WEBVTT 00:00:00.770 --> 00:00:10.586 - It's the appointed hour. It is 531 by my clock so we can get started of the Bloomington planned Commission 00:00:10.586 --> 00:00:19.759 - meeting for September 14th We have a quorum I see so we can do Do our business this evening we have 00:00:19.759 --> 00:00:27.006 - a number of things on the agenda and I'll just quickly go over them just so we 00:00:27.650 --> 00:00:35.512 - Make sure that we are all in the right place We'll have our standard roll call and business at the beginning 00:00:35.512 --> 00:00:42.725 - where we'll approve our August minutes will have any reports resolutions and communications we have 00:00:42.725 --> 00:00:50.226 - no continued petitions and nothing on the consent agenda and we have two petitions that are you do text 00:00:50.226 --> 00:00:52.606 - amendments to discuss and then a 00:00:52.930 --> 00:01:04.487 - petition that is requesting a rezone from residential multifamily to mix you student housing and Includes 00:01:04.487 --> 00:01:15.717 - a waiver of the required second hearing So that's on the agenda tonight and we'll start by calling the 00:01:15.717 --> 00:01:21.822 - roll Burrell Seabour here Holmes Kinsey here Smith here 00:01:21.922 --> 00:01:29.520 - Stossburg here Excellent. Okay, and we have no members present online So that means we'll just do voice 00:01:29.520 --> 00:01:37.338 - votes this evening and speaking of voice Make sure everybody on the Commission that we use our microphones 00:01:37.338 --> 00:01:44.863 - and actually lean into it this year From now on lean into it so everybody can hear us Okay, so we have 00:01:44.863 --> 00:01:50.270 - our first order of business approval of August minutes. I actually have a 00:01:50.466 --> 00:01:58.545 - Rather trivial correction a typo that I would like to at least make sure we address You know, I know 00:01:58.545 --> 00:02:06.703 - it seems trivial, but I noticed in the agenda or in the minutes Roberts rules of order was mistakenly 00:02:06.703 --> 00:02:14.782 - type, you know typo Robertson so they got a new name. So let's make sure that we just get Roberts in 00:02:14.782 --> 00:02:15.902 - there just so 00:02:16.258 --> 00:02:23.799 - People of the public don't think that we're operating by some other rules that they're not aware of 00:02:23.799 --> 00:02:31.716 - So that was the only Error, but I consider it really trivial. So I hope that we can vote on them Pending 00:02:31.716 --> 00:02:39.332 - there are no other major Fines. Yes, Patrick one. It's another fairly trivial. It's on the z o 20 26 00:02:39.332 --> 00:02:45.214 - 0 6 0 0 6 and at the end of the discussion on that it says bishop motioned to 00:02:45.346 --> 00:03:03.626 - So let us look into that and revise those and then we'll bring those back next time Yes, I agree and 00:03:03.626 --> 00:03:10.142 - we have perhaps another one Yeah, I 00:03:12.322 --> 00:03:21.722 - We try to cite it in the same way that just got cited under that same zio Twenty twenty six. Oh six. 00:03:21.722 --> 00:03:31.029 - Oh, oh six when we have the motion that I made to amend the red line text the section is not Like a 00:03:31.029 --> 00:03:40.522 - written the way that our UDO sections are usually written like it's written as one run-on two oh four 00:03:40.522 --> 00:03:41.918 - one one od2 av 00:03:42.178 --> 00:03:49.873 - instead of having some dots and stuff in there. And then actually, like earlier in that section, there 00:03:49.873 --> 00:03:57.494 - are some dots, but the D2AV are still not quite right. So I think that it would be helpful for future 00:03:57.494 --> 00:04:05.115 - readers of these minutes to have that corrected as well. Yeah, thank you. I see that. We'll get those 00:04:05.115 --> 00:04:09.822 - three revisions done and bring it back to you guys next month. 00:04:10.370 --> 00:04:17.343 - Yeah, and then similarly like the electrification and then developments should have a hyphen between 00:04:17.343 --> 00:04:24.453 - it like electrification Should be capitalized and then hyphen developments in terms of like that's how 00:04:24.453 --> 00:04:31.771 - the actual you do reads and otherwise it just seems confusing because we're talking about electrification 00:04:31.771 --> 00:04:39.710 - developments all in one phrase Do you see that Eric Yes, yeah, let us let us take a look at that section and we'll 00:04:39.938 --> 00:04:47.527 - We'll get that revised bring it back October. Thanks Thank you important that we get the minutes correct 00:04:47.527 --> 00:04:55.044 - anything else as long as we're making corrections All right. Okay, so we'll Not take any action on that 00:04:55.044 --> 00:05:02.706 - one except to get them corrected and bring it back to the next meeting Do we have any reports resolutions 00:05:02.706 --> 00:05:07.838 - and communications? from staff or commissioners Nothing from staff. No 00:05:09.474 --> 00:05:17.473 - anything from Yes, Commissioner Stasburg, I'll go ahead and say since we're talking about The the minutes 00:05:17.473 --> 00:05:25.623 - from that day that particular petition Has a second reading in front of council this Wednesday if anybody's 00:05:25.623 --> 00:05:33.321 - interested. Thanks Great. So yes, the things that we took up will be enjoying their second reading In 00:05:33.321 --> 00:05:39.358 - front of council. Okay. Thank you anybody else Will you be voting on them then? 00:05:40.418 --> 00:05:48.395 - You think I'm not sure that I can speculate on that in theory. We could vote on it theory could you 00:05:48.395 --> 00:05:56.371 - could vote on it? I also think that there's a chance that could be moved to a third reading because 00:05:56.371 --> 00:06:04.508 - of potential pending amendments Because there were no amendments in the packet, but I know that there 00:06:04.508 --> 00:06:09.214 - were there was some discussion of those so Okay, thank you 00:06:10.082 --> 00:06:18.163 - All right If we're ready to move on okay, well we have no petitions continued no consent agenda, so 00:06:18.163 --> 00:06:26.810 - let's move right to our first petition zeo 2026-06-007 the city of Bloomington planning and transportation 00:06:26.810 --> 00:06:35.134 - a udio text amendment change related to increasing housing attainability and Eric you're gonna present 00:06:35.778 --> 00:06:42.790 - Thank you. So this is actually the kind of third hearing that this will be presented at. At the first 00:06:42.790 --> 00:06:50.146 - hearing, this was continued to the August hearing. At the August hearing, there was just a brief overview, 00:06:50.146 --> 00:06:57.365 - but then this was continued to this hearing here for the required second hearing. So at this time, we'll 00:06:57.365 --> 00:07:02.590 - kind of step through these three particular aspects that are being proposed 00:07:02.754 --> 00:07:09.426 - Staff had actually kind of laid out at the beginning of the year a series of amendments to the unified 00:07:09.426 --> 00:07:16.228 - development ordinance to address several areas that we had identified that could work towards increasing 00:07:16.228 --> 00:07:22.835 - housing within the community. A lot of those were addressed with a council resolution that dealt with 00:07:22.835 --> 00:07:29.054 - setbacks and lot area and some other standards that we had had on the list of things to revise. 00:07:29.186 --> 00:07:36.617 - So once a lot of those were addressed with that particular set of amendments, we still had a few more, 00:07:36.617 --> 00:07:44.265 - three more that we have identified with this particular set of amendments to look to revise a few aspects 00:07:44.265 --> 00:07:51.552 - of the zoning code. What is before us tonight are not monumental changes. These are just making some 00:07:51.552 --> 00:07:58.622 - small adjustments. One of these is to adjust the accessory dwelling unit definition and standards 00:07:58.754 --> 00:08:05.873 - to align with changes that were done at state code with House Bill 1001 that took effect in July 1st 00:08:05.873 --> 00:08:13.204 - of this year that revised the definition of an accessory dwelling unit. So we're syncing our definition 00:08:13.204 --> 00:08:20.253 - to match that. We are modifying the standards for cottage development. So cottage development is an 00:08:20.253 --> 00:08:26.526 - allowance within the UDO to allow for units to be constructed on a property that are not 00:08:26.626 --> 00:08:32.951 - technically multi-family. It's not technically single-family because you're not creating individual 00:08:32.951 --> 00:08:39.845 - lots. So the typical kind of arrangement for a cottage development is some sort of a circular or semi-circle 00:08:39.845 --> 00:08:46.422 - arrangement of homes around a common area. Oftentimes this is something that happens in a single-family 00:08:46.422 --> 00:08:52.747 - neighborhood that allows for a different housing type from your typical single-family versus duplex 00:08:52.747 --> 00:08:53.822 - or multi-family. 00:08:54.018 --> 00:08:59.854 - So we've had the cottage home development standards within the unified development ordinance for a long 00:08:59.854 --> 00:09:05.802 - time. However, unfortunately, given some of the restrictions that are placed on them, they haven't really 00:09:05.802 --> 00:09:11.526 - been utilized. The density of restrictions are certainly one of the biggest ones. So we're looking to 00:09:11.526 --> 00:09:15.454 - increase the allowed number of units that would be allowed with that. 00:09:15.810 --> 00:09:24.048 - And then the last one, we're proposing to modify a few aspects of the use specific standards for duplexes. 00:09:24.048 --> 00:09:32.440 - Specifically, we're proposing to clarify one of the use specific design element requirements. Also proposing 00:09:32.440 --> 00:09:40.601 - to remove the maximum number of duplexes that are allowed to be approved within a year, as well as remove 00:09:40.601 --> 00:09:44.990 - the 150 foot spatial limitation that apply for duplexes. 