WEBVTT 00:00:00.226 --> 00:00:09.939 - All right. Good evening. Let me call to order this meeting of the city of Bloomington Plan Commission 00:00:09.939 --> 00:00:19.556 - for September 8th 2025 Let me start by giving just a quick preview of our Agenda this evening. There 00:00:19.556 --> 00:00:28.126 - are several petitions that remain tabled that will not be heard tonight SP 24 22 Which is 00:00:28.738 --> 00:00:41.492 - Cutters Kirkwood went to three LLC Also zeo 34-23 those text amendments re relating to sign standards 00:00:41.492 --> 00:00:54.496 - Zeo 01-25 which are text amendments related to Udo regarding affordable housing incentives and sp 28-25 00:00:54.496 --> 00:00:58.622 - which is petition from built LLC 00:00:59.234 --> 00:01:09.418 - property at 1320 South Roger Street. Those all remain continued or tabled, excuse me, and will not be 00:01:09.418 --> 00:01:19.501 - heard tonight. The three petitions we will hear this evening are ZO 20-25 as amended by the council. 00:01:19.501 --> 00:01:29.086 - This is amendments to the UDO tables for a few different areas. ZO 22-25, also council amended, 00:01:29.858 --> 00:01:39.802 - changes to the UDO use table regarding vehicle wash. And then finally, ZO03-25, which are text amendments 00:01:39.802 --> 00:01:49.276 - to the UDO regarding residential rooming house, which we heard at the last meeting as well. So those 00:01:49.276 --> 00:01:53.310 - three petitions will get hearings tonight. 00:01:53.410 --> 00:02:07.536 - We'll start with our little bit of housekeeping before we get into those petitions, but let's start 00:02:07.536 --> 00:02:21.804 - just by calling the roll Homes here Kinsey Here Stossburg here Whistler here all right, we do have a 00:02:21.804 --> 00:02:23.358 - quorum but 00:02:24.162 --> 00:02:32.536 - of one commissioner joining us remotely, which means we'll have to do a roll call vote on anything we 00:02:32.536 --> 00:02:41.075 - take action on tonight. We'll need to do a full roll call vote. And just to remind everyone, we do need 00:02:41.075 --> 00:02:50.270 - five yes votes on any motion. It's not a majority of those who are here, it's a majority of all voting members. 00:02:50.754 --> 00:02:57.560 - little margin for error tonight in the actions that we take. Next up, we will have some minutes to be 00:02:57.560 --> 00:03:04.365 - approved. I believe we have received minutes from the August 11th meeting now, although they did come 00:03:04.365 --> 00:03:11.238 - a little bit late, so I'm not sure if everyone's had a chance to review those. Are there any questions 00:03:11.238 --> 00:03:14.974 - or corrections to those minutes? Commissioner Stosberg. 00:03:15.522 --> 00:03:21.193 - Thank you. Um, I would just really appreciate if the minutes could make a note of the dissenting votes 00:03:21.193 --> 00:03:26.753 - I wasn't here for the last meeting but there were several votes that were not unanimous and so I was 00:03:26.753 --> 00:03:32.369 - it was one of those moments where I was like I want to be reminded of who voted no on these things so 00:03:32.369 --> 00:03:38.094 - I know that council the clerk does that for council meetings like anybody who votes no or abstains they 00:03:38.094 --> 00:03:43.820 - make a special note of those so I don't know if that can be done in these minutes, but I feel like that 00:03:43.820 --> 00:03:45.086 - information is notable 00:03:52.386 --> 00:03:58.380 - Did you want us to amend the minutes that are coming for you tonight to show those dissenting votes 00:03:58.380 --> 00:04:04.433 - or was that a comment just for future minutes? Certainly for future minutes and I mean, I think that 00:04:04.433 --> 00:04:10.427 - it's probably an important part of public record So I think probably in terms of tonight's it would 00:04:10.427 --> 00:04:16.540 - be Beneficial if you want to continue that we can amend those minutes and then bring you forward next 00:04:16.540 --> 00:04:22.174 - week or next month. I mean, okay. Thank you So, I'm sorry, would you like to make a motion to 00:04:22.626 --> 00:04:31.586 - Continue the minutes to our next meeting sure. I'll move to Postpone approval of the minutes until the 00:04:31.586 --> 00:04:40.371 - October meeting. All right, is there a second for that? Okay any other discussion any other comments 00:04:40.371 --> 00:04:49.331 - or questions about the the minutes All right, let's call the roll on the motion to continue the August 00:04:49.331 --> 00:04:50.462 - 11th meeting 00:04:51.234 --> 00:05:03.407 - Minutes till our next meeting Co Rodkey Holmes. Yes, Kinsey. Yes Stossburg. Yes Whistler. Yes all right, 00:05:03.407 --> 00:05:15.465 - so that motion carries the minutes are Continued to our next meeting. Are there any reports resolutions 00:05:15.465 --> 00:05:20.798 - or communications from commissioners tonight? 00:05:23.746 --> 00:05:31.392 - Alright sing on any From staff nothing from staff. No. All right Well, then I guess we are ready to 00:05:31.392 --> 00:05:39.267 - get into our petitions. The first one is zio 20-25 looks like we are lucky enough to have Eric Grulick 00:05:39.267 --> 00:05:41.790 - to Present each of these tonight 00:05:42.498 --> 00:05:49.003 - Thank you. So these next two petitions are a series of use table amendments that the Plain Commission 00:05:49.003 --> 00:05:55.572 - heard that were then forwarded on to the Common Council As it was going to the council there were some 00:05:55.572 --> 00:06:01.758 - last-minute adjustments to the actual packet and exhibits that the council heard in terms of the 00:06:02.082 --> 00:06:07.424 - Specific exhibits that were attached to each ordinance. So those ordinance amendments were modified 00:06:07.424 --> 00:06:12.980 - by the council So because that was modified in some regard it has to come back to the Plain Commission. 00:06:12.980 --> 00:06:18.482 - There was no change to the actual ordinance itself. So these are both for Use table amendments so that 00:06:18.482 --> 00:06:24.038 - the language and all of the changes to the use table stayed the same It was just the exhibits that were 00:06:24.038 --> 00:06:29.487 - in the packet that were amended So as I mentioned because the council did amend what went to them. It 00:06:29.487 --> 00:06:31.998 - does have to come back to the Plain Commission 00:06:32.098 --> 00:06:40.437 - for ratification So just to clarify the table that we Approved here is the same as the table that the 00:06:40.437 --> 00:06:48.776 - council approved There's no changes as to which district fraternity sorority or mixed-use housing are 00:06:48.776 --> 00:06:57.524 - allowed in Correct. Yeah. So so for both of those for the first ones the 0 2025 that dealt with fraternity 00:06:57.524 --> 00:07:01.694 - and sorority uses and vehicle fleet operations and 00:07:01.954 --> 00:07:09.126 - The exhibits were modified in the exhibit the attachments that went to the council and then likewise 00:07:09.126 --> 00:07:16.439 - for the second one for the vehicle wash those exhibits got Transposed in the packets and so those were 00:07:16.439 --> 00:07:23.540 - modified through an amendment and those have to come back So the ordinance and all the language the 00:07:23.540 --> 00:07:31.422 - table everything stayed the same. It was just the exhibits that got modified Part of what was adopted into law 00:07:32.322 --> 00:07:38.885 - That was it was just what was presented to the council. So because that happened at the council meeting 00:07:38.885 --> 00:07:45.195 - There was an amendment at the council meeting for that. It had to come back to us So, I'm sorry, so 00:07:45.195 --> 00:07:51.631 - there was an amendment made at the council meeting. Yes, we have a council member here So with regard 00:07:51.631 --> 00:07:58.572 - to this first one if you guys recall I'm actually the one that that motion to this during the Plan Commission 00:07:58.572 --> 00:07:59.582 - meeting that in 00:07:59.682 --> 00:08:05.775 - Packet tonight. It has it crossed out number 10 fraternities or sorority house and then everything else 00:08:05.775 --> 00:08:11.985 - renumbered Because we had to change the use table by taking out the asterisk, right? Because the asterisk 00:08:11.985 --> 00:08:18.078 - didn't track back to anything any content in the UDO But when it was before us and Plan Commission that 00:08:18.078 --> 00:08:23.995 - that heading fraternities or sorority house was still there with nothing underneath it So I made the 00:08:23.995 --> 00:08:29.150 - motion at the time to say hey, let's take that out. Let's renumber the other things and 00:08:29.314 --> 00:08:34.917 - Do you remember that well that renumbering did not translate to the council documents? So then at the 00:08:34.917 --> 00:08:40.520 - council level I had to make that amendment again To modify that document. So in terms of like what we 00:08:40.520 --> 00:08:46.067 - at Plan Commission approved It's like all the same but in terms of what was given what was presented 00:08:46.067 --> 00:08:51.670 - in the packet at council It was actually different from what so this was basically just a correction. 