WEBVTT 00:00:00.386 --> 00:00:08.141 - All right, we're gonna get started. Let me call, let me call to order this meeting of the City of Bloomington 00:00:08.141 --> 00:00:15.191 - Plan Commission for November 9th, 2026. We have a pretty light agenda this evening. Some minutes to 00:00:15.191 --> 00:00:22.452 - approve and one petition to hear. Should be a pretty brief meeting. Hopefully we'll get everybody home 00:00:22.452 --> 00:00:29.502 - in time for tip-off. But let's start by calling the roll for, let's make sure we got a quorum here. 00:00:36.226 --> 00:00:48.468 - Homes Kenzie here Smith yeah Whistler here All right, looks like we do have a quorum but a narrow one 00:00:48.468 --> 00:01:00.829 - so just Reminder any action we take tonight will need five votes not not just a majority of those here 00:01:00.829 --> 00:01:05.630 - but a majority of the the Commission so 00:01:05.826 --> 00:01:15.003 - First thing we've got to do is approve some minutes. We've got I think three Meetings worth of minutes 00:01:15.003 --> 00:01:23.913 - to approve. That's the October 10th meeting the September 14th meeting and the October 12th meeting 00:01:23.913 --> 00:01:32.734 - Are there any questions or corrections regarding those minutes? No, is there a motion to approve I 00:01:37.410 --> 00:01:46.180 - We can approve them all in a single motion if there's no Objections the August September and October 00:01:46.180 --> 00:01:55.036 - minutes. Is there a second? All in favor say aye aye any opposed All right minutes are approved We'll 00:01:55.036 --> 00:02:03.806 - move on to reports resolutions and communications. Are there any reports from commissioners tonight? 00:02:06.498 --> 00:02:16.193 - reports from staff All right, we have no Petitions continued we have no consent agenda. So we'll just 00:02:16.193 --> 00:02:26.364 - get right to our our petition this evening zeo 2026-10-0016 and Looks like Eric Rulick is the case manager 00:02:26.364 --> 00:02:35.774 - take away Eric. Yes. Thank you very much So this is a request for a site at 1237 West Allen Street 00:02:35.874 --> 00:02:42.678 - This is a request to amend the preliminary plan and district ordinance for the hilltop court planned 00:02:42.678 --> 00:02:49.887 - unit development The petitioner is also requesting a waiver of the second hearing as part of this petition 00:02:49.887 --> 00:02:57.028 - So this is for the hilltop court apartments that is on West Allen Street or just off of West Allen Street 00:02:57.028 --> 00:03:03.833 - This was approved as a planned unit development in 2019. It was a former mobile home park That was a 00:03:03.833 --> 00:03:05.854 - PUD for that mobile home park 00:03:05.986 --> 00:03:12.707 - The petitioner came forward in 2019 to amend that PUD to allow for the site to be redeveloped. To the 00:03:12.707 --> 00:03:19.494 - north of this you have, to the north and the west you have some multifamily residential dwelling units 00:03:19.494 --> 00:03:26.216 - and then to the east you have some office and manufacturing uses that are part of the Catalan PUD. So 00:03:26.216 --> 00:03:33.069 - the petitioner came forward to redevelop this site for a apartment complex and so the PUD was approved. 00:03:33.069 --> 00:03:35.902 - The petitioner removed all of the previous 00:03:36.034 --> 00:03:42.663 - dwellings on the site Final plan approval was issued site development permit was issued and a building 00:03:42.663 --> 00:03:49.743 - permit was issued For a majority of the buildings on the site The petitioner has been working on constructing 00:03:49.743 --> 00:03:56.243 - a lot of the buildings of this on the site I'd say probably about half of them have been constructed 00:03:56.243 --> 00:04:02.744 - and I believe two or three have been occupied for at least a year or two so the petitioner is moving 00:04:02.744 --> 00:04:03.838 - forward then and 00:04:04.098 --> 00:04:10.625 - with the final phases of the development. So on the screen here you can see the site plan. There were 00:04:10.625 --> 00:04:17.408 - 11 buildings that were shown. These were all two and three story buildings. There was a central community 00:04:17.408 --> 00:04:23.998 - garden space that was part of the PUD as well as an internal parking area. So on the south side of the 00:04:23.998 --> 00:04:26.558 - site there were two buildings that were 00:04:26.658 --> 00:04:33.295 - These were proposed to be townhomes. These were shown to be established as condominiums. There would 00:04:33.295 --> 00:04:39.866 - be a driveway through the south side of the buildings with a garage underneath there. So these were 00:04:39.866 --> 00:04:46.700 - set aside to be platted and one of the commitments with the PUD was that one of the units would be sold 00:04:46.700 --> 00:04:53.403 - for owner-occupied workforce housing. There was also an affordable housing commitment with the PUD as 00:04:53.403 --> 00:04:55.966 - well. It's important to note, I think, 00:04:56.066 --> 00:05:03.131 - Framing this conversation. This was approved in 2019. So this was before the UDO kind of as we know 00:05:03.131 --> 00:05:10.620 - it today was approved in 2020. So some of the language that was in the UDO at the time is very different, 00:05:10.620 --> 00:05:14.718 - especially in terms of reviewing PDs and the PD criteria. 00:05:14.850 --> 00:05:21.535 - But because this is still an active PUD there are permits that are still in effect and being constructed 00:05:21.535 --> 00:05:28.029 - It is being reviewed by the standards that are in place or were in place in 2019 So with that initial 00:05:28.029 --> 00:05:34.396 - approval there was a phasing plan that was shown these two buildings on the south end were shown to 00:05:34.396 --> 00:05:40.062 - be in phase three So that's where the petitioner is today. They are working towards this 00:05:40.162 --> 00:05:47.500 - Last phase now and as they have come to these last two buildings this last phase they've kind of reevaluated 00:05:47.500 --> 00:05:54.233 - The project as a whole and have chosen to come forward with an amendment to you to the PUD to allow 00:05:54.233 --> 00:06:00.965 - for those two buildings To be combined into one building that would have 24 units that would all be 00:06:00.965 --> 00:06:02.110 - one bedrooms and 00:06:02.274 --> 00:06:09.587 - these units would all be used as rentals. So they are not proposing to utilize those as condos or establish 00:06:09.587 --> 00:06:16.088 - those as condos or sell those. They would be rentals as the rest of the development is as well. 00:06:16.088 --> 00:06:23.063 - So with that, the picture has also submitted a revised landscape plan. So the area that was the former 00:06:23.063 --> 00:06:29.022 - building, just to the west of this, they've shown with a heavy planting plant of trees, 00:06:29.346 --> 00:06:35.515 - to make up that green space area. Just to the west of that is a little bit is a detention pond that 00:06:35.515 --> 00:06:41.745 - is constructed. There wouldn't be any changes with that. So the only changes that would be happening 00:06:41.745 --> 00:06:48.037 - with this PUD amendment from just a physical standpoint are just rather than two buildings that would 00:06:48.037 --> 00:06:54.206 - each have five three bedroom units, there would be one building with 24 units of one bedrooms each. 00:06:55.106 --> 00:07:01.309 - So as I mentioned, or I'm sorry, here are the elevations. This is what was approved for that town home 00:07:01.309 --> 00:07:07.452 - building. The proposed elevation for the new building is very similar in a lot of regards in terms of 00:07:07.452 --> 00:07:13.656 - having a pitched roof. It would be a three-story building. It does fall within the height limit of the 00:07:13.656 --> 00:07:19.739 - PUD, so there wouldn't be any changes with the district ordinance. The only real change that is kind 00:07:19.739 --> 00:07:22.750 - of happening is with the preliminary plan itself. 00:07:22.882 --> 00:07:29.401 - So in that regard for the PUD, the preliminary plan outlines the general location and shape and number 00:07:29.401 --> 00:07:36.046 - of buildings. So with that, the preliminary plan for this would be changing from the number of buildings 00:07:36.046 --> 00:07:42.565 - shown to just the one. The district ordinance also incorporated the petitioner statement, which called 00:07:42.565 --> 00:07:48.894 - for this building to be condoized. So that would be changing. So it's shown on the screen here. And 00:07:48.894 --> 00:07:51.742 - also in your packet is the zoning commitment 00:07:52.226 --> 00:08:00.252 - that was associated with this. This outlines the rental commitment for the workforce housing. So within 00:08:00.252 --> 00:08:08.201 - the development, the petitioner committed to 10% or 15% of the units would be set aside for affordable 00:08:08.201 --> 00:08:16.073 - housing. 10% of those would be set aside for individuals earning up to 100% of the AMI and then 5% of 00:08:16.073 --> 00:08:20.318 - the bedrooms for anyone earning up to 120% of the AMI. 00:08:20.514 --> 00:08:28.360 - Rents for the affordable units would not be more than 80% of the AMI of the individual working there. 00:08:28.360 --> 00:08:36.361 - So the third part here regarding the condominium deals with the specific unit within these two townhome 00:08:36.361 --> 00:08:44.130 - buildings where it outlined that one of those would be offered for sale for somebody earning between 00:08:44.130 --> 00:08:45.438 - 100 and 120 AMI. 00:08:45.890 --> 00:08:53.642 - So the petitioner has included similar language in the packet as well. I wanted to just kind of include 00:08:53.642 --> 00:09:01.171 - what the current language is in the UDO regarding affordable housing. Current language is in the UDO 00:09:01.171 --> 00:09:08.998 - uses a different AMI. Currently we use 90% to regulate affordable housing. As I mentioned, this is being 00:09:08.998 --> 00:09:13.918 - reviewed based on the criteria that was in place in the 2019 UDO. 00:09:14.178 --> 00:09:20.722 - So one of the key differences and one of the main points that the department wanted to bring to the 00:09:20.722 --> 00:09:27.267 - Planning Commission attention and specifically get comments from the Planning Commission tonight is 00:09:27.267 --> 00:09:33.942 - this change to in essence have all of the units within here be a rental unit so there would no longer 00:09:33.942 --> 00:09:38.654 - be a diverse provision of housing whereas before there were rentals and 00:09:38.754 --> 00:09:45.951 - owner occupied as well as units being sold. All of the units within here would be rentals. They are 00:09:45.951 --> 00:09:53.363 - proposing to then obviously get rid of the unit that would be sold. So one of the review criteria with 00:09:53.363 --> 00:10:00.992 - the 2019 UDO was a provision, one of the purpose statements of a PUD is that there is some public benefit 00:10:00.992 --> 00:10:05.598 - being provided that would not be otherwise provided by the UDO. 00:10:05.890 --> 00:10:12.274 - You know, so that was one of the common review criteria that we would often cite in the review of a 00:10:12.274 --> 00:10:19.041 - PUD of, you know, what is being accomplished here that couldn't be done within a regular zoning district. 