00:09:45.346 --> 00:09:53.453 - So far for duplexes over the past four years or so that they have been in place Last year we came closest 00:09:53.453 --> 00:10:01.484 - to hitting the 15 Cap that is allowed we had 11. I think last year and this year. I think we're at about 00:10:01.484 --> 00:10:09.439 - three However, one of the things that I mentioned were we're just trying to look to do and also is kind 00:10:09.439 --> 00:10:11.198 - of in keeping with the 00:10:11.362 --> 00:10:18.912 - Language that was introduced with house bill 1001 is directing communities to look at sections of their 00:10:18.912 --> 00:10:26.463 - zoning code their unified development ordinance that might be Restricting the implementation of housing 00:10:26.463 --> 00:10:30.238 - within a community so with this we are proposing to 00:10:30.530 --> 00:10:37.215 - look at several elements that the HP-1001 directed us to look at, although it directed us to look at 00:10:37.215 --> 00:10:43.900 - allowing duplex or two-family dwellings by right. We're not pursuing that particular element because 00:10:43.900 --> 00:10:50.651 - that requires a change to the use table itself. We are looking at some of the restrictions that might 00:10:50.651 --> 00:10:51.710 - be holding back 00:10:51.874 --> 00:10:59.140 - the proliferation or the allowance for duplexes within the community. So reducing the buffer and reducing 00:10:59.140 --> 00:11:06.063 - the cap certainly is something that might help move the needle a little bit in that direction to get 00:11:06.063 --> 00:11:13.054 - those more incorporated. So that is some of the reasoning behind what we're bringing forward tonight. 00:11:13.378 --> 00:11:20.087 - So just to kind of start off, as I mentioned, we'll be syncing our definition of accessory dwelling 00:11:20.087 --> 00:11:26.930 - units with the revised definition that came about earlier this year. So the revised definition states 00:11:26.930 --> 00:11:33.438 - that an ADU shall not exceed the lesser of 75% of the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit 00:11:33.570 --> 00:11:42.202 - or 1,000 square feet. So we're modifying our definition to comply with that. With that, we're also proposing 00:11:42.202 --> 00:11:50.121 - to amend the definition of accessory dwelling unit to accommodate both the situation where it is on 00:11:50.121 --> 00:11:58.120 - a duplex, a property with a duplex versus on a single family lot, basically just utilizing that same 00:11:58.120 --> 00:11:59.070 - definition. 00:12:00.802 --> 00:12:07.986 - with the cottage home development, we're proposing to substantially increase the maximum density that 00:12:07.986 --> 00:12:15.310 - is allowed in the respective zoning districts for these. When these numbers were initially incorporated 00:12:15.310 --> 00:12:22.142 - within the UDO, we were looking at them from a perspective of if you have a given size property, 00:12:22.402 --> 00:12:28.315 - How many houses could you in theory accomplish on that property if you were to subdivide it based on 00:12:28.315 --> 00:12:34.287 - the minimum lot area and lot with standards of a district? So that's how we got to these numbers that 00:12:34.287 --> 00:12:40.142 - you see that density of You know three units per acre for the r1 five units per acre for the r2 six 00:12:40.142 --> 00:12:42.718 - units per acre for the r3 that that equaled 00:12:42.946 --> 00:12:48.861 - what you could get for a single family subdivision based on that lot area and lot width. So again, as 00:12:48.861 --> 00:12:54.776 - I mentioned, we haven't really seen this been utilized at all. There's only been one development that 00:12:54.776 --> 00:13:00.634 - has come forward with this approval. So we'd like to see this utilized more within the community. We 00:13:00.634 --> 00:13:06.839 - feel it does provide an opportunity to have a diversity of housing. So we'd like to increase the allowable 00:13:06.839 --> 00:13:12.638 - density on these, as well as remove the minimum project size limitations that were placed on there. 00:13:13.154 --> 00:13:20.287 - As I mentioned, we're also looking at modifying some of the other other standards within the cottage 00:13:20.287 --> 00:13:27.632 - home development So there's a heavy buffer yard requirement that is required a heavy landscaping buffer 00:13:27.632 --> 00:13:32.222 - yard requirement with this use So we're proposing to remove that 00:13:32.322 --> 00:13:39.142 - and then also adding a U-specific standard that states no more than two units are allowed within a building. 00:13:39.142 --> 00:13:45.649 - This is to help differentiate it between a multifamily development to keep somebody from utilizing this 00:13:45.649 --> 00:13:52.156 - and essentially just coming in with a multifamily development. So we're proposing a U-specific standard 00:13:52.156 --> 00:13:56.286 - that says no more than two units are allowed within one building. 00:13:56.386 --> 00:14:04.822 - And then with the duplexes as I mentioned we're proposing one change Just a slight clarification to 00:14:04.822 --> 00:14:13.764 - one of the use specific standards for duplexes there are four elements of a building that the UDO directs 00:14:13.764 --> 00:14:22.622 - us to look at and ensure that those elements are in general the same size and shape as other elements of 00:14:22.786 --> 00:14:29.805 - of houses along a block face. So one of those is roof pitch with the utilization of this section of 00:14:29.805 --> 00:14:37.246 - the code. One of the things that we've looked at is not just roof pitch, but also the general orientation 00:14:37.246 --> 00:14:44.265 - of the roof. So which way do the gables run? So we have utilized that in kind of our review to help 00:14:44.265 --> 00:14:48.126 - help ensure that duplexes are somewhat compatible with 00:14:48.322 --> 00:14:55.093 - Houses within a neighborhood. Certainly this area has been something that We've seen a lot of discussion 00:14:55.093 --> 00:15:01.541 - on In terms of the application of these you specific standards. They were written in a very general 00:15:01.541 --> 00:15:08.248 - sense That carries with them a lot of subjectivity Which we'd certainly like to maybe revise at a later 00:15:08.248 --> 00:15:14.696 - time but right now we're just looking at slightly clarifying one of those you specific standards to 00:15:14.696 --> 00:15:17.598 - include the orientation of roof is roofs and 00:15:17.858 --> 00:15:25.230 - Within the block face and then as I mentioned we're proposing to remove the maximum number of units 00:15:25.230 --> 00:15:32.675 - Duplex is allowed within a calendar year. The UDO currently restricts that to 15 units So we're just 00:15:32.675 --> 00:15:40.342 - proposing to remove that and then also the UDO has a standard that says No new duplexes may be approved 00:15:40.342 --> 00:15:47.198 - within 150 foot radius for two years. So we are proposing to remove that element as well and 00:15:47.618 --> 00:15:54.785 - And then a slight change to the use specific standards for triplex and fourplex To remove the maximum 00:15:54.785 --> 00:16:01.812 - number of entrances that are allowed we've seen several petitions where somebody has wanted to do a 00:16:01.812 --> 00:16:08.979 - fourplex and Condo eyes each unit within there to allow that to be sold and so the UDO currently says 00:16:08.979 --> 00:16:10.174 - and no more than 00:16:10.338 --> 00:16:18.067 - two entrances are allowed per that building. So having this restriction certainly prevents that situation 00:16:18.067 --> 00:16:25.505 - that we want to encourage where a townhome is condoized and each unit is sold and is treated somewhat 00:16:25.505 --> 00:16:32.943 - as its own unit. So having its own door. So this would allow for the townhome to be condoized in that 00:16:32.943 --> 00:16:39.870 - situation. And so those are the three basic elements that are contained within this ordinance. 00:16:40.162 --> 00:16:47.376 - Amendment and so with this we are recommending that the Planning Commission forward this to the Common 00:16:47.376 --> 00:16:54.730 - Council with a favorable recommendation and With that I'm happy to answer any questions Thank you, okay, 00:16:54.730 --> 00:17:01.734 - we can move right to questions about this to my right Go ahead Commissioner Holmes So just and some 00:17:01.734 --> 00:17:08.318 - of these may be in here. I apologize if they are but thank you to direct me to some answers I 00:17:09.858 --> 00:17:17.014 - The first one. So we're currently in the process of changing lot sizes in our one through our four. 00:17:17.014 --> 00:17:24.958 - I think those are those amendments may still be pending. How do these new sizes for colleges compare to those. 00:17:25.954 --> 00:17:32.876 - Yes, so in the r1 and and certainly this particular element is a very moving target right now as it 00:17:32.876 --> 00:17:39.799 - moves through the council Deliberations in the r1. We were just proposing a small decrease. I think 00:17:39.799 --> 00:17:46.721 - we're going from 9600 to 7200 I'd have to look at the numbers, but it's just a small square footage 00:17:46.721 --> 00:17:53.921 - there In the r3, for instance, we were proposing to go from 5,000 square feet down to 2,500 square feet 00:17:53.921 --> 00:17:55.582 - so, you know in essence 00:17:55.714 --> 00:18:02.142 - Cutting in half. So if you take that same Reduction, you know, this would be the cottage home could 00:18:02.142 --> 00:18:08.569 - be seen as doubling that but really we're looking at almost kind of tripling the amount the allowed 00:18:08.569 --> 00:18:15.126 - density that is proposed with the cottage home development as you can see going from 5 to you know 24 00:18:15.126 --> 00:18:22.003 - Really? You're you're more than more than tripling it in that case. Yes, again, we're just kind of looking 00:18:22.003 --> 00:18:24.446 - at We don't see these utilized at all 00:18:24.706 --> 00:18:30.451 - Certainly one of the challenges could be that you know Just getting these number of units on a lot is 00:18:30.451 --> 00:18:36.309 - challenging just from a financial perspective as well as certain fire code requirements So we just want 00:18:36.309 --> 00:18:42.336 - to try to remove any of the barriers for density Whether or not it'll actually achieve these these density 00:18:42.336 --> 00:18:48.251 - numbers, you know, we don't know but we just like to try to see this be utilized a lot more so modifying 00:18:48.251 --> 00:18:52.926 - this density certainly seemed like the most appropriate way to accomplish that and 00:18:53.090 --> 00:18:59.262 - Because some of these are like an r3 and r4 if I my math was right there about 30 by 30 lots I know 00:18:59.262 --> 00:19:05.619 - they can be of different shapes, but you know saying if there can be two if they can be duplexes these 00:19:05.619 --> 00:19:11.915 - are quite Small so but so it's more dense than It's not a proportional from the changes. We're making 00:19:11.915 --> 00:19:17.470 - in our window r4. Those are getting reduced These are being reduced just quite a bit more 00:19:17.730 --> 00:19:23.492 - Yeah, these are being increased, you know the allowable density that way that is being proposed with 00:19:23.492 --> 00:19:29.368 - cottage homes being substantially increased even beyond The reduction from the minimum lot area if you 00:19:29.368 --> 00:19:35.472 - were to subdivide again just trying to look at Accomplishing a higher density on on a property and getting 00:19:35.472 --> 00:19:41.234 - a diversity of housing Sure, and so how do roads work with cottages? Is it the normal road rules? Do 00:19:41.234 --> 00:19:45.342 - they use lanes like it? How does road access work with? Yeah, so really 00:19:45.474 --> 00:19:52.124 - And unfortunately, I have a very low sampling rate to give you in terms of what's been utilized according 00:19:52.124 --> 00:19:58.397 - to the rules on like yeah, so the biggest challenge really I would say with this is fire department 00:19:58.397 --> 00:20:01.534 - access to those particular units so in the in the 00:20:01.634 --> 00:20:06.698 - given situation of a cottage home you have the houses that are arranged in some sort of a Horseshoe 00:20:06.698 --> 00:20:11.812 - perhaps and then a road circles around the backside of that It doesn't have to be a public road, but 00:20:11.812 --> 00:20:17.281 - certainly to provide fire department access it needs to be 20 foot wide Contained within an access easement 00:20:17.281 --> 00:20:22.395 - that allows for it to move through there So that would be what I would call that the typical cottage 00:20:22.395 --> 00:20:27.560 - home development Okay, so those so they don't have special road rules that allow them to use lanes or 00:20:27.560 --> 00:20:31.358 - anything like that they still have to comply with whatever normal width of 00:20:31.682 --> 00:20:39.778 - It would be whatever the fire department requires, which is typically a 20-foot wide fire access road 00:20:39.778 --> 00:20:48.113 - Okay, okay Okay, thank you. Thank you All right, Commissioner Smith. Oh You probably know what I'm gonna 00:20:48.113 --> 00:20:56.050 - ask the design standards for the duplex Is there any have we talked to architects? Is there any way 00:20:56.050 --> 00:20:58.590 - to make this less subjective? I 00:20:59.554 --> 00:21:06.856 - You know what I mean, it's just yeah, and then it's within the block that the house is proposed So if 00:21:06.856 --> 00:21:14.229 - the next block has a bunch of tall house the block here on as much short houses We have to stay short. 00:21:14.229 --> 00:21:21.459 - I just don't get it Well, so so so they use specific standards and we can just kind of look at those 00:21:21.459 --> 00:21:27.902 - and certainly this is this is a very poignant topic within the community and for a lot of 00:21:28.130 --> 00:21:34.778 - Developments that have come forward. So when these were incorporated within the UDO The general thought 00:21:34.778 --> 00:21:41.361 - the intent was to have some general constraints on certain elements of a house You know the roof pitch 00:21:41.361 --> 00:21:47.817 - really it was trying to address situations of you know You you have pitched roofs and somebody wants 00:21:47.817 --> 00:21:54.273 - to come in with a flat roof modern house That would certainly stand out and not be in keeping so the 00:21:54.273 --> 00:21:56.702 - language within here just talks about 00:21:56.930 --> 00:22:04.882 - general shape size And design of these individual elements so roof pitch again very subjective You know 00:22:04.882 --> 00:22:12.834 - front porch width and depth Again subjective looking at houses along there, you know We obviously don't 00:22:12.834 --> 00:22:20.632 - have the ability to determine roof pitches or front porch width and depth on every single property we 00:22:20.632 --> 00:22:22.238 - just have to kind of 00:22:22.434 --> 00:22:28.973 - look at what we can observe from the public right away and Serve as a general guiding hand to say we 00:22:28.973 --> 00:22:35.448 - want a duplex to look somewhat similar in only these four respective elements Understanding there's 00:22:35.448 --> 00:22:42.117 - there's going to be a lot of wide variation within a block face You know the height of a house was not 00:22:42.117 --> 00:22:48.980 - something that was intended to be regulated here you know, it was just looking at that these four general 00:22:48.980 --> 00:22:49.822 - elements and 00:22:50.114 --> 00:22:57.213 - Certainly the Plain Commission could look to incorporate and add other objective elements I think that's 00:22:57.213 --> 00:23:04.312 - going to be hard to come to a consensus on but certainly it's within your purview if you want to suggest 00:23:04.312 --> 00:23:11.141 - more objective things We would we would as a staff would certainly prefer that than these subjective 00:23:11.141 --> 00:23:15.198 - criteria. Well, okay, then let's change the conversation. I 00:23:16.034 --> 00:23:21.708 - The BZA is your judicial board and right now a conditional use has to go to the BZA because these are 00:23:21.708 --> 00:23:27.438 - in as a conditional use Why do they have to why can't they come to us where we are? Subjective the BZA 00:23:27.438 --> 00:23:33.279 - needs to be objective and yet it can't be Because the use itself is a conditional use and only the Board 00:23:33.279 --> 00:23:38.898 - of Zoning Appeals is empowered to approve them So my question is is there any way to require that to 00:23:38.898 --> 00:23:43.070 - come to us instead of the BZA? Because it's still a meeting notice, right? 00:23:43.298 --> 00:23:49.464 - It's the same process. I don't think state code allows for that. I think it only allows for a board 00:23:49.464 --> 00:23:55.753 - of zoning appeals or hearing officer to approve conditional uses. Is there another definition instead 00:23:55.753 --> 00:24:02.042 - of conditional use that a duplex could be allowed in? I don't see that there would be a different use 00:24:02.042 --> 00:24:08.393 - categorization to put a duplex in. In all of the districts, you obviously have permitted uses and then 00:24:08.393 --> 00:24:12.894 - you have conditional uses, uses that could be situationally appropriate. 00:24:12.994 --> 00:24:19.786 - and so that's that's the Board of Zoning Appeals purview by State code and legal can certainly correct 00:24:19.786 --> 00:24:26.381 - me if I'm wrong or our director can correct me if I'm wrong or missing something here but you know, 00:24:26.381 --> 00:24:33.174 - certainly there are lots of ways to try to address the challenge of the duplex approval review process 00:24:33.174 --> 00:24:39.966 - certainly one of those is making it a permitted use so it's not being put in front of those boards and 00:24:40.162 --> 00:24:47.230 - For those review, however changing the use tables a lot It's a lot more complex in terms of the public 00:24:47.230 --> 00:24:54.092 - notification aspect of it So that's why we are not coming forward with a use table change now Yeah, 00:24:54.092 --> 00:25:01.228 - certainly if the reason we're not just changing this to an allowable use for condition use is why again 00:25:01.228 --> 00:25:07.678 - so if we amend the use table we have to send notification to any affected property owners and 00:25:07.938 --> 00:25:14.897 - So because it is a conditional use in a lot of those districts We would have to send notice to all affected 00:25:14.897 --> 00:25:21.406 - property owners, which in essence would require Notification to all the properties. I mean you could 00:25:21.406 --> 00:25:28.365 - certainly boil it down to only ones that adjoin specific zoning districts You know where it's a conditional 00:25:28.365 --> 00:25:35.582 - use but there's a very hefty public notification element to that That's why we only do you stable changes every 00:25:35.682 --> 00:25:43.139 - Five so years because there is a heavy public notification aspect to it Okay All right, anybody yes 00:25:43.139 --> 00:25:50.597 - I just want to continue that train of thought for just a second because what Commissioner Smith was 00:25:50.597 --> 00:25:58.129 - partly getting at was having duplexes come before this board instead of the BZA and I guess I'm just 00:25:58.129 --> 00:26:04.542 - wondering about state regulations around what comes before a plan Commission and what 00:26:04.706 --> 00:26:11.416 - Doesn't and whether they're state required or locally required. So for example things have to come before 00:26:11.416 --> 00:26:17.872 - us if there are certain size So couldn't we you know, like larger developments have to come before us 00:26:17.872 --> 00:26:24.455 - even though basically they check all of the boxes in the planning documents So could duplexes ever fall 00:26:24.455 --> 00:26:30.784 - into that category of being permitted but required to come before Plan Commission for specific Site 00:26:30.784 --> 00:26:33.886 - plans in the same way that large developments do 00:26:34.274 --> 00:26:39.842 - Yeah, so state site plans are enabled in a different process. They are directed to the Planning Commission 00:26:39.842 --> 00:26:45.150 - Which can then delegate to staff to approve certain site plans and and certainly we have got a lot of 00:26:45.150 --> 00:26:50.458 - criteria in the UDO of you know What has to go to the Planning Commission and what can be approved at 00:26:50.458 --> 00:26:55.715 - a staff level? However approval of conditional uses As far as I'm aware unless I'm missing something 00:26:55.715 --> 00:27:00.190 - are only enabled to be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the hearing officer 00:27:00.386 --> 00:27:07.475 - Right, but if we change it like this is a theoretical question if we theoretically change it to be permitted 00:27:07.475 --> 00:27:14.303 - Could we then change it to be to have duplexes required to come before Plan Commission? But be permitted 00:27:14.303 --> 00:27:21.001 - so approval of a use that is permitted by right should not require Approval from a board or commission 00:27:21.001 --> 00:27:28.350 - you can require approval of review of that for certain design elements or requirements you know if you wanted to 00:27:28.642 --> 00:27:34.018 - Ensure that it was meeting a requirement of the UDO But you know, we've kind of talked about this in 00:27:34.018 --> 00:27:39.393 - a couple different contexts over the years of you know If something meets all of the requirements of 00:27:39.393 --> 00:27:44.822 - the UDO, you know We want it to be approved kind of as fast as possible at a staff level You know the 00:27:44.822 --> 00:27:50.677 - Plain Commission really kind of is reserved for bigger projects that reserve public scrutiny and transparency 00:27:50.677 --> 00:27:56.638 - issues And so that's kind of where the line is in the UDO of what goes to Plain Commission. What goes to staff? 