00:08:51.670 --> 00:08:54.142 - It's like a scrivener's error. Yeah. Yeah, I 00:08:54.242 --> 00:09:00.499 - And that's yeah, and you said that's the case for both. No, that's the case for the first one on the 00:09:00.499 --> 00:09:06.880 - second one There was just where it was supposed to have the attachment that Was the was the table with 00:09:06.880 --> 00:09:13.137 - like the part of the allowed use table that was changing It was just a different part of the allowed 00:09:13.137 --> 00:09:19.394 - use table So it was just the wrong like attachment and so then but then we had to specifically amend 00:09:19.394 --> 00:09:22.430 - it to put the right attachment in so it was just 00:09:22.594 --> 00:09:32.315 - Another kind of similar like These things happen kind of moments. All right Are there any other are 00:09:32.315 --> 00:09:42.425 - there any questions from commissioners on zeo 20-25? Is there any public comment on zeo 20-25 If you're 00:09:42.425 --> 00:09:47.966 - here in the chambers and you'd like to make comment just 00:09:48.130 --> 00:09:56.488 - Step right up to the podium and state your name for the record if you're joining us online Click the 00:09:56.488 --> 00:10:04.929 - reactions button on your zoom app and then raise your hand Or you can also send a chat message to the 00:10:04.929 --> 00:10:13.701 - meeting host and we'll recognize you when it is your turn to speak All right last call for public comment 00:10:13.701 --> 00:10:14.942 - on zeo 20-25 I 00:10:18.114 --> 00:10:32.125 - Alright back to the Commission for any final discussion or for emotion To I guess men title 20 of the 00:10:32.125 --> 00:10:47.646 - Bloomington municipal code for fraternity and sorority house artist studio workshop vehicle fleet operations and 00:10:48.066 --> 00:11:00.869 - No large and small correct Am I reading that right? Yeah, I think the motion that we need here is simply 00:11:00.869 --> 00:11:14.526 - to approve zio-20-25 So, I'm sorry so you just to just to clarify your motion is just that we Approve Ordinance 00:11:17.186 --> 00:11:36.804 - 2025 26 as amended by the council Yes, all right, is there a second for that All right, let's call the 00:11:36.804 --> 00:11:45.566 - roll on that motion Yes Holmes yes Kinsey Yes 00:11:46.594 --> 00:11:57.707 - Stossburg. Yes Whistler. Yes Burrell. Yes seaborne. Yes All right that motion carries we're on now to 00:11:57.707 --> 00:12:08.602 - zeo 22-25 Eric anything else to add on this one or no again just to Reiterate what was already said 00:12:08.602 --> 00:12:16.446 - this was just correcting exhibits that were in the packet All right any 00:12:17.090 --> 00:12:34.562 - Discussion or questions from commissioners Any public comment on zeo 22-25 There any online commenters 00:12:34.562 --> 00:12:44.062 - Okay, this is last call for public comment on zeo 22-25 00:12:47.682 --> 00:13:04.929 - We are back to the Commission then for any final discussion or for a motion Of zeal 20-22-25 All right 00:13:04.929 --> 00:13:15.646 - any Final comments All right, let's call the roll on the motion 00:13:15.810 --> 00:13:33.600 - to dot zero twenty two dash twenty five Yes Kenzie Yes Stossburg Yes Whistler Yes Beryl yes Seymour 00:13:33.600 --> 00:13:45.342 - yes Cobra key. Yes All right that motion carries we are on now to 00:13:45.794 --> 00:13:53.176 - zio-03-25 And again, we have Eric Grulick take it away. Thank you Eric Grulick development services 00:13:53.176 --> 00:14:00.632 - manager So this is a continual discussion This is the third hearing for this particular amendment to 00:14:00.632 --> 00:14:04.766 - the use table for the unified development ordinance and 00:14:04.962 --> 00:14:11.848 - So this is following up on a council resolution that was issued last year Directing the Planning Commission 00:14:11.848 --> 00:14:18.351 - to prepare a proposal Consistent with several aspects that were included in their resolution to amend 00:14:18.351 --> 00:14:24.791 - the unified development ordinance to Allow for a use to be known as single-room occupancy There were 00:14:24.791 --> 00:14:31.230 - several items in the council resolution that were the Planning Commission was urged to look into and 00:14:31.230 --> 00:14:34.928 - consider One of those was distinguishing between existing 00:14:34.928 --> 00:14:42.192 - Use called residential rooming house and a this proposed use single-room occupancy the council directed 00:14:42.192 --> 00:14:48.478 - Plain Commission to look at allowing SROs as a permitted use in multiple zoning districts 00:14:48.578 --> 00:14:55.970 - They requested to look at requiring or not requiring owner occupancy For SROs as this was an allowance 00:14:55.970 --> 00:15:03.650 - within the current UDO for the use residential rooming house So the council wanted the Planning Commission 00:15:03.650 --> 00:15:10.971 - to look at removing that particular element They directed the Planning Commission to look at allowing 00:15:10.971 --> 00:15:17.502 - SROs into mixed-use buildings and other housing types and also to allow two people per SRO 00:15:17.858 --> 00:15:23.831 - So as I mentioned, this is the third hearing for this particular proposal. So the plane commission and 00:15:23.831 --> 00:15:30.095 - staff has spent a lot of time discussing this particular element in this petition. We certainly acknowledge 00:15:30.095 --> 00:15:34.270 - a lot of complexities with this proposal in terms of allowing this use. 00:15:34.370 --> 00:15:40.440 - The current UDO does allow for the use residential rooming house and a lot of zoning districts It's 00:15:40.440 --> 00:15:46.630 - a use that's allowed in the multifamily districts with an owner occupancy requirement It's allowed in 00:15:46.630 --> 00:15:53.064 - the mixed-use districts now, but it's not allowed in the single-family districts so one of the intentions 00:15:53.064 --> 00:15:59.316 - with the council resolution was to expand the districts where this use is allowed within and certainly 00:15:59.316 --> 00:16:02.654 - as we've acknowledged in a lot of previous discussions 00:16:02.946 --> 00:16:09.374 - The challenges that we've we've encountered with this were how to try to accomplish what the resolution 00:16:09.374 --> 00:16:15.554 - was intending in terms of providing a diversity of housing options for folks Ideally trying to make 00:16:15.554 --> 00:16:21.982 - this more affordable by lessening the amount of burden that a petition or that a person has with a rent 00:16:22.114 --> 00:16:28.454 - So single-room occupancies are a situation where somebody just rents the bedroom and makes use of general 00:16:28.454 --> 00:16:34.675 - common area within the building So kitchens living areas bathrooms, you know, those are all common area 00:16:34.675 --> 00:16:40.835 - and then a person just rents a bedroom So in in a lot of situations that presents an opportunity where 00:16:40.835 --> 00:16:46.817 - rent is cheaper for that person However, we cannot rent control structures or rent within buildings 00:16:46.817 --> 00:16:52.080 - And so so that particular element although is typically associated with this by default 00:16:52.080 --> 00:16:58.578 - You know, it's not something that we can regulate within the udl itself So when this was heard in july 00:16:58.578 --> 00:17:05.266 - We brought forward a petition that allowed for a certain number of bedrooms within the r1 and r2 district 00:17:05.266 --> 00:17:11.070 - allowing three bedrooms We were proposing to allow five bedrooms in the r3 and r4 districts 00:17:11.618 --> 00:17:17.684 - So the R3 and R4 are the districts where you typically have smaller lot sizes. They're more central 00:17:17.684 --> 00:17:24.114 - to the downtown And then so we had a definition of family that was a little bit confusing that we altered 00:17:24.114 --> 00:17:30.180 - later And then we had some language regarding prohibiting certain bathroom elements within bedrooms 00:17:30.180 --> 00:17:36.428 - So we heard a lot of comments in the July hearing that we revised coming forward to the August hearing 00:17:36.428 --> 00:17:41.584 - So in August last month, we modified the number of bedrooms that were being proposed 00:17:41.584 --> 00:17:47.909 - proposed to allow five in all districts We modified the number of adults per bedroom to make that two 00:17:47.909 --> 00:17:54.235 - which was in keeping with the resolution And then we also included language Requiring owner occupancy 00:17:54.235 --> 00:18:00.560 - and that the owner of the property had to be a registered nonprofit So at the August hearing we heard 00:18:00.560 --> 00:18:06.823 - a lot of comments regarding those proposals Certainly a lot of folks both on the Planning Commission 00:18:06.823 --> 00:18:11.536 - and the community have voiced some opinions on some of those regards and so 00:18:11.536 --> 00:18:18.300 - While a lot of those elements Were deemed to be favorable. We also acknowledge that there would be certain 00:18:18.300 --> 00:18:24.686 - challenges specifically requiring owner occupancy And that the owner of her property be a nonprofit, 00:18:24.686 --> 00:18:31.008 - you know in regards to the owner being You know, they have to live there. Certainly. We acknowledge 00:18:31.008 --> 00:18:33.726 - that you could place any of the particular 00:18:33.858 --> 00:18:40.974 - Particular owners on a deed for that property and they would be living there so, you know as we've mentioned 00:18:40.974 --> 00:18:43.390 - one of the challenges here is how to 00:18:43.778 --> 00:18:50.129 - Provide legislation that is in keeping with the council ordinance that also doesn't just enable higher 00:18:50.129 --> 00:18:56.418 - degree of occupancies For situations that we were not trying to solve for you know So we're trying to 00:18:56.418 --> 00:19:02.645 - provide missing housing for members of the community and not necessarily provide more student rental 00:19:02.645 --> 00:19:09.058 - opportunities or Increase occupancy for those uses and so that's that's been one of the challenges that 00:19:09.058 --> 00:19:13.744 - we've been trying to solve for and so what we're bringing for it tonight is 00:19:13.744 --> 00:19:19.688 - What the department feels is kind of the best attempt to accomplish the goals of the resolution while 00:19:19.688 --> 00:19:25.632 - trying to minimize some of the impacts that we've been concerned with and also kind of balancing some 00:19:25.632 --> 00:19:31.575 - of the legal challenges that we have to make sure to be attentive to and not not get too deep into So 00:19:31.575 --> 00:19:37.403 - for instance requiring the owner of the property to be a nonprofit The legal department has advised 00:19:37.403 --> 00:19:43.696 - us that would be very challenging to defend in court And so we've removed that particular element in regard 00:19:43.696 --> 00:19:51.412 - The number of bedrooms or rooms per SRO. We are proposing a maximum of three rooms per SRO And we are 00:19:51.412 --> 00:19:59.203 - keeping the proposed number of adults per room at two so we've tried to address a lot of or all of the 00:19:59.203 --> 00:20:04.574 - areas in the resolution that the council directed us to to look at and 00:20:04.738 --> 00:20:11.010 - And one of the other changes for what you're seeing tonight versus what was heard in August in August 00:20:11.010 --> 00:20:17.159 - there was a provision that allowed for a waiver to be granted from one of the proposed use specific 00:20:17.159 --> 00:20:18.942 - requirements that dealt with 00:20:19.074 --> 00:20:24.953 - the person coming or the entity coming forward for the SRR could not have any notices of violation for 00:20:24.953 --> 00:20:31.003 - the past three years. We had previously included a provision for a waiver from that requirement. However, 00:20:31.003 --> 00:20:36.711 - we weren't really able to come up with really good legally defensible waiver criteria that we could 00:20:36.711 --> 00:20:42.476 - evaluate that on. So we didn't want to just have a waiver that was based on subjective requirements. 