00:10:19.041 --> 00:10:25.489 - So the provision of affordable housing as well as these owner occupied units were really kind of the 00:10:25.489 --> 00:10:32.065 - only essential ingredients or aspects of this that were really making this PUD very distinct and worth 00:10:32.065 --> 00:10:33.086 - of being a PUD. 00:10:33.346 --> 00:10:39.636 - So by removing at least the owner-occupied and the establishment of those units for sale, as I mentioned, 00:10:39.636 --> 00:10:45.569 - it really just kind of changes this into an apartment complex of rentals. So that is something that 00:10:45.569 --> 00:10:51.681 - staff certainly highlighted as a big difference and a big change that would really be kind of straying 00:10:51.681 --> 00:10:57.733 - away from what the purposes of the PUD were. So that is what we are kind of seeking comments from the 00:10:57.733 --> 00:10:59.454 - Planning Commission tonight. 00:10:59.586 --> 00:11:05.879 - As I mentioned, this is required to have two hearings. The petitioner did require or request a waiver 00:11:05.879 --> 00:11:12.233 - of the required second hearing, but we are recommending that that waiver be denied so that we can hear 00:11:12.233 --> 00:11:18.464 - comments from the Planning Commission regarding this crucial element of the preliminary plan in this 00:11:18.464 --> 00:11:25.003 - change to have conversations with the petitioner about possibly addressing any concerns from the Planning 00:11:25.003 --> 00:11:28.766 - Commission regarding this. So with that, we are recommending 00:11:28.962 --> 00:11:35.070 - that the Plain Commission denied the request for the second hearing and for this to the required second 00:11:35.070 --> 00:11:41.118 - hearing for the December meeting and we're happy to take any questions once the petitioner has spoken. 00:11:41.118 --> 00:11:46.110 - Thanks. Is there a representative of the petitioner who would like to speak tonight? 00:12:00.834 --> 00:12:07.669 - Good evening Daniel Butler with Biden Fannie and Associates also with me tonight is Mark Lockley with 00:12:07.669 --> 00:12:14.638 - dwellings here in the room as Eric kind of put together a pretty good review of what we've been talking 00:12:14.638 --> 00:12:21.607 - about over the last few months on this project There's really only a change on the south end and that'd 00:12:21.607 --> 00:12:27.102 - be phase three. So nothing else will be changing on the project in any aspect and 00:12:27.426 --> 00:12:34.032 - We tried to give a synopsis in our petitioner's statement there that you saw about what changed in the 00:12:34.032 --> 00:12:40.703 - commitments, but the only thing that changed in the commitments would be that number five. Nothing else 00:12:40.703 --> 00:12:47.245 - is changing in those commitments. It would only be a wording on one sentence on how that would change 00:12:47.245 --> 00:12:53.659 - to number five. Everything else from the PUD and the commitments we're still doing, and you can ask 00:12:53.659 --> 00:12:55.006 - more questions about 00:12:55.426 --> 00:13:02.822 - anything from the environmental aspects or the green aspects that have Occurred or will occur on the 00:13:02.822 --> 00:13:10.292 - property. So none of that we're asking you to Or not do any longer We went down with this new plan an 00:13:10.292 --> 00:13:17.615 - impervious area because we're taking away, you know building So it went down an impervious area and 00:13:17.615 --> 00:13:22.814 - the road that goes behind those buildings so and putting an additional 00:13:23.330 --> 00:13:30.639 - green and vegetation on the property CBU has already approved these changes So we've already presented 00:13:30.639 --> 00:13:37.807 - before them and they've changed it already approved from the utilities and the stormwater on that If 00:13:37.807 --> 00:13:45.045 - at all possible If you couldn't make a decision tonight, that would be helpful if you deem it no more 00:13:45.045 --> 00:13:52.638 - questions or discussion needs to be had make a decision and forward it on to City Council if you would and 00:13:53.954 --> 00:14:04.933 - I think mark would also like to come up and just kind of give a little Reason on why and maybe some 00:14:04.933 --> 00:14:16.351 - of the money aspects, but I'm here to answer any more questions Good evening mark Lockley the developer 00:14:16.351 --> 00:14:21.950 - and just to give you a little bit of quick history 00:14:22.050 --> 00:14:29.789 - We did take this PUD through in 2019 and had every intention of developing it exactly the way that it 00:14:29.789 --> 00:14:37.603 - was approved. COVID hit and it has taken a while for us, we're a local development company, to get the 00:14:37.603 --> 00:14:45.721 - first and the second phase. In fact, we're tying up the second phase right now and should be done sometime 00:14:45.721 --> 00:14:47.390 - in February or March. 00:14:47.490 --> 00:14:55.789 - The economics just have greatly changed that we were building at the time in 2019 a one-bedroom Condominium 00:14:55.789 --> 00:15:02.858 - development on the north west corner of the property. So we kind of knew what costs were as 00:15:02.858 --> 00:15:10.772 - far as condominiums And as you all know the world has changed quite drastically in the past six years, 00:15:10.772 --> 00:15:16.766 - especially in the past 14 months with tariffs and oil being what it is and so 00:15:17.346 --> 00:15:24.279 - Those units those condominium units which were nine of them were for rent one of them was for sale Right 00:15:24.279 --> 00:15:31.015 - now just to break even for me. I would have to lease those units at almost $4,000 for a three-bedroom 00:15:31.015 --> 00:15:37.816 - and that's not my market. I'm much more of a Affordable approachable kind of developer the one-bedroom 00:15:37.816 --> 00:15:42.174 - develop one-bedroom units that we're proposing right now we built 00:15:42.370 --> 00:15:48.852 - Of those buildings on the first phase and those are one bedrooms that are still renting for under a 00:15:48.852 --> 00:15:55.465 - thousand a month Currently as market rate right now And so to bring in a three-bedroom at almost four 00:15:55.465 --> 00:16:02.077 - thousand just isn't does not make any sense for me economically so that's why we decided well what is 00:16:02.077 --> 00:16:08.624 - would be better for Rentals, what would be better for the community? What makes more sense as far as 00:16:08.624 --> 00:16:09.726 - trying to bring? 00:16:10.306 --> 00:16:17.180 - an affordable block to Bloomington. I am not a student developer. I kind of, in my portfolio right now, 00:16:17.180 --> 00:16:23.988 - undergraduates are actually under 10% of our portfolio. I kind of develop for the rest of Bloomington. 00:16:23.988 --> 00:16:30.729 - And that's not a $4,000 unit. And that's why we decided to take one of those buildings that we did in 00:16:30.729 --> 00:16:35.422 - the first phase and bring it. So I'm actually going down in total beds 00:16:35.586 --> 00:16:42.377 - Up in units there were 30 beds that were approved and going down to 24, but because they're individual 00:16:42.377 --> 00:16:48.969 - units I'm going up in unit count in unit count, but down in bedroom count so that's the Sort of the 00:16:48.969 --> 00:16:56.024 - analysis and kind of the history of what it is As I said, we are finishing the second phase which includes 00:16:56.024 --> 00:17:02.617 - a green roof over our shop Underground rain barreling for our community garden. We built a net zero 00:17:02.617 --> 00:17:04.990 - building which is I think the first 00:17:05.346 --> 00:17:12.740 - Net zero leasing and workout community building in Bloomington. That was in the first phase And that 00:17:12.740 --> 00:17:20.061 - has been operational for the past three years So this would be the third and final phase to tie the 00:17:20.061 --> 00:17:27.381 - whole development together. So you know, we we are a local development company and Trying to finish 00:17:27.381 --> 00:17:32.286 - this development up and I'm here for any questions if you have any 00:17:33.346 --> 00:17:39.493 - Thank you. Are there any questions from commissioners either for staff or for the petitioner? Just a 00:17:39.493 --> 00:17:45.702 - quick when you said only one of the town home you town home units was going to be sold and the others 00:17:45.702 --> 00:17:51.302 - were gonna be rented because I Correct. Yeah, and all this stuff. I thought it was gonna be 00:17:51.302 --> 00:17:57.084 - ten owner-occupied But then you're saying is only it was of the yeah, there were ten condiment 00:17:57.084 --> 00:18:02.014 - ten three-bedroom three bath condos one of them was gonna be put up for sale and 00:18:02.850 --> 00:18:09.607 - And so what we're doing is as we're saying, all right. Well, we have already on the site We have 20 00:18:09.607 --> 00:18:16.364 - affordable beds that were approved as part of the PUD that are current now in fact the one bedrooms 00:18:16.364 --> 00:18:23.189 - that have 41 bedrooms that are at market right now at all 48 are at affordable pricing already, even 00:18:23.189 --> 00:18:30.014 - though only 20 of them are actually part of the program and So what we're going to do is we're going 00:18:30.014 --> 00:18:31.838 - to throw in another 24 and 00:18:32.642 --> 00:18:39.912 - into that mix of which what three of those beds should have been units that were sold and in fact Going 00:18:39.912 --> 00:18:47.252 - back to the history of it. That was actually one of my ideas as we were coming for approval was I wanted 00:18:47.252 --> 00:18:54.243 - to bring one unit Of affordable for sale, I thought that'd be something really cool for the for the 00:18:54.243 --> 00:18:57.598 - community and for the development and it's just 00:18:57.794 --> 00:19:03.348 - You know, the world has just changed so much in the past six, seven years since it's been approved. 00:19:03.348 --> 00:19:09.069 - But yet, I'm still bringing in those 24 units are still, I mean, at market now, I mean, those, I don't 00:19:09.069 --> 00:19:14.623 - know when they're gonna be built, but if those came to market now, they would be under a thousand a 00:19:14.623 --> 00:19:20.343 - month for all those units. Okay. Is that staff? You read it that way too? You saw it the same way that 00:19:20.343 --> 00:19:25.953 - the 10 town homes, only one of them was gonna be sold initially? Yeah, only one of them was required 00:19:25.953 --> 00:19:27.230 - to be sold, yes. Okay. 00:19:27.458 --> 00:19:33.689 - You know, they were they were to be set up as condominiums with you know, obviously the greater possibility 00:19:33.689 --> 00:19:39.574 - You know that they could be platted and sold separately, but only one was required to be so acquired. 