All right. Good evening. Let me call to order this meeting of the city of Bloomington Plan Commission
for September 8th 2025 Let me start by giving just a quick preview of our Agenda this evening. There
are several petitions that remain tabled that will not be heard tonight SP 24 22 Which is
Cutters Kirkwood went to three LLC Also zeo 34-23 those text amendments re relating to sign standards
Zeo 01-25 which are text amendments related to Udo regarding affordable housing incentives and sp 28-25
which is petition from built LLC
property at 1320 South Roger Street. Those all remain continued or tabled, excuse me, and will not be
heard tonight. The three petitions we will hear this evening are ZO 20-25 as amended by the council.
This is amendments to the UDO tables for a few different areas. ZO 22-25, also council amended,
changes to the UDO use table regarding vehicle wash. And then finally, ZO03-25, which are text amendments
to the UDO regarding residential rooming house, which we heard at the last meeting as well. So those
three petitions will get hearings tonight.
We'll start with our little bit of housekeeping before we get into those petitions, but let's start
just by calling the roll Homes here Kinsey Here Stossburg here Whistler here all right, we do have a
quorum but
of one commissioner joining us remotely, which means we'll have to do a roll call vote on anything we
take action on tonight. We'll need to do a full roll call vote. And just to remind everyone, we do need
five yes votes on any motion. It's not a majority of those who are here, it's a majority of all voting members.
little margin for error tonight in the actions that we take. Next up, we will have some minutes to be
approved. I believe we have received minutes from the August 11th meeting now, although they did come
a little bit late, so I'm not sure if everyone's had a chance to review those. Are there any questions
or corrections to those minutes? Commissioner Stosberg.
Thank you. Um, I would just really appreciate if the minutes could make a note of the dissenting votes
I wasn't here for the last meeting but there were several votes that were not unanimous and so I was
it was one of those moments where I was like I want to be reminded of who voted no on these things so
I know that council the clerk does that for council meetings like anybody who votes no or abstains they
make a special note of those so I don't know if that can be done in these minutes, but I feel like that
information is notable
Did you want us to amend the minutes that are coming for you tonight to show those dissenting votes
or was that a comment just for future minutes? Certainly for future minutes and I mean, I think that
it's probably an important part of public record So I think probably in terms of tonight's it would
be Beneficial if you want to continue that we can amend those minutes and then bring you forward next
week or next month. I mean, okay. Thank you So, I'm sorry, would you like to make a motion to
Continue the minutes to our next meeting sure. I'll move to Postpone approval of the minutes until the
October meeting. All right, is there a second for that? Okay any other discussion any other comments
or questions about the the minutes All right, let's call the roll on the motion to continue the August
11th meeting
Minutes till our next meeting Co Rodkey Holmes. Yes, Kinsey. Yes Stossburg. Yes Whistler. Yes all right,
so that motion carries the minutes are Continued to our next meeting. Are there any reports resolutions
or communications from commissioners tonight?
Alright sing on any From staff nothing from staff. No. All right Well, then I guess we are ready to
get into our petitions. The first one is zio 20-25 looks like we are lucky enough to have Eric Grulick
to Present each of these tonight
Thank you. So these next two petitions are a series of use table amendments that the Plain Commission
heard that were then forwarded on to the Common Council As it was going to the council there were some
last-minute adjustments to the actual packet and exhibits that the council heard in terms of the
Specific exhibits that were attached to each ordinance. So those ordinance amendments were modified
by the council So because that was modified in some regard it has to come back to the Plain Commission.
There was no change to the actual ordinance itself. So these are both for Use table amendments so that
the language and all of the changes to the use table stayed the same It was just the exhibits that were
in the packet that were amended So as I mentioned because the council did amend what went to them. It
does have to come back to the Plain Commission
for ratification So just to clarify the table that we Approved here is the same as the table that the
council approved There's no changes as to which district fraternity sorority or mixed-use housing are
allowed in Correct. Yeah. So so for both of those for the first ones the 0 2025 that dealt with fraternity
and sorority uses and vehicle fleet operations and
The exhibits were modified in the exhibit the attachments that went to the council and then likewise
for the second one for the vehicle wash those exhibits got Transposed in the packets and so those were
modified through an amendment and those have to come back So the ordinance and all the language the
table everything stayed the same. It was just the exhibits that got modified Part of what was adopted into law
That was it was just what was presented to the council. So because that happened at the council meeting
There was an amendment at the council meeting for that. It had to come back to us So, I'm sorry, so
there was an amendment made at the council meeting. Yes, we have a council member here So with regard
to this first one if you guys recall I'm actually the one that that motion to this during the Plan Commission
meeting that in
Packet tonight. It has it crossed out number 10 fraternities or sorority house and then everything else
renumbered Because we had to change the use table by taking out the asterisk, right? Because the asterisk
didn't track back to anything any content in the UDO But when it was before us and Plan Commission that
that heading fraternities or sorority house was still there with nothing underneath it So I made the
motion at the time to say hey, let's take that out. Let's renumber the other things and
Do you remember that well that renumbering did not translate to the council documents? So then at the
council level I had to make that amendment again To modify that document. So in terms of like what we
at Plan Commission approved It's like all the same but in terms of what was given what was presented
in the packet at council It was actually different from what so this was basically just a correction.