00:20:42.476 --> 00:20:49.040 - We wanted to have a very well-established criteria for that. So that's something that we could certainly introduce 00:20:49.040 --> 00:20:55.110 - at a later time as part of any amendments to the text within the UDO it does not require a change to 00:20:55.110 --> 00:21:01.420 - the use table so that's certainly something we can address at a later time if we feel that's appropriate 00:21:01.420 --> 00:21:07.429 - for the SROs or even if that's something that gets addressed with the discussions that we're having 00:21:07.429 --> 00:21:13.499 - for middle housing discussions that are happening later this year so we do not have a requirement or 00:21:13.499 --> 00:21:15.422 - an allowance within the current 00:21:15.874 --> 00:21:22.238 - legislation for a waiver from that notice of violation, stipulation or prohibition. 00:21:22.754 --> 00:21:28.392 - So as I mentioned, you know what we're bringing forward Tries to accomplish a lot of the goals within 00:21:28.392 --> 00:21:34.141 - the resolution trying to check off all of the boxes within there We do still have the language in there 00:21:34.141 --> 00:21:39.669 - requiring the owner to be to live on the property So that was something that we did hear from a lot 00:21:39.669 --> 00:21:45.196 - of members of the public As well as members of the Plain Commission that they felt like that aspect 00:21:45.196 --> 00:21:50.945 - would help minimize You know the likelihood that these would just be used for student rentals certainly 00:21:50.945 --> 00:21:51.774 - as I mentioned 00:21:52.738 --> 00:21:59.369 - Owner the property could be placed on the deed. It does obviously require a lot more work from a legal 00:21:59.369 --> 00:22:05.935 - perspective to do that And so we we do acknowledge that but that was kind of the best approach to try 00:22:05.935 --> 00:22:08.446 - to limit adverse impacts with this use 00:22:08.642 --> 00:22:15.793 - And so we do still have a lot of the other changes in terms of renaming of the residential rooming house 00:22:15.793 --> 00:22:22.876 - within the UDO Changes within that parking standards that read that reference that other use some minor 00:22:22.876 --> 00:22:30.299 - modification to the definition of residential rooming house to make that more in line with other definitions 00:22:30.299 --> 00:22:37.246 - of single-room occupancy uses and other communities where it references Specifically that a person is 00:22:37.246 --> 00:22:38.608 - just running a room 00:22:38.608 --> 00:22:47.678 - And must share other common facilities including kitchen bathroom and common area and so with that 00:22:48.162 --> 00:22:55.129 - We are recommending that the Plain Commission for this petition to the Common Council with a favorable 00:22:55.129 --> 00:23:02.164 - recommendation And it's also important to note that the council did extend the resolution At their last 00:23:02.164 --> 00:23:08.929 - hearing I think in July granting us another 60 days And so that 60 days does expire before the next 00:23:08.929 --> 00:23:15.693 - Plain Commission session So it is extremely important that the Plain Commission does take action on 00:23:15.693 --> 00:23:18.128 - this tonight and for this on with a 00:23:18.128 --> 00:23:27.460 - Recommendation and as I mentioned we are recommending a positive Recommendation to the council. So with 00:23:27.460 --> 00:23:36.523 - that I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you Eric any questions from commissioners Commissioner 00:23:36.523 --> 00:23:45.406 - Stasberg When I review the last the the meeting minutes I had noticed that mr. Seaboard had made a 00:23:46.210 --> 00:23:54.632 - Motion to change how the parking maximum was listed to say instead of per guest room per bedroom And 00:23:54.632 --> 00:24:03.222 - that's not reflected in here, but that was a motion that actually passed At the plan Commission before 00:24:03.222 --> 00:24:12.478 - it was before this petition was continued to this hearing Yes, thank you I apologize that I admitted that from 00:24:12.610 --> 00:24:19.030 - But if you certainly want to include that again tonight with the recommendation that would be very helpful 00:24:19.030 --> 00:24:25.030 - just to reiterate that same language So does that need to have like a separate motion and then? Mr. 00:24:25.030 --> 00:24:31.210 - Seaboard, do you want to do that again? We took that as a friendly amendment last time I believe right 00:24:31.210 --> 00:24:37.270 - or did we there was an actual vote on According to the minutes in the record then already. Yeah, not 00:24:37.270 --> 00:24:41.470 - much we need to do on that probably just Make sure it gets updated on 00:24:41.570 --> 00:24:48.546 - Yes, like as I mentioned certainly be very helpful just to include that there might be other conditions 00:24:48.546 --> 00:24:55.655 - of approval So we would just fold that in with any other conditions of approval that the Plain Commission 00:24:55.655 --> 00:25:02.497 - wanted to send along Okay, and then I have one more to In the definition of single-room occupancy you 00:25:02.497 --> 00:25:07.326 - call it a residential facility and facility brings to mind some sort of 00:25:08.866 --> 00:25:17.306 - Group housing or like a special, you know something and I'm wondering if that could potentially be changed 00:25:17.306 --> 00:25:25.431 - to something like a dwelling or dwelling unit or Something that doesn't bring to mind such a Thank you 00:25:25.431 --> 00:25:27.166 - institutional kind of 00:25:28.034 --> 00:25:33.492 - Yeah, so so it's a little bit challenging here because this use wall present, you know, oftentimes in 00:25:33.492 --> 00:25:39.004 - our discussions They've been focused solely on their presence in single-family neighborhoods There are 00:25:39.004 --> 00:25:44.622 - situations in other buildings where you can have one more than one kitchen So the definition of dwelling 00:25:44.622 --> 00:25:50.080 - unit says a single unit with a kitchen. These are an exception from that So that's why we did not use 00:25:50.080 --> 00:25:55.646 - the word dwelling unit specifically because the definition of dwelling unit says a single kitchen Okay, 00:25:55.646 --> 00:25:58.000 - is there something else besides facilities? 00:25:58.000 --> 00:26:04.964 - Yeah, I certainly recognize the sensitivity maybe that word we're open to suggestions Certainly you 00:26:04.964 --> 00:26:12.136 - can include that as a condition of approval to to change that aspect Does anybody have any suggestions 00:26:12.136 --> 00:26:17.150 - for something that's less institutional than facility at this moment? I 00:26:31.202 --> 00:26:42.908 - It's in the definition of single-room occupancy in our packet. It's on page 36 Just as a residential 00:26:42.908 --> 00:26:55.657 - facility where individuals rent individual rooms and then share common facilities Accommodation a residential 00:26:55.657 --> 00:26:59.134 - residence Or just a residence 00:26:59.874 --> 00:27:08.582 - Residential I could you could just say a resident resident a residence where individuals rent The staff 00:27:08.582 --> 00:27:16.956 - have any building with comment on That suggestion Eric do you have any do you see any conflicts was 00:27:16.956 --> 00:27:21.310 - using the word residents or residential building or 00:27:23.810 --> 00:27:31.079 - I mean, I think either those certainly could be fine a residence or residential building. Certainly 00:27:31.079 --> 00:27:38.493 - building would probably the best one Someone like to make a motion to amend that as such I'll move to 00:27:38.493 --> 00:27:46.126 - change the word facility to building in the definition of single-room occupancy on page 36 of our packet 00:27:46.126 --> 00:27:53.758 - All right. Is there a second for that motion? second any discussion Any public comment on this amendment 00:27:59.746 --> 00:28:10.969 - There is anybody online that would like to make a comment, please use the the raise hand function All 00:28:10.969 --> 00:28:21.973 - right, I'm not seeing anybody online all right, I know I'm sorry WB I'm sorry. I just had a comment 00:28:21.973 --> 00:28:26.814 - to the to the proposal not to the amendment 00:28:27.714 --> 00:28:39.045 - All right, we will have another opportunity for public comment on the entire petition after this. 00:28:39.045 --> 00:28:51.531 - All right, if there's no other comments on the amendment specifically, let's call the roll on the amendment 00:28:51.531 --> 00:28:56.734 - to change facility to building. Kenzie? Yes. 00:28:57.826 --> 00:29:10.872 - Stossburg Yes Whistler, yes Burrell yes seaborne. Yes Co Rodkey. Yes Holmes. Yes All right that motion 00:29:10.872 --> 00:29:22.398 - carries we are then back to The original petition any other questions from commissioners I 00:29:24.482 --> 00:29:32.901 - Good Just and this may