"There are two distinct classes of men ... those who pay taxes and those who receive and live upon taxes." -- Thomas Paine

---

on Draft Two

of the
GROWTH POLICIES PLAN

Submitted by:

The Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce

The Bloomington Economic Development Corporation

The Downtown Bloomington Commission

The Bloomington Board of Realtors

-Working Draft -

October 11, 2001

The following represents the position of the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce, the Bloomington Economic Development Corporation, the Downtown Bloomington Commission, and the Bloomington Board of Realtors- a group that represents the voice of a majority of businesspersons in the community - on seven crucial elements of the Growth Policies Plan (GPP)

DESIGN REVIEW:

Design Review is something we would prefer not to have, as it allows individuals - with subjective opinions - to determine how buildings will or must look. However, the language in the second draft of the GPP is an acceptable compromise between those of us who don't want design review and those who do. According to Draft 2, Design Review will be in the hands of those at the staff level of the planning process; but not in the hands of special interest groups or the public at large.

For the GPP to be successful, it should be recognized that:

• The diversity and charm of the community has thrived without design review

(110 buildings have been renovated, preserving historic integrity, without design review. The current system is working without it.)

• Design by committee does not work. It is inappropriate, unacceptable, and destined to fail.

• Design review stifles creativity.

• Design review adds to the cost of a project.

• Design review makes downtown development more difficult and will force outward growth and urban sprawl.

• Design review must be done at staff level, not by the public.

• Function should be supported over form: the market will play a role in the design and use of a building.

• Existing "tools" should be used to encourage preservation/design, e.g. Historic Preservation Commission, Bloomington Restoration, Inc., HAND, Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana, rather than creating new ones.

• Incentives to encourage preservation/design, e.g., tax abatement, sewer hook-on relief, increased density, set-back variances, etc. should be supported.

CONCURRENCY:

As a planning tool, concurrency provides a means by which communities can force developers to pay for adequate infrastructure capabilities that benefit the public. Concurrency ties development to infrastructure in several ways, and is a technique that can be used to stifle growth. The concept of concurrency is designed to ensure that public services are adequately available concurrent with (i.e., at the same time as) the pace of new development.

For the GPP to be successful, it should be recognized that:

• Developers expect to pay for and install infrastructure that is associated with their private developments, but they should not be expected to pay for existing or new public infrastructure. Public infrastructure costs should be paid for by city government.

• Property owners cannot easily absorb the costs associated with providing infrastructure. The assumption that they can is misguided.

• Developers do not have access to the same funding mechanisms as municipalities, therefore, their costs to provide infrastructure would be higher than those of the City. Developer's costs would inevitably be passed on to the consumer, thus penalizing the consumer.

• Cost (to the City) of maintaining infrastructure concurrency will be exorbitant.

• The GPP doesn't provide any policy for the City's obligation to develop, fund, and maintain public infrastructure. Why are developers singled out?

• Affordable housing would be the first casualty if consumers and owners of low-cost housing have to bear the brunt of infrastructure costs.

• The community should be involved in developing a city infrastructure plan

• Data on sewers, roads, sidewalks, water lines, etc. must be compiled and made public.

• To advance the notion of concurrency without addressing specific funding mechanisms is risky, and resolving this issue "after the fact" would be a lengthy and costly process for all involved.

• Concurrency should not be used to stifle growth. Growth is and must continue to be a function of a free-market society.

• The effects of stunted growth, which would evolve from imposing concurrency, would promote an increase in basic cost of living, and foment an environment in which only those with the highest earning potential can afford to live.

• Tax revenues and other funding mechanisms available to municipalities make them the logical entity to establish and maintain a city's capital infrastructure. Development is a private-sector entity that is driven by market forces. When flourishing, development can and does reinvest portions of its profits in the community.

ZONING PROCESS:

Process refers to the method by which petitioners move through the planning system. If the GPP process and its ensuing ordinances are used to implement the GPP, all stakeholders impacted by the zoning ordinance must have the ability to understand and embrace the procedural process.

For the GPP to be successful, it should be recognized that:

• The zoning application process should be simple and straightforward

• All parties involved need to understand the objective of the zoning ordinance at the time of application

• The process must be reliable, efficient, predictable, and consistent. It should not break down due to bureaucracy or subjective interpretation.

• The process should not put undue financial burden on the applicant

• The process should be streamlined to the extent possible, to eliminate all unnecessary reviews, hearings, etc.

• The process needs to be user-friendly and used as a positive tool to attract business growth, not discourage it.