00:27:57.986 --> 00:28:04.280 - I guess because the I mean duplexes are in this town sort of an issue with transparency and public, 00:28:04.280 --> 00:28:10.701 - you know and that kind of thing and that is one of the pieces of It not being conditional anymore and 00:28:10.701 --> 00:28:17.121 - then there's no public process whatsoever Which community members might not love that but I certainly 00:28:17.121 --> 00:28:24.044 - don't love now that it's conditional and everything has to go before the BCA so I'm just trying to understand 00:28:24.044 --> 00:28:26.814 - what options might lie before us to make it 00:28:27.330 --> 00:28:34.332 - easier or more clear cut in terms of what Commissioner Smith was getting at in terms of Understanding 00:28:34.332 --> 00:28:41.608 - what those expectations are a little bit more clearly And the idea of the the BCA needing to be objective 00:28:41.608 --> 00:28:49.022 - and playing Commission may be having a little bit more Discussion around I don't know. Anyway, thank you. I 00:28:49.698 --> 00:28:55.885 - Yeah and you know if we go down the route of making them a permitted use certainly there could be other 00:28:55.885 --> 00:29:02.013 - restrictions or things put on them if that conversation comes up. Eric just one question you mentioned 00:29:02.013 --> 00:29:07.070 - that use table changes might happen every five years how close where are we in that. 00:29:07.362 --> 00:29:18.620 - timeframe right now from well, so we just so last year we did Four or five use table changes to amend 00:29:18.620 --> 00:29:30.430 - for self storage units gas stations car washes Fourth one is escaping me but we did amend the use table to 00:29:30.530 --> 00:29:36.248 - modify what districts those uses were allowed in. And so that was, oh, it was urban agriculture. That 00:29:36.248 --> 00:29:42.021 - was the main thing that was kind of spurring that particular. So because we had to amend the use table 00:29:42.021 --> 00:29:47.851 - for that, you know, we had a small pocket of things in our notebook of, hey, you know, if the use table 00:29:47.851 --> 00:29:53.849 - ever comes up for amendment, let's try to address these three things that have been highlighted in several 00:29:53.849 --> 00:29:58.558 - hearings and petitions of, you know, let's look at areas where this use is allowed. 00:29:58.914 --> 00:30:05.526 - So right right now, you know, we might have a small list of things, you know nothing that is kind of 00:30:05.526 --> 00:30:12.072 - tipping the scale of You know, we have full-scale public notification requirements to carry forward 00:30:12.072 --> 00:30:18.619 - with and bring forward So at this time, we don't have any immediate plans to bring forward anything 00:30:18.619 --> 00:30:25.165 - Okay, it sounds like we might start creating a list again. Okay, good. Yeah All right. This is kind 00:30:25.165 --> 00:30:28.766 - of for the plan commission and and staff to comment on 00:30:29.634 --> 00:30:36.080 - What if we remove the design elements? Because it's a subjective conversation that requires to be easy 00:30:36.080 --> 00:30:42.400 - at a review and I know I shouldn't get into that too much but and maybe we don't remove them all but 00:30:42.400 --> 00:30:49.222 - I'm just asking the Planning Commission as a whole especially the City Council representation representative 00:30:49.222 --> 00:30:55.605 - here How did these get here? I mean, I think I know how they got here I can assume but it's a strange 00:30:55.605 --> 00:30:56.606 - for options and 00:30:58.146 --> 00:31:03.699 - And so I'm just asking the question I'm not saying they should be or shouldn't be it's more of a if 00:31:03.699 --> 00:31:09.475 - we did it would remove that problem It would certainly so there would still be two Well, really I guess 00:31:09.475 --> 00:31:15.195 - depending on on the outcome of some of these other changes here in regards to the number of units that 00:31:15.195 --> 00:31:20.971 - are number Duplexes that are allowed per year and the spatial limitation really you'd only be left with 00:31:20.971 --> 00:31:26.302 - one You specific standard if you were to strike all four of those, you know being that you know 00:31:26.562 --> 00:31:35.441 - Each unit hat shall have a separate exterior entrance. That would be the only remaining you specific 00:31:35.441 --> 00:31:44.232 - standard Is that a problem no Quick anybody on I don't have a strong opinion I only have a I have a 00:31:44.232 --> 00:31:53.374 - knee-jerk reaction to what just happened. So it's more of a is there a way to make this Simpler anybody 00:31:55.650 --> 00:32:05.732 - Just to clarify the the concern you're trying to address is that it's too subjective for the planner 00:32:05.732 --> 00:32:15.615 - or for the developer or the person who wants to build it Yeah, so that just gets us mired and yes, 00:32:15.615 --> 00:32:25.598 - okay Okay, so it would be eliminating those design elements Or or just roof pitching orientation or 00:32:25.922 --> 00:32:31.917 - Because front porch width and depth of course is subjective, but I like front porch front porches front 00:32:31.917 --> 00:32:37.797 - building setbacks Those need to line up I get that we made other adjustments for that vehicle parking 00:32:37.797 --> 00:32:44.137 - access. I'm not sure what that means, but It's more the architectural Comments that become totally subjective 00:32:44.137 --> 00:32:49.902 - and we had city had city have always tried to stay away from architectural control So But I've also 00:32:49.902 --> 00:32:54.398 - been off the Planning Commission for a while, so I'm just asking the question 00:32:54.626 --> 00:33:01.475 - Yeah, so, you know these four elements when when this came forward, you know, these were certain Elements 00:33:01.475 --> 00:33:08.195 - that were trying to give the most basic Restrictions on or guidance to staff and the BZA to try to have 00:33:08.195 --> 00:33:14.657 - a little bit of continuity Within neighborhoods do not have one building particularly stand out for 00:33:14.657 --> 00:33:21.248 - these four elements understanding at the same time You still want to allow for a lot of variation and 00:33:21.248 --> 00:33:24.414 - use these stores that used use word neighborhood 00:33:24.642 --> 00:33:29.779 - It's not the neighborhood, it's that block. It's that side of the street. So again, with all 00:33:29.779 --> 00:33:35.413 - these restrictions, subjectivity is very challenging. When you say neighborhood, that is so broad. So 00:33:35.413 --> 00:33:40.993 - we had to define that, obviously, to block face, and then give a definition for what that block face 00:33:40.993 --> 00:33:46.627 - is to say, we're not looking at trying to make it look like the houses that are four blocks away, but 00:33:46.627 --> 00:33:52.206 - these things that are along this particular block face. Here are four elements that we typically see 00:33:52.206 --> 00:33:54.526 - that are somewhat basic in nature to help 00:33:55.426 --> 00:34:01.439 - from sticking out Terribly much and I get it. Yeah, I'd not argue with you. I get that so I'm asking 00:34:01.439 --> 00:34:07.691 - the questions anybody got any ideas Because I'd almost rather say hey, let's just remove rich roof pitch 00:34:07.691 --> 00:34:12.990 - and see what City Council does Think put it back, but at least then it'd be discussed. I 00:34:14.722 --> 00:34:21.338 - Yeah, I would expect there's probably going to be some discussion. I know three people are gonna have 00:34:21.338 --> 00:34:27.825 - some strong discussion on this. Yes. So certainly it's at the planning commission's purview. If you 00:34:27.825 --> 00:34:34.441 - want to propose striking some or all of these and send it forward with that, that's absolutely within 00:34:34.441 --> 00:34:40.928 - your purview. I guess out of the spirit of what we're trying to do here is increase the opportunity 00:34:40.928 --> 00:34:43.198 - to build duplexes or to do things. 00:34:43.778 --> 00:34:55.546 - That would be a way to serve that goal is to remove one or more of these elements So that would fulfill 00:34:55.546 --> 00:35:07.089 - the HB the the house bill goal Of course From all the elements the one that has caused more issues at 00:35:07.089 --> 00:35:13.086 - the PZA is the is the block face because people feel 00:35:13.954 --> 00:35:22.739 - The neighbors understand one thing we understand one thing Everybody is trying to figure out what block 00:35:22.739 --> 00:35:31.439 - face is. I thought the planner did a fabulous job last time With a drawing showing what the block face 00:35:31.439 --> 00:35:38.366 - was and showing on the street and showing everything But it makes it very limited 00:35:38.978 --> 00:35:48.132 - Because in the neighborhood, you have several elements of architecture that you could be used. And when 00:35:48.132 --> 00:35:57.726 - you limit to just that, those small row of homes, you're limiting, I mean, it really limits what you can do. 00:35:59.234 --> 00:36:05.793 - Yeah, so you know again we with with regulations we try to induce as much element of objectivity as 00:36:05.793 --> 00:36:12.484 - possible to say these this is what you're looking at, you know houses specifically within this street 00:36:12.484 --> 00:36:19.175 - in this street and these four elements of that house in a most general capacity. So the UDO does have 00:36:19.175 --> 00:36:25.865 - a definition of block face. So that that's that's a very objective application of that term. And then 00:36:25.865 --> 00:36:28.030 - these four elements, you know as 00:36:28.194 --> 00:36:35.646 - commission member Smith has Discussed are very hard. They're very subjective and and it leads to a lot 00:36:35.646 --> 00:36:43.099 - of challenging conversations. I think I think When emotions made I'm gonna move to strike them and I'm 00:36:43.099 --> 00:36:50.478 - gonna say this to councilmember Stossberg with the goal the council Having to debate this I want them 00:36:50.478 --> 00:36:55.326 - to make the rule because I'm not here to make the rule I'm here to 00:36:55.554 --> 00:37:02.890 - Talk about it and I'm also walking a fine line because I'm on the BZA. So I'm trying not to discuss 00:37:02.890 --> 00:37:10.519 - a case but I think it needs to be discussed at the legislative level and If we don't strike