling units throughout the building. So this allows
for reuse of buildings commercial buildings that had been historically used for commercial uses to allow
for those to be converted.
to multifamily uses. One of the other restrictions regarded floor area ratio. A lot of communities in
Indiana have this restriction and it deals with massing of a building on a property relative to the
size of that property. We did previously regulate floor area ratio but that was removed in 2007 so we
no longer regulate that component so there was nothing to be done on that.
The fifth regulation or the fifth section of HB 1001 dealt with several different things, seven different
aspects, garage size and placement. We don't have a minimum size for garages, so there was nothing to
be done on that. The UDO does somewhat regulate placement in terms of the location of detached garages
relative to the house, but we did not see that as really something that had prevented housing. But really,
I think going back to
just a requirement that there is no minimum and you don't have to have a garage that in and of itself
doesn't really restrict a development on a property because you're not required to have a garage or
any parking.
As I mentioned steeper roof pitch there's nothing in the UDO that requires steep roof pitches so there
was really nothing to address with that. As I mentioned with the minimum lot size and square footage
aspect of HB 1001 that was addressed with the council resolution. So we already amended the language
for that as well as for the greater setbacks that we substantially reduce those.
Off-street parking again that was addressed with the council resolution where all minimum parking
requirements were removed within the city as a whole So that was addressed Design standards that restrict
or prohibit the use of code compliant products a lot of this this particular one deals with You know,
I think a lot of interior Aspects of a house
The UDO does have language regarding exterior finishing materials, and while there is a list of specific
things, there is flexibility within the UDO that allows for us to consider other comparable materials
if they replicate the design and appearance of approved materials, so we already had an allowance within
that. And then property height limitations was the seventh
component of this section five. And as I kind of mentioned you know we haven't really encountered especially
within the single family districts the current height limitations that are in place. You know they allow
for you know oftentimes up to a three story building. Very rarely do we see those kind of coming into
play. So you haven't really encountered any challenges with the height restrictions that are in the
unified development ordinance currently.
So kind of finishing out the last list here, the HB 1001 directed municipalities to review impact fee
zones. We don't have impact fees or impact fee zones. So there was nothing to do there. The next aspect
regarded review processes for permits. So there was a
House bill that was passed later last year regarding class two permits that gave specific timelines
for review of class two permits. So there is already a mandate for those. But then again as well we
had already started an internal review of our permitting and review processes. So we're looking we had
already started to review what we could do internally to expedite permits and site plan reviews.
as well as there are already provisions in the UDO currently that allow for a lot of things to be done
at staff level. When we did the updates to the UDO in 2019, we altered the things that had to go to
the planning commission. So certainly as the planning commission has seen, you don't see a lot of site
plan approvals because a lot of that was delegated to staff.
So we've already made amendments within the U.D.O. to give staff the ability to review that at staff
level without having to make people go through a formal playing commission review process. And then
the last two aspects of the House bill related to property tax abatements to enable higher density.
That's not something that the playing commission or the U.D.O. regulates. So that's something that really
that the council would be involved with. And then the last aspect.
dealt with donating land, vacant land for affordable housing development. Again, that's not really something
that falls under the Planning Commission or the UDO purview. So that's not something that we can really
address with this. You know, a lot of the language within the HB 1001 was aimed at communities as a
whole and trying to identify ways to increase housing within the community. So some of the things were
things that could be addressed with a unified development ordinance. Some of the other things
depending on how the community is arranged, you know, is really best addressed for more of the legislative
branch for tax abatements or the administrative branch for, you know, donating land. So with that, just
to kind of summarize, a lot of the language within HB 1001 was already well underway. I would say almost
70 percent of it has already been achieved, either through the
resolution amendments or things within the unified development ordinance that were already enabled.
So the last aspect regarding duplexes and cottage homes and the ADU definition will be heard by council
next week and we'll hopefully be moving through that process very expeditiously. And so that kind of
concludes my presentation. I'll turn it back over to our director. Thank you Eric.
A lot of technical stuff. I hope you understand what we've been working on this for quite a while. We're
moving it forward. But now to the point of this hearing which is where we want to hear from the public
your thoughts on the U.D.O. and going forward. So I'll turn it back to you. Sure. Thank you. There really
is no commission action tonight. We're not going to have any discussion amongst the commission. We're
just going to go straight to public comment.
Just as a reminder our rules on public comment anyone wants to speak and have up to three minutes to
speak if you want to if you're here in the council chambers and you like to speak just make your way
up to the podium I would appreciate if you state your name for the record before you give your comment
if you're joining us online and you like to comment you just click on that react button and there's
a raise hand option or you can send a chat message to the meeting host
and we will recognize you when it is your turn to speak. We'll try to alternate back and forth between
comments in the room and online comments if we have enough folks who are waiting online. But if you
would like to make comment, just step on up to the podium and we'll get started.