RETENTION OF EXISTING BUSINESS, PROMOTION OF NEW BUSINESS

The GPP Vision Statement seeks, in part, a "sound economic foundation." Special emphasis is placed on enhancing and developing the downtown area as the core of a vibrant local economy. Quality of life is mostly a function of a vibrant local economy. The two are inextricably linked, if one looks at the impact businesses have on social services, the arts, education, etc. To execute its vision, the GPP must aggressively address financial incentives, zoning incentives and planning incentives, especially to help new and existing small businesses thrive. And, the GPP should endorse capturing increased taxes on new developments to assist with infrastructure costs.

For the GPP to be successful, it should be recognized that:

• Specific funding should be identified for capital projects and for leveraging public capital.

• Viable commercial development opportunities must be identified.

• Commercial activity should continually be tied to compatibility with nearby neighborhoods, a concept that has met with controversy and adversarial proceedings in recent years.

• The plan should not be predominantly focused on residential issues. Development should be permitted depending on its impact on residential uses.

• Balance should not be tipped in favor of residential, environmental and green-space issues over business and development issues, wherever there is potential that these issues will be in conflict.

• Attention must be given to industrial development.

• More implementation measures should be designed to assist businesses in retaining employees or expanding existing business.

COMPACT URBAN FORM

In Bloomington, Compact Urban Form means filling in open areas within the community and expanding tightly at the periphery - and doing so at a slightly higher density than the existing development. It means little if any new commercially zoned land, in favor of reuse of existing, developed commercial sites. It means a strong preference for traditional neighborhoods with grid streets and small lots. The GPP endorses Compact Urban Form, without addressing how it will be achieved. The Compact Urban Form concept will fail without specifics delineated. Vague language, without specific density ranges and locations, does not constitute a plan for action, and is ineffective.

For the GPP to be successful, it must be recognized that:

• Compact Urban Form, an element of the 1991 GPP, hasn't worked, because the structure and framework hasn't been implemented to make it work.

• CUF, as presented in the current iteration of the GPP must not restrict growth and development opportunities, particularly for commercial and multi-family. residential. Heated debates will continue for each development proposal. There is no plan for implementation.

• CUF must not cause reduced growth on the "fringes" or the inability to achieve increased intensity within the planning jurisdiction.

• Decisions must be made about where density will be targeted. The GPP must provide for increasing density in the following zones:

  1. Urban single family

  2. Urban, low multi-family

  3. Urban, high multi-family

  4. Downtown

• Location of commercial activity centers must be determined and placed on the master plan map. Without specific locations, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to get approvals for the activity centers.

• Downtown density must be set at a target range and not be compromised by other issues.

• The Downtown zone should be carefully expanded as proposed in the second draft of the GPP, to increase development intensity to promote the vitality of downtown.

• Incentives must be identified to encourage re-use and upgrading of existing commercial sites.

SANITARY SEWER SERVICE AREA

Concept: The GPP proposes that the City (Plan Commission?) control all sanitary sewer extensions and hook-ons to the City sewage system, in both City and County planning jurisdictions.

For the GPP to be successful, it must be recognized that:

• With the GPP as it is, projects in the County Planning jurisdiction would need to also get City Plan Commission approval to connect to the sanitary sewer, which would create a kind of double jeopardy.

• The City Plan Commission should not be making planning decisions in the County: This will encourage development of septic or other private sewage systems in the County. Accommodation made for private sewage disposal will encourage lower-density development in the County. This would be counter-productive to Compact Urban Form.

• Terminology of GPP should be revised to indicate that the City will work closely with the County on planning issues and extension of sanitary sewers.

DENSITY

Net Density revolves around the calculation of the gross acreage of a parcel versus developable acreage of a parcel, as it relates to density and the number of units that could be built on a site. For example, if a 10-acre parcel is zoned for 5 units an acre, the owner may develop 50 units. If, however, 5 acres of the parcel are determined to be un-developable due to slopes, karst topography, green-space requirements and/or contributions by the owner, then the owner may only develop 25 units (5 acres net (x) 5 units per acre).

For the GPP to be successful, it must be recognized that:

• The proposed Net Density calculation is counterproductive to Compact Urban Form.

• Net Density will down-zone property by reducing density, resulting in higher finished lot costs for housing.

• The vast majority of sites in the City will have some un-developable area and, as a result, owners will be penalized by reduced density.

• Owners will be reluctant to offer green space, tree-preservation areas and other land "give-backs," if those areas are used against them to reduce density.

• The GPP should not include any language that requires calculation of Net Density and its corresponding reduction of density. This is down-zoning, and is against the concept of Compact Urban Density, whereby units are clustered and green space is preserved, without density penalty.