It's like a scrivener's error. Yeah. Yeah, I
And that's yeah, and you said that's the case for both. No, that's the case for the first one on the
second one There was just where it was supposed to have the attachment that Was the was the table with
like the part of the allowed use table that was changing It was just a different part of the allowed
use table So it was just the wrong like attachment and so then but then we had to specifically amend
it to put the right attachment in so it was just
Another kind of similar like These things happen kind of moments. All right Are there any other are
there any questions from commissioners on zeo 20-25? Is there any public comment on zeo 20-25 If you're
here in the chambers and you'd like to make comment just
Step right up to the podium and state your name for the record if you're joining us online Click the
reactions button on your zoom app and then raise your hand Or you can also send a chat message to the
meeting host and we'll recognize you when it is your turn to speak All right last call for public comment
on zeo 20-25 I
Alright back to the Commission for any final discussion or for emotion To I guess men title 20 of the
Bloomington municipal code for fraternity and sorority house artist studio workshop vehicle fleet operations and
No large and small correct Am I reading that right? Yeah, I think the motion that we need here is simply
to approve zio-20-25 So, I'm sorry so you just to just to clarify your motion is just that we Approve Ordinance
2025 26 as amended by the council Yes, all right, is there a second for that All right, let's call the
roll on that motion Yes Holmes yes Kinsey Yes
Stossburg. Yes Whistler. Yes Burrell. Yes seaborne. Yes All right that motion carries we're on now to
zeo 22-25 Eric anything else to add on this one or no again just to Reiterate what was already said
this was just correcting exhibits that were in the packet All right any
Discussion or questions from commissioners Any public comment on zeo 22-25 There any online commenters
Okay, this is last call for public comment on zeo 22-25
We are back to the Commission then for any final discussion or for a motion Of zeal 20-22-25 All right
any Final comments All right, let's call the roll on the motion
to dot zero twenty two dash twenty five Yes Kenzie Yes Stossburg Yes Whistler Yes Beryl yes Seymour
yes Cobra key. Yes All right that motion carries we are on now to
zio-03-25 And again, we have Eric Grulick take it away. Thank you Eric Grulick development services
manager So this is a continual discussion This is the third hearing for this particular amendment to
the use table for the unified development ordinance and
So this is following up on a council resolution that was issued last year Directing the Planning Commission
to prepare a proposal Consistent with several aspects that were included in their resolution to amend
the unified development ordinance to Allow for a use to be known as single-room occupancy There were
several items in the council resolution that were the Planning Commission was urged to look into and
consider One of those was distinguishing between existing
Use called residential rooming house and a this proposed use single-room occupancy the council directed
Plain Commission to look at allowing SROs as a permitted use in multiple zoning districts
They requested to look at requiring or not requiring owner occupancy For SROs as this was an allowance
within the current UDO for the use residential rooming house So the council wanted the Planning Commission
to look at removing that particular element They directed the Planning Commission to look at allowing
SROs into mixed-use buildings and other housing types and also to allow two people per SRO
So as I mentioned, this is the third hearing for this particular proposal. So the plane commission and
staff has spent a lot of time discussing this particular element in this petition. We certainly acknowledge
a lot of complexities with this proposal in terms of allowing this use.
The current UDO does allow for the use residential rooming house and a lot of zoning districts It's
a use that's allowed in the multifamily districts with an owner occupancy requirement It's allowed in
the mixed-use districts now, but it's not allowed in the single-family districts so one of the intentions
with the council resolution was to expand the districts where this use is allowed within and certainly
as we've acknowledged in a lot of previous discussions
The challenges that we've we've encountered with this were how to try to accomplish what the resolution
was intending in terms of providing a diversity of housing options for folks Ideally trying to make
this more affordable by lessening the amount of burden that a petition or that a person has with a rent
So single-room occupancies are a situation where somebody just rents the bedroom and makes use of general
common area within the building So kitchens living areas bathrooms, you know, those are all common area
and then a person just rents a bedroom So in in a lot of situations that presents an opportunity where
rent is cheaper for that person However, we cannot rent control structures or rent within buildings
And so so that particular element although is typically associated with this by default
You know, it's not something that we can regulate within the udl itself So when this was heard in july
We brought forward a petition that allowed for a certain number of bedrooms within the r1 and r2 district
allowing three bedrooms We were proposing to allow five bedrooms in the r3 and r4 districts
So the R3 and R4 are the districts where you typically have smaller lot sizes. They're more central
to the downtown And then so we had a definition of family that was a little bit confusing that we altered
later And then we had some language regarding prohibiting certain bathroom elements within bedrooms
So we heard a lot of comments in the July hearing that we revised coming forward to the August hearing
So in August last month, we modified the number of bedrooms that were being proposed
proposed to allow five in all districts We modified the number of adults per bedroom to make that two
which was in keeping with the resolution And then we also included language Requiring owner occupancy
and that the owner of the property had to be a registered nonprofit So at the August hearing we heard
a lot of comments regarding those proposals Certainly a lot of folks both on the Planning Commission
and the community have voiced some opinions on some of those regards and so
While a lot of those elements Were deemed to be favorable. We also acknowledge that there would be certain
challenges specifically requiring owner occupancy And that the owner of her property be a nonprofit,
you know in regards to the owner being You know, they have to live there. Certainly. We acknowledge
that you could place any of the particular
Particular owners on a deed for that property and they would be living there so, you know as we've mentioned
one of the challenges here is how to
Provide legislation that is in keeping with the council ordinance that also doesn't just enable higher
degree of occupancies For situations that we were not trying to solve for you know So we're trying to
provide missing housing for members of the community and not necessarily provide more student rental
opportunities or Increase occupancy for those uses and so that's that's been one of the challenges that
we've been trying to solve for and so what we're bringing for it tonight is
What the department feels is kind of the best attempt to accomplish the goals of the resolution while
trying to minimize some of the impacts that we've been concerned with and also kind of balancing some
of the legal challenges that we have to make sure to be attentive to and not not get too deep into So
for instance requiring the owner of the property to be a nonprofit The legal department has advised
us that would be very challenging to defend in court And so we've removed that particular element in regard
The number of bedrooms or rooms per SRO. We are proposing a maximum of three rooms per SRO And we are
keeping the proposed number of adults per room at two so we've tried to address a lot of or all of the
areas in the resolution that the council directed us to to look at and
And one of the other changes for what you're seeing tonight versus what was heard in August in August
there was a provision that allowed for a waiver to be granted from one of the proposed use specific
requirements that dealt with
the person coming or the entity coming forward for the SRR could not have any notices of violation for
the past three years. We had previously included a provision for a waiver from that requirement. However,
we weren't really able to come up with really good legally defensible waiver criteria that we could
evaluate that on. So we didn't want to just have a waiver that was based on subjective requirements.