Good evening, I'm Kari Bennett. I am operations director with Habitat for Humanity of Monroe County.
I did submit comments to the planning department, which they acknowledged and will be in the record.
Those were fairly specific. And so I wanted to take just a little bit of time this afternoon to maybe
raise the discussion up a little bit and share our perspectives on housing in Bloomington and Monroe County.
There are many factors that contribute to high home costs. That's for both new homes and existing homes.
The cost of land, the cost of infrastructure, cost of materials, the cost of labor, all of those have
gone up significantly in the past five years. Local planning jurisdictions like this one really have
no control over those and those factors, and we recognize that.
What you do control is zoning and land use. We very much appreciate the recent work that has been done
to reduce minimum lot sizes and wits setbacks other changes that Mr. Grulick walked through in his report
this evening.
And we urge you keep going work with the local community members and housing providers and see what
else is possible in our minds. The goal is there are more homes of all types being built in our community
being remodeled in our community being rehabbed. And a key in particular for low and middle incomes
is more homes per square foot or
more homes per acre that allows us to spread those fixed costs like land and infrastructure over more
households. So I'll just leave that with you as as food for thought and appreciate the opportunity to
make comments this evening. Thank you.
Good evening. I am Kristen Weida. I am the CEO of Indiana Uplands Realtor Association. I am here representing
the realtors of your community and your constituents who own and rent homes here. I'm going to speak
a little bit on the commercial portion of the UDO this evening vacant commercial properties can have
negative impact on a community.
Empty buildings and storefronts discourage investments They reduce economic activity and they make an
area appear less vibrant than it truly is In many cases property owners and business owners are ready
to reinvest but current regulations can make it difficult expensive and time-consuming to bring vacant
properties back to productive use
By reducing unnecessary barriers we encourage redevelopment attract new business and turn vacant buildings
into assets that benefit the entire community. These changes recognize that our goal should not be to
preserving vacancy but encouraging investment and revitalization. A more flexible and predictable regulatory
framework makes it easier for property owners to adapt existing buildings to meet today's needs while
still protecting the character and quality of our community.
Every time a vacant building vacant building becomes occupied we gain more than just a tenant. We gain
jobs tax revenue customers for neighboring businesses and renowned confidence in that future of that
area. One example of a change with our current regulation is parking requirements for vacant commercial
properties. When a new business moves into existing building it frequently is required to remove parking spaces.
even if those spaces are needed for customers and employees. This can lead to more parking on nearby
streets and unnecessary removal of pavement, which is then put into a landfill. Instead of removing
needed parking, we should focus on solutions that provide greater environmental benefit. For example,
businesses could be required to remove invasive species on their property and replace them with native
plants to help manage stormwater,
Or do a carbon offset such as providing tree plantings and current community green spaces So
these improvements can benefit the environment while we are still helping vacant properties attract
new investment and productive uses Good planning balances sustainability with practicality by providing
flexibility and encouraging creative solutions We can reduce vacancies support local investment and
achieve our environmental goals without creating unnecessary obstacles for redevelopment
I encourage the plan commission to support these changes and help create a regulatory environment that
welcomes investment promotes revitalization and strengthens our communities for years to come.
Thank you. We do have at least two people online with their hands raised. OK let's go ahead and we'll
go to those two online commenters and then we'll come back to more comment here in the chambers.
Deborah Meyerson, you should be able to speak. I'm Deborah Meyerson. I'm a resident of Bloomington.
I also work as an urban planning consultant and my work is focused on housing policy that takes me looking
at communities around the country. And so I'm really excited to see what the state has proposed for
communities statewide and how Bloomington is aligning and exceeding some of those expectations.
I particularly want to focus on that zoning, yes, is important, but it's the review process that can
be very impactful. And I know that Mr. Grulick talked about that in his overview. But that's something
that the zoning determines what's allowed. The review process determines what actually gets built. So
a duplex that's hermited on paper but takes many months of review with an uncertain result can be out
of reach for a local,
small-scale builders that we want to attract. So every month of delay adds to the interest, the holding
cost, the risk, and renters and buyers end up paying for that, or the project might just never happen.
And so just some examples of what can help includes, you may know of how South Bend has developed a
pre-approved catalog of homes. Certainly what Bloomington has started with with ADUs,
Their plans include homes, small multiplexes, and so that expedites the review process to go to site
review as opposed to a very long and lengthy review process that can precede that in many cases. And
that catalog has produced more than 90 homes since 2022, many by first-time local developers.