have been answered that so the definition saying that it it has shared facilities 00:29:32.901 --> 00:29:41.159 - such as Kitchen bedroom, that's enough to make those requirements So in some definitions you would say 00:29:41.159 --> 00:29:49.177 - may include so we change, you know I change that to such as to specifically make those requirements 00:29:49.177 --> 00:29:51.422 - for those elements. Yeah, I 00:29:51.778 --> 00:29:58.164 - Okay, so someone who did a kitchen but didn't have shared baths would be out of compliance As long as 00:29:58.164 --> 00:30:04.486 - there is a shared bathroom So one of the concerns was that you know, if you wanted to have a sink in 00:30:04.486 --> 00:30:06.302 - a residential unit, you know 00:30:06.658 --> 00:30:12.012 - Could be an amenity that would be allowed as long as there is still a shared bathroom So the such as 00:30:12.012 --> 00:30:17.630 - requires those elements that doesn't necessarily prohibit, you know a small bathroom within an individual 00:30:17.630 --> 00:30:22.931 - bedroom But it does require that element within the building as a whole as well Okay, so they could 00:30:22.931 --> 00:30:27.966 - each have like an ensuite bathroom as long as there's at least one shared bathroom, correct? I 00:30:28.194 --> 00:30:33.983 - Was the intention yes, I'm certainly if you feel like there's other language that might be stronger 00:30:33.983 --> 00:30:38.846 - or modification that did previous versions of it require that or prohibit bathrooms 00:30:38.946 --> 00:30:45.622 - Yes, so in the original version that came to the Plain Commission in July there was language in there 00:30:45.622 --> 00:30:52.168 - that prohibited Bedrooms from having a bathroom attached to it in any capacity whatsoever So we did 00:30:52.168 --> 00:30:58.714 - feel like that some members of the public and Plain Commission thought that might be a little harsh 00:30:58.714 --> 00:31:05.390 - And you know some basic private Care bathroom could be appropriate. And so that's why we removed that 00:31:05.390 --> 00:31:07.550 - part And modified the definition 00:31:08.898 --> 00:31:15.068 - Okay Okay, another question the three rooms that is that does not include the owners room I take it 00:31:15.068 --> 00:31:21.237 - So the owner has it would be three rooms regardless of you know, the owner so that we just you know 00:31:21.237 --> 00:31:27.469 - It's up to them, you know, which room they they stay in or sleep in or whatever But that would allow 00:31:27.469 --> 00:31:33.638 - for that. So the so one of those three would be the owner's room. Yes in the residential Yes, okay. 00:31:33.638 --> 00:31:38.142 - Okay in the in the single-family districts. Yes, the single-family. Okay 00:31:38.722 --> 00:31:44.717 - And then the last one the not married couples so that was removed was that something legal said had 00:31:44.717 --> 00:31:50.772 - to be removed because Well, so that's where the occupancy of two people per room kind of allows that 00:31:50.772 --> 00:31:56.767 - Configuration whatever that might look like and so that was that was one of the reasons why we went 00:31:56.767 --> 00:32:03.122 - back to the two people per room rather than the one So that we didn't have to deal with defining a family 00:32:03.122 --> 00:32:08.158 - or you know Defining married people or you know, whatever that that might look like 00:32:08.418 --> 00:32:14.184 - You know just allowing two people per room and this does not regulate children So it'd be those two 00:32:14.184 --> 00:32:20.066 - people and you know any children. Okay what I'm getting at with those questions So the two people per 00:32:20.066 --> 00:32:26.005 - room and the ensuite bathroom Makes it attractive to convert some of the single-family to frankly, you 00:32:26.005 --> 00:32:31.887 - know rental housing for student occupancy And it would be at high market value, right? It's not going 00:32:31.887 --> 00:32:34.078 - to do anything for affordable housing 00:32:34.402 --> 00:32:40.898 - It may not happen very much, but those things I think those were The previous requirement that if you're 00:32:40.898 --> 00:32:47.394 - gonna have to they need to be in a family unit and his family not defined anywhere else in the ordinance 00:32:47.394 --> 00:32:53.828 - It's a family. We did not modify the definition of family for this use There is a definition of family, 00:32:53.828 --> 00:33:00.572 - but it rooming houses are exempt from that So that's why it's important to clarify that element specifically 00:33:00.572 --> 00:33:03.294 - within these use specific restrictions Okay 00:33:04.194 --> 00:33:10.534 - I mean, I like it in general. We've removed the number of restrictions for residential rooming houses 00:33:10.534 --> 00:33:17.060 - for multifamily That was a I think an issue that's gone here I think this is going to make it attractive 00:33:17.060 --> 00:33:23.337 - to convert single-family residential into rental housing So, I mean for my part I would want to read 00:33:23.337 --> 00:33:26.942 - to restore the requirement that if you're gonna have to I 00:33:27.074 --> 00:33:34.643 - Their family they're related to each other in some way and I would restrict the ensuite bathrooms I'd 00:33:34.643 --> 00:33:42.138 - say no don't have those because you're going to get into a situation where you're just going to want 00:33:42.138 --> 00:33:49.707 - to make them back into high-dollar not Affordable housing units so It's just a comment so it's enough 00:33:49.707 --> 00:33:57.054 - of my questions. Thank you Mr. Seymour It's just following up on so the maximum number of rooms so 00:33:57.186 --> 00:34:03.252 - 12 a Just as maximum of rooms and it says maximum number of three rooms are allowed I'm assuming we're 00:34:03.252 --> 00:34:09.142 - talking about just bedrooms and that that would be obvious to staff and petitioners, but just is it 00:34:09.142 --> 00:34:15.091 - worth Defining or will that be clear for administering if approved? Yeah, so so we actually did have 00:34:15.091 --> 00:34:21.040 - the word bedrooms in there But it was suggested to just modify that to to say rooms where people are 00:34:21.040 --> 00:34:26.046 - sleeping So that would be clear to staff as we are reviewing these, you know all all 00:34:26.338 --> 00:34:31.735 - Of a house have to be identified, you know with a use whether those are a living room It's a kitchen 00:34:31.735 --> 00:34:37.238 - as a bathroom a sleeping room So that was that would be clear certainly to us that we would be looking 00:34:37.238 --> 00:34:42.688 - at where are the rooms that people are sleeping in? To make sure that there aren't more than three So 00:34:42.688 --> 00:34:47.230 - should it would it be helpful then to say three rooms where people sleep or is that? 00:34:48.290 --> 00:34:54.020 - Right now it just says three rooms unless it's defined somewhere else. It's not defined anywhere else 00:34:54.020 --> 00:34:59.694 - So it just kind of be an inherent characteristic of that, you know If you felt like it might make it 00:34:59.694 --> 00:35:05.481 - clearer to say three sleeping rooms You can certainly certainly propose a condition of approval. Okay, 00:35:05.481 --> 00:35:09.694 - so hypothetically there's a house that has four what might be bedrooms but 00:35:10.082 --> 00:35:16.036 - People just can't sleep in one of those rooms if it was converted to yeah So if it was a situation like 00:35:16.036 --> 00:35:22.047 - that and we see those kind of often where somebody might label something as a study Or something similar 00:35:22.047 --> 00:35:28.001 - to that then will require a zoning commitment that says only three rooms are to be allowed for You know 00:35:28.001 --> 00:35:33.955 - dwelling purposes or sleeping purposes So it's just kind of something we handle on a case-by-case basis 00:35:33.955 --> 00:35:38.878 - based on what a floor plan is Okay, and then I guess hypothetically if I owned a home 00:35:39.042 --> 00:35:47.242 - Wanted to do this one of those rooms was a master room Odds are I'm gonna want to keep that master room 00:35:47.242 --> 00:35:55.520 - if I'm the owner and required to live in them I guess I wouldn't have to but that's just Anyway, I guess 00:35:55.520 --> 00:36:01.118 - that's random comment Nevermind Any other questions from commissioners 00:36:05.282 --> 00:36:12.376 - Alright sing them. We will go then to public comment on Zio 03-25 Again, if you're here in the chambers 00:36:12.376 --> 00:36:19.197 - and you'd like to make comment just step up to the podium and state your name for the record you'll 00:36:19.197 --> 00:36:26.292 - have up to five minutes to make your comments if you're Joining us online. Just click on that reactions 00:36:26.292 --> 00:36:33.318 - button and raise your virtual hand and we'll recognize you when it is your turn to speak WB you should 00:36:33.318 --> 00:36:34.750 - be able to speak now 00:36:36.322 --> 00:36:50.969 - Hi there, yes. Okay, let's see. And if you could state your name for the record, please. Not sure if 00:36:50.969 --> 00:37:05.470 - you're still there, but we are unable to hear you here in the chambers. Sorry, can you hear me now? 00:37:05.570 --> 00:37:13.933 - Yes, we hear you now. Okay, sorry. Yes, my name is Wendy Brescht. Wait, can you still hear me? Yes, 00:37:13.933 --> 00:37:22.380 - okay, sorry. My phone's doing some strange things. I've been involved in this situation for a while. 