We wanted to have a very well-established criteria for that. So that's something that we could certainly introduce
at a later time as part of any amendments to the text within the UDO it does not require a change to
the use table so that's certainly something we can address at a later time if we feel that's appropriate
for the SROs or even if that's something that gets addressed with the discussions that we're having
for middle housing discussions that are happening later this year so we do not have a requirement or
an allowance within the current
legislation for a waiver from that notice of violation, stipulation or prohibition.
So as I mentioned, you know what we're bringing forward Tries to accomplish a lot of the goals within
the resolution trying to check off all of the boxes within there We do still have the language in there
requiring the owner to be to live on the property So that was something that we did hear from a lot
of members of the public As well as members of the Plain Commission that they felt like that aspect
would help minimize You know the likelihood that these would just be used for student rentals certainly
as I mentioned
Owner the property could be placed on the deed. It does obviously require a lot more work from a legal
perspective to do that And so we we do acknowledge that but that was kind of the best approach to try
to limit adverse impacts with this use
And so we do still have a lot of the other changes in terms of renaming of the residential rooming house
within the UDO Changes within that parking standards that read that reference that other use some minor
modification to the definition of residential rooming house to make that more in line with other definitions
of single-room occupancy uses and other communities where it references Specifically that a person is
just running a room
And must share other common facilities including kitchen bathroom and common area and so with that
We are recommending that the Plain Commission for this petition to the Common Council with a favorable
recommendation And it's also important to note that the council did extend the resolution At their last
hearing I think in July granting us another 60 days And so that 60 days does expire before the next
Plain Commission session So it is extremely important that the Plain Commission does take action on
this tonight and for this on with a
Recommendation and as I mentioned we are recommending a positive Recommendation to the council. So with
that I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you Eric any questions from commissioners Commissioner
Stasberg When I review the last the the meeting minutes I had noticed that mr. Seaboard had made a
Motion to change how the parking maximum was listed to say instead of per guest room per bedroom And
that's not reflected in here, but that was a motion that actually passed At the plan Commission before
it was before this petition was continued to this hearing Yes, thank you I apologize that I admitted that from
But if you certainly want to include that again tonight with the recommendation that would be very helpful
just to reiterate that same language So does that need to have like a separate motion and then? Mr.
Seaboard, do you want to do that again? We took that as a friendly amendment last time I believe right
or did we there was an actual vote on According to the minutes in the record then already. Yeah, not
much we need to do on that probably just Make sure it gets updated on
Yes, like as I mentioned certainly be very helpful just to include that there might be other conditions
of approval So we would just fold that in with any other conditions of approval that the Plain Commission
wanted to send along Okay, and then I have one more to In the definition of single-room occupancy you
call it a residential facility and facility brings to mind some sort of
Group housing or like a special, you know something and I'm wondering if that could potentially be changed
to something like a dwelling or dwelling unit or Something that doesn't bring to mind such a Thank you
institutional kind of
Yeah, so so it's a little bit challenging here because this use wall present, you know, oftentimes in
our discussions They've been focused solely on their presence in single-family neighborhoods There are
situations in other buildings where you can have one more than one kitchen So the definition of dwelling
unit says a single unit with a kitchen. These are an exception from that So that's why we did not use
the word dwelling unit specifically because the definition of dwelling unit says a single kitchen Okay,
is there something else besides facilities?
Yeah, I certainly recognize the sensitivity maybe that word we're open to suggestions Certainly you
can include that as a condition of approval to to change that aspect Does anybody have any suggestions
for something that's less institutional than facility at this moment? I
It's in the definition of single-room occupancy in our packet. It's on page 36 Just as a residential
facility where individuals rent individual rooms and then share common facilities Accommodation a residential
residence Or just a residence
Residential I could you could just say a resident resident a residence where individuals rent The staff
have any building with comment on That suggestion Eric do you have any do you see any conflicts was
using the word residents or residential building or
I mean, I think either those certainly could be fine a residence or residential building. Certainly
building would probably the best one Someone like to make a motion to amend that as such I'll move to
change the word facility to building in the definition of single-room occupancy on page 36 of our packet
All right. Is there a second for that motion? second any discussion Any public comment on this amendment
There is anybody online that would like to make a comment, please use the the raise hand function All
right, I'm not seeing anybody online all right, I know I'm sorry WB I'm sorry. I just had a comment
to the to the proposal not to the amendment
All right, we will have another opportunity for public comment on the entire petition after this.
All right, if there's no other comments on the amendment specifically, let's call the roll on the amendment
to change facility to building. Kenzie? Yes.
