Bloomington City Council on Wednesday delayed a final decision relating to the Johnson Creamery apartment building.
Council plans to discuss the issue again June 15, which is the last meeting before a month-long summer recess.
What is going on?
The creamery smokestack has been a major conversation for months, but for a variety of reasons.
Between January and April, the city navigated an unsafe order for Peerless to shorten the stack. At the same time, council designated both structures a local historic district. Most recently, the city ordered AT&T to remove its equipment from the unstable tower.
However, the current issue goes back to the plan commission’s approval of the project in October 2021. The approved building plan sits partially in a public alley that cuts the property in half. During the plan commission meeting, it was unclear if the alley had been vacated. As a result, the approved project was contingent upon whether the alley space belonged to Peerless or the public.
Considering there are no city records for an alley vacation in this site, Peerless needs to get the land vacated by council. If the alley isn’t vacated, property owner Peerless Development would need to redesign the project for a second time.
“That would definitely be a financial setback, and likely we would sell the property and move on,” Peerless founder Michael Cordaro said.
READ MORE: Johnson Creamery apartment project could tumble, developer calls process a nightmare
Cordaro said Peerless filed an insurance claim and should know by the end of next week if it’s entitled to money for its title company’s oversight of the alley. By delaying to June 15, the city administration and Peerless could potentially reach an agreement before council recesses for summer.
Why does the insurance claim matter?
The city wants Peerless Development to spend $250,000-$300,000 to install commemorative artwork in exchange for the public alley. On Wednesday, Cordaro said discussions surrounding the installation were tied to the project’s finances, which is tied to the insurance claim.
City administration said the insurance claim was separate from the alley vacation.
“I’m just trying to better understand the relationship between reaching out to the title company to fix their mistake and going forward on this negotiation with the city,” Bloomington Corporation Counsel Beth Cate said. “Whatever comes from the title insurance company can then help to pay whatever it is they owe.”
Where do council members stand?
Council voted unanimously to postpone the discussion for two weeks. However, several members share different opinions on the topic. The issue in front of council is if handing over public land to a private developer has a greater benefit than maintaining city control.
Councilmember Dave Rollo said he was against vacating the alley.
“If the alley has some utility, I don't think it's leveraging public art,” he said. “I think it should be maintained simply to prevent another gargantuan structure, especially on something as valuable as a public asset as the B-Line Trail.”
READ MORE: Bloomington Plan Commission approves 231-unit complex on northwest side
Councilmember Isabel Piedmont-Smith called the situation a quid pro quo and said she did not see a connection between the request for art and the vacation. She called it an example of why some people claim Bloomington is not friendly to business.
“I usually argue with those people and say, ‘Don't be ridiculous. We love business. Business loves us,’” she said. “But frankly, if you're running a business, you need to make financial plans.”
She said she normally opposed vacations over connectivity concerns but favored this one with or without the art instillation.
“But this particular alley doesn't connect to anything,” she said. “The only benefit I see is that pedestrians could have another way to get to the B-Line, and that option will be preserved with this development.”
Councilmember Ron Smith also called the situation a quid pro quo and asked if Peerless considered affordable housing units. Cordaro said those units were not feasible for the project, and he anticipated rent to be $1,100-$1,200 per month.
The city does not leverage affordable housing because the state forbids inclusionary zoning.
Councilmember Jim Sims called the entire process “messy.” He said Bloomington has a need for housing, but studio apartments for $1,200 each month in the middle of downtown do not serve the public’s benefit.
Councilmember Steve Volan said the issue of affordable housing was germane to the alley vacation.
“We agree that it's really expensive,” Volan said. “But I feel like that whole discussion, as important as it is, is making messier the issue at hand.”
Council will consider the issue again June 15.