00:37:22.380 --> 00:37:30.910 - I've watched the history from 62 onwards. I used to work for a woman who owned student housing. I saw 00:37:30.910 --> 00:37:34.590 - what happened when the up-zoning previously 00:37:36.354 --> 00:37:45.228 - 40 years ago, 50 years ago, and what happened to my neighborhood and how long it took to recover after 00:37:45.228 --> 00:37:53.930 - Mayor Allison put zoning back in place. I've also watched in California what happened with this very 00:37:53.930 --> 00:38:02.890 - same idea of owner occupancy, which almost never happens. It's very easy to get around. I don't exactly 00:38:02.890 --> 00:38:06.078 - know how you're going to enforce it. 00:38:06.402 --> 00:38:14.614 - I own a house in Bloomington. I could easily just live in California and say I sleep in the sunroom 00:38:14.614 --> 00:38:23.237 - and not live in. I think it's important that everybody knows that this is basically what's already being 00:38:23.237 --> 00:38:31.860 - done, certainly in all the houses that I know. If you look up on Zillow, the rentals say that Chickering 00:38:31.860 --> 00:38:35.966 - owns, they're buying up larger houses like crazy. 00:38:36.290 --> 00:38:44.731 - But every bedroom, every person that's allowed in brings the price up. Their five bedrooms are commanding 00:38:44.731 --> 00:38:53.332 - 8,100 now. Their four bedrooms are commanding 6,400. Many of those houses are quite small. The five-bedroom 00:38:53.332 --> 00:39:01.613 - houses are between 1,800 and 2,200 square feet. They do rent by the bedroom. This is already happening. 00:39:01.613 --> 00:39:04.958 - What this seems like to me as a resident, 00:39:05.218 --> 00:39:11.546 - and seeing even some families moving back in finally with children, which is great, is that you are 00:39:11.546 --> 00:39:18.000 - basically going to be doubling occupancy and it's going to be students because these are $1,500. It's 00:39:18.000 --> 00:39:24.517 - not that they're going to just cut that in half. Rental investors are going to get as much as they can 00:39:24.517 --> 00:39:30.718 - and it's going to be students anywhere within walking distance because that is prime real estate. 00:39:31.042 --> 00:39:36.986 - And it is very, very valuable. And there's a voracious student rental market there. They rent typically 00:39:36.986 --> 00:39:42.873 - two, sometimes three years in advance. And I just think you really need to know what you're doing here 00:39:42.873 --> 00:39:48.760 - because it's very difficult to enforce. In California, we've seen it to be impossible to enforce owner 00:39:48.760 --> 00:39:54.761 - occupancy. What happens when that owner might be there for a year, they might move away. They just might 00:39:54.761 --> 00:39:58.590 - leave a room open and say they live there and get some mail there. 00:39:58.690 --> 00:40:06.145 - I don't see how you can possibly do that. That is what has happened in California. We've seen relatively 00:40:06.145 --> 00:40:13.387 - older, less expensive rentals. I have a good friend. In fact, he now lives here in California who was 00:40:13.387 --> 00:40:20.700 - basically kicked out of his house. He was paying 700 a month for an older house, a bedroom in an older 00:40:20.700 --> 00:40:26.238 - house that was taken over. It was converted into many bedrooms, but with more 00:40:27.138 --> 00:40:33.538 - What basically happened was they just kept one room clear for two years, which is all they had to do, 00:40:33.538 --> 00:40:40.189 - or one space. It doesn't matter. It doesn't seem to matter in your petition what space it is. So I really 00:40:40.189 --> 00:40:46.463 - caution you to be serious about this, because it's going to be difficult to enforce. And I also see 00:40:46.463 --> 00:40:52.863 - that parents of students might make their students the owners, and the students could live there, and 00:40:52.863 --> 00:40:56.126 - then they could use it for a rooming house as well. 00:40:56.226 --> 00:41:03.388 - But just the, you know, we have a tipping point that we're at and it makes everything more expensive, 00:41:03.388 --> 00:41:10.690 - especially the houses that are outside the affected areas that are still real neighborhoods. The prices 00:41:10.690 --> 00:41:17.712 - then go up in those because there's so few of them. There's a real dearth of housing for residents. 00:41:17.712 --> 00:41:24.382 - And I just see that doubling the occupancy in our neighborhoods near the university will just, 00:41:24.706 --> 00:41:34.530 - make a better market for investors and we'll again make that process go faster of transforming 00:41:34.530 --> 00:41:45.182 - our neighborhoods into student rentals. Anyway, thank you very much for letting me comment. Thank you. 00:41:45.182 --> 00:41:53.662 - Is there any other public comment? Chris Durban, you should be able to speak now. 00:41:54.914 --> 00:42:02.378 - Yes, Chris Sturbom, thank you. The HUD definition of single room occupancy is one adult per bedroom. 00:42:02.378 --> 00:42:09.990 - It's a nationally recognized standard that promotes genuine affordable housing while limiting the risk 00:42:09.990 --> 00:42:17.380 - of over-occupancy, speculation, and unintended conversion to student rentals. I ran into a woman at 00:42:17.380 --> 00:42:22.110 - the market who had just sold her house recently at Elm Heights. 00:42:22.594 --> 00:42:30.293 - and saw it advertised for $6,000 a month rent. This happens all the time. We have two distinct markets 00:42:30.293 --> 00:42:38.067 - in Bloomington. We have the highly competitive student market, and the students are actually increasing 00:42:38.067 --> 00:42:45.841 - while people who live in Bloomington, the locals, are decreasing. So the people that are building, they 00:42:45.841 --> 00:42:47.710 - know what they're doing, 00:42:48.354 --> 00:42:57.764 - and they know when they're converting houses, the financial incentive is right there. Going to one person 00:42:57.764 --> 00:43:07.264 - per bedroom is a way to respectfully let this happen where it can happen and actually let it be affordable 00:43:07.264 --> 00:43:16.141 - because when you go after student rental, it is not affordable. The comprehensive plan also has two 00:43:16.141 --> 00:43:17.118 - very clear 00:43:17.410 --> 00:43:26.371 - guidelines for us exist page 60 existing core neighborhoods should not be the focus of the city's increasing 00:43:26.371 --> 00:43:35.168 - density. And page 62 city supports multifamily but this should not be done at the cost of losing naturally 00:43:35.168 --> 00:43:43.390 - occurring affordable home ownership and existing affordable rentals in single family neighborhoods. 00:43:47.234 --> 00:43:56.714 - The idea of allowing two people per bedroom is another dangerous way of opening this up. You can have 00:43:56.714 --> 00:44:06.101 - a duplex, and the duplex suddenly used to be two bedrooms each. Now you can have four people in each 00:44:06.101 --> 00:44:16.510 - side. And the parking, anyone who reads the parking sees, oh yeah, they said two per unit and half per bedroom. 00:44:16.898 --> 00:44:27.658 - Those are maximums. You know what the requirement is? Zero. Zero parking requirement. And I know that 00:44:27.658 --> 00:44:38.630 - makes some people happy, but it wrecks a street. One of these on a street. And in a worst case scenario 00:44:38.630 --> 00:44:46.014 - where you have true over-occupancy, people have cars. They really do. 00:44:46.946 --> 00:44:55.120 - Even if half the people have cars, you don't have any allowance for parking. So are there any restrictions 00:44:55.120 --> 00:45:02.988 - that require these to be affordable? I think the short answer to that is no. There are no restrictions 00:45:02.988 --> 00:45:10.627 - to have it affordable. But if you make it one per bedroom, the people that take advantage of it are 00:45:10.627 --> 00:45:15.134 - probably the people that you want to take advantage of it. 00:45:15.394 --> 00:45:23.559 - people who own a house, but it's a little big for them, or they want someone to live in and care for 00:45:23.559 --> 00:45:31.966 - them, or they happen to have a child who's going to college and a friend of the child and they can rent 00:45:31.966 --> 00:45:40.131 - rooms out. That's where you have actual affordable housing. So we have this bifurcated market of the 00:45:40.131 --> 00:45:44.254 - highly competitive market to get the student money 00:45:44.962 --> 00:45:52.553 - And then you have the market of naturally occurring affordable rentals, mom and pop rentals that are 00:45:52.553 --> 00:46:00.294 - in small houses that haven't been blown up to have five or six bedrooms that aren't renting for $6,000 00:46:00.294 --> 00:46:08.035 - a month. If the goal is to have affordable housing, then don't give the ticket to profit in this other 00:46:08.035 --> 00:46:13.822 - market. Let's focus on the market we care about, people who are living here, 00:46:14.114 --> 00:46:22.577 - who want to own or who can live in naturally occurring affordable rentals. And of all the things that 00:46:22.577 --> 00:46:31.206 - you could do, going to one room, one person per room is probably the simplest amendment you could make. 00:46:31.206 --> 00:46:39.669 - I suggest that we honor the desire of the council to have an affordable project here. And the answer, 00:46:39.669 --> 00:46:43.486 - if we can require affordability again, is no. 00:46:44.610 --> 00:46:57.096 - We can encourage it by simply ten seconds Thank you for listening, thank you for serving Thank you any 00:46:57.096 --> 00:47:09.460 - other public comment Yes, Anna killing you should be able to unmute and speak now I'm the director of 00:47:09.460 --> 00:47:14.430 - housing and neighborhood development and 00:47:14.850 --> 00:47:23.554 - I'm a little bit concerned about the language indicating room Because when we are inspecting it is very 00:47:23.554 --> 00:47:32.342 - important that we know what a bedroom is That it has proper egress that we have smoke detectors. There's 00:47:32.342 --> 00:47:41.381 - fire safety concerns So having somebody just sleeping in a random room within the building is not something 00:47:41.381 --> 00:47:44.478 - that's gonna meld well with title 16 00:47:45.186 --> 00:47:55.936 - I just want to raise my concern with that particular piece. Thank you. Is there any additional public 00:47:55.936 --> 00:48:06.475 - comment on Zio 03-25? Isabel Piedmont, you should be able to unmute. Yes, thank you. I just want to 00:48:06.475 --> 00:48:14.590 - mention a couple of things. Isabel Piedmont Smith, Bloomington City Council. 