it it won't 00:37:10.519 --> 00:37:18.075 - be I think Because we're just a recommendation I Guess I could make a recommendation to strike if they 00:37:18.075 --> 00:37:22.110 - so see fit but I don't think that's how we do this and 00:37:22.338 --> 00:37:31.508 - So yeah, you should send it to them in your suggested manner and I certainly think striking it would 00:37:31.508 --> 00:37:40.860 - Ensure a conversation. Oh, yeah would just like the bike racks Okay, I Actually had one question about 00:37:40.860 --> 00:37:49.758 - the hundred foot 150 foot buffer You know Eric you went through the the number of what it was it? 00:37:50.338 --> 00:37:57.675 - Or so that we've heard this year is the buffer at all at issue Is that really not an issue? It has actually 00:37:57.675 --> 00:38:04.808 - come into play in two locations over the past few years But it's not the common problem Okay, but again, 00:38:04.808 --> 00:38:11.669 - you know with these things we're just looking at you know, what what are some of the constraints and 00:38:11.669 --> 00:38:15.134 - removing those just to help with the perception of 00:38:15.234 --> 00:38:22.121 - But also to kind of move a little bit towards compliance with the house bill that looks at ways to remove 00:38:22.121 --> 00:38:28.747 - restrictions within your UDO for housing Yeah, yeah, you know I I do remember doing all of these when 00:38:28.747 --> 00:38:35.634 - we put a hundred and fifty foot and we put the cap on when we were reviewing the UDO or when and adopting 00:38:35.634 --> 00:38:42.910 - the UDO in the first place and all of these things were meant to help the public understand that there would be 00:38:43.106 --> 00:38:51.351 - stop gaps and guardrails around this and You know clearly house bill is trying to reduce The guardrails 00:38:51.351 --> 00:38:59.676 - and restrictions in a way that makes housing more possible. So I mean I I'm in favor of the 150 Removing 00:38:59.676 --> 00:39:08.000 - the buffer. I just wanted and you know as you as you kind of alluded to there when when these were being 00:39:08.000 --> 00:39:09.982 - implemented we wanted to 00:39:10.146 --> 00:39:17.558 - put some guardrails on to make sure that it didn't get out of control and alleviate some fears that 00:39:17.558 --> 00:39:25.267 - it could result in mass tear downs within neighborhoods. Again, that just really hasn't been the thing. 00:39:25.267 --> 00:39:33.198 - It's not cheap to buy a property with a house on it, tear it down, and then build an entire new structure. 00:39:33.198 --> 00:39:38.238 - So we've seen the market and just the cost of construction and land 00:39:38.466 --> 00:39:46.392 - Already serving as somewhat of a self-limiting factor Yes, I guess just going back to the discussion 00:39:46.392 --> 00:39:54.318 - about roof pitch that will probably voting on here Just I guess reflecting that the current proposal 00:39:54.318 --> 00:40:02.244 - before us adds Definition or adds almost restriction and we're potentially be talking about reducing 00:40:02.244 --> 00:40:05.854 - the restriction So it's through proposal adds 00:40:05.954 --> 00:40:12.474 - Orientation so just trying to we're kind of going one way or the other way and there's the neutral is 00:40:12.474 --> 00:40:18.994 - just keeping it as it is but Can you go more or explain like why we why the current proposal suggests 00:40:18.994 --> 00:40:25.450 - adding and orientation? So that was really just kind of reflect the way that we had been approaching 00:40:25.450 --> 00:40:31.970 - all of these situations You know while it says roof pitch, you know, you you can certainly imply that 00:40:31.970 --> 00:40:34.846 - how that roof is oriented this addresses and 00:40:35.074 --> 00:40:41.513 - You know serves as a design element that might really make a house stand out in terms of how that roof 00:40:41.513 --> 00:40:47.952 - orientation is running So while the you do doesn't say orientation. This has been a very small element 00:40:47.952 --> 00:40:54.204 - But it is something that we've tried to be consistent about in terms of how roof lines are oriented 00:40:54.204 --> 00:41:00.643 - and again you're gonna see a lot of variation in terms of main gables of houses and dormers or porches 00:41:00.643 --> 00:41:02.206 - that might stick out and 00:41:02.434 --> 00:41:09.625 - That you know, you have your main gable running one direction, but you might have a dorm or something 00:41:09.625 --> 00:41:16.746 - that sticks out and have a different orientation So, you know if you're proposing to strike all this 00:41:16.746 --> 00:41:24.149 - I'd probably just strike the orientation as well Thank you, but it was just to clarify, you know a small 00:41:24.149 --> 00:41:30.494 - element that we have been trying to utilize in practice All right any other questions Yes 00:41:31.330 --> 00:41:38.128 - I just need to bring up my other thing but I have questions that are actually unrelated to the plexus 00:41:38.128 --> 00:41:44.992 - In terms of the cottage developments you changed the open space from 400 square feet per dwelling unit 00:41:44.992 --> 00:41:51.789 - to 200 square feet of open space per dwelling unit across all zoning districts and I guess I wondered 00:41:51.789 --> 00:41:57.854 - if you had considered having different open space requirements for different districts and 00:41:58.658 --> 00:42:08.168 - Or whether you had optimized kind of an open space requirement for like one or another one of those 00:42:08.168 --> 00:42:17.869 - No, we hadn't really you know as as you look at where these zoning districts are RM and RH properties 00:42:17.869 --> 00:42:26.238 - are typically larger Than r1 r2 r3 and r4 properties But no, we hadn't really looked at 00:42:26.434 --> 00:42:33.369 - you know, some sort of a graduated, you know, as your density goes up, you're just going to have less 00:42:33.369 --> 00:42:40.440 - space, so the open space requirement might be seen as kind of a hindrance as you look to something that 00:42:40.440 --> 00:42:47.239 - tries to accomplish, you know, a density where there is no maximum, that it would, so it might be a 00:42:47.239 --> 00:42:54.718 - self-limiting factor of number of dwelling units in open space, but I do kind of see where you're looking at. 00:42:57.122 --> 00:43:03.333 - I guess that just seemed a little bit odd to me that Everything else was graduated and then this one 00:43:03.333 --> 00:43:10.037 - was very static across to all of them and that it I mean I feel like it's got to end up being like optimized 00:43:10.037 --> 00:43:16.371 - for one particular zoning district with that 200 square feet And so I don't maybe we just want to look 00:43:16.371 --> 00:43:22.521 - at that a little bit You know with most of these, you know one of the one of the common themes that 00:43:22.521 --> 00:43:26.334 - we often talk about is You know, this is what we're proposing 00:43:26.530 --> 00:43:32.893 - Let's see what a development or two might look like that incorporates this if we see that something 00:43:32.893 --> 00:43:39.320 - is really holding it back Or is not working out, you know, we can come back and change it That might 00:43:39.320 --> 00:43:43.774 - be just a suggestion or thought Okay. Thanks And then I have one more 00:43:43.874 --> 00:43:51.374 - This is and this is probably gonna have to be an amendment I I'm sorry that it has to be a full amendment 00:43:51.374 --> 00:43:58.521 - probably but I noticed in the definition of dwelling accessory unit duplex and single family And you 00:43:58.521 --> 00:44:05.879 - can bring up on the screen if you want The last sentence of each uses the word terms Plural and I think 00:44:05.879 --> 00:44:12.318 - it should they should each be term singular because I think that they're talking about the 00:44:12.930 --> 00:44:20.664 - I mean, it's a definition, and they're talking about that one definition. Let me see if I can find the 00:44:20.664 --> 00:44:28.398 - slide that it's actually on. It's on slide five. Yeah, I see what you're talking about. The terms does 00:44:28.398 --> 00:44:35.907 - not include a manufacturer, and it should be the term. And it says that in both of them. So I guess 00:44:35.907 --> 00:44:42.590 - we have to have a full amendment on that, right? Yes. Thank you for noticing that. Yeah. 00:44:43.234 --> 00:44:51.829 - I don't know if we want to move that now or whenever the public comment first and then do all the amendments 00:44:51.829 --> 00:45:00.266 - at the same time. Thanks. All right. Any other questions or ideas here? I got one more cottage development 00:45:00.266 --> 00:45:07.678 - sidewalks based on the definition shown and the comment on where I see this. Now I missed it. 00:45:10.978 --> 00:45:17.860 - Comment on sidewalks. It's okay external sidewalks and tree plots with street trees along Along adjacent 00:45:17.860 --> 00:45:24.415 - public roads are required and internal sidewalks shall connect each cottage to the project external 00:45:24.415 --> 00:45:31.035 - sidewalk What is your Interpretation of the word external sidewalk. Is that only a long public right 00:45:31.035 --> 00:45:38.049 - away? Yes Thank you. And then you're requiring that each of these homes if there is this horseshoe concept 00:45:38.049 --> 00:45:39.294 - for alley load and 00:45:39.586 --> 00:45:44.537 - Rear load and then there's a into your sidewalk network for each of these houses to walk out to that 00:45:44.537 --> 00:45:49.537 - just has to connect to that Yes, that is that is the way this so some some way so, you know, you have 00:45:49.537 --> 00:45:54.439 - a front door You got to be able to get to the public street sidewalk. I'm sorry If you get when you 00:45:54.439 --> 00:45:59.390 - walk out your front door, you got to be able to get to the public street sidewalk Yeah, so some sort 00:45:59.390 --> 00:46:03.998 - of internal sidewalk system to get you from your front door to the street. Perfect. Thank you 00:46:08.898 --> 00:46:17.065 - Ready to go to public comment. Not that there is any, do we have any public, members of the public who 00:46:17.065 --> 00:46:25.153 - might want to comment? I don't think we have anyone online, but Eric do a. Yes, we do have one member 00:46:25.153 --> 00:46:29.118 - online. Okay. Kari, you should be able to unmute. 00:46:32.066 --> 00:46:39.139 - Hi, thank you. This is Kari Bennett. I'm operations director at Habitat for Humanity of Monroe County. 