00:19:39.574 --> 00:19:45.459 - Okay. Thank you Additional questions Commissioner Stossberg good I just want to follow up on that for 00:19:45.459 --> 00:19:51.402 - just a second because I'm reading the that information on slide 11 where it says owner agrees to offer 00:19:51.402 --> 00:19:55.614 - one condominium for sale to no fewer than three eligible individuals and 00:19:56.866 --> 00:20:04.298 - And so that's where I thought, okay, are we talking about one? To no fewer than three, so that means 00:20:04.298 --> 00:20:12.024 - more than three eligible people can buy one condominium, and that's where I thought, oh, that's actually 00:20:12.024 --> 00:20:19.382 - three of those five condos were gonna be affordable. So I just wanna double check the understanding 00:20:19.382 --> 00:20:23.870 - of that language. Well, from my perspective, it was one unit 00:20:24.450 --> 00:20:30.270 - One unit three-bedroom three bath that was for sale and three people could go in and buy that one unit 00:20:30.270 --> 00:20:36.089 - But it was one out of the ten. So there are two buildings of five And then one of those buildings with 00:20:36.089 --> 00:20:41.909 - five one of the units one of the three bedrooms was designated for sale, right? Mr. Kulik, what do you 00:20:41.909 --> 00:20:47.728 - think about that language? Because I mean that language to me I mean and maybe at some point, you know 00:20:47.728 --> 00:20:52.926 - that language was like oh maybe that language was a little messed up because it sounds like 00:20:53.346 --> 00:20:59.605 - at least three individuals earning those AMIs must get together to buy one of those condos and like 00:20:59.605 --> 00:21:06.177 - a one a single person would say children couldn't like buy it by themselves. Yeah. So like I said, keep, 00:21:06.177 --> 00:21:12.686 - keep in mind when this was approved, we were, we were just kind of dipping our toes into the affordable 00:21:12.686 --> 00:21:18.945 - housing commitments. Um, and so oftentimes there was language in some of these where, uh, there was 00:21:18.945 --> 00:21:20.510 - wording where, you know, 00:21:20.802 --> 00:21:26.931 - Units would be offered for rent or for sale and then if they couldn't find anybody, you know They could 00:21:26.931 --> 00:21:33.002 - come to the city and say well, we couldn't find somebody we're gonna rent this to just market rate And 00:21:33.002 --> 00:21:38.895 - so I think this is kind of what that language was indicative of that time where you know They would 00:21:38.895 --> 00:21:44.789 - try folks would try to sell it, you know If they couldn't then you know, it could be left open that 00:21:44.789 --> 00:21:49.150 - it could be sold to anybody or used as a rental. Oh Okay, so they have to 00:21:49.890 --> 00:21:57.359 - At least three times then that that's how you think this language. Yeah, that's how I would read it 00:21:57.359 --> 00:22:04.903 - Okay, okay Thank you. That's very interesting language. I I Probably have unrelated questions, but I 00:22:04.903 --> 00:22:10.430 - will pass to somebody else for now Any other questions from commissioners 00:22:15.170 --> 00:22:21.671 - Thanks for coming out today You had mentioned that you have your units at market rents, but then you 00:22:21.671 --> 00:22:28.366 - also said they're affordable grants Are those two figures separately different or is it the same figure 00:22:28.366 --> 00:22:34.996 - you're referring to and could you disclose? I mean those those two figures are separate but yet so our 00:22:34.996 --> 00:22:36.734 - market rent right now is a 00:22:37.442 --> 00:22:45.504 - And again, I've got a number of units, so it's hard for me to remember exact, but right now, 00:22:45.504 --> 00:22:54.173 - market is $9.95 and $9.85 for the two different floor plans on that development. That is actually a 00:22:54.173 --> 00:23:03.102 - little bit cheaper at 120% AMI than what we could charge for a one-bedroom. Same thing at 100% of AMI. 00:23:03.202 --> 00:23:12.052 - 80% it's it's I think it's Keith Keith. They're the same so I have what's market rent and then we have 00:23:12.052 --> 00:23:20.644 - what's affordable But right now it's you know, we're a local family business I grew up in this town 00:23:20.644 --> 00:23:24.510 - It's our way of trying to Help fix a problem 00:23:25.026 --> 00:23:34.446 - We own the land since the 90s. We develop it ourselves. We build it ourselves We're our own GC and we 00:23:34.446 --> 00:23:43.867 - try and help pass that cost Down downstream to the to the resident Thanks So as far as the condos the 00:23:43.867 --> 00:23:51.902 - reason you're moving away from those you said they were they become very expensive and 00:23:52.034 --> 00:23:58.770 - To build you said you'd have to charge 4,000 or more, right? I mean when they were approved they were 00:23:58.770 --> 00:24:05.571 - large condominiums. There were 2,400 square feet with two-car garages and there were three stories and 00:24:05.571 --> 00:24:12.439 - Again, you know we because we're finishing the second phase right now We kind of know exactly what what 00:24:12.439 --> 00:24:19.439 - things are costing and when we do You know when we look at the sheer economics of building a 2,400 square 00:24:19.439 --> 00:24:20.958 - foot two-bedroom condo 00:24:21.058 --> 00:24:28.589 - I'm at like 39 and change to break even and That's there are condominiums that are that and more so 00:24:28.589 --> 00:24:36.120 - especially up and down Sarah Road But that's a developer that does that market very well and that's 00:24:36.120 --> 00:24:44.254 - not my market, you know, my range is from I have units we have 300 units under ownership and management and 00:24:45.250 --> 00:24:52.300 - We have units that range from 895 to a little under 2000 for a one to two bedroom And then we have some 00:24:52.300 --> 00:24:59.080 - houses that are in the 20 in the $2,000 range I have nothing in my portfolio in the $3,000 range at 00:24:59.080 --> 00:25:06.062 - all. It's just not it's it's not a market that I serve I try and do things that are just a little bit, 00:25:06.062 --> 00:25:07.486 - you know most of our 00:25:08.034 --> 00:25:15.155 - Are one in two bedrooms. We have retirees that live with us. We have professors. We have postdocs graduate 00:25:15.155 --> 00:25:21.943 - students People that work here in the city live with us. It's a very it's it's it's not That would be 00:25:21.943 --> 00:25:28.730 - more of a luxury kind of market and it's just not me. Okay, how big are the single bedroom? Those are 00:25:28.730 --> 00:25:35.585 - in the five those are in the 500 square foot range those twerking rather, but it's a true. It's a true 00:25:35.585 --> 00:25:37.182 - one bedroom. It's got a 00:25:37.314 --> 00:25:44.327 - You know a separate bedroom, you know bath kitchen area. It's not a You know, it's not a micro suite 00:25:44.327 --> 00:25:51.270 - Ultimately was why is it so much cheaper to build these single-bedroom units as opposed to There be 00:25:51.270 --> 00:25:58.769 - a lot of duplicative things every one of them needs a kitchen whereas a condo you don't need three kitchens 00:25:58.769 --> 00:26:03.838 - right need three bathrooms, right? It's three stories. It's one roof and 00:26:04.386 --> 00:26:11.032 - You know, it's a minimal amount of siding. It's a minimal, either smaller units, they actually cost 00:26:11.032 --> 00:26:18.010 - more per square foot, but we're giving also less square footage per person. You're talking about a 2,400 00:26:18.010 --> 00:26:25.054 - square foot unit for three units versus a 535 square foot for one person. So that's kind of the economics 00:26:25.054 --> 00:26:29.374 - there. So overall, you're building less square footage. Correct. 00:26:29.538 --> 00:26:36.921 - and that's how you're getting your savings. It's honestly not more efficient to build the smaller units. 00:26:36.921 --> 00:26:43.952 - You're just building fewer of them altogether. I'm building smaller units under one roof, under one 00:26:43.952 --> 00:26:51.335 - foundation. Being one building makes it a lot more. Unfortunately, those also have, because it's a three 00:26:51.335 --> 00:26:58.366 - story building, it has two common areas that need to be heated and cooled and cleaned and all that. 00:26:58.466 --> 00:27:06.560 - That adds to it. But when you still throw in When you look at the overall picture, it's still a better 00:27:06.560 --> 00:27:14.732 - I mean like There's no money to be made in a condo in my opinion right now or has in the past two three 00:27:14.732 --> 00:27:22.748 - for almost four years When we did the first we started the first phase in 21 It still made sense, but 00:27:22.748 --> 00:27:27.934 - by the end of 22 it made no sense and that was four years ago and 00:27:28.514 --> 00:27:33.960 - because in the pre so have you done research on like the the market for Rental units for one bedroom 00:27:33.960 --> 00:27:39.514 - went rental units and the location of it. It doesn't maybe I don't know if it would be student housing 00:27:39.514 --> 00:27:45.122 - or not It's not ideally situated doesn't look to me to be student housing. Yeah again, so we have Again 00:27:45.122 --> 00:27:50.622 - this building that we're proposing we have two of them right now, which were built in the first phase 00:27:50.622 --> 00:27:54.558 - so and those literally they take 48 hours to lease when one comes up and 00:27:54.914 --> 00:28:00.937 - It gets leased because it's under a thousand. It's a new unit at under a thousand dollars And most of 00:28:00.937 --> 00:28:06.842 - those people that I think the average age of those Units is in the high 20s. They're like the 28 29 00:28:06.842 --> 00:28:13.101 - 30 somewhere in there. They're professionals that you know, we're Nova Nordisk is our next-door neighbor. 00:28:13.101 --> 00:28:19.006 - We share two property lines with them. We have a lot of people not a lot We have a number of people 00:28:19.006 --> 00:28:23.966 - that live there and walk to work we have a number of people that live there and and 00:28:24.130 --> 00:28:33.153 - Commute to crane because it's close to 69 That that's kind of you know, I think in those 48 one bedrooms. 00:28:33.153 --> 00:28:41.836 - We have one undergrad if I remember correctly Maybe two but I know definitively of one so that's kind 00:28:41.836 --> 00:28:47.454 - of And you know with fair housing you can't we can't discriminate 00:28:47.714 --> 00:28:53.505 - But what we can but what we do is we market and we what we do is we try and market to what we call a 00:28:53.505 --> 00:28:59.239 - more professional a professional crowd versus you know an undergrad crowd Okay, I have one separate 00:28:59.239 --> 00:29:05.547 - question I don't know if this would be better for you or for staff, but there's something about an unrecorded 00:29:05.547 --> 00:29:09.790 - affordability commitment Can somebody talk about that is that was in the? 00:29:10.146 --> 00:29:15.518 - Packet I believe right? Yes, so there was a zoning commitment that was required. Typically those are 00:29:15.518 --> 00:29:21.049 - recorded So the petitioner did sign one it was prepared, but it wasn't officially recorded So obviously 00:29:21.049 --> 00:29:26.475 - that would be a loose end that we would want to tie up inevitably You know whenever the PUD amendment 00:29:26.475 --> 00:29:32.272 - gets resolved. Okay, and whose responsibility will that be? Ultimately, it's the petitioner's responsibility 00:29:32.272 --> 00:29:37.750 - to record it, you know, obviously staff can't record something on somebody else's property Okay. Okay. 00:29:37.750 --> 00:29:38.814 - And is there I mean 00:29:39.266 --> 00:29:45.994 - So petitioner didn't record it initially when they were supposed to is that correct? All I can say is 00:29:45.994 --> 00:29:53.119 - it wasn't you know, it was drawn up. It was signed by all parties involved So it should have been recorded, 00:29:53.119 --> 00:29:59.781 - but it just wasn't Okay, okay, and are you aware of that were you yeah, I was made aware of it I had 00:29:59.781 --> 00:30:06.707 - signed it and sent it through and thought it had been recorded and It wasn't so but it will be obviously 00:30:06.707 --> 00:30:09.214 - Moving forward. Okay. Okay. Thank you 00:30:11.522 --> 00:30:18.242 - Commissioner kids I guess this is a question for both staff and the petitioner You know I remember when 00:30:18.242 --> 00:30:24.962 - this project came through and we were excited about the diversity of housing and particularly the owner 00:30:24.962 --> 00:30:31.488 - occupancy Aspects of the condominium in addition to the affordability dimensions So I remember being 00:30:31.488 --> 00:30:38.015 - excited about what this project would permit in diverse housing and I wonder if You know, how how do 00:30:38.015 --> 00:30:41.310 - we talk about that now? What what are the options? 