So the steps, again, it sounds like some of them are already underway, but include approving,
Code compliant projects administratively, if the project meets the code that's being improved, staff
against staff approval, just approve it without discretionary hearings. Run reviews in parallel as opposed
to sequentially so that planning, engineering, utilities can review ideally at the same time so that
applicants can receive one consolidated set of comments as a way to again help expedite the review process.
Setting and publishing firm review deadlines. Builders can then plan around a known timeline, but they
can't plan around uncertainty. And then finally, returning to the idea of a pre-approved plan catalog
for small neighborhood scale housing types. All of those will be a huge asset and again, I feel like
the state element as well as the local efforts are working to advance that.
appreciate those efforts, and look forward to their success. Thank you. Thank you. Christopher, you
should be able to speak. Yeah, good evening, plant commission. This is Christopher Emdry from the Greater
Bloomington Chamber of Commerce. First, I'll endorse the comments of Ms. Minner from the Habitat
and Ms. White has commentary on commercial property. I'll be sticking with just residential tonight.
Last week, the Chamber spoke at the County Planning Commission about the needs to remove barriers to
housing and economic growth, and there was quite a few barriers. Tonight, I want to recognize the progress
Bloomington is already making. The city's moving in the right direction, moving towards shedding that
hard to do business stigma that has stuck with us for quite some time. Mr. Grulick kind of spelled out
progress we've been making. And I want to consider a couple of those things. So real meaningful UDO
reforms that have eliminated some parking minimums and reduced some lot size and setbacks and create
some more flexibility within housing development and continue to move movement on Hopewell and Summit
District, which are two significant opportunities to expand the supply of housing. And the independent
permitting audit that identified longstanding problems with delays
inconsistent reviews and departmental coordination that we hear from our members all of the time. More
importantly, the city is here to address those findings. I want to kudos to the mayor's office and the
leadership of Lynn Coyne whose experience and understanding of development has been completely valuable
in the department as director. And none of this means the work's finished. We still need predictable
approvals and infrastructure planning and regulation to make housing easier to build, we've heard.
Ms. Meyers handle on some of those. But I also want to recognize this commission. I watched the plant
plant commission for quite a few years and I got to believe Bloomington is one of the finest
plant commissions in Indiana. We take our responsibilities seriously. There's difficult questions asked.
We challenge assumptions. Examine the facts. Not afraid to ask hard questions on longstanding practices.
We don't always agree. There's good planning requires thoughtful debate and we have it.
So that careful consideration deserves recognition. The state mandate gives us another opportunity to
examine the work and it still needs improvement. Bloomington doesn't have to start from scratch, thankfully.
And the chamber is encouraged to sit by the city to build on that momentum, turn these reforms into
measurable results. Thank you for your service and thoughtful work. Appreciate it. Thank you. I will
come back to the chambers here for any additional public comment in person.
Again, just make your way up to the podium, state your name for the record, and you'll have three minutes
to make comments.
My name is Jan Sorby. I'm a resident of the city and I've been very active for probably about 30 years
in Development I worked very hard on the South Dunn Street project to get that through and So anyway,
I want to make a few points House bill 1001 only requires that the city
Review and report back to them. It does not require any other changes at this point nothing I'd like
to see the Plan Commission in the city also examine neighborhood protective covenants that restrict
Rather than focus. It's primary Primarily on older neighborhoods where those restrictions do not exist
And I'm talking about the neighborhoods that were built
after 1948 There's an inventory Do you have an inventory does the city even have an inventory of all
those neighborhoods and their covenants and which have expired because there's a real opportunity There
as well around neighborhood activity centers. There's a real opportunity for increasing density, especially
around neighborhood activity centers and
Is there an inventory of neighborhoods with covenants that don't allow splitting lots? There are some
areas in Bloomington in the city that have over an acre for one lot. And there's incredible opportunity
to increase our density and our homes in those areas. If there's no such
inventory has a planned commission considered how these private restrictions affect the distribution
of new housing opportunities across Bloomington. If restrictive covenants prevent additional housing
in some neighborhoods, does the burden of accommodating all the new housing that the city requires fall
disproportionately on Bloomington's older, less restrictive neighborhoods?
These are really serious questions that we have to look at. Even the APA American Planners Association
says we cannot build our way out of this building crisis. We do need more density. We need it across
the city. I look particularly around areas that have jobs like around the new hospital area around the
mall. There's other neighborhood community centers across the city.