00:46:39.139 --> 00:46:46.212 - We support the proposed changes to the UDO to provide more flexibility and opportunities to build more 00:46:46.212 --> 00:46:53.147 - homes. Bloomington needs more of all types of homes to accommodate full-time residency. Those people 00:46:53.147 --> 00:47:00.357 - who want to live in Bloomington for the long term. That means a variety of starter, family, empty nester 00:47:00.357 --> 00:47:01.662 - and retiree homes. 00:47:01.890 --> 00:47:12.391 - for all income levels. The staff report states that this proposal constitutes the public hearing required 00:47:12.391 --> 00:47:22.496 - by House Enrolled Act 1001. And so in that regard, we also want to recommend that the plan commission 00:47:22.496 --> 00:47:30.718 - and the common council evaluate and amend the subdivision standards in chapter 20, 00:47:30.850 --> 00:47:38.836 - 0.05 of the UDO to create additional flexibility to build more affordable homes. Doing so would provide 00:47:38.836 --> 00:47:46.976 - greater upfront certainty and reduce administrative burdens to developers and home builders like Habitat. 00:47:46.976 --> 00:47:54.885 - A starting place for this work for the Plan Commission would be to review the requested waivers of the 00:47:54.885 --> 00:48:00.030 - subdivision standards and any waiver types that this body commonly 00:48:00.514 --> 00:48:09.677 - receives and approves the subdivision standards should be revised to allow them an Easy one could be 00:48:09.677 --> 00:48:19.112 - not making developers seek Subdivision waivers for easements that are needed by the City of Bloomington 00:48:19.112 --> 00:48:28.638 - utilities. Thank you Thank you very much Yeah, we appreciate members of the public Thank you anyone else 00:48:30.978 --> 00:48:39.927 - If there is anybody else online, please use the raise hand function and we can recognize you I'm not 00:48:39.927 --> 00:48:48.876 - seeing anybody. Okay All right. So we're back to the council here for the Commission for a motion or 00:48:48.876 --> 00:48:57.913 - maybe some amendments Real quick. I did do just want to address one of the comments from Kari We will 00:48:57.913 --> 00:48:59.774 - be having a separate 00:48:59.906 --> 00:49:06.292 - Commission meeting to address compliance with HB 1001 So we had initially been approaching this hearing 00:49:06.292 --> 00:49:12.617 - and the last hearing as being that compliant hearing because we were discussing those things but after 00:49:12.617 --> 00:49:19.065 - further discussion internal we'll have a separate hearing for that specifically just to talk about those 00:49:19.065 --> 00:49:25.390 - issues and then Have that it'll be most possibly likely part of a regular hearing, but we'll have that 00:49:25.390 --> 00:49:28.030 - on the agenda specifically Okay. Thank you 00:49:29.314 --> 00:49:37.830 - So I have a question that's brought up by our Speaker Kari Bennett to staff keep track of common waivers 00:49:37.830 --> 00:49:46.103 - Do we have a tally of the waivers that are requested and the types that they are? We the waivers that 00:49:46.103 --> 00:49:47.806 - we typically see are 00:49:47.938 --> 00:49:55.850 - Subdivision might be from a sidewalk or tree plot requirement We did have one subdivision case where 00:49:55.850 --> 00:50:03.763 - we modified easement language itself In regards to trying to work with City of Bloomington utilities 00:50:03.763 --> 00:50:11.910 - and our environmental regulations That was with the North Grove petition but we don't see a commonality 00:50:11.910 --> 00:50:16.062 - in terms of waivers associated with subdivisions and 00:50:16.322 --> 00:50:22.188 - Do you keep track of them? Do you have a list not a list? Well, obviously we have staff reports that 00:50:22.188 --> 00:50:28.287 - address any subdivision any waivers that were associated with it You know, we have a running list within 00:50:28.287 --> 00:50:34.327 - the Department of UDO amendments So if there are common themes that we see that we constantly encounter 00:50:34.327 --> 00:50:40.425 - something that needs addressed, you know That will make it to our annual list of UDO amendments. I don't 00:50:40.425 --> 00:50:45.246 - think we have anything on there right now related to subdivision waivers certainly 00:50:45.378 --> 00:50:51.992 - This is something that is part of the council Amendment cycle right now. We're looking at some of the 00:50:51.992 --> 00:50:58.930 - subdivision standards We don't have anything in the amendment tonight that deal with subdivision standards 00:50:58.930 --> 00:51:05.609 - I'm not saying we can't include something but You know without without knowing more I was just curious 00:51:05.609 --> 00:51:12.547 - It was I thought it was a good idea that waivers that are commonly requested and probably commonly granted 00:51:12.547 --> 00:51:14.622 - Why wouldn't we move them into? 00:51:15.330 --> 00:51:21.956 - Allowed so that they don't have to be waivers anymore. But yeah, certainly and like I said track them, 00:51:21.956 --> 00:51:28.774 - right? We would need to know what those are Yeah, like I said, I we we don't wait We have not encountered 00:51:28.774 --> 00:51:35.207 - a typical waiver request other than sidewalks and tree plots and those are always situational Okay, 00:51:35.207 --> 00:51:39.774 - thank you All right. Any other questions or emotions? Yes, Mr. Stasker 00:51:39.874 --> 00:51:52.092 - This is just a follow-up on what she said Eric about the the hearing about the bill When do you think 00:51:52.092 --> 00:52:04.310 - that that is actually going to take place? I Guess this is a big guy question the one in charge House 00:52:04.310 --> 00:52:08.862 - bill 1001 has a very specific hearing 00:52:09.154 --> 00:52:16.256 - requirement and in order to Avoid any misunderstanding that we are in compliance we are likely to bring 00:52:16.256 --> 00:52:23.085 - that to the October 12th Plan Commission and There are eight eight to ten criteria that you need to 00:52:23.085 --> 00:52:30.186 - cover most of which have been already covered We're just going to review those with you and seek public 00:52:30.186 --> 00:52:37.288 - input. Make sure there's adequate notice to the public so folks like Carrie Bennett can come and others 00:52:37.288 --> 00:52:38.654 - who have may have a 00:52:38.818 --> 00:52:46.581 - Thoughts on how to develop more housing. That's the intent of HB 1001 and in order to meet that we'll 00:52:46.581 --> 00:52:54.267 - just have that I think the October 12th agenda is light and would accommodate that hearing So that's 00:52:54.267 --> 00:53:02.030 - our current plan. Otherwise, we would have a special meeting for that Great. Thank you. Thank you All 00:53:02.030 --> 00:53:07.966 - right, thank you Yes So going back to what I was talking about block face and 00:53:08.290 --> 00:53:19.215 - When you look at the slide that he has on the duplexes, I, as a member of the BZA, looking at roof pitch 00:53:19.215 --> 00:53:29.619 - orientation, front porch with depth, front building setback, parking access, I mean, all that, it's 00:53:29.619 --> 00:53:35.966 - not an issue. I think the issue is we made it so microscopic 00:53:36.098 --> 00:53:48.077 - when we put it as a block face, when this building is gonna be in a neighborhood. So I think maybe expanding, 00:53:48.077 --> 00:53:59.185 - taking the word block face from there on the same block face and putting the word neighborhood. Or if 00:53:59.185 --> 00:54:06.046 - you have a more specific word for it. But expanding that zone, 00:54:06.242 --> 00:54:13.669 - Place where that building is going to go instead of just you know one small area Yeah, so again, you 00:54:13.669 --> 00:54:21.022 - know with that I would encourage a very objective definition of blockface You know if you wanted to 00:54:21.022 --> 00:54:28.449 - expand beyond Adjoining streets to say something other than that, you know neighborhood is a very is 00:54:28.449 --> 00:54:35.582 - a much broader much broader word so that that might might bring more challenges if people try to 00:54:36.098 --> 00:54:43.647 - encounter what neighborhood is Flavia may add something. Yes My motion I was gonna strike number one 00:54:43.647 --> 00:54:51.419 - roof pitch and orientation Council member Stossberg's here. She's heard our discussion. I Love the idea 00:54:51.419 --> 00:54:59.267 - of at the very least expanding block face the additional two blocks on either side and across the street 00:54:59.267 --> 00:55:05.470 - as a minimum because that's very specific but I think on our motion we should just 00:55:05.602 --> 00:55:12.630 - Remove a couple of these or one of these to say hey council members Please address this because I know 00:55:12.630 --> 00:55:19.727 - they have opinions because I heard them so I'm not sure Whatever we tell them they're gonna do. I think 00:55:19.727 --> 00:55:26.960 - we should say hey do something I think that's my position sitting here now as opposed to trying to define 00:55:26.960 --> 00:55:34.398 - this Unless you think we should if we're gonna modify the definition of blockface. I'm fine. I'd do that and 00:55:34.530 --> 00:55:41.456 - Yeah, what I'm talking about is instead of making the way we have we are talking about not restricting 00:55:41.456 --> 00:55:48.180 - Right that we are finding ways to not restrict building and this is very restrictive very well It's 00:55:48.180 --> 00:55:54.904 - very subjective and very subjective because you were making it You know in some examples that we've 00:55:54.904 --> 00:56:00.350 - been through it's four homes. You're putting this against four homes or five and 00:56:01.346 --> 00:56:12.040 - So that makes it very microscopic. That's what I'm saying, instead of making it an area. And I'm not 00:56:12.040 --> 00:56:22.947 - opposed to being specific about an area, like you're saying, on adjacent blocks. I don't know how many 00:56:22.947 --> 00:56:30.782 - blocks, or what do you want to call it? That's why I'm not sure we should 00:56:30.978 --> 00:56:40.373 - Try to come up that definition sitting here. I think we say the City Council. Hey, we're gonna remove 00:56:40.373 --> 00:56:49.860 - these You figure out what you want here. That's less subjective Yeah, let's hear it Okay, Commissioner 00:56:49.860 --> 00:56:59.070 - Stasberg idea I my Recommendation is the Plan Commission does what they think is best with this and 00:56:59.618 --> 00:57:10.505 - and not treat it as a Kind of game with council Because I like council really doesn't like as a body. 00:57:10.505 --> 00:57:21.285 - It's it's really frustrating and I've heard various aspects to it. So if