00:30:41.858 --> 00:30:49.102 - That you see to get us closer to what we originally thought this was going to be more affordable Diverse 00:30:49.102 --> 00:30:56.070 - housing options, you know, what what other ideas are there? Other than what you know, the petitioner 00:30:56.070 --> 00:31:03.038 - has presented or brought forward to us Is there anything else that we could possibly do here? I mean 00:31:03.234 --> 00:31:11.404 - We need to grab a cup of coffee and this is a longer discussion I Think there's a fair amount that you 00:31:11.404 --> 00:31:19.890 - can do, you know, is there the political will to do it? That's you know, that's one of the things comments 00:31:19.890 --> 00:31:22.270 - that I have, you know it is I 00:31:22.754 --> 00:31:30.563 - Bloomington so I've been building in Monroe County since 1997 have been real estate here since 1992 00:31:30.563 --> 00:31:38.997 - So I have built pretty consistently through that time period in my six hundred six hundredth unit somewhere 00:31:38.997 --> 00:31:46.259 - in there It has become painful to develop here in Monroe County financially time wise It has 00:31:46.259 --> 00:31:50.398 - been unbelievable unbelievably bad and I've built in 00:31:50.498 --> 00:31:58.358 - Indianapolis, I've done projects in Dubai, I've done projects in Fort Worth, I've done projects in Morocco, 00:31:58.358 --> 00:32:06.000 - built literally all over the world, and it is painful here. And it's incredibly expensive and incredibly 00:32:06.000 --> 00:32:13.568 - laborious, and that just adds to the bottom line. And a lot of people don't wanna hear that, but that's 00:32:13.568 --> 00:32:18.590 - just the truth of it. When you look at the site, so what we proposed 00:32:19.106 --> 00:32:26.776 - plethora of different products. We had small one bedrooms, regular size one bedrooms, two bedrooms, 00:32:26.776 --> 00:32:35.060 - and condos. That's what we were trying to do. We were trying to bring a diversified portfolio for different 00:32:35.060 --> 00:32:43.267 - people within a pretty small framework of pricing. COVID and what's happened economically has just wrecked 00:32:43.267 --> 00:32:47.486 - that. But what we're trying to do is do something that 00:32:47.970 --> 00:32:57.622 - works long-term for the people that For regular Bloomington people to live and work live work and so 00:32:57.622 --> 00:33:07.560 - yeah, it's You know, we're over when we first started in 21 our building costs without land we're right 00:33:07.560 --> 00:33:16.830 - at $160 we're well over 210 now without land So with land you're pushing, you know closer to 250 00:33:17.506 --> 00:33:25.050 - That's really hard to do to do an affordable unit at that kind of pricing and that pricing is cheap 00:33:25.050 --> 00:33:32.594 - compared to the rest of the rest of the US and Cheap compared to some places here in Indiana, which 00:33:32.594 --> 00:33:41.118 - is shocking Yeah, I would love to hear from staff about this are there some other ideas for what could go beyond 00:33:42.722 --> 00:33:48.758 - Yes certainly there are a lot of ideas there are lots of developments that have come forward with that 00:33:48.758 --> 00:33:54.735 - diverse housing you know a mix of mixed use or apartments and owner occupied or attaching a family or 00:33:54.735 --> 00:34:00.830 - you know some some mix of those and so that was you know certainly what the Plain Commission evaluated. 00:34:00.962 --> 00:34:06.620 - when this came forward was, you know, here is a project that had a good mix of rentals as well as other 00:34:06.620 --> 00:34:12.169 - buildings that would be condoized with the hope that some of them or a lot of them could be sold with 00:34:12.169 --> 00:34:17.773 - the requirement that at least one of them be sold. So you could certainly still pursue something along 00:34:17.773 --> 00:34:23.594 - that avenue where, you know, a certain percentage of these can still be, still would have to be condoized, 00:34:23.594 --> 00:34:27.294 - you know, certainly pursue, you know, a different number other than 00:34:27.426 --> 00:34:33.441 - or I'm sorry, require a unit to be sold or two units or three units. You know, that's lots of options. 00:34:33.441 --> 00:34:39.338 - Certainly, you know, what the Planning Commission can do is react to what the petitioner is bringing 00:34:39.338 --> 00:34:45.294 - forward. So this is what they have brought forward. And so it's, you know, on the Planning Commission 00:34:45.294 --> 00:34:51.134 - to then evaluate if we feel like this is, you know, this amendment is still in keeping with what we 00:34:51.134 --> 00:34:56.798 - want to accomplish within PUDs. You know, again, going back to the language that is, was in the, 00:34:57.154 --> 00:35:03.795 - UDO at that time is, you know, is there a demonstrated public benefit that is unique to this PUD that 00:35:03.795 --> 00:35:10.370 - is being accomplished by the granting of the PUD? You know, that's the hard evaluation. You know, if 00:35:10.370 --> 00:35:16.946 - it came forward today, there would be different standards, certainly a lot higher standards in terms 00:35:16.946 --> 00:35:23.782 - of expectations for buildings and diversity and, you know, a single-use PUD would not be approved today. 00:35:23.782 --> 00:35:25.214 - Yep, okay, thank you. 00:35:26.818 --> 00:35:34.828 - The other comment I wanted to make clear is that even though I am asking to drop the sale of those of 00:35:34.828 --> 00:35:42.680 - that one unit three beds Those three beds aren't lost those three beds will be affordable It's just 00:35:42.680 --> 00:35:50.847 - the for sale component is gone because there's it makes no sense for me to break out three in apartment 00:35:50.847 --> 00:35:56.030 - units in this three-story building to sell they're just it's it's 00:35:56.226 --> 00:36:03.652 - I mean, I understand that the business sense that changed economic conditions, but that the part that 00:36:03.652 --> 00:36:11.151 - I'm wrestling with is what's the What is the equal public benefit here when we first can when we first 00:36:11.151 --> 00:36:18.650 - made this agreement it was under very different conditions and I don't want to I'm not willing to just 00:36:18.650 --> 00:36:25.566 - renege on the commitment for the owner-occupied and other things I understand that predicament 00:36:25.762 --> 00:36:33.457 - You're in and what you've described, but I don't want to lose those dimensions so easily I mean, I know 00:36:33.457 --> 00:36:40.857 - it hasn't been easy for you. So no I respect that we really wanted to be done with this development 00:36:40.857 --> 00:36:48.256 - in 2023 and now we're Two-thirds not even quite two-thirds done in 20 at the end of 2026. It's been 00:36:48.256 --> 00:36:54.398 - incredibly frustrating and expensive so Any additional questions for commissioners 00:36:56.130 --> 00:37:06.970 - Why why is it important for you guys to have a decision tonight specifically Because I'm finishing up 00:37:06.970 --> 00:37:18.022 - The second phase and I would like to start planning the third and sort of get it over with I've delayed 00:37:18.022 --> 00:37:22.910 - now two different developments one of them is 00:37:23.586 --> 00:37:30.134 - My wife's wedding venue in Nashville now we've been delayed two years because of this develop actually 00:37:30.134 --> 00:37:36.491 - more than two years because of this development and I need to get it done to be honest and I mean I 00:37:36.491 --> 00:37:42.848 - Would love for it to be to be handled in this meeting if we have to go to a second we have to go to 00:37:42.848 --> 00:37:49.396 - a second it is it's not an all-or-nothing for me, but I have as an example it took the city a year and 00:37:49.396 --> 00:37:52.638 - a half to give me a permit for my second phase and 00:37:54.274 --> 00:38:01.381 - a year and a half So I have been waiting it took seven months to get the permit for the first phase 00:38:01.381 --> 00:38:08.631 - so I've gone literally more than two years waiting for permits and I'm like I'm kind of over it to be 00:38:08.631 --> 00:38:16.023 - honest, and I just need to get this development done So I can go off and do other commitments that I've 00:38:16.023 --> 00:38:22.206 - had So yeah, ideally I'd love for it to hand to be handled in this in this meeting and 00:38:23.682 --> 00:38:32.632 - Did you just say it took 18 months? It took it took almost exactly 400 days from application to when 00:38:32.632 --> 00:38:41.670 - I got the permit I applied for the permit the 4th of January 2024 and I know I did that because I had 00:38:41.670 --> 00:38:50.974 - to fly to fill to the Philippines to say goodbye to my 97 year old grandmother and then I got the permit 00:38:50.974 --> 00:38:53.278 - in August of last year so 00:38:53.794 --> 00:38:59.666 - Of course this body can't really control permitting in any way, but I know that that has been a big 00:38:59.666 --> 00:39:00.958 - topic of conversation 00:39:01.090 --> 00:39:06.768 - House for staff. So I guess this is a question for staff and because in terms of like like I don't want 00:39:06.768 --> 00:39:12.337 - to be rushed about this I actually reached out to the council members who are still currently serving 00:39:12.337 --> 00:39:18.014 - who were also serving in 2019 and I want to be able to give them a chance to Give some feedback on this 00:39:18.014 --> 00:39:23.529 - because of course this has to go to council to you, right? But I certainly don't want you to have to 00:39:23.529 --> 00:39:29.534 - wait excessive amounts of time for permitting if that's like part of your calculus here so can staff speak to 00:39:29.634 --> 00:39:36.698 - What has been done to hopefully ease some of those permitting issues that he has had over the last couple 00:39:36.698 --> 00:39:43.562 - of years so that Whatever decision gets made about this that will not be Such an issue moving forward. 