00:48:14.850 --> 00:48:25.508 - district one. First of all, the comp plan has a lot of environmental goals and affordability goals that 00:48:25.508 --> 00:48:36.268 - are actually served by this proposal. For example, on page 63, it says encourage a wide range of housing 00:48:36.268 --> 00:48:42.622 - types to provide a more diverse mix of housing opportunities. 00:48:43.170 --> 00:48:51.631 - and household income levels, preferably within neighborhoods and multifamily housing developments. Then 00:48:51.631 --> 00:49:00.173 - if we look at the environment chapter as well, it talks about housing in proximity to where people live, 00:49:00.173 --> 00:49:08.308 - work, and play, or where people work and shop. Various things can be pulled out from the comp plan. 00:49:08.308 --> 00:49:11.806 - Taken as a whole, I think it would support 00:49:12.066 --> 00:49:21.621 - this proposal. And the other thing I wanted to say is that I don't think there's a lot of risk that 00:49:21.621 --> 00:49:31.271 - that two students would want to live in one bedroom that has a shared bathroom or shared kitchen. It 00:49:31.271 --> 00:49:39.966 - seems unlikely to me unless they're low income students that they would want to share even 00:49:40.546 --> 00:49:47.694 - Even people who have a significant other that they spend the night with, they still like to have their 00:49:47.694 --> 00:49:55.120 - own space. And that's what we're getting at with the two per bedroom was that it makes it more affordable. 00:49:55.120 --> 00:50:02.198 - It's two people paying that rent. Again, this is rent for one room. So I do think it tips towards the 00:50:02.198 --> 00:50:04.766 - greater affordability to allow that. 00:50:05.602 --> 00:50:15.048 - And just again, I think I mentioned this before at previous meetings that the context was also to consider 00:50:15.048 --> 00:50:24.140 - possibly SROs as a way for folks who are coming out of homelessness to have a place to stay. And those 00:50:24.140 --> 00:50:33.233 - are often couples who want to stay together and then need each other's support. So that is what I want 00:50:33.233 --> 00:50:34.910 - to say. Thank you. 00:50:36.514 --> 00:50:52.053 - Any additional public comment? If there's anybody else online, please use the raise hand function and 00:50:52.053 --> 00:51:03.326 - we can recognize you. Last call for public comment on ZO03-25. All right. 00:51:03.554 --> 00:51:11.803 - We are then back to the Commission for any Final questions or I'm sorry. There was one person who joined 00:51:11.803 --> 00:51:19.737 - here at the last second It's up to you if you would like to allow comment Yeah, we'll allow it Let's 00:51:19.737 --> 00:51:27.829 - just please state your name for the record and you have five minutes to speak Wendy you should be able 00:51:27.829 --> 00:51:30.814 - to speak now I Just now got connected 00:51:31.298 --> 00:51:41.035 - Are you talking about the single occupancy right now or something else? Yes, this is public comment 00:51:41.035 --> 00:51:51.356 - on zeo 03-25 with which is the amendment regarding single-room occupancy Okay, I simply want to Reiterate 00:51:51.356 --> 00:52:00.606 - what I said last time is I just hope we are not Increasing density for rentals of students and 00:52:01.090 --> 00:52:11.803 - I would like to see the core neighborhoods preserved. That's all I want to say. Thank you. All right. 00:52:11.803 --> 00:52:22.410 - I'm sorry. Yeah, I'm putting shoes on. You told me to put on. And I'm agreeing with you. It's a good 00:52:22.410 --> 00:52:29.342 - idea. Can we mute that user? Wendy Burns senior. Yeah, thank you. 00:52:29.858 --> 00:52:48.954 - We are back to the Commission now for any final discussion or for emotion I'm sorry. Yes, Commissioner 00:52:48.954 --> 00:52:56.926 - Kinsey If you just sit tight I think we're 00:52:57.474 --> 00:53:09.373 - Hi Eric, were you unmuting me intentionally? It's Jillian. No, I'm so sorry. I was trying to do something 00:53:09.373 --> 00:53:20.599 - else Go ahead Jillian. Are you did you have a comment? I'm afraid we may have lost transmission all 00:53:20.599 --> 00:53:23.742 - of a sudden We can hear you 00:53:26.306 --> 00:53:35.042 - from others that can't hear. Can you hear us now? Yes, yes. Go ahead, Jillian. The floor is yours. 00:53:35.042 --> 00:53:44.219 - All right, thank you. Sorry about that, folks. Yeah, I hope we are able to mute the other participants. 00:53:44.219 --> 00:53:53.219 - My question is about addressing Anna Killian Hanson's question about bedroom. And, you know, I'm, has 00:53:53.219 --> 00:53:54.366 - someone who, 00:53:54.626 --> 00:54:01.726 - certainly knows a lot about this, meaning Anna Killian Hansen. I would like to avoid any problems with 00:54:01.726 --> 00:54:08.688 - language and assuring proper egress out of bedrooms, if that's appropriate. And I wonder if we could 00:54:08.688 --> 00:54:15.719 - get Eric and staff to weigh in again on that to see if we may have, you know, as I looked through the 00:54:15.719 --> 00:54:21.854 - rest of the packet, I see bedrooms specified in lots of places in both the use table and 00:54:21.986 --> 00:54:31.545 - Places and just want to make sure we aren't making an error here Believe that was directed at staff. 00:54:31.545 --> 00:54:41.578 - Yeah, certainly Specific reference in the use specific standards changes the word room to bedroom. That's 00:54:41.578 --> 00:54:51.326 - certainly be appropriate Staff doesn't have any problems with that Okay, thank you for clarifying that 00:54:51.778 --> 00:54:59.747 - Okay, we I had one other question if I can do it while I still have and and this is perhaps just restating 00:54:59.747 --> 00:55:07.419 - something again. These are still conditional use. It's still as a conditional use SRO as a conditional 00:55:07.419 --> 00:55:10.398 - use within those residential districts. 00:55:11.074 --> 00:55:17.874 - Yes, correct. It is a conditional use and so there are only we are proposing a lot of the same language 00:55:17.874 --> 00:55:24.413 - That was implemented with the duplexes in that there are only 15 that are allowed per year That you 00:55:24.413 --> 00:55:30.951 - have a 150 foot buffer that is required around each one once it's done And that the petitioner that 00:55:30.951 --> 00:55:38.078 - is coming forward for the conditional use does not have any notices of violation within the past three years 00:55:39.266 --> 00:55:45.602 - Thank you for reiterating that. I just think it's important, you know, we sometimes repeat things that 00:55:45.602 --> 00:55:51.815 - are in the table, you know, for a petition like this that's been tabled and continued, I should say. 00:55:51.815 --> 00:55:58.212 - But I just want to make sure that those things, that people hear that those things are still true, that 00:55:58.212 --> 00:56:04.610 - the use table still indicates conditional use for this. And just to make that clarification, thank you. 00:56:04.610 --> 00:56:07.870 - I don't think I have any other questions. Thank you. 00:56:08.802 --> 00:56:17.691 - Just one thing the language about the 15 per year is not actually in what we're proposing right now 00:56:17.691 --> 00:56:27.202 - I wanted to correct that. Sorry Thank you Commissioner Stossberg Since a director Killian Hanson's online, 00:56:27.202 --> 00:56:30.046 - hopefully she's still there and 00:56:30.434 --> 00:56:36.295 - One of the commenters expressed some concern about regulating owner occupancy and in general regulating 00:56:36.295 --> 00:56:42.099 - like occupancy of these. And that is a hand issue, I think, at least in terms of making sure that they 00:56:42.099 --> 00:56:48.072 - are not over occupied. Has hand expressed any concern with being able to regulate and enforce regulations 00:56:48.072 --> 00:56:53.933 - related to occupancy and safety and that kind of thing with this regard? And if you're not sure if Miss 00:56:53.933 --> 00:56:59.230 - Kellyanne Hansen was able to, if she was still here able to answer that, that would be great. 00:57:00.066 --> 00:57:07.157 - She is certainly still online so I don't want to speak for her directly and if you want to address that 00:57:07.157 --> 00:57:14.180 - I So the only time that we are going to be able to enforce that is when we are actually Inspecting the 00:57:14.180 --> 00:57:21.135 - units which could be on a three four or five year cycle So we are not going to be able to police this 00:57:21.135 --> 00:57:28.431 - regularly unless it's during a cycle inspection or complaint inspection You know, and we don't necessarily 00:57:28.431 --> 00:57:29.726 - How do I put this? 00:57:30.114 --> 00:57:36.652 - This is actually under the purview of the planning department. This is part of title 20 not part of 00:57:36.652 --> 00:57:43.386 - title 16 It's just that when we're inspecting we can observe whether something is over occupied or not 00:57:43.386 --> 00:57:49.989 - It's going to be up to the planning department to enforce the occupancy So as a follow-up to that, I 00:57:49.989 --> 00:57:55.742 - mean inspections are on a three four or five year schedule so that means in theory like 00:57:55.938 --> 00:58:03.748 - There could be lots of places over occupied right now and you would not know it because it's between 00:58:03.748 --> 00:58:11.558 - cycles. Is that accurate? There are many times that we are alerted to a potential over occupancy Due 00:58:11.558 --> 00:58:18.750 - to parking issues so we may have more vehicles on site than what we would typically have and 00:58:18.882 --> 00:58:26.062 - Neighbors might be complaining or an abundance of trash or something like that that might take tip us 00:58:26.062 --> 00:58:33.382 - off While our neighborhood compliance officers are out in the field patrolling their neighborhoods They 00:58:33.382 --> 00:58:40.914 - may observe something and then we contact the planning department about enforcement if we do see something 00:58:40.914 --> 00:58:48.798 - that is over occupied so Just to say that this is not something that we're going to be able to police regularly 00:58:49.346 --> 00:58:56.566 - But you would be able to police this as well as the current definition of family with no more than three 00:58:56.566 --> 00:59:03.511 - unrelated adults or Five depending on the zoning district or like anything else that gets regulated. 