Stossburg Yes Whistler, yes Burrell yes seaborne. Yes Co Rodkey. Yes Holmes. Yes All right that motion
carries we are then back to The original petition any other questions from commissioners I
Good Just and this may have been answered that so the definition saying that it it has shared facilities
such as Kitchen bedroom, that's enough to make those requirements So in some definitions you would say
may include so we change, you know I change that to such as to specifically make those requirements
for those elements. Yeah, I
Okay, so someone who did a kitchen but didn't have shared baths would be out of compliance As long as
there is a shared bathroom So one of the concerns was that you know, if you wanted to have a sink in
a residential unit, you know
Could be an amenity that would be allowed as long as there is still a shared bathroom So the such as
requires those elements that doesn't necessarily prohibit, you know a small bathroom within an individual
bedroom But it does require that element within the building as a whole as well Okay, so they could
each have like an ensuite bathroom as long as there's at least one shared bathroom, correct? I
Was the intention yes, I'm certainly if you feel like there's other language that might be stronger
or modification that did previous versions of it require that or prohibit bathrooms
Yes, so in the original version that came to the Plain Commission in July there was language in there
that prohibited Bedrooms from having a bathroom attached to it in any capacity whatsoever So we did
feel like that some members of the public and Plain Commission thought that might be a little harsh
And you know some basic private Care bathroom could be appropriate. And so that's why we removed that
part And modified the definition
Okay Okay, another question the three rooms that is that does not include the owners room I take it
So the owner has it would be three rooms regardless of you know, the owner so that we just you know
It's up to them, you know, which room they they stay in or sleep in or whatever But that would allow
for that. So the so one of those three would be the owner's room. Yes in the residential Yes, okay.
Okay in the in the single-family districts. Yes, the single-family. Okay
And then the last one the not married couples so that was removed was that something legal said had
to be removed because Well, so that's where the occupancy of two people per room kind of allows that
Configuration whatever that might look like and so that was that was one of the reasons why we went
back to the two people per room rather than the one So that we didn't have to deal with defining a family
or you know Defining married people or you know, whatever that that might look like
You know just allowing two people per room and this does not regulate children So it'd be those two
people and you know any children. Okay what I'm getting at with those questions So the two people per
room and the ensuite bathroom Makes it attractive to convert some of the single-family to frankly, you
know rental housing for student occupancy And it would be at high market value, right? It's not going
to do anything for affordable housing
It may not happen very much, but those things I think those were The previous requirement that if you're
gonna have to they need to be in a family unit and his family not defined anywhere else in the ordinance
It's a family. We did not modify the definition of family for this use There is a definition of family,
but it rooming houses are exempt from that So that's why it's important to clarify that element specifically
within these use specific restrictions Okay
I mean, I like it in general. We've removed the number of restrictions for residential rooming houses
for multifamily That was a I think an issue that's gone here I think this is going to make it attractive
to convert single-family residential into rental housing So, I mean for my part I would want to read
to restore the requirement that if you're gonna have to I
Their family they're related to each other in some way and I would restrict the ensuite bathrooms I'd
say no don't have those because you're going to get into a situation where you're just going to want
to make them back into high-dollar not Affordable housing units so It's just a comment so it's enough
of my questions. Thank you Mr. Seymour It's just following up on so the maximum number of rooms so
12 a Just as maximum of rooms and it says maximum number of three rooms are allowed I'm assuming we're
talking about just bedrooms and that that would be obvious to staff and petitioners, but just is it
worth Defining or will that be clear for administering if approved? Yeah, so so we actually did have
the word bedrooms in there But it was suggested to just modify that to to say rooms where people are
sleeping So that would be clear to staff as we are reviewing these, you know all all
Of a house have to be identified, you know with a use whether those are a living room It's a kitchen
as a bathroom a sleeping room So that was that would be clear certainly to us that we would be looking
at where are the rooms that people are sleeping in? To make sure that there aren't more than three So
should it would it be helpful then to say three rooms where people sleep or is that?
Right now it just says three rooms unless it's defined somewhere else. It's not defined anywhere else
So it just kind of be an inherent characteristic of that, you know If you felt like it might make it
clearer to say three sleeping rooms You can certainly certainly propose a condition of approval. Okay,
so hypothetically there's a house that has four what might be bedrooms but
People just can't sleep in one of those rooms if it was converted to yeah So if it was a situation like
that and we see those kind of often where somebody might label something as a study Or something similar
to that then will require a zoning commitment that says only three rooms are to be allowed for You know
dwelling purposes or sleeping purposes So it's just kind of something we handle on a case-by-case basis
based on what a floor plan is Okay, and then I guess hypothetically if I owned a home
Wanted to do this one of those rooms was a master room Odds are I'm gonna want to keep that master room
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
that's random comment Nevermind Any other questions from commissioners
Alright sing them. We will go then to public comment on Zio 03-25 Again, if you're here in the chambers
and you'd like to make comment just step up to the podium and state your name for the record you'll
have up to five minutes to make your comments if you're Joining us online. Just click on that reactions
button and raise your virtual hand and we'll recognize you when it is your turn to speak WB you should
be able to speak now
Hi there, yes. Okay, let's see. And if you could state your name for the record, please. Not sure if
you're still there, but we are unable to hear you here in the chambers. Sorry, can you hear me now?
Yes, we hear you now. Okay, sorry. Yes, my name is Wendy Brescht. Wait, can you still hear me? Yes,
okay, sorry. My phone's doing some strange things. I've been involved in this situation for a while.
I've watched the history from 62 onwards. I used to work for a woman who owned student housing. I saw
what happened when the up-zoning previously
40 years ago, 50 years ago, and what happened to my neighborhood and how long it took to recover after
Mayor Allison put zoning back in place. I've also watched in California what happened with this very
same idea of owner occupancy, which almost never happens. It's very easy to get around. I don't exactly
know how you're going to enforce it.