00:39:43.562 --> 00:39:45.694 - I can cross my fingers and hope 00:39:46.018 --> 00:39:52.786 - Yeah, so one of the lengthier aspects that was involved in that time period was just the discussion 00:39:52.786 --> 00:39:59.824 - and resolution about a possible phasing plan that was referenced with the petition. There was a phasing 00:39:59.824 --> 00:40:06.795 - plan that was referenced in the petitioner statement, but there was no actual exhibit. So when it came 00:40:06.795 --> 00:40:11.262 - time to have temporary occupancy given for some of the buildings, 00:40:11.874 --> 00:40:16.431 - There was only a portion of the development that was done and we didn't have an exhibit for our enforcement 00:40:16.431 --> 00:40:20.650 - folks to look at and say, okay, you know, this is what was supposed to be done with phase one. This 00:40:20.650 --> 00:40:23.646 - is what was supposed to be done with phase two. So there was a lot of. 00:40:24.098 --> 00:40:30.260 - conversation and then eventually an exhibit was submitted by the petitioner that we approved in order 00:40:30.260 --> 00:40:36.725 - to allow for some of those occupancies to move forward. At this point, all of the site development permits 00:40:36.725 --> 00:40:43.068 - have been issued. There just need to be a small revision if this amendment was approved to reflect going 00:40:43.068 --> 00:40:49.351 - from two buildings to one building. But for the most part, the major bulk of the permit review has been 00:40:49.351 --> 00:40:53.822 - done other than obviously the two building permits or one building permit 00:40:54.114 --> 00:41:00.232 - Depending on the resolution of this amendment. Okay, so you wouldn't anticipate a Delay like that. I 00:41:00.232 --> 00:41:06.350 - would certainly hope not. I don't see any reason that there would be a significant significant delay 00:41:06.350 --> 00:41:12.589 - of any sort Okay, and so is that like that's like your general concern back to the petitioner in terms 00:41:12.589 --> 00:41:18.647 - of handling this tonight to be able to get through City Council to Because you're you're looking at 00:41:18.647 --> 00:41:23.614 - it as starting a permit clock that's gonna right at minimum take seven months and 00:41:24.002 --> 00:41:31.798 - Well, I mean if you do the average it's gonna be a year, right? Well, that's why I said and that's why 00:41:31.798 --> 00:41:39.518 - I wanted to I wanted to get moving with it because Yeah, I've literally had to delay two developments 00:41:39.518 --> 00:41:47.767 - one of which is my wife's For more than two years to get this development done. Okay Thank you. I appreciate 00:41:47.767 --> 00:41:49.054 - that information 00:41:51.010 --> 00:41:59.984 - Other questions to you should I keep going because they're if you got more please continue I Guess I 00:41:59.984 --> 00:42:08.959 - want to understand a little bit about this Original PUD and why it was a PUD in terms of and so this 00:42:08.959 --> 00:42:17.844 - is maybe more of a staff question in terms of like what made it unable to be developed as it was at 00:42:17.844 --> 00:42:19.710 - the time in terms of 00:42:19.938 --> 00:42:27.516 - Udo stuff and so, you know like right now I kind of think of a PUD is like, you know They that the petitioner 00:42:27.516 --> 00:42:34.543 - gets extra stuff and in return the city gets extra stuff So if right now the city was supposed to get 00:42:34.543 --> 00:42:41.501 - this owner occupancy some affordability What did the petitioner get for that that was extra? Yep, so 00:42:41.501 --> 00:42:48.734 - this so when this was initially established as a mobile home park I think in the late 70s mid 70s it was 00:42:49.058 --> 00:42:56.168 - rezoned as a planned Development at that time. So when the petitioner bought the property, it was already 00:42:56.168 --> 00:43:02.875 - zoned as a PD So they amended that PD the list of uses in order to allow in order to allow for this 00:43:02.875 --> 00:43:09.650 - With the PD amendment. They had a district ordinance that approved some additional parking spaces as 00:43:09.650 --> 00:43:13.406 - well as some additional impervious surface coverage and 00:43:13.858 --> 00:43:19.117 - But so that was you know, I guess really in essence obviously at that time they could have chose to 00:43:19.117 --> 00:43:24.533 - rezone it to a current zoning district at that time they would have still I think had a challenge with 00:43:24.533 --> 00:43:29.792 - the impervious surface and the maximum number of parking spaces or actually it's probably a minimum 00:43:29.792 --> 00:43:32.158 - number of parking spaces at that time and so 00:43:32.514 --> 00:43:39.901 - You know in today's world they could probably rezone it to a multifamily district and none of these 00:43:39.901 --> 00:43:47.287 - things would Be an issue. Obviously they would still have to release the PUD so they would still be 00:43:47.287 --> 00:43:55.117 - in a situation of The current PUD standards whether they amend it or they rezone it to a current district 00:43:55.117 --> 00:44:01.470 - Okay, so the petitioner probably got at the time less impervious surface Requirements 00:44:05.090 --> 00:44:17.675 - Okay, that's very interesting Oh, I know the other thing I was well I need a minute so somebody else 00:44:17.675 --> 00:44:30.635 - can go So that's all your questions I just need a minute so somebody else can go because I need to like 00:44:30.635 --> 00:44:34.622 - so I have like 12 notes on here 00:44:34.722 --> 00:44:42.871 - All right, I'll ask just a follow-up. So the neighboring parcels are zoned RM today. Is that correct? 00:44:42.871 --> 00:44:50.860 - Yeah, the parcel to the west is zoned RM. I think the parcel to the north is zoned RH. Give me just 00:44:50.860 --> 00:44:59.168 - a second. I can verify that. Yeah, no, that's correct. That's what I'm seeing on the map. And obviously 00:44:59.168 --> 00:45:00.766 - there's PUD for the 00:45:01.026 --> 00:45:09.497 - The cattle impede. Yeah, the Novo Nord is to the east and south is the neighbor the neighboring there's 00:45:09.497 --> 00:45:17.723 - RM. I mean to if If this weren't a PUD probably would be RM. Yeah RM or RH. Yes, and if this were RM 00:45:17.723 --> 00:45:22.366 - what's being proposed here would be allowed by right and 00:45:23.682 --> 00:45:30.330 - Most likely I'd have to look at the height of the buildings I think it's three stories or 40 feet so 00:45:30.330 --> 00:45:37.045 - they might be close on that but more or less it'd be very similar So why wouldn't we just rezone this 00:45:37.045 --> 00:45:43.693 - to RM Well again, so, you know the petitioner brought forward an amendment They could have obviously 00:45:43.693 --> 00:45:50.407 - brought forward an amendment to just rezone it to RM or RH But you know again, we're just reacting to 00:45:50.407 --> 00:45:52.382 - what has been brought forward 00:45:53.698 --> 00:46:00.799 - Would the petitioner like to respond to that? Is there some advantage to keeping it as a PUD as opposed 00:46:00.799 --> 00:46:07.764 - to rezoning to RM? I think that we wanted to also show you that all of the commitments and everything 00:46:07.764 --> 00:46:14.728 - in the PUD were still being committed to We're not interested in changing the entirety of the project 00:46:14.728 --> 00:46:17.118 - and some of the interesting unique 00:46:18.018 --> 00:46:24.742 - You got with this PD not only what we got but what the community got including things green features 00:46:24.742 --> 00:46:31.600 - and a community garden that At that time we wanted to show everyone that we're committing to something 00:46:31.600 --> 00:46:38.324 - and not just Apartments and I think we'd still like to show everybody that that's what we would like 00:46:38.324 --> 00:46:45.182 - to do with the exception of what we talked about with getting rid of certain units and adding them and 00:46:45.474 --> 00:46:52.575 - Changing that one piece in the commitment number five. So if it were a rezoned RM those commitments 00:46:52.575 --> 00:46:59.817 - would Would go away. You wouldn't have to maintain that community garden anymore potentially It would 00:46:59.817 --> 00:47:07.486 - matter. I guess how City Council would word that but potentially Yeah, okay. Thanks Commissioner Stossberg. 00:47:07.486 --> 00:47:12.030 - Thank you. I figured it out. Um, I just want to talk about that 00:47:12.194 --> 00:47:20.029 - affordability requirements again for a minute because and this is another one of these like This was 00:47:20.029 --> 00:47:28.407 - under an entirely different UDO. So I feel like I have to learn a lot about that So and so this is probably 00:47:28.407 --> 00:47:34.846 - a question for staff in terms of how was affordability kind of guaranteed And then 00:47:35.554 --> 00:47:41.967 - Can you just go over what this change or potential change would do to the affordability? Like I mean, 00:47:41.967 --> 00:47:48.507 - I understand the owner occupancy change piece but in terms of you know, we're Gonna then guarantee that 00:47:48.507 --> 00:47:55.486 - how many of these are gonna be affordable and I appreciate what the petitioner said about like it already like 00:47:57.058 --> 00:48:03.205 - It's not market rate, but it's the rate that you plan to rent it at in terms of your costs already fall 00:48:03.205 --> 00:48:09.175 - into the affordability with the AMI but it's more a question for staff of how we document that or if 00:48:09.175 --> 00:48:15.382 - we document that and Yeah, so it would be certainly a condition of approval and then a zoning commitment 00:48:15.382 --> 00:48:21.352 - that would be written up signed and recorded And is that the way it was before like I mean right now 00:48:21.352 --> 00:48:25.726 - it's kind of one of those easy like 15% of units have to be you know, the 00:48:25.922 --> 00:48:31.404 - For the tier one have to you know meet certain requirements. So is it something like that? Like can 00:48:31.404 --> 00:48:37.270 - you just yes, and it was 90% there before it just did not get recorded. Okay, so it was It was a condition 00:48:37.270 --> 00:48:43.246 - of approval that the petitioner continued to work with staff to come up with a Affordable housing commitment 00:48:43.246 --> 00:48:48.728 - for this project. They did that they came up with the zoning commitment They signed it, but it just 00:48:48.728 --> 00:48:54.430 - never got okay. Tell me what that actual zoning commitment was like what percentage below what am I's I 00:48:54.786 --> 00:49:03.978 - It was here and let me go back and I can put it on the screen off the top of your head It was 15 while 00:49:03.978 --> 00:49:13.080 - I'm working on that. I'll just kind of go from memory. It was 15% of the units 10% of the units would 00:49:13.080 --> 00:49:22.183 - be My memories wonderful, but not perfect It's like I think I kind of read this somewhere but I don't 00:49:22.183 --> 00:49:24.414 - know where it is anymore 00:49:26.050 --> 00:49:33.465 - So the owner agrees to designate 15% of the bedrooms for workforce housing 10% of the bedroom shall 00:49:33.465 --> 00:49:40.880 - be offered and rented to anyone earning up to 100% of the AMI 5% of the bedroom shall be offered to 00:49:40.880 --> 00:49:48.370 - anyone earning up to 120 AMI Rents for the affordable housing units shall be no more than 25% of the 00:49:48.370 --> 00:49:54.302 - income of an individual earning 80% of the AMI I'm sorry say the last one again 00:49:54.882 --> 00:50:05.434 - Rents for the affordable housing units shall be no more than 25% of the income of an individual earning 00:50:05.434 --> 00:50:16.492 - 80% of AMI Yeah, and that's what we've operated it since day one on the first phase So the zoning commitment 00:50:16.492 --> 00:50:22.174 - is in the packet just for everyone's awareness Okay, so 00:50:24.546 --> 00:50:33.275 - And so then I'm assuming these these additional 24 units would fall under the same Guidelines correct 00:50:33.275 --> 00:50:41.834 - And so one of the arguments to not doing the condos is because like in theory you could build those 00:50:41.834 --> 00:50:45.086 - but you would you like not be able to 00:50:46.242 --> 00:50:53.071 - Meet this affordability standard with them or the way that it's phrased Eric would he be able to say 00:50:53.071 --> 00:50:59.900 - like make other things? Affordable and then these not affordable in terms of shifting like which 10% 00:50:59.900 --> 00:51:07.134 - or 5% or whatever Served those so the zoning commitment initially just covered