you specifically think that 00:57:21.285 --> 00:57:26.622 - the design element should just go because they're 00:57:27.490 --> 00:57:34.649 - Vague and subjective and and too broad then make that motion and let everybody vote on it And don't 00:57:34.649 --> 00:57:42.022 - just do it as a let's see what council does with this kind of moment If you want to keep some of those 00:57:42.022 --> 00:57:48.894 - if we want to think about it, I don't know how staff feels about continuing this so that we can 00:57:49.794 --> 00:57:57.374 - You know think about more specific things as a body or if you want to you know, try to make these more 00:57:57.374 --> 00:58:01.054 - Specific so then they're less subjective and like 00:58:01.794 --> 00:58:08.014 - I'm saying is don't necessarily lay this at council's feet to solve the problem because council views 00:58:08.014 --> 00:58:14.111 - playing commission as the body that is supposed to come up with the good suggestion of how to solve 00:58:14.111 --> 00:58:20.331 - the problem and I I do appreciate that sometimes it feels like well we come up with a good suggestion 00:58:20.331 --> 00:58:26.428 - and then there's this like political piece that council like deals with but I Can't like solve that 00:58:26.428 --> 00:58:30.270 - for you ever So we continue this is there a time limit on us I 00:58:31.234 --> 00:58:38.361 - No, this is you can certainly continue it. There is not a resolution directing this to go to the council 00:58:38.361 --> 00:58:45.216 - at any time So if the Plain Commission wants to continue it, that's certainly you're in your in your 00:58:45.216 --> 00:58:52.071 - purview I'm gonna move to continue Zio 20 2606 007 to next meeting to further discuss this Yeah, and 00:58:52.071 --> 00:58:58.858 - it makes me wonder if there's another Term, you know, I understand the lack of well neighborhood is 00:58:58.858 --> 00:59:00.894 - not going to necessarily help 00:59:01.378 --> 00:59:08.073 - Less restrictive, but I wonder if there's another term or if the sentence were to just end With the 00:59:08.073 --> 00:59:14.968 - majority of existing single-family or duplex duplex structures Point point of order there was a motion 00:59:14.968 --> 00:59:21.864 - on the floor. Oh, yes. Sorry. Sorry That's okay. I'll second Commissioner Smith's motion All right now 00:59:21.864 --> 00:59:28.693 - we could talk. All right. It's that motion is Seconded let's have a conversation about this. Okay, so 00:59:28.693 --> 00:59:29.630 - ideas I think 00:59:29.730 --> 00:59:34.823 - we should have a session and come up with them. I don't think we should do it on the fly right here. 00:59:34.823 --> 00:59:40.067 - I think the definition neighborhood doesn't work. I think the next definition of the current definition 00:59:40.067 --> 00:59:45.261 - of park block or block face doesn't work. I think there's a solution for this. And I appreciate Hopi's 00:59:45.261 --> 00:59:50.606 - comment. Actually I do and I'm glad she said it. Okay, let's take the time and give them a recommendation 00:59:50.606 --> 00:59:55.750 - that makes sense. We've got the knowledge base here, we can do that. I just don't wanna do it sitting 00:59:55.750 --> 00:59:59.582 - here the next five minutes. If anybody else has a commenter about this too, 00:59:59.938 --> 01:00:10.671 - I do think that if the staff can think about some of this terminology and if there's another definition, 01:00:10.671 --> 01:00:21.301 - that would be fabulous. Yeah, we're certainly happy to look at this and evaluate what I'm worried about 01:00:21.301 --> 01:00:27.230 - is trying to get deeper into it will bring more opinions. 01:00:27.490 --> 01:00:35.998 - From neighborhoods of what they would like to see and that's a wide range You know that the goal here 01:00:35.998 --> 01:00:44.424 - with a lot of this was to make housing less restrictive and and not so fine-grained and and I'm just 01:00:44.424 --> 01:00:53.516 - worried about trying to come up with two definitive of standards that were working in the opposite direction 01:00:53.516 --> 01:00:55.518 - I think that if we just 01:00:55.714 --> 01:01:02.583 - Modify the definition of the block We could leave the standards there would give us more things because 01:01:02.583 --> 01:01:09.254 - right now we have four houses to look at that all look the same and You think by opening up it makes 01:01:09.254 --> 01:01:16.057 - it worse It depends on what elements you're opening up certainly expanding blockface might help in one 01:01:16.057 --> 01:01:23.454 - regard But it just depends on how folks want to apply that or interpret that They might say this makes it worse 01:01:23.586 --> 01:01:30.154 - I'm just saying in general we have to be careful of trying to get too much more specific because it 01:01:30.154 --> 01:01:37.314 - might make things harder in terms of an analysis That's that's all Then I'm gonna stick with my continuance. 01:01:37.314 --> 01:01:44.013 - I think we should talk about a little bit All right. Well, we have a motion on the floor. Yes I guess 01:01:44.013 --> 01:01:50.910 - I'm gonna ask if you could withdraw your motion so that then I could make a motion to amend the terms to 01:01:51.042 --> 01:01:58.087 - So then that could get taken care of tonight and I'll join my motion Okay, thank you. I'm good with 01:01:58.087 --> 01:02:05.414 - that. So so I would like to move that we Correct the typo in the definitions of dwelling accessory unit 01:02:05.414 --> 01:02:12.671 - duplex and dwelling accessory unit single-family So that the last sentence has a singular term instead 01:02:12.671 --> 01:02:20.350 - of a plural terms in each of those definitions Okay, so we have amendment do we have a second on this second 01:02:21.090 --> 01:02:34.033 - All right, we can vote on the amendment first Burrell yes seabor yes Holmes. Yes Kinsey. Yes Smith. 01:02:34.033 --> 01:02:46.846 - Yes Stossberg. Yes Bishop. Yes Okay, we have any other amendments. Thank you Did I hear any others 01:02:56.994 --> 01:03:04.100 - To go back to removing I'll move to continue Zio twenty twenty six zero six zero zero seven to our next 01:03:04.100 --> 01:03:11.069 - our next meeting second It's just a question I don't object to a continuation but I guess I also just 01:03:11.069 --> 01:03:17.901 - want to clarify what will happen between now and the next meeting because I'm just I've been around 01:03:17.901 --> 01:03:24.734 - and I don't want to have the same discussion a month from now and in my my What I think I'm hearing 01:03:25.378 --> 01:03:32.030 - Others can disagree or agree but I think the balls in the Commission's court to propose amendments and 01:03:32.030 --> 01:03:38.682 - I just want to make sure or see if that is correct and if That is clear and if some commissioners will 01:03:38.682 --> 01:03:45.204 - take that on And can we how do we do that? When we're up without a quorum or a trouble and can we do 01:03:45.204 --> 01:03:51.791 - that in a lunch and learn? Have a discussion about this. Yeah, so the Plain Commission lunch sessions 01:03:51.791 --> 01:03:53.406 - are publicly noticed and 01:03:54.370 --> 01:04:01.396 - Appropriate to have members public for that or I'm sorry present for that And we can discuss anything 01:04:01.396 --> 01:04:08.353 - certainly it is appropriate at this hearing now For you to give comments to staff to look at certain 01:04:08.353 --> 01:04:15.242 - elements and bring forward at the lunch hearing or certainly at the next hearing You know, we would 01:04:15.242 --> 01:04:22.750 - encourage obviously as much specificity as possible in order to help us help you What what is your objection 01:04:23.906 --> 01:04:33.584 - to expanding the definition of block face. You seem to say it's becoming too granular, but in my mind, 01:04:33.584 --> 01:04:43.168 - it's giving you, it's giving the board that has to approve these, in my mind, more options to be less 01:04:43.168 --> 01:04:52.094 - subjective. Because it gives us more houses to look at. Well, it looks like those three great. 01:04:52.258 --> 01:04:59.147 - Might be fun. I mean, I think that in and of itself could be fine. I don't know that that would necessarily 01:04:59.147 --> 01:05:05.589 - be Hurtful to expand the block face. I don't know I don't know that it changes the perception of how 01:05:05.589 --> 01:05:12.095 - all of the standards should be interpreted and applied We're not gonna fix that unless we remove them 01:05:12.095 --> 01:05:18.537 - And so that might be where we end up Go Hopi Yes, Commissioner Stasper. I just have a question about 01:05:18.537 --> 01:05:21.726 - appropriateness following up on what commissioner 01:05:21.922 --> 01:05:28.446 - Seabor I think said about process. Is it also appropriate for an individual Planning Commission member 01:05:28.446 --> 01:05:34.780 - to contact you as the Planning Commission person? Individually and say I have this idea What do you 01:05:34.780 --> 01:05:41.114 - think of this and it couldn't of course go into the proposal, but it could come forth as a proposed 01:05:41.114 --> 01:05:43.838 - amendment at our next meeting, correct and 01:05:44.290 --> 01:05:51.471 - Members us and we are not having any sort of a group email or group chat or any shared group documents 01:05:51.471 --> 01:05:58.791 - Then that's that's fine. Again legal can correct me if I'm Miss stating anything but individual meetings 01:05:58.791 --> 01:06:06.181 - with individual plane commission members is certainly fine. Yeah, so that's the other option Commissioner 01:06:06.181 --> 01:06:10.782 - Smith if you have some specific ideas as to one-on-one with staff 01:06:12.066 --> 01:06:18.427 - Okay, so we're clear on how this could happen. It's either in the lunch meeting which is publicly noticed 01:06:18.427 --> 01:06:24.608 - or via single staff members or a single commissioners Interests and questions to devise an alternative 01:06:24.608 --> 01:06:30.669 - solution. Yeah, I think a quorum is what what can we do you have like up to three two or three of us 01:06:30.669 --> 01:06:36.670 - talk What is where our rules that's more of a rule question? Yep, so I'll have legal probably dress 01:06:36.670 --> 01:06:37.630 - that best early 01:06:39.842 --> 01:06:47.277 - A couple of important things with regard to the open-door law if you do not have a quorum you cannot 01:06:47.277 --> 01:06:54.933 - do business. So if Fewer than five members show up you really can't take input or do anything like that 01:06:54.933 --> 01:07:02.515 - from the public It's not