I own a house in Bloomington. I could easily just live in California and say I sleep in the sunroom
and not live in. I think it's important that everybody knows that this is basically what's already being
done, certainly in all the houses that I know. If you look up on Zillow, the rentals say that Chickering
owns, they're buying up larger houses like crazy.
But every bedroom, every person that's allowed in brings the price up. Their five bedrooms are commanding
8,100 now. Their four bedrooms are commanding 6,400. Many of those houses are quite small. The five-bedroom
houses are between 1,800 and 2,200 square feet. They do rent by the bedroom. This is already happening.
What this seems like to me as a resident,
and seeing even some families moving back in finally with children, which is great, is that you are
basically going to be doubling occupancy and it's going to be students because these are $1,500. It's
not that they're going to just cut that in half. Rental investors are going to get as much as they can
and it's going to be students anywhere within walking distance because that is prime real estate.
And it is very, very valuable. And there's a voracious student rental market there. They rent typically
two, sometimes three years in advance. And I just think you really need to know what you're doing here
because it's very difficult to enforce. In California, we've seen it to be impossible to enforce owner
occupancy. What happens when that owner might be there for a year, they might move away. They just might
leave a room open and say they live there and get some mail there.
I don't see how you can possibly do that. That is what has happened in California. We've seen relatively
older, less expensive rentals. I have a good friend. In fact, he now lives here in California who was
basically kicked out of his house. He was paying 700 a month for an older house, a bedroom in an older
house that was taken over. It was converted into many bedrooms, but with more
What basically happened was they just kept one room clear for two years, which is all they had to do,
or one space. It doesn't matter. It doesn't seem to matter in your petition what space it is. So I really
caution you to be serious about this, because it's going to be difficult to enforce. And I also see
that parents of students might make their students the owners, and the students could live there, and
then they could use it for a rooming house as well.
But just the, you know, we have a tipping point that we're at and it makes everything more expensive,
especially the houses that are outside the affected areas that are still real neighborhoods. The prices
then go up in those because there's so few of them. There's a real dearth of housing for residents.
And I just see that doubling the occupancy in our neighborhoods near the university will just,
make a better market for investors and we'll again make that process go faster of transforming
our neighborhoods into student rentals. Anyway, thank you very much for letting me comment. Thank you.
Is there any other public comment? Chris Durban, you should be able to speak now.
Yes, Chris Sturbom, thank you. The HUD definition of single room occupancy is one adult per bedroom.
It's a nationally recognized standard that promotes genuine affordable housing while limiting the risk
of over-occupancy, speculation, and unintended conversion to student rentals. I ran into a woman at
the market who had just sold her house recently at Elm Heights.
and saw it advertised for $6,000 a month rent. This happens all the time. We have two distinct markets
in Bloomington. We have the highly competitive student market, and the students are actually increasing
while people who live in Bloomington, the locals, are decreasing. So the people that are building, they
know what they're doing,
and they know when they're converting houses, the financial incentive is right there. Going to one person
per bedroom is a way to respectfully let this happen where it can happen and actually let it be affordable
because when you go after student rental, it is not affordable. The comprehensive plan also has two
very clear
guidelines for us exist page 60 existing core neighborhoods should not be the focus of the city's increasing
density. And page 62 city supports multifamily but this should not be done at the cost of losing naturally
occurring affordable home ownership and existing affordable rentals in single family neighborhoods.
The idea of allowing two people per bedroom is another dangerous way of opening this up. You can have
a duplex, and the duplex suddenly used to be two bedrooms each. Now you can have four people in each
side. And the parking, anyone who reads the parking sees, oh yeah, they said two per unit and half per bedroom.
Those are maximums. You know what the requirement is? Zero. Zero parking requirement. And I know that
makes some people happy, but it wrecks a street. One of these on a street. And in a worst case scenario
where you have true over-occupancy, people have cars. They really do.
Even if half the people have cars, you don't have any allowance for parking. So are there any restrictions
that require these to be affordable? I think the short answer to that is no. There are no restrictions
to have it affordable. But if you make it one per bedroom, the people that take advantage of it are
probably the people that you want to take advantage of it.
people who own a house, but it's a little big for them, or they want someone to live in and care for
them, or they happen to have a child who's going to college and a friend of the child and they can rent
rooms out. That's where you have actual affordable housing. So we have this bifurcated market of the
highly competitive market to get the student money
And then you have the market of naturally occurring affordable rentals, mom and pop rentals that are
in small houses that haven't been blown up to have five or six bedrooms that aren't renting for $6,000
a month. If the goal is to have affordable housing, then don't give the ticket to profit in this other
market. Let's focus on the market we care about, people who are living here,
who want to own or who can live in naturally occurring affordable rentals. And of all the things that
you could do, going to one room, one person per room is probably the simplest amendment you could make.
I suggest that we honor the desire of the council to have an affordable project here. And the answer,
if we can require affordability again, is no.
We can encourage it by simply ten seconds Thank you for listening, thank you for serving Thank you any
other public comment Yes, Anna killing you should be able to unmute and speak now I'm the director of
housing and neighborhood development and
I'm a little bit concerned about the language indicating room Because when we are inspecting it is very
important that we know what a bedroom is That it has proper egress that we have smoke detectors. There's
fire safety concerns So having somebody just sleeping in a random room within the building is not something
that's gonna meld well with title 16
I just want to raise my concern with that particular piece. Thank you. Is there any additional public
comment on Zio 03-25? Isabel Piedmont, you should be able to unmute. Yes, thank you. I just want to
mention a couple of things. Isabel Piedmont Smith, Bloomington City Council.
district one. First of all, the comp plan has a lot of environmental goals and affordability goals that
are actually served by this proposal. For example, on page 63, it says encourage a wide range of housing
types to provide a more diverse mix of housing opportunities.
and household income levels, preferably within neighborhoods and multifamily housing developments. Then
if we look at the environment chapter as well, it talks about housing in proximity to where people live,
work, and play, or where people work and shop. Various things can be pulled out from the comp plan.