all of the units within the 00:51:07.266 --> 00:51:13.140 - Development as a whole so where those are located would be up to the petitioner, you know this amendment 00:51:13.140 --> 00:51:19.239 - directed specifically the one bedrooms that at least I believe three of those would be Within the affordable 00:51:19.239 --> 00:51:25.001 - housing workforce housing requirement and a petitioner can correct me if I know that's correct. That's 00:51:25.001 --> 00:51:30.652 - correct Okay, and so what would happen with this kind of like it's the affordable housing units must 00:51:30.652 --> 00:51:36.638 - be no more than 25% of the incomes of the individuals part that is like because that that's different than 00:51:37.570 --> 00:51:43.750 - what we do now doesn't talk about that specifically. And so one of the things I'm remembering is, I 00:51:43.750 --> 00:51:49.991 - don't know, a year ago when I was messing with the AMI stuff and changing those in the UDO and I was 00:51:49.991 --> 00:51:56.418 - looking at some of the charts and there were some folks renting affordable apartments, but their actual 00:51:56.418 --> 00:52:02.659 - incomes were, say, the 33rd percentile, but they were still getting charged at the 120% AMI. So that 00:52:02.659 --> 00:52:03.710 - would make their 00:52:03.842 --> 00:52:12.406 - Income far exceed or sorry their rent far exceed the 25% of their income. So in terms of like your policies 00:52:12.406 --> 00:52:20.416 - and procedures so like you actually like like manage I have affordable. Yeah, I do we we manage only 00:52:20.416 --> 00:52:28.584 - what we own and I already have an affordability component and other developments that we've done since 00:52:28.584 --> 00:52:29.694 - 2017 okay, so 00:52:29.954 --> 00:52:37.070 - Do you do kind of like when you're assessing say a tenant is that kind of like a rent-blind? Assessment 00:52:37.070 --> 00:52:44.049 - like you're looking at their application and going yeah, they sound great And then they're gonna fall 00:52:44.049 --> 00:52:51.233 - into this but you know, they make 50% of AMI which means that their rents would be even less than right, 00:52:51.233 --> 00:52:54.654 - so when they call in the leasing consultants will 00:52:54.882 --> 00:53:03.928 - we'll tell them, hey, we have an affordability component in this development, and this is the range, 00:53:03.928 --> 00:53:13.153 - and if you want us to email to you what the ranges are so that you know where you fall, then they send 00:53:13.153 --> 00:53:19.422 - that. Hand does an annual check through all of our current affordable 00:53:20.130 --> 00:53:27.321 - Units and checks, you know spot checks leases versus and applications versus what what? What income 00:53:27.321 --> 00:53:35.231 - they have? Okay. I guess I'm I'm just kind of checking that you're not Say doing affordability discrimination 00:53:35.231 --> 00:53:42.638 - in terms of that 25% of their you know that you're not saying like oh well, I better not you know rent 00:53:42.638 --> 00:53:49.470 - to somebody whose income is not high enough, you know, they also have to pass a a credit check 00:53:49.602 --> 00:53:57.965 - And that's you know, if you pass a pass a credit check I trust then you are interested in keeping it 00:53:57.965 --> 00:54:06.411 - keeping it up and you're going to pay the rent that is Required by the agreement that we have between 00:54:06.411 --> 00:54:14.774 - us the city and the and the resident And in fact to be honest, I don't think we've ever had an issue 00:54:14.774 --> 00:54:18.334 - with with our affordable units and someone 00:54:18.594 --> 00:54:25.705 - Not paying and we're have we've had to go to To small claims. I don't think it's happened And do you 00:54:25.705 --> 00:54:32.957 - yet section eight vouchers to I'm sorry. Do you accept section eight? No, we don't do that program I'm 00:54:32.957 --> 00:54:40.349 - sorry. Well, no, we don't do that program as of yet. Okay. Okay. Thanks All right, I think I'm following 00:54:40.349 --> 00:54:48.094 - here when the petitioner said that number that number five the rental commitment was being maintained is that 00:54:48.418 --> 00:54:56.883 - That's correct. The only thing that's changing is number seven. Okay, so and and I guess Yeah to me 00:54:56.883 --> 00:55:05.602 - that's a substantial commitment. It's you know, I guess if I'm adding the percentage is 30% Commitment 00:55:05.602 --> 00:55:14.405 - to some sort of affordable Unit between the 15% at at workforce housing 10% at 100% of the AMI and then 00:55:14.405 --> 00:55:16.606 - five more percent offered 00:55:16.802 --> 00:55:27.224 - to rent to anyone up to 120% of the AMI. So that 30% commitment to some level of affordability will 00:55:27.224 --> 00:55:37.749 - be applied and extended to all. Well, I was just adding all up. There's some level of affordability. 00:55:37.749 --> 00:55:41.918 - So I mean, in total, I think, and there 00:55:42.434 --> 00:55:49.844 - with this change, there are like 160 total beds in that development. 24 of them will be affordable. 00:55:49.844 --> 00:55:57.329 - Somebody, now I need to do a percentage, don't I? All right. You can check my math. When I looked at 00:55:57.329 --> 00:56:04.887 - it last time. I'm just trying to make sure that we're maintaining the percentage. 100%. Affordable in 00:56:04.887 --> 00:56:06.814 - the new extension. Right. 00:56:07.618 --> 00:56:15.340 - So, you know there were 30 beds before with the condos I'm going down to 24 and of those 24 3 are going 00:56:15.340 --> 00:56:22.840 - to be affordable So in fact There are more if you want to do if you're looking at ratios, there'd be 00:56:22.840 --> 00:56:30.414 - a slightly higher ratio of affordable Now versus what was approved in those condos because there were 00:56:30.414 --> 00:56:35.166 - 30 beds and not 24. Yeah, but I mean it's not a huge difference 00:56:42.786 --> 00:56:50.792 - I would like to clarify that 15% versus 30% because the way that I was reading it was that the 15% is 00:56:50.792 --> 00:56:58.955 - broken up into 10% as this category and 5% is this category and they total to be 13 15 not that there's 00:56:58.955 --> 00:57:04.606 - 30% affordable 15% affordable. Okay. I just wanted to make sure mark we 00:57:08.322 --> 00:57:15.937 - Yes, correct. I mean it's 15% is the total and then of that 15% it's broken down into those Categories, 00:57:15.937 --> 00:57:23.626 - you know 80 100 120 percent, right? Right, but it's only it's 15% of total correct. Like so like I said, 00:57:23.626 --> 00:57:31.021 - I'd like the whole development I think is 160 beds. It's 15% of that which I think is 24. Yeah I got 00:57:31.021 --> 00:57:33.950 - a finance degree not a math degree, but 00:57:40.802 --> 00:57:47.737 - Last call for questions from commissioners. All right, we will then go to public comment. Doesn't look 00:57:47.737 --> 00:57:54.605 - like there's anyone here to make public comment in the chambers, but if you are joining us online and 00:57:54.605 --> 00:58:01.540 - you would like to make comment, just click on that reaction button, click raise hand or send a message 00:58:01.540 --> 00:58:06.590 - to the meeting host and we'll recognize you when it is your turn to speak. 00:58:13.218 --> 00:58:23.166 - Seeing any hands online Okay last call for public comment All right, then we are back to the Commission 00:58:23.166 --> 00:58:32.826 - for any final comments or a motion as a reminder the Staff Recommendation is that we deny the waiver 00:58:32.826 --> 00:58:40.574 - of a second hearing and forward this to a second hearing at our December meeting 00:58:49.634 --> 00:58:55.749 - Personally be inclined to Grant the waiver of the second hearing and go ahead and vote on this tonight 00:58:55.749 --> 00:59:01.805 - I don't know that I have any more questions or I'm gonna gain anything by waiting another month on it 00:59:01.805 --> 00:59:07.742 - But this the required recording that it's a small thing, but it's it's bothersome. That's that's an 00:59:07.742 --> 00:59:12.670 - issue I realize it's still binding on you guys. It's a contract if you sell it and 00:59:12.962 --> 00:59:18.463 - Good-faith purchaser very likely is not bound by it So all those affordability requirements everything 00:59:18.463 --> 00:59:23.910 - and it would go away if it's not recorded Is there something why isn't it recorded or some reason you 00:59:23.910 --> 00:59:29.358 - can't record it now? I mean how quickly could you have it recorded and binding? No, honestly I signed 00:59:29.358 --> 00:59:34.859 - it and I blasted it off to people in the city and to my team and I thought I had been I Didn't realize 00:59:34.859 --> 00:59:40.413 - that it had not been recorded until we were doing this and it came back to us but there's an email with 00:59:40.413 --> 00:59:41.214 - me with it and 00:59:41.442 --> 00:59:47.751 - Being sent to everyone in the city and also my legal and and our engineer. It was just an oversight 00:59:47.751 --> 00:59:54.124 - I mean I've I agree with you I agree with you, you know You can I could sell it and it would be very 00:59:54.124 --> 01:00:00.560 - difficult to for the city to claw it back And it needs to happen and it will certainly happen. I also 01:00:00.560 --> 01:00:07.058 - have never I haven't sold anything since 2007 I had a plan to have my daughters fight over All of this 01:00:07.058 --> 01:00:10.718 - and let them figure it out, but I agree it has to be done 01:00:11.042 --> 01:00:16.466 - And it will be done. I guess point is if we were to vote on it, can we attach that? I mean, it's already 01:00:16.466 --> 01:00:21.788 - a requirement that you record it You were supposed to do it already and it didn't happen. So attaching 01:00:21.788 --> 01:00:27.005 - another requirement that you recorded We would want to have a new zoning commitment that encompasses 01:00:27.005 --> 01:00:32.275 - what has been stated by the petitioner tonight so that there is one unified zoning commitment for the 01:00:32.275 --> 01:00:37.699 - property rather than two separate ones because the zoning commitment that is in the packet now obviously 01:00:37.699 --> 01:00:38.526 - doesn't include 01:00:38.626 --> 01:00:46.399 - The language that has been suggested tonight. Okay, so it'd be something different to be recorded. 01:00:46.399 --> 01:00:54.330 - Yeah Okay, so you're gonna get a second chance to Yeah, yeah, so we would have a new one draw up and 01:00:54.330 --> 01:01:02.653 - then that would be recorded to synopsize everything Okay, that's my comment. Thank you any other comments 01:01:02.653 --> 01:01:08.542 - or emotion Mr. Smith Dwellings has been around Bloomington for a long time 01:01:08.994 --> 01:01:16.104 - I probably first met mark in 1993 as a civil engineer They they are probably the only local developer 01:01:16.104 --> 01:01:23.284 - that did not go after the student market They build really high quality projects. I drove through here 01:01:23.284 --> 01:01:30.255 - today because I've not been up there probably five years These buildings even at these price points 01:01:30.255 --> 01:01:35.134 - look better than anything were thrown up on 10th Street right now and 01:01:35.266 --> 01:01:41.752 - Even having a lead, you know community building. It's it's a nice building I'm I agree with earlier 01:01:41.752 --> 01:01:48.561 - comments that the only change this is one Probably at minimum half million dollar condo that's not going 01:01:48.561 --> 01:01:55.112 - to go up for sale today 2400 square feet three store. That's an expensive structure That is the only 01:01:55.112 --> 01:02:01.792 - change so I think we should send this with a positive recommendation with the waiver of second reading 01:02:01.792 --> 01:02:04.062 - and and and then and then add that 01:02:04.866 --> 01:02:11.583 - zoning commitment to be a revised sign and recorded similar to what was written with just the one for 01:02:11.583 --> 01:02:18.168 - sale taken out based on this statement, so These are these guys are a great asset to our community. 