00:59:03.511 --> 00:59:10.524 - This is going to be able to be regulated as all of those other things Right. It's not going to be any 00:59:10.524 --> 00:59:16.094 - different than what we currently our current practices Okay. Thank you Thank you 00:59:28.226 --> 00:59:36.921 - occupancy it says That is one place that I think needs to be well defined So now we have a residential 00:59:36.921 --> 00:59:45.532 - building where individuals rent an individual individual bedrooms And when you call bedrooms, we know 00:59:45.532 --> 00:59:54.143 - that there has to be grass. There's be a closet And in all that so I I am in agreement that it should 00:59:54.143 --> 00:59:57.182 - The definition of bedroom should go 00:59:57.506 --> 01:00:06.799 - Everywhere possible so it's completely clear and no doubt no room for error Would you like to propose 01:00:06.799 --> 01:00:16.091 - an amendment as such yes, I propose an amendment that That on the definition of single room occupancy 01:00:16.091 --> 01:00:25.566 - on page 36 of our packet it reads a residential building where individuals rent individual bedrooms and 01:00:26.978 --> 01:00:37.389 - Would you also like to include in that amendment that we change the Item a under the use specific standards 01:00:37.389 --> 01:00:47.415 - to say maximum of three bedrooms are allowed There's another use of the rooms there. Yes anywhere where 01:00:47.415 --> 01:00:56.766 - it applies And then again in see a maximum of two adults per bedroom are allowed correct Back in 01:00:59.554 --> 01:01:06.364 - Want to make sure we've got a mall. Are there any other places where the word room? This is no room 01:01:06.364 --> 01:01:13.379 - social no bedroom Okay, so we've got four places right in a maximum of three. Oh, I'm sorry two places 01:01:13.379 --> 01:01:20.325 - in a right three bedrooms are allowed all other districts shall not have a maximum number of bedrooms 01:01:20.325 --> 01:01:23.390 - under be no bedroom occupied by a person and 01:01:23.682 --> 01:01:33.826 - And in see a maximum of two adults per bedroom are allowed and then in the definition As well will Yes 01:01:33.826 --> 01:01:44.266 - room to better correct. I think there's one more in a All other districts shall not have a maximum number 01:01:44.266 --> 01:01:52.638 - of bedrooms. Yeah, just I just said that one. Yep, so I think total of one two Three 01:01:52.866 --> 01:02:05.476 - Yeah total of four places where we're changing room to bedroom six Six places one two Four and two in 01:02:05.476 --> 01:02:17.838 - the definite. Yes. Yeah, so total of four in the in the use specific standards, right and then Five 01:02:17.838 --> 01:02:19.198 - how about? 01:02:21.634 --> 01:02:32.796 - Table as well when it says single room occupancy. Yes, sorry, you know it says guest room So that was 01:02:32.796 --> 01:02:43.739 - already supposed to have been fixed alright, so thank you for Correcting me there. So there are yes 01:02:43.739 --> 01:02:49.758 - three in a one in B one in C two in the definition and 01:02:50.306 --> 01:02:59.959 - for a total of six There's only one in the definition sorry, I just wanted the definition the total 01:02:59.959 --> 01:03:09.901 - of total of six, right? Correct. All right Just confirm that is your proposed amendment. Yes. Is there 01:03:09.901 --> 01:03:18.974 - a second for that amendment? All right any discussion on that amendment Commissioner Seaboard 01:03:20.226 --> 01:03:29.309 - about Like a single-family home that might from like a real estate perspective have four bedrooms maybe 01:03:29.309 --> 01:03:37.694 - is functionally used as an office, but Is it should it be bedrooms where people? sleep or is it 01:03:39.490 --> 01:03:46.787 - Yeah, so that was kind of go back to your ear similar question where I mentioned if we encounter that 01:03:46.787 --> 01:03:54.514 - situation We would do a zoning commitment that says whatever that room is that is not labeled or identified 01:03:54.514 --> 01:04:01.811 - as a bedroom Would not be used as a bedroom or sleeping area to help enforcement Okay, so staff's not 01:04:01.811 --> 01:04:08.894 - concerned with just keeping it bedroom. It'll be Any other comments Is there any public comment on 01:04:08.994 --> 01:04:21.808 - the amendment to change the word room to bedroom in these six locations All right, I'm not I'm not saying 01:04:21.808 --> 01:04:34.622 - anything online all right seeing none we are back to the Commission. Let's call the roll on the amendment 01:04:34.622 --> 01:04:37.886 - Yes Braille yes seabor yes 01:04:38.402 --> 01:04:53.637 - Radke. Yes Holmes. Yes Kinsey. Yes Stossburg. Yes All right motion carries we are then back to the petition 01:04:53.637 --> 01:05:07.038 - any final questions or comments or a motion on the petition Commissioner Stossburg I Intend to 01:05:07.234 --> 01:05:13.975 - Recommend this to council positively tonight if that motion is so made With regard to kind of trying 01:05:13.975 --> 01:05:20.716 - to ensure that there's affordability in this I salute that concept but like we can't we can't really 01:05:20.716 --> 01:05:27.457 - do that We can't regulate that state of Indiana doesn't let us so we just have to do everything that 01:05:27.457 --> 01:05:29.726 - we can to encourage that and Yeah 01:05:29.826 --> 01:05:37.185 - In terms of regulation, I just want to reiterate, as Director Killian Hanson mentioned, that this new 01:05:37.185 --> 01:05:44.617 - use is not going to pose additional onus on regulation. It just simply adds another thing to regulate. 01:05:44.617 --> 01:05:51.976 - And I'm not concerned, if she's not concerned, about Han's capacity to do that. I guess I hesitate to 01:05:51.976 --> 01:05:55.006 - say this, but I'm going to say it anyway. 01:05:56.066 --> 01:06:03.285 - I appreciate that there's been a lot of concern from public comment in these last few hearings, especially 01:06:03.285 --> 01:06:10.167 - with regard to how this might over-occupy students specifically. Students need places to live to, and 01:06:10.167 --> 01:06:17.184 - it really sounds like a lot of student hate that ends up coming out of the community, and that's really 01:06:17.184 --> 01:06:21.502 - disturbing, I guess. Students need places to live, and students 01:06:22.594 --> 01:06:29.204 - We can't tell students where they can and cannot live they need to find someplace to live and we have 01:06:29.204 --> 01:06:35.943 - low-income students We have unhoused students. We have couchsurfing students because they cannot afford 01:06:35.943 --> 01:06:42.942 - rent I Don't think that we want that and I appreciate that that you know, and I was actually handling um, I 01:06:43.362 --> 01:06:52.955 - some complaints this weekend related to students' use of property and trash around their residence and 01:06:52.955 --> 01:07:02.455 - it not looking or being treated well. And that is a separate issue to regulate. Noise, trash, general 01:07:02.455 --> 01:07:05.342 - disturbance, that is separate. 01:07:05.890 --> 01:07:13.112 - And that could happen whether you have student neighbors or whether you have senior neighbors or whether 01:07:13.112 --> 01:07:20.197 - you have any old neighbors because people are people and sometimes they are not going to behave as the 01:07:20.197 --> 01:07:27.145 - way that we wish that everybody would. So I just wish that we could manage to not target students so 01:07:27.145 --> 01:07:32.510 - much with housing changes and the way that it's been done through this entire 01:07:32.610 --> 01:07:38.525 - SRO thing Lastly, I want to say and I'm not going to do any kind of amendments or discussion about it 01:07:38.525 --> 01:07:44.323 - tonight I guess this is a heads-up to planning. I have some concerns about Having no maximum number 01:07:44.323 --> 01:07:50.238 - of rooms, especially in the RM and the RH given the proximity of those zoning districts to our threes 01:07:50.370 --> 01:07:57.750 - And there are several other housing options in those areas that do add greater density So that is something 01:07:57.750 --> 01:08:04.721 - that I do want to pursue at the council level in terms of an amendment But especially because we need 01:08:04.721 --> 01:08:11.759 - to forward this to council tonight Based on the timeline. I don't I don't want to get into it here but 01:08:11.759 --> 01:08:18.046 - I'm just kind of giving a heads up that I think that that is maybe a flaw in that for those 01:08:18.210 --> 01:08:26.460 - to particular zoning districts because of their proximity and the other things that are already allowed 01:08:26.460 --> 01:08:34.394 - there that might end up being better options in some of those areas, depending on how big you wanna 01:08:34.394 --> 01:08:42.644 - go in terms of maximum number of rooms. So anyway, those are my comments tonight. Thank you. Thank you. 01:08:42.644 --> 01:08:47.166 - Any other comments? Commissioner Kinsey. Yes, thank you. 01:08:47.298 --> 01:08:56.120 - I appreciate all the work that has gone into trying to make this amendment, help increase housing options 01:08:56.120 --> 01:09:04.776 - and diversify housing options. That is the goal here. And I think the more we can help people get elder 01:09:04.776 --> 01:09:11.518 - care in their homes, diversify the housing types and bring it closer to the main 01:09:12.226 --> 01:09:20.691 - all of the housing options, make more of the housing options accessible is important to do for our community. 