Taken as a whole, I think it would support
this proposal. And the other thing I wanted to say is that I don't think there's a lot of risk that
that two students would want to live in one bedroom that has a shared bathroom or shared kitchen. It
seems unlikely to me unless they're low income students that they would want to share even
Even people who have a significant other that they spend the night with, they still like to have their
own space. And that's what we're getting at with the two per bedroom was that it makes it more affordable.
It's two people paying that rent. Again, this is rent for one room. So I do think it tips towards the
greater affordability to allow that.
And just again, I think I mentioned this before at previous meetings that the context was also to consider
possibly SROs as a way for folks who are coming out of homelessness to have a place to stay. And those
are often couples who want to stay together and then need each other's support. So that is what I want
to say. Thank you.
Any additional public comment? If there's anybody else online, please use the raise hand function and
we can recognize you. Last call for public comment on ZO03-25. All right.
We are then back to the Commission for any Final questions or I'm sorry. There was one person who joined
here at the last second It's up to you if you would like to allow comment Yeah, we'll allow it Let's
just please state your name for the record and you have five minutes to speak Wendy you should be able
to speak now I Just now got connected
Are you talking about the single occupancy right now or something else? Yes, this is public comment
on zeo 03-25 with which is the amendment regarding single-room occupancy Okay, I simply want to Reiterate
what I said last time is I just hope we are not Increasing density for rentals of students and
I would like to see the core neighborhoods preserved. That's all I want to say. Thank you. All right.
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
idea. Can we mute that user? Wendy Burns senior. Yeah, thank you.
We are back to the Commission now for any final discussion or for emotion I'm sorry. Yes, Commissioner
Kinsey If you just sit tight I think we're
Hi Eric, were you unmuting me intentionally? It's Jillian. No, I'm so sorry. I was trying to do something
else Go ahead Jillian. Are you did you have a comment? I'm afraid we may have lost transmission all
of a sudden We can hear you
from others that can't hear. Can you hear us now? Yes, yes. Go ahead, Jillian. The floor is yours.
All right, thank you. Sorry about that, folks. Yeah, I hope we are able to mute the other participants.
My question is about addressing Anna Killian Hanson's question about bedroom. And, you know, I'm, has
someone who,
certainly knows a lot about this, meaning Anna Killian Hansen. I would like to avoid any problems with
language and assuring proper egress out of bedrooms, if that's appropriate. And I wonder if we could
get Eric and staff to weigh in again on that to see if we may have, you know, as I looked through the
rest of the packet, I see bedrooms specified in lots of places in both the use table and
Places and just want to make sure we aren't making an error here Believe that was directed at staff.
Yeah, certainly Specific reference in the use specific standards changes the word room to bedroom. That's
certainly be appropriate Staff doesn't have any problems with that Okay, thank you for clarifying that
Okay, we I had one other question if I can do it while I still have and and this is perhaps just restating
something again. These are still conditional use. It's still as a conditional use SRO as a conditional
use within those residential districts.
Yes, correct. It is a conditional use and so there are only we are proposing a lot of the same language
That was implemented with the duplexes in that there are only 15 that are allowed per year That you
have a 150 foot buffer that is required around each one once it's done And that the petitioner that
is coming forward for the conditional use does not have any notices of violation within the past three years
Thank you for reiterating that. I just think it's important, you know, we sometimes repeat things that
are in the table, you know, for a petition like this that's been tabled and continued, I should say.
But I just want to make sure that those things, that people hear that those things are still true, that
the use table still indicates conditional use for this. And just to make that clarification, thank you.
I don't think I have any other questions. Thank you.
Just one thing the language about the 15 per year is not actually in what we're proposing right now
I wanted to correct that. Sorry Thank you Commissioner Stossberg Since a director Killian Hanson's online,
hopefully she's still there and
One of the commenters expressed some concern about regulating owner occupancy and in general regulating
like occupancy of these. And that is a hand issue, I think, at least in terms of making sure that they
are not over occupied. Has hand expressed any concern with being able to regulate and enforce regulations
related to occupancy and safety and that kind of thing with this regard? And if you're not sure if Miss
Kellyanne Hansen was able to, if she was still here able to answer that, that would be great.
She is certainly still online so I don't want to speak for her directly and if you want to address that
I So the only time that we are going to be able to enforce that is when we are actually Inspecting the
units which could be on a three four or five year cycle So we are not going to be able to police this
regularly unless it's during a cycle inspection or complaint inspection You know, and we don't necessarily
How do I put this?
This is actually under the purview of the planning department. This is part of title 20 not part of
title 16 It's just that when we're inspecting we can observe whether something is over occupied or not
It's going to be up to the planning department to enforce the occupancy So as a follow-up to that, I
mean inspections are on a three four or five year schedule so that means in theory like
There could be lots of places over occupied right now and you would not know it because it's between
cycles. Is that accurate? There are many times that we are alerted to a potential over occupancy Due
to parking issues so we may have more vehicles on site than what we would typically have and
Neighbors might be complaining or an abundance of trash or something like that that might take tip us
off While our neighborhood compliance officers are out in the field patrolling their neighborhoods They
may observe something and then we contact the planning department about enforcement if we do see something
that is over occupied so Just to say that this is not something that we're going to be able to police regularly
But you would be able to police this as well as the current definition of family with no more than three
unrelated adults or Five depending on the zoning district or like anything else that gets regulated.