01:02:18.168 --> 01:02:24.951 - I've done a great job here for a long long time and I think we be respectful to move along in a timely 01:02:24.951 --> 01:02:26.334 - manner Mr. Stossberg 01:02:28.898 --> 01:02:36.528 - I agree in large part, but I'm a little concerned because the staff report doesn't have any proposed 01:02:36.528 --> 01:02:44.158 - findings. So could staff like comment on Like how we would do this or whether we can do this without 01:02:44.158 --> 01:02:52.015 - proposed Findings because usually the staff report kind of provides those proposed findings for us very 01:02:52.015 --> 01:02:58.814 - specifically in these different categories So what would need to happen? Yep, so you have 01:02:58.978 --> 01:03:07.766 - Two choices. One, you can obviously continue this to December. We can put forward a staff report that 01:03:07.766 --> 01:03:16.468 - has findings. Second choice is you can take the findings that were done with the initial approval in 01:03:16.468 --> 01:03:25.859 - 2019, and we would need to modify some of those to just address the specific language within this amendment, 01:03:25.859 --> 01:03:28.702 - depending on Plaint Commission's 01:03:28.866 --> 01:03:36.532 - appetite for either of those two. I have made some chicken scratchings on my paper to address which 01:03:36.532 --> 01:03:44.504 - amendments or which criteria would need to be amended, so it's kind of up to Plaint Commission of which 01:03:44.504 --> 01:03:52.246 - path you would like to go. Certainly this would be a prime candidate for consent agenda in December, 01:03:52.246 --> 01:03:58.302 - so I have no doubt that we'd be able to get this through really expeditiously. 01:03:58.562 --> 01:04:11.198 - Three ish Are you comfortable presenting them? I'm sorry. Are you comfortable presenting them to us? 01:04:11.198 --> 01:04:23.710 - Yes, sure certainly love to hear it so if you want and so what I would urge you to do then is go to 01:04:23.710 --> 01:04:26.462 - the the ordinance and 01:04:26.690 --> 01:04:34.507 - That is in your packet that came from council that had the entirety of the initial Playing Commission 01:04:34.507 --> 01:04:42.323 - report in it And I can just kind of read through the findings that I have written So in the first one 01:04:42.323 --> 01:04:50.523 - criteria first criteria the extent to which the proposed preliminary plan meets the requirements standards 01:04:50.523 --> 01:04:52.286 - and stated purpose and 01:04:52.642 --> 01:04:59.040 - The findings would read this petition meets the requirements for planned unit development and Accomplishes 01:04:59.040 --> 01:05:05.438 - the purposes of a PUD by providing an affordable housing component not otherwise accomplished The proposed 01:05:05.438 --> 01:05:11.597 - amendment to this PD would allow for residential uses a higher density in an area immediately adjacent 01:05:11.597 --> 01:05:15.902 - to major area employers the second one the extent to which the proposed 01:05:16.098 --> 01:05:24.640 - Preliminary plan departs from the unified development ordinance for finding proposed findings would 01:05:24.640 --> 01:05:34.037 - read the current PUD Limits the site to 35 unit mobile home park the proposed amendment would not significant 01:05:34.037 --> 01:05:42.750 - would not depart significantly from the original PUD remainder language to all stay as is Criteria 10 01:05:43.234 --> 01:05:50.442 - The proposal is an effective and unified treatment of the development possibilities on the PUD site. 01:05:50.442 --> 01:05:57.864 - In essence, striking sentences two and three that say the current PUD allows for a maximum of 35 mobile 01:05:57.864 --> 01:06:05.358 - homes and does not offer additional amenities. Striking the second sentence, the petitioner is proposing 01:06:05.358 --> 01:06:08.926 - to amend the existing PUD to allow for 114 units. 01:06:09.090 --> 01:06:19.245 - which includes 10 single family units, which will be sold individually. I did not identify that any 01:06:19.245 --> 01:06:29.807 - of the remaining language would be problematic. And then conditions of approval would stay, yeah, would 01:06:29.807 --> 01:06:34.174 - stay as is in a condition of approval six. 01:06:36.482 --> 01:06:48.494 - Revised zoning commitments that to staff satisfaction will be submitted So these would be things that 01:06:48.494 --> 01:07:01.566 - would be amended prior to the memo going to the council And then probably striking then in can criteria six is 01:07:01.826 --> 01:07:16.809 - Revising the number of units to reflect the current unit count. I believe petitioner said 120 or 124 01:07:16.809 --> 01:07:31.198 - Yes, 120 for you Yep, so that would be amending criteria 1 criteria 2 criteria 6 and criteria 10 01:07:32.322 --> 01:07:45.192 - With the language that I decided or obviously I can write up a cleaner version and prepare that next 01:07:45.192 --> 01:07:58.316 - time How long would it take you to write that up tonight, yeah It would probably 15 or 20 minutes. Oh, 01:07:58.316 --> 01:08:01.374 - okay Mr. Stossberg good 01:08:01.538 --> 01:08:08.892 - I just want to ask kind of a general question of understanding in terms of the proposed findings. So 01:08:08.892 --> 01:08:16.464 - when For the say new proposed findings They're being based on 2019 right current not on current So when 01:08:16.464 --> 01:08:23.818 - it says things like would allow for residential uses at a higher density in an area immediately It's 01:08:23.818 --> 01:08:30.590 - like well, I don't think that they're actually allowing for uses at a higher density anymore 01:08:30.978 --> 01:08:38.633 - But they were then and so that's still the language that needs to stay No in in a perfect world the 01:08:38.633 --> 01:08:46.287 - word density would probably be removed from this since we no longer regulate density Yeah, and in a 01:08:46.287 --> 01:08:54.172 - perfect world and perfect findings I would remove references to density. Okay, so it's still not wrong 01:08:54.172 --> 01:08:57.310 - right Right. Okay. Okay, so they're so I 01:08:57.954 --> 01:09:06.329 - There could be some updates maybe in terms of language usage, but not necessarily in what is being considered 01:09:06.329 --> 01:09:14.095 - like the underlying underlying like zoning Concepts and UDO and all of those pieces. Yes in a perfect 01:09:14.095 --> 01:09:21.937 - world with better findings for December I would I would clean up a lot of those if we were just trying 01:09:21.937 --> 01:09:27.038 - to ad hoc things tonight to a bare minimum You know, it'd be those 01:09:27.138 --> 01:09:34.559 - Four sections that I reference as the council representative I I would much prefer to have better findings 01:09:34.559 --> 01:09:41.841 - in December than something ad hoc right now because Council would probably receive it a whole lot better 01:09:41.841 --> 01:09:47.806 - if it was More updated Well, wouldn't he write it before he came to common council? I 01:09:50.274 --> 01:09:56.525 - I would write it only and I would only write in what I've presented tonight, you know, I can't change 01:09:56.525 --> 01:10:02.654 - the fine I hear you be hearing tonight that goes to council So it would only be amending the things 01:10:02.654 --> 01:10:09.089 - that I've referenced specifically tonight, right? Well, we what we would be voting on here tonight would 01:10:09.089 --> 01:10:15.340 - be you know adopt findings that we are not looking at in writing and I as much as I want to move this 01:10:15.340 --> 01:10:19.998 - thing along I I've never liked trying to author these things on the fly and 01:10:20.354 --> 01:10:28.110 - I would I Think the appropriate thing to do here is is forward it take the time write those findings 01:10:28.110 --> 01:10:36.096 - Get it on the consent agenda. So it's cruising through the next meeting that seems like the Appropriate 01:10:36.096 --> 01:10:43.775 - thing to do here. I just want to say they're making one change They're taking one for sale unit out 01:10:43.775 --> 01:10:48.382 - of the PD. That's all they're doing nothing else being done 01:10:50.594 --> 01:10:57.213 - And so to delay this a month Because we got to modify finding from 2019 to adjust for one for sale P, 01:10:57.213 --> 01:11:03.703 - you know unit All right. Well, I just I think we should try it. I think there's two I think there's 01:11:03.703 --> 01:11:10.451 - two Ways forward then we can take a little recess and try to write these up so we can actually see what 01:11:10.451 --> 01:11:17.200 - we're voting on Or we can forward it to the next meeting I'm not comfortable taking a vote on something 01:11:17.200 --> 01:11:20.510 - that we haven't even You know looked at in writing 01:11:21.666 --> 01:11:29.853 - Maybe we give them the 20 minutes Mr. Sossberg I'll make a motion and then we can just vote on it and 01:11:29.853 --> 01:11:38.040 - that'll help decide whether or not the majority of people want to do the 20 minutes or not, so I will 01:11:38.040 --> 01:11:46.547 - move To deny the request for the waiver and send this to a required second hearing So that is I'm talking 01:11:46.547 --> 01:11:49.758 - about KCO 2026 dash 10 dash 0 0 1 6 and 01:11:49.890 --> 01:11:57.590 - Sending that to its second hearing at our December plan commission meeting All right. So the motion 01:11:57.590 --> 01:12:05.597 - is to deny the waiver of the second hearing to forward this to a second hearing at the December meeting 01:12:05.597 --> 01:12:13.528 - Is there a second for that motion? Second all right any final discussion on this motion before we call 01:12:13.528 --> 01:12:18.302 - the roll All right, let's call the roll on the motion Seymour 01:12:25.090 --> 01:12:46.626 - Holmes no Can see yes Smith no Stossburg. Yes Whistler No Bishop yes What was that it was four three 01:12:46.626 --> 01:12:54.942 - but it's not four three in favor, yeah 01:12:55.842 --> 01:13:03.176 - But that fails because we needed five. All right. Well We can Make a motion. I'd like to make a motion. 