But I really think that these are very serious questions and I will say Athens Georgia over 20 years
ago got pre-designed houses to fit in each of their neighborhoods. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good
evening commissioners. John's already with CDF friendly Bloomington. We are a.
regional nonprofit community development organization who's tasked with helping, being one of the folks
in the conversation about bringing people together on housing and small business development, childcare,
finance. And here tonight to talk a little bit about housing and really for the public record, since
this is a sort of a state mandated action, I think it's important
Consider not just Bloomington but the entire state and housing affordability and attainability across
the state of Indiana and the age of our housing stock and how we're getting more people in those houses
either through rent or ownership and so one of those things to keep in mind and I'll ask the commissioners
to keep in mind and those members of the public as we move through this process are how we finance that
and how we
Create and preserve those tools whether they're in the UDO or in other mechanisms to make sure we're
helping people achieve homeownership or affordable and safe rental housing here in Bloomington and across
the state and so One of the ways you know when I was thinking about comments and I was thinking about
the Hopewell conversations with the planned unit development for the 98 homes that are going to be built
at Hopewell South and so talking about
Increased density and how we look at those tools and encouraging people to be flexible for how We are
incentivizing those homes to be built whether that's through Different tools for affordability, but
also how we like I said get those homes financed there are CDF eyes are mission-based lenders who work
across the country and distressed by
Census tracts or to help those who are low to moderate income usually 80% AMI and below there are lots
of loan products out there for the development of housing and also encourage people to look at our banking
partners who do mortgages that are designed to help those those populations of people and Certainly
a lot of Hoosiers and people here at Bloomington can can use those products in half
In addition to that Bloomington is very special in its ability to have programming locally through its
HUD dollars through the housing development fund which is a huge incentive for development of housing
as all of you know and so just encourage everyone who's listening and moving forward to think about
how we finance the great ideas that are being proposed and
being put into the UDO for that increased density and how we actually get it done. So the CDFI community,
again, those mission-based nonprofit lenders, many of whom work in affordable housing, are glad to be
part of the conversation and at the table. So thanks for your time tonight.
My name is and cryo camp and I am a resident of Greenacres which is currently being eviscerated. I want
to pull the microphone down just a little bit so we can hear you a little better. My name is and cryo
camp. I'm a resident of Greenacres which is currently being eviscerated. I've lived here twenty three
years the longest I've ever lived anywhere.
I was shocked that I really love it so much. I'm a westerner and an Easterner but not a midwesterner.
Now I am very much so. Bloomington is my absolutely favorite place and I developed a little Greenacres
community inside Greenacres of three homes.
that we grow food together and we share meals once every two weeks together, not just the ones that
are there, but the people from the neighborhood and our friends. The point is we are trying to build
relationships with each other on every level. And so when I see what's happening on Jefferson Street,
what is it, eight buildings on one block and 10 people in each one, I think, oh my God, are they there for,
for each other, or are they just there to make money for the developers? It feels like an either or.
What are the value systems that we live by? My value systems do not have money as the scream over nature.
Nature is the most important thing. We are all part of nature. And I think that's all I have to say.
Thank you.
Go to an online comment. Jenny Southern, you should be able to speak now. Yes, I would like the plan
commission and the city council and city administration in general to think about as we increase density
downtown. I'm not sure.
why we're removing single-family homes to do that. There's only so much of that we have. It's like you
have so much room on the beach or on a mountainside or something like that. And once you use it up,
it's gone. So I'm really concerned about this really push for the duplexes and triplexes replacing older homes.
We were told that the more density we got, that prices would go down. And we said, and you know, and
the density's gone up and lots and lots of apartment buildings have been built, so many. I don't know
how many new apartments we've added to the Bloomington City lit-ups, but it's gotta be in the thousands
in the last five years where we've been told this increased density is necessary.
So what I see happening, maybe you see something different, is the new apartments are built, but they
sometimes are built by removing the older housing. I understand that. But those older apartments that
were taken away were the affordable housing in Bloomington, where they were $400 or $500 per bedroom.
Now they're $1,000, $1,200 per bedroom, and more.
This removes a lot of housing for families. There's no family that can afford that So now if it's halfway
affordable a small home, it's immediately looked at by investors Oh, can I tear this one down make a
duplex or triplex makes perfect? Realtor sense perfect investment sense, but those used to be the homes
that families are
could buy into and improve. I mean, if they need a bigger house later, they could sell it and they could
buy another house. Those are not, that's not happening anymore. Unless it's like a private sale that
nobody knows about. So I would like to see like a survey or something. We're both told that we have
all this empty housing. And so we need to like tear down the old stuff. It's empty or something.