This is going to be able to be regulated as all of those other things Right. It's not going to be any
different than what we currently our current practices Okay. Thank you Thank you
occupancy it says That is one place that I think needs to be well defined So now we have a residential
building where individuals rent an individual individual bedrooms And when you call bedrooms, we know
that there has to be grass. There's be a closet And in all that so I I am in agreement that it should
The definition of bedroom should go
Everywhere possible so it's completely clear and no doubt no room for error Would you like to propose
an amendment as such yes, I propose an amendment that That on the definition of single room occupancy
on page 36 of our packet it reads a residential building where individuals rent individual bedrooms and
Would you also like to include in that amendment that we change the Item a under the use specific standards
to say maximum of three bedrooms are allowed There's another use of the rooms there. Yes anywhere where
it applies And then again in see a maximum of two adults per bedroom are allowed correct Back in
Want to make sure we've got a mall. Are there any other places where the word room? This is no room
social no bedroom Okay, so we've got four places right in a maximum of three. Oh, I'm sorry two places
in a right three bedrooms are allowed all other districts shall not have a maximum number of bedrooms
under be no bedroom occupied by a person and
And in see a maximum of two adults per bedroom are allowed and then in the definition As well will Yes
room to better correct. I think there's one more in a All other districts shall not have a maximum number
of bedrooms. Yeah, just I just said that one. Yep, so I think total of one two Three
Yeah total of four places where we're changing room to bedroom six Six places one two Four and two in
the definite. Yes. Yeah, so total of four in the in the use specific standards, right and then Five
how about?
Table as well when it says single room occupancy. Yes, sorry, you know it says guest room So that was
already supposed to have been fixed alright, so thank you for Correcting me there. So there are yes
three in a one in B one in C two in the definition and
for a total of six There's only one in the definition sorry, I just wanted the definition the total
of total of six, right? Correct. All right Just confirm that is your proposed amendment. Yes. Is there
a second for that amendment? All right any discussion on that amendment Commissioner Seaboard
about Like a single-family home that might from like a real estate perspective have four bedrooms maybe
is functionally used as an office, but Is it should it be bedrooms where people? sleep or is it
Yeah, so that was kind of go back to your ear similar question where I mentioned if we encounter that
situation We would do a zoning commitment that says whatever that room is that is not labeled or identified
as a bedroom Would not be used as a bedroom or sleeping area to help enforcement Okay, so staff's not
concerned with just keeping it bedroom. It'll be Any other comments Is there any public comment on
the amendment to change the word room to bedroom in these six locations All right, I'm not I'm not saying
anything online all right seeing none we are back to the Commission. Let's call the roll on the amendment
Yes Braille yes seabor yes
Radke. Yes Holmes. Yes Kinsey. Yes Stossburg. Yes All right motion carries we are then back to the petition
any final questions or comments or a motion on the petition Commissioner Stossburg I Intend to
Recommend this to council positively tonight if that motion is so made With regard to kind of trying
to ensure that there's affordability in this I salute that concept but like we can't we can't really
do that We can't regulate that state of Indiana doesn't let us so we just have to do everything that
we can to encourage that and Yeah
In terms of regulation, I just want to reiterate, as Director Killian Hanson mentioned, that this new
use is not going to pose additional onus on regulation. It just simply adds another thing to regulate.
And I'm not concerned, if she's not concerned, about Han's capacity to do that. I guess I hesitate to
say this, but I'm going to say it anyway.
I appreciate that there's been a lot of concern from public comment in these last few hearings, especially
with regard to how this might over-occupy students specifically. Students need places to live to, and
it really sounds like a lot of student hate that ends up coming out of the community, and that's really
disturbing, I guess. Students need places to live, and students
We can't tell students where they can and cannot live they need to find someplace to live and we have
low-income students We have unhoused students. We have couchsurfing students because they cannot afford
rent I Don't think that we want that and I appreciate that that you know, and I was actually handling um, I
some complaints this weekend related to students' use of property and trash around their residence and
it not looking or being treated well. And that is a separate issue to regulate. Noise, trash, general
disturbance, that is separate.
And that could happen whether you have student neighbors or whether you have senior neighbors or whether
you have any old neighbors because people are people and sometimes they are not going to behave as the
way that we wish that everybody would. So I just wish that we could manage to not target students so
much with housing changes and the way that it's been done through this entire
SRO thing Lastly, I want to say and I'm not going to do any kind of amendments or discussion about it
tonight I guess this is a heads-up to planning. I have some concerns about Having no maximum number
of rooms, especially in the RM and the RH given the proximity of those zoning districts to our threes
And there are several other housing options in those areas that do add greater density So that is something
that I do want to pursue at the council level in terms of an amendment But especially because we need
to forward this to council tonight Based on the timeline. I don't I don't want to get into it here but
I'm just kind of giving a heads up that I think that that is maybe a flaw in that for those
to particular zoning districts because of their proximity and the other things that are already allowed
there that might end up being better options in some of those areas, depending on how big you wanna
go in terms of maximum number of rooms. So anyway, those are my comments tonight. Thank you. Thank you.
Any other comments? Commissioner Kinsey. Yes, thank you.
I appreciate all the work that has gone into trying to make this amendment, help increase housing options
and diversify housing options. That is the goal here. And I think the more we can help people get elder
care in their homes, diversify the housing types and bring it closer to the main
all of the housing options, make more of the housing options accessible is important to do for our community.