01:09:20.691 --> 01:09:28.618 - I understand all of the commenters' concerns about neighborliness and what this might inspire, and I'm 01:09:28.618 --> 01:09:36.544 - not a fan, of course, and I don't support bad neighbors, and I also don't support the outrageous rents 01:09:36.544 --> 01:09:41.854 - that are being charged, and people are able to get them. But I think 01:09:42.242 --> 01:09:49.387 - What the intent is, is to really open up housing. And I'm persuaded by Commissioner Piedmont-Smith's 01:09:49.387 --> 01:09:56.461 - concern about allowing two people to live in a single room and that this proposal does support some 01:09:56.461 --> 01:10:03.605 - environmental concerns that are expressed in the comp plan and the goals for diverse options. All of 01:10:03.605 --> 01:10:05.374 - that's really important. 01:10:05.474 --> 01:10:12.541 - I know that it's flawed. I realize that, but I think we definitely need to move this forward to get 01:10:12.541 --> 01:10:19.750 - some action within the City Council. Perhaps there might be some other additions or ways to make this 01:10:19.750 --> 01:10:26.959 - work better. But also, again, I feel better that we have some safeguards in place. I know conditional 01:10:26.959 --> 01:10:34.168 - use is sometimes perceived as being onerous for a homeowner or for a property owner to negotiate, but 01:10:34.168 --> 01:10:35.440 - it's a way to put 01:10:35.440 --> 01:10:42.588 - with some more safeguards and to assure that the community is made aware of the properties change and 01:10:42.588 --> 01:10:50.156 - the use of a single room occupancy in that particular residence. So I think we've got sufficient safeguards 01:10:50.156 --> 01:10:57.444 - in place to work through this on a case by case basis that the conditional use permits. So I would like 01:10:57.444 --> 01:11:04.382 - to support this and move it forward to the council tonight. Thanks. Thank you. Any other comments? 01:11:06.818 --> 01:11:15.646 - Commissioner bro condition of 15 15 petitions a year that was taken off the table No, I apologize. It 01:11:15.646 --> 01:11:24.733 - was not part of the petition. I thought it was Included in previous versions, but that was not certainly 01:11:24.733 --> 01:11:33.214 - if the Plain Commission would like to add that That can be included. Okay Thank you Anything else 01:11:34.882 --> 01:11:42.084 - Well, I just want to yeah, I'll make a couple comments. I want to first of all second what Commissioner 01:11:42.084 --> 01:11:49.009 - Stossberg's comments about students. I've been working in land use in this town for almost 20 years 01:11:49.009 --> 01:11:55.934 - and it's one thing that never seems to go away is that Every discussion we have that is going to do 01:11:55.934 --> 01:12:03.205 - anything to increase availability of housing immediately turns to how terrible it is that we might allow 01:12:03.205 --> 01:12:04.798 - more students here and 01:12:05.026 --> 01:12:15.190 - And I it I'm so tired of it. I could not be more tired of it We Make laws to try to create the best 01:12:15.190 --> 01:12:25.659 - environment for Citizens of Bloomington period right not for students not for seniors not for somebody 01:12:25.659 --> 01:12:33.790 - The amount of time that you've lived in this town makes no difference, right we 01:12:33.922 --> 01:12:40.719 - If you live here, you are a Bloomingtonian, and you're welcome here. That's it, end of story. And I'm 01:12:40.719 --> 01:12:47.848 - not gonna vote for anything or against anything because I think it's gonna allow more students or prohibit 01:12:47.848 --> 01:12:54.778 - more students, right? That shouldn't even be part of the discussion. Whether or not someone is enrolled 01:12:54.778 --> 01:13:01.841 - in classes should have no bearing whatsoever on where they can live. And I will not ever support anything 01:13:01.841 --> 01:13:02.974 - that is based on 01:13:03.074 --> 01:13:11.449 - that kind of discrimination. Frankly, it's disgusting to me. In terms of policy here, I think generally 01:13:11.449 --> 01:13:19.582 - this is a step in the right direction. If we want more affordability, you have to have more density. 01:13:19.582 --> 01:13:27.796 - Also, hard stop. You're not gonna get things to be cheaper by making it harder to build and by having 01:13:27.796 --> 01:13:31.742 - fewer units or having fewer people in each unit. 01:13:32.034 --> 01:13:39.645 - Those are all things that are going to make it more expensive. And I also think the idea of two people 01:13:39.645 --> 01:13:47.403 - per bedroom, yes, it's going to create more occupancy. But without it, you are inherently discriminating 01:13:47.403 --> 01:13:55.310 - against anyone who is married. That's not OK. That's not OK, period. We have to allow that. That shouldn't 01:13:55.310 --> 01:14:01.886 - even be up for discussion. So I like where this is generally. A few things I don't like. 01:14:02.370 --> 01:14:08.631 - I think we're still creating a little bit too many hoops to jump through. And I particularly have a 01:14:08.631 --> 01:14:15.018 - problem with the idea of this buffer. And we've done this other places, but I have a problem with the 01:14:15.018 --> 01:14:21.780 - idea that my rights as a property owner change based on if my neighbor beats me in the race to get approved 01:14:21.780 --> 01:14:28.041 - for something. And I think it also, just practically speaking, is a little bit misguided. There are 01:14:28.041 --> 01:14:31.422 - probably neighborhoods and there are probably streets 01:14:31.554 --> 01:14:38.359 - where this type of housing is more appropriate. And to say, well, we can only have one on this street 01:14:38.359 --> 01:14:44.764 - because whoever got there first sets the buffer, I think is a little bit misguided. And I think 01:14:44.764 --> 01:14:52.036 - it necessarily sort of forces this stuff to occur in places where it may or may not be the most appropriate. 01:14:52.036 --> 01:14:58.174 - If there's a place where it's appropriate to have three or four rooming houses on a street, 01:14:58.530 --> 01:15:04.224 - Why wouldn't we allow it to be there right? Why is it that only the first one to get there can can do 01:15:04.224 --> 01:15:09.974 - it? I think that's I think that's misguided and I wish that we would that we would stop doing that and 01:15:09.974 --> 01:15:15.668 - I understand why we're doing it right. We're trying to assuage the fears of people who think that the 01:15:15.668 --> 01:15:17.566 - this type of housing is going to. 01:15:17.826 --> 01:15:24.269 - you know, cause a mad rush of students into their neighborhood, right? I mean, it is exactly 01:15:24.269 --> 01:15:31.336 - that discrimination that is causing us to put this type of restriction in the legislation. And I just 01:15:31.336 --> 01:15:38.264 - don't like it. I just think it's misguided and I think it's political. I think it's designed to try 01:15:38.264 --> 01:15:44.638 - to, not to advance the goal, but just to make it a little bit more palatable to people who, 01:15:44.770 --> 01:15:51.153 - Don't care about the goal of this legislation as far as it affects the whole city, right? That's and 01:15:51.153 --> 01:15:57.472 - that's our job our jobs not to look at What is this going to do to? My neighborhood, right? It's to 01:15:57.472 --> 01:16:03.792 - look at what what does our city need? What does our city need in terms of creating? Land use policy 01:16:03.792 --> 01:16:10.237 - that's going to promote affordability, right? And so so I really am I'm just not in favor of creating 01:16:10.237 --> 01:16:12.702 - these these sorts of buffers certainly 01:16:13.410 --> 01:16:21.306 - Zoning and having zones there are places where it's gonna be more appropriate. I think that's fine But 01:16:21.306 --> 01:16:29.048 - to just say because your neighbor got there first you can't do it. I really have a problem with that 01:16:29.048 --> 01:16:37.327 - so I do want to move this along to the council and I'm happy to support a motion to do so and Affordability 01:16:37.327 --> 01:16:43.230 - you have to have more supply You don't necessarily have to have more density 01:16:43.426 --> 01:16:49.455 - Everywhere you have to have more density at least somewhere. I think Bloomington should have a diversity 01:16:49.455 --> 01:16:55.255 - of neighborhoods and types of places to live Including single-family neighborhoods people like those 01:16:55.255 --> 01:17:01.112 - kinds of neighborhoods You can increase density in some places and increase supply without increasing 01:17:01.112 --> 01:17:07.429 - density everywhere. I think increasing density everywhere Reduces the diversity of the types of neighborhoods 01:17:07.429 --> 01:17:09.726 - Bloomington has so thank you. Thank you 01:17:11.714 --> 01:17:22.356 - To be sure when we do that it covers This what I'm calling the Seymour amendment from last meeting We 01:17:22.356 --> 01:17:33.414 - changed facility to residents in the definition We changed rooms to bedrooms six places in the definition 01:17:33.414 --> 01:17:40.926 - and in the first section and then is that all I Think that's right. Yep 01:17:41.218 --> 01:17:53.366 - So I think the the appropriate motion here would be to to forward Zio zero three dash 25 as amended 01:17:53.366 --> 01:18:05.757 - to the council Someone like to make such a motion Okay, I'll make a motion to forward to council with 01:18:05.757 --> 01:18:11.102 - a positive recommendation Is there a second 01:18:12.386 --> 01:18:22.262 - All right any final discussion All right, let's call the roll on the just to clarify that was a motion 01:18:22.262 --> 01:18:32.042 - to forward to counsel as amended As amended with a positive recommendation, right? Thank you, correct 01:18:32.042 --> 01:18:42.014 - All right, let's call the roll on the motion Burrell Yes, seaboard. Yes, co Rodke. Yes Holmes no Kinsey 01:18:42.850 --> 01:18:53.448 - Stossberg yes Whistler Yes All right motion carries that is our final petition for the evening is there 01:18:53.448 --> 01:19:03.842 - any are there any final Announcements or anything before we adjourn All right, thank you all for your 01:19:03.842 --> 01:19:05.982 - time we're adjourned