01:13:03.176 --> 01:13:10.370 - Go ahead regarding zio twenty twenty six ten dash zero zero one six based on findings of the original 01:13:10.370 --> 01:13:17.774 - PD recommendations with amended criteria presented by staff in this meeting I move to send this petition 01:13:17.774 --> 01:13:23.134 - to common council the positive recommendation with waiver of second hearing 01:13:23.298 --> 01:13:33.776 - In addition petition to work with staff to modify the affordable housing commitment Removing the one-for-sale 01:13:33.776 --> 01:13:43.302 - unit sign it and this time record it Is there a second for that motion Do we feel what what maybe I 01:13:43.302 --> 01:13:52.542 - would might recommend is Plaint Commission vote on a 15-minute recess So that I can prepare that 01:13:53.634 --> 01:14:02.233 - So that you have clean findings that's simply a suggestion Well, I did say that earlier the motion was 01:14:02.233 --> 01:14:10.832 - to Have it rewritten based on what staff already presented to us and so it can only be rewritten based 01:14:10.832 --> 01:14:13.086 - on what staff already said 01:14:18.178 --> 01:14:25.897 - You're withdrawing your motion. I'll withdraw and make a motion to give staff All right. The motion 01:14:25.897 --> 01:14:33.692 - is to take a 15-minute recess so that staff can write up the proposed findings Is there a second for 01:14:33.692 --> 01:14:41.565 - that motion? All in favor aye any opposed All right motion carries we are recessed for 15 minutes Are 01:14:41.565 --> 01:14:48.126 - ready to reconvene Like to call the order back and call the meeting back to order We 01:14:48.802 --> 01:14:56.381 - were recessed so we could get some new findings. It looks like staff has put those up on the screen. 01:14:56.381 --> 01:15:04.109 - So I'm gonna turn it over to staff to present the findings that they are now proposing. Would you like 01:15:04.109 --> 01:15:11.688 - to run through it, Eric? I'll just read through each of those just to make this hopefully as easy as 01:15:11.688 --> 01:15:16.190 - possible. So criteria one, the extent to which the proposed 01:15:16.418 --> 01:15:22.196 - preliminary plan meets the requirements, standards, and stated purpose of chapter four planned unit 01:15:22.196 --> 01:15:28.494 - development. This petition meets the, oops, sorry, got a problem there. This petition meets the requirements 01:15:28.494 --> 01:15:34.561 - for a planned unit development and accomplishes the purposes of a PUD by providing an affordable housing 01:15:34.561 --> 01:15:40.455 - component that would not otherwise be accomplished. The extent to which the proposed preliminary plan 01:15:40.455 --> 01:15:43.806 - departs from the unified development ordinance provisions 01:15:43.906 --> 01:15:49.225 - findings would be the proposed amendment would not depart significantly from the original PUD and would 01:15:49.225 --> 01:15:54.391 - not otherwise be allowed without amending the original PUD. The proposed deviations from the current 01:15:54.391 --> 01:15:59.966 - PUD are very minimal and still require an affordable housing component consistent with the objectives of the 01:16:00.098 --> 01:16:05.482 - growth policies plan. Criteria three, the extent to which the PUD meets the purposes of the unified 01:16:05.482 --> 01:16:11.082 - development ordinance. The proposed amendment will not substantially alter the standards of the current 01:16:11.082 --> 01:16:16.627 - PUD and are similar to the current RH district and will meet the district's intent. This proposal also 01:16:16.627 --> 01:16:22.442 - provides for non-student centric multifamily housing away from Indiana University. The property is serviced 01:16:22.442 --> 01:16:27.934 - by public transportation. The proposed scale of the buildings within the PUD including this amendment 01:16:28.066 --> 01:16:34.623 - will range from one to three stories and are within the comprehensive plans guideline for the area. 01:16:34.623 --> 01:16:41.835 - Remaining language was unchanged. The petitioner has expressed their desire to include support for affordable 01:16:41.835 --> 01:16:48.917 - housing and has submitted a proposal with this amendment that is consistent with the amended PUD. Condition 01:16:48.917 --> 01:16:53.310 - four did not change or findings four did not change. Finding five. 01:16:53.730 --> 01:17:00.294 - the relationship and compatibility of the proposed preliminary plan to the adjacent properties 01:17:00.294 --> 01:17:07.273 - and neighborhood would not substantially interfere. The approved use within the PUD is a multifamily 01:17:07.273 --> 01:17:14.391 - development and is similar in use to the adjacent properties to the north and west. Remaining findings 01:17:14.391 --> 01:17:20.126 - did not change. Amended condition criteria six simply updated the number of units. 01:17:21.090 --> 01:17:27.994 - Finding seven did not change, finding eight did not change, finding nine, the department finds that 01:17:27.994 --> 01:17:35.244 - the proposal will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. The current 01:17:35.244 --> 01:17:42.286 - PUD allowed for a multifamily residential use and the site with this amendment will continue to allow 01:17:42.286 --> 01:17:47.326 - to provide for, sorry, I should wordsmith that. Yeah, I'll fix that one. 01:17:47.586 --> 01:17:53.611 - And then 10 your proposal is an effective and unified treatment of the development possibilities on 01:17:53.611 --> 01:17:59.817 - the PD site. The amendments to the PD allow for a minor adjustment to the development. The PD included 01:17:59.817 --> 01:18:06.505 - in a included in urban agricultural garden. A similar proposal could be designed on a property within the R.H. 01:18:06.505 --> 01:18:12.048 - district. However an affordable housing provision would not be required or provided with by 01:18:12.048 --> 01:18:16.446 - right development. So sorry. Delete that one. Hold on. What's happening. 01:18:19.042 --> 01:18:27.243 - There's supposed to be conditions there. Give me a second. Oh, yeah, there we go. So two conditions 01:18:27.243 --> 01:18:35.937 - of approval then. Oh, I'm sorry. Two conditions of approval as read. PUD final plan approval is delegated 01:18:35.937 --> 01:18:41.022 - to the planning and transportation department. Condition two. 01:18:41.186 --> 01:18:48.958 - petitioner shall prepare and record a zoning commitment consistent with the submitted petitioner statement 01:18:48.958 --> 01:18:56.222 - and the original PD PD 27-19 So I've amended those criteria I can admit I can certainly email those 01:18:56.222 --> 01:19:03.631 - to folks But I wanted to figure the fastest way is just to have them on the screen so that anybody at 01:19:03.631 --> 01:19:10.750 - home could also see those All right, everyone Seen these now any questions Commissioner Stossberg 01:19:11.138 --> 01:19:17.822 - you just say that you needed a wordsmith up there? Because I was, it's too small for me to read on that 01:19:17.822 --> 01:19:24.313 - screen and then my neck was craned up here and this is just horrible. Could you like put that? Yeah, 01:19:24.313 --> 01:19:25.470 - hold on a second. 01:19:53.986 --> 01:20:00.458 - While he's doing that, let me add with regard to the timely processing, any petitioner who submits the 01:20:00.458 --> 01:20:06.742 - required documentation and drawings to the Planning and Transportation Department, we process those 01:20:06.742 --> 01:20:13.026 - in a timely manner. As long as there are no changes or alterations, there shouldn't be any delay in 01:20:13.026 --> 01:20:14.974 - issuing the necessary permits. 01:20:28.418 --> 01:20:36.105 - Sorry, so the the word smithing was on finding nine So it just needs to say so the criteria the evaluation 01:20:36.105 --> 01:20:43.361 - criteria is that the proposal will not be injurious to the public health safety morals public health 01:20:43.361 --> 01:20:48.606 - safety in general welfare the findings are the department finds that the 01:20:48.738 --> 01:20:55.079 - Proposal will not be injurious to the public health safety or general welfare the current PUD allowed 01:20:55.079 --> 01:21:01.794 - for a multifamily Residential use and the site with this amendment will continue to provide for residential 01:21:01.794 --> 01:21:08.446 - use I Can put that on the screen if you would that would be great. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, hang on a second 01:21:19.874 --> 01:21:26.346 - So as finding number nine, the proposal will not be interest. So the revised findings as shown on the 01:21:26.346 --> 01:21:32.691 - screen, the department finds that the proposal will not be interest to the public health, safety or 01:21:32.691 --> 01:21:39.543 - general welfare. The current PUD allowed for a multifamily residential use and the site with this amendment 01:21:39.543 --> 01:21:42.462 - will continue to provide for residential use. 01:21:43.906 --> 01:21:52.351 - certainly any of these findings of staff is is certainly open to any additional comments or additions 01:21:52.351 --> 01:22:01.375 - or wordsmithing and I can email this if this is Desired yeah, give me a second All right any other questions 01:22:01.375 --> 01:22:09.820 - or suggestions regarding these proposed findings All right, then I think we are ready for a motion to 01:22:09.820 --> 01:22:13.214 - adopt the proposed findings and for this 01:22:13.826 --> 01:22:23.734 - petition I have a question because Proposed finding number 10 was something that got significantly shifted 01:22:23.734 --> 01:22:33.179 - from the beginning and one of the things about the original number 10 talked about parking spaces per 01:22:33.179 --> 01:22:42.531 - bedroom and It and that got taken out entirely with the new 10 So, can you I guess talk a little bit 01:22:42.531 --> 01:22:43.550 - more about 01:22:45.410 --> 01:22:51.338 - That and about the parking. Yeah, I like why did that get taken out? Yeah, I took a lot of that out 01:22:51.338 --> 01:22:57.384 - since the amendment wasn't dealing with that That you know, I tried to tailor these specific findings 01:22:57.384 --> 01:23:03.312 - to just what was involved with this amendment and not the language and the assessment that was with 01:23:03.312 --> 01:23:09.240 - the initial PD So that's why I struck a lot of that language since it seemed to be confusing Like I 01:23:09.240 --> 01:23:13.982 - said, I was just tailoring this specifically to the amendment itself. Give me a 01:23:14.210 --> 01:23:23.719 - Just a second. I can figure out the best way to Well, can you just add this to the like staff report 01:23:23.719 --> 01:23:29.086 - folder or the? Presentation folder or something. Yeah, I 01:23:51.554 --> 01:23:58.046 - So it should be in the public folder that is on the agenda under staff exhibits. 01:24:25.730 --> 01:24:31.650 - Need just a minute to read that. I'm so certainly is it is a you know shared docs if anybody wants to 01:24:31.650 --> 01:24:37.454 - look at that and propose any amendments. You can certainly suggest those and read those out loud so 01:24:37.454 --> 01:24:41.342 - that we can all see and hear them but welcome to make adjustments. 01:25:22.594 --> 01:25:42.935 - Any questions about the proposed findings? If not, then I think we are ready for a motion Commissioner 01:25:42.935 --> 01:25:52.414 - Smith, go ahead Regarding co 20 26-10-0 0 1 6 1 01:25:53.570 --> 01:26:00.328 - Based on findings presented by staff. I move to send This petition to the Common Council positive 01:26:00.328 --> 01:26:07.361 - recommendation with waiver of second hearing with the two conditions as stated by staff All right, so 01:26:07.361 --> 01:26:14.533 - the motion is to adopt the proposed findings and forward to come counsel with a positive recommendation 01:26:14.533 --> 01:26:21.566 - With the two conditions as proposed by staff. Is there a second for that motion? Any final discussion 01:26:23.266 --> 01:26:34.913 - Let's please call the roll on the motion Holmes yes, Kenzie. Yes Smith. Yes Stossburg Yes Whistler, 01:26:34.913 --> 01:26:46.794 - yes Bishop yes seabor yes all right motion carries and that is our final petition for the evening and 01:26:46.794 --> 01:26:52.734 - unless there are other any other announcements and 01:26:53.218 --> 01:26:54.974 - We are adjourned. Thank you, everyone.