I understand all of the commenters' concerns about neighborliness and what this might inspire, and I'm
not a fan, of course, and I don't support bad neighbors, and I also don't support the outrageous rents
that are being charged, and people are able to get them. But I think
What the intent is, is to really open up housing. And I'm persuaded by Commissioner Piedmont-Smith's
concern about allowing two people to live in a single room and that this proposal does support some
environmental concerns that are expressed in the comp plan and the goals for diverse options. All of
that's really important.
I know that it's flawed. I realize that, but I think we definitely need to move this forward to get
some action within the City Council. Perhaps there might be some other additions or ways to make this
work better. But also, again, I feel better that we have some safeguards in place. I know conditional
use is sometimes perceived as being onerous for a homeowner or for a property owner to negotiate, but
it's a way to put
with some more safeguards and to assure that the community is made aware of the properties change and
the use of a single room occupancy in that particular residence. So I think we've got sufficient safeguards
in place to work through this on a case by case basis that the conditional use permits. So I would like
to support this and move it forward to the council tonight. Thanks. Thank you. Any other comments?
Commissioner bro condition of 15 15 petitions a year that was taken off the table No, I apologize. It
was not part of the petition. I thought it was Included in previous versions, but that was not certainly
if the Plain Commission would like to add that That can be included. Okay Thank you Anything else
Well, I just want to yeah, I'll make a couple comments. I want to first of all second what Commissioner
Stossberg's comments about students. I've been working in land use in this town for almost 20 years
and it's one thing that never seems to go away is that Every discussion we have that is going to do
anything to increase availability of housing immediately turns to how terrible it is that we might allow
more students here and
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
environment for Citizens of Bloomington period right not for students not for seniors not for somebody
The amount of time that you've lived in this town makes no difference, right we
If you live here, you are a Bloomingtonian, and you're welcome here. That's it, end of story. And I'm
not gonna vote for anything or against anything because I think it's gonna allow more students or prohibit
more students, right? That shouldn't even be part of the discussion. Whether or not someone is enrolled
in classes should have no bearing whatsoever on where they can live. And I will not ever support anything
that is based on
that kind of discrimination. Frankly, it's disgusting to me. In terms of policy here, I think generally
this is a step in the right direction. If we want more affordability, you have to have more density.
Also, hard stop. You're not gonna get things to be cheaper by making it harder to build and by having
fewer units or having fewer people in each unit.
Those are all things that are going to make it more expensive. And I also think the idea of two people
per bedroom, yes, it's going to create more occupancy. But without it, you are inherently discriminating
against anyone who is married. That's not OK. That's not OK, period. We have to allow that. That shouldn't
even be up for discussion. So I like where this is generally. A few things I don't like.
I think we're still creating a little bit too many hoops to jump through. And I particularly have a
problem with the idea of this buffer. And we've done this other places, but I have a problem with the
idea that my rights as a property owner change based on if my neighbor beats me in the race to get approved
for something. And I think it also, just practically speaking, is a little bit misguided. There are
probably neighborhoods and there are probably streets
where this type of housing is more appropriate. And to say, well, we can only have one on this street
because whoever got there first sets the buffer, I think is a little bit misguided. And I think
it necessarily sort of forces this stuff to occur in places where it may or may not be the most appropriate.
If there's a place where it's appropriate to have three or four rooming houses on a street,
Why wouldn't we allow it to be there right? Why is it that only the first one to get there can can do
it? I think that's I think that's misguided and I wish that we would that we would stop doing that and
I understand why we're doing it right. We're trying to assuage the fears of people who think that the
this type of housing is going to.
you know, cause a mad rush of students into their neighborhood, right? I mean, it is exactly
that discrimination that is causing us to put this type of restriction in the legislation. And I just
don't like it. I just think it's misguided and I think it's political. I think it's designed to try
to, not to advance the goal, but just to make it a little bit more palatable to people who,
Don't care about the goal of this legislation as far as it affects the whole city, right? That's and
that's our job our jobs not to look at What is this going to do to? My neighborhood, right? It's to
look at what what does our city need? What does our city need in terms of creating? Land use policy
that's going to promote affordability, right? And so so I really am I'm just not in favor of creating
these these sorts of buffers certainly
Zoning and having zones there are places where it's gonna be more appropriate. I think that's fine But
to just say because your neighbor got there first you can't do it. I really have a problem with that
so I do want to move this along to the council and I'm happy to support a motion to do so and Affordability
you have to have more supply You don't necessarily have to have more density
Everywhere you have to have more density at least somewhere. I think Bloomington should have a diversity
of neighborhoods and types of places to live Including single-family neighborhoods people like those
kinds of neighborhoods You can increase density in some places and increase supply without increasing
density everywhere. I think increasing density everywhere Reduces the diversity of the types of neighborhoods
Bloomington has so thank you. Thank you
To be sure when we do that it covers This what I'm calling the Seymour amendment from last meeting We
changed facility to residents in the definition We changed rooms to bedrooms six places in the definition
and in the first section and then is that all I Think that's right. Yep
So I think the the appropriate motion here would be to to forward Zio zero three dash 25 as amended
to the council Someone like to make such a motion Okay, I'll make a motion to forward to council with
a positive recommendation Is there a second
All right any final discussion All right, let's call the roll on the just to clarify that was a motion
to forward to counsel as amended As amended with a positive recommendation, right? Thank you, correct
All right, let's call the roll on the motion Burrell Yes, seaboard. Yes, co Rodke. Yes Holmes no Kinsey
Stossberg yes Whistler Yes All right motion carries that is our final petition for the evening is there
any are there any final Announcements or anything before we adjourn All right, thank you all for your
time we're adjourned