And we'll also say, oh, we need more housing. And it can't be both and make sense to your average citizen.
It just sounds wrong. And we really need to be explained how that could possibly be and why we should
support further inroads into the stock, the little bit of stock we have of downtown.
It's the pushing the historic districts. They're lovely things, but most people would rather do what
they want with their own homes But they're really gained popularity because people feel like they have
no choice that if they don't do it that Investors will look at their little lots and go ten seconds.
We could fit triplex there Understand I have only a certain amount of time but this is really confusing
I will say for the average homeowner citizen that is your time that lives in Bloomington. Thank you.
Thank you Okay, we'll come back to the council chambers now for anyone else who wants to make public
comment just step up to the podium Sue McCracken, I'm a homeowner in Bryan Park. I'm also a survivor of
building a duplex off of my single-family home. As of Monday, it took me seven months to get permission
to get my sewer and water installed. It has been an incredibly lengthy, difficult process. If I wasn't
partly retired, I might have given up. And so I think that it's so heavily weighted right now
to investors who have time, money, staff to make those things happen. And it is really difficult for
somebody like me who I think is doing what the city intended and wanted. We're adding a small home in
the back that's attached to the front. We're going to be renting on the front. We're going to live on
the property. Um, and, but it was an incredibly difficult process.
And I would really like to see that part of it made easier for homeowners so that you get what you really
wanted for your neighborhoods. That's all I've got to say right. Thank you. Any additional public comment.
I live in Greenacres also, and I kind of agree with Anne Kralkamp, who just spoke a few minutes ago,
and the lady, I guess, Mrs. Sorby. I've lived in Greenacres for 50 years, and I'm dismayed by how things
are going downhill from my point of view. Instead of modest homes and families and people running all
over the place, we now have rentals everywhere.
We also have replacement dormitories since IU tore some of theirs down. And it just doesn't make sense
to me that these modest homes on modest lots represent affordable housing. And what we're doing is tear
them down and build something huge that no single family can afford. I just don't find that favorable
and hope you could not make it happen so much. Thank you. Do I need to leave a phone number?
Thank you. Any additional public comment.
Uh, hello, my name is Emerson Arante and I am a recent, uh, entrepreneur in Bloomington. I am starting
a brick and mortar business on sixth street. Um, we are renovating a building that had been, uh, close
to the public for several years and, uh, at the risk of sounding vain. Um, I think it's going to be
very helpful to the community. I want to talk about the cost of site compliance. Um, by my calculation,
I'm going to be spending about $20,000.
for minor site compliance for this building. And that is about 5% of my total building costs. I think
I share or mirror a lot of the sentiments here that my interaction with the UDO, it is clearly biased
towards people who have more money than I do. And I think of the Charlie Munger quote who worked with
Warren Buffett where he said, if you show me the incentive, I'll show you the outcome. And the incentive
of this UDO is not for small business owners.
So I want to just talk about a few things that are concrete. I am spending about $7,000, six to $7,000
on a bike rack. Now, bit of background, I am a former professional cyclist. I race professionally in
Europe. I've been all around the world. I am very sympathetic to cycling infrastructure, but I can hold
two thoughts in my head. One, cycling infrastructure is important, and two, the way this city does it is bad.
So it is required that I have three bike racks outside my business. However, if you go to most European
cities, there's a concentrated bike parking area where people then park and walk to wherever they need
to go. Two blocks from me is the intersection of six street and the beeline. I went there today and
I measured you could put about 15 bike racks there, probably with ample space for more.
that would reduce the cost of site compliance for five to six businesses. It would cost the city $3,000.
Whereas if you had all these businesses do it, you are north of $20,000 just for bike racks, right?
And as a small business owner, you know, it's scary. I have an, I have an SBA loan has to be personally
guaranteed. This money means something to me. Hi. And,
Hello, thank you You know any any amount, you know if it costs the city six hundred dollars to take
seven thousand dollars off my plate I mean that again that's meaningful and you know, it's as a small
business owner It's really the small cuts that really hurt like the expression the straw that broke
the camel's back like this is just one of those straws that would be so easy for the city to fix and
help bring down what is again a
prohibitive cost for overall site compliance. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any additional public comment
here in the chambers. We have any additional online commenters. Eric if there is anybody else online
that would like to speak please use the raise hand function so we can recognize you.
I'm not seeing anybody else. All right. Last call for public comment. All right. Seeing none. That's
really all we were here for. Thank you all for coming out. Thank you for giving us your input. This
is very very helpful as we go through the process of planning for the future. We appreciate your your
being here and hope you have a great night. We're adjourned.