a proper meeting as I understand the open-door law rules certainly any member 01:07:02.515 --> 01:07:07.006 - of the Commission can communicate proposed changes to us and 01:07:07.618 --> 01:07:15.841 - We would compile them and bring them all back to you on the 12th We won't sort among them and pick winners 01:07:15.841 --> 01:07:23.681 - and losers We would just bring them all back together with anything we may come up with that we think 01:07:23.681 --> 01:07:29.214 - would solve this problem Okay, and just to be clear though I also heard 01:07:29.666 --> 01:07:36.333 - Eric say that there can't be an email exchange either that that violates Yeah, you don't have this group 01:07:36.333 --> 01:07:43.000 - email where you all mail together and deliberate things. That's a deliberative Event which would require 01:07:43.000 --> 01:07:49.793 - Could require public notice. It's just it's better to avoid those things and do it in a public environment 01:07:49.793 --> 01:07:54.238 - or make your individual suggestions which we will then bring back and 01:07:54.786 --> 01:08:04.231 - Understand that when you make them we won't sort them out We will bring them back on the 12th and you 01:08:04.231 --> 01:08:13.584 - will choose among them or maybe some other option Okay, okay we're clear on process and what happens 01:08:13.584 --> 01:08:21.918 - next All right, okay, so now we need to actually vote on the Continuing Okay, we're ready 01:08:22.466 --> 01:08:35.449 - And what our steps are and we're gonna vote on continuing Z o o well z o twenty twenty six zero six 01:08:35.449 --> 01:08:49.470 - zero zero zero seven Seaboard yes Holmes yes Kinsey. Yes Smith. Yes Stossburg. Yes Bishop. Yes, Burrell Yes 01:08:51.362 --> 01:08:59.138 - All right. Okay, we have a majority rule on this one. Yay. All right moving on to the next one Okay, 01:08:59.138 --> 01:09:06.991 - so now we are discussing z o twenty twenty six dash zero six zero zero zero eight city of Bloomington 01:09:06.991 --> 01:09:15.307 - planning and transportation Udo text amendment related to change in use and limited compliance requirements 01:09:15.307 --> 01:09:20.542 - and Eric you're presenting this one, too Thank you Eric really told 01:09:21.090 --> 01:09:28.627 - Second round of UDO amendments that we are bringing for tonight And so this is a little bit different 01:09:28.627 --> 01:09:36.534 - goal than the last series of amendments this series of amendments deal with the Process within the unified 01:09:36.534 --> 01:09:43.924 - development ordinance that governs when there is a change in use that happens on a property and the 01:09:43.924 --> 01:09:48.062 - site improvements that are required as part of that and 01:09:48.578 --> 01:09:56.780 - So the unified development ordinance has a term change in use that is defined There are several aspects 01:09:56.780 --> 01:10:05.219 - of what defines a change in use on a property But essentially it is the trigger that then requires certain 01:10:05.219 --> 01:10:13.736 - improvements to happen on a property those improvements can range from what's defined as limited compliance 01:10:13.736 --> 01:10:15.550 - or full compliance and 01:10:15.810 --> 01:10:24.049 - So limited compliance deals with certain specific design elements of a property that have to be brought 01:10:24.049 --> 01:10:32.367 - into compliance or as close as possible As compared to full compliance, which means the site comes comes 01:10:32.367 --> 01:10:40.764 - into full compliance with the udl So with this we are proposing to amend and adjust both of those aspects 01:10:40.764 --> 01:10:43.774 - both what defines a change in use and 01:10:43.906 --> 01:10:51.369 - The implications of what happens when there is a change in use So with with many things we obviously 01:10:51.369 --> 01:10:58.759 - want to make sure to point out advantages disadvantages a lot of a Majority of the development that 01:10:58.759 --> 01:11:06.149 - we see in Bloomington is redevelopment. We see reuse of properties Most of the time that is through 01:11:06.149 --> 01:11:10.878 - reusing existing buildings you know, we see a building that has 01:11:11.010 --> 01:11:18.652 - Gone out of business. It is that vacant for some time period and then a new business comes in there 01:11:18.652 --> 01:11:26.524 - Very rarely do we see a complete scrape down? In a restart and a new construction on a property So the 01:11:26.524 --> 01:11:34.243 - change in use process is is probably one of the most frequently encountered reasons for improvements 01:11:34.243 --> 01:11:37.758 - on a property And it is also at the same time 01:11:37.890 --> 01:11:44.660 - Something that we we see and have felt a lot of challenges, especially with small businesses as the 01:11:44.660 --> 01:11:51.499 - implications of that change in use requirement can can be very onerous. You know, one of the biggest 01:11:51.499 --> 01:11:57.118 - impacts that we have seen has been coming into compliance with the maximum parking 01:11:57.410 --> 01:12:04.010 - requirements of the UDO So certainly as the Plain Commission is aware we do have maximum parking situations 01:12:04.010 --> 01:12:10.428 - And so that can be very impacted for a property that was developed back when that didn't exist and there 01:12:10.428 --> 01:12:16.722 - were just minimums and so when a property has this change in use situation and they are faced with the 01:12:16.722 --> 01:12:23.078 - Realization that they will have to be removed parking or asphalt that that can be very onerous and very 01:12:23.078 --> 01:12:23.934 - expensive and 01:12:24.098 --> 01:12:31.835 - Other change in use requirements include installing landscaping on a property to the extent practical 01:12:31.835 --> 01:12:39.497 - installing bike racks Analysis of the sidewalk system to see what shape that is in if that has to be 01:12:39.497 --> 01:12:47.083 - removed or replaced Bringing a property into compliance with lighting standards Paving and striping 01:12:47.083 --> 01:12:53.758 - You know those those are the items that are on the table for compliance when this is is 01:12:54.018 --> 01:13:01.381 - Triggered certainly there is a range of opinions of you know Which of these things are the most important 01:13:01.381 --> 01:13:08.674 - all of these standards within the udio were placed there for a reason You know, we we want parking areas 01:13:08.674 --> 01:13:15.134 - to be paved. It's ADA accessible It keeps gravel from washing into the storm sewers. We want 01:13:15.362 --> 01:13:22.747 - Parking areas striped so that we can clearly see where parking spaces are where drive aisles are And 01:13:22.747 --> 01:13:30.425 - ensure the ADA compliance is occurring, you know We want properties to install landscaping and certainly 01:13:30.425 --> 01:13:37.956 - this can be felt most Heavily when you have a property that has no landscaping at all and so, you know 01:13:37.956 --> 01:13:43.806 - as we have shifted policies over decades and certain documents have changed and 01:13:44.002 --> 01:13:50.538 - You know, we understand the importance of having these site improvements on a property And the benefits 01:13:50.538 --> 01:13:57.199 - that they cause and so that's kind of where I go back to you know The change in use is one of the biggest 01:13:57.199 --> 01:14:03.609 - triggers that we see for improvements on a property So we just want to make sure to point that out So 01:14:03.609 --> 01:14:10.333 - with the the changes that we are coming forward with tonight We're looking at of revising several elements 01:14:10.333 --> 01:14:13.726 - of the UDO that that have kind of been a challenge to 01:14:13.890 --> 01:14:20.171 - having redevelopment on a property or sometimes more specifically building a new building on a small 01:14:20.171 --> 01:14:26.949 - corner of a property. So we certainly see lots of situations in Bloomington where you have a large property, 01:14:26.949 --> 01:14:33.354 - large parking area, and somebody just wants to do a new building on a small corner of that. So in that 01:14:33.354 --> 01:14:39.760 - situation, sometimes that can be where they want to subdivide and create a small parcel and sell that, 01:14:39.760 --> 01:14:42.558 - or they just want to put down a new building 01:14:42.658 --> 01:14:48.819 - that corner of the property and so there are two aspects of the UDO that Have somewhat been challenging 01:14:48.819 --> 01:14:54.921 - for that one is a requirement in the subdivision section That talks about any subdivision requires the 01:14:54.921 --> 01:15:00.904 - property to come into full compliance So we're proposing to remove that element We're also proposing 01:15:00.904 --> 01:15:06.828 - to incorporate an allowance for new buildings to be constructed that are below a certain percentage 01:15:06.828 --> 01:15:09.790 - of the square footage of an existing building and 01:15:10.050 --> 01:15:18.222 - We're also allowing for expansions of parking area that are less than 25% To be exempt from the limited 01:15:18.222 --> 01:15:26.472 - and full compliance We're proposing to adjust then what are the implications of that? limited compliance 01:15:26.472 --> 01:15:34.408 - Standard so one of those proposals is to allow existing parking areas with 14 parking spaces or less 01:15:34.408 --> 01:15:39.358 - to not have to remove any parking spaces over that maximum and 01:15:39.746 --> 01:15:46.849 - Locations that typically have very small number of parking spaces, you know 14 for instance Don't aren't 01:15:46.849 --> 01:15:53.817 - aren't really as egregious as a property that has a hundred parking spaces or more that are vastly out 01:15:53.817 --> 01:15:59.838 - of compliance You know a site having one or two or five spaces more than the maximum and 01:16:00.738 --> 01:16:07.978 - That's not the severity of the problem that we're really trying to address. So we've incorporated language 01:16:07.978 --> 01:16:14.744 - there that gives a little bit more flexibility or relief from those particular situations. And then 01:16:14.744 --> 01:16:21.510 - one of the other triggers for change in use, well, two of those things that I would say is probably 01:16:21.510 --> 01:16:27.870 - the most prevalent is one of the change in use triggers says if you are going from a subgroup 01:16:29.218 --> 01:16:34.648 - There you go. So within UDO, we have an allowed use table. And so one of the change in use triggers 01:16:34.648 --> 01:16:40.295 - says that if you are going from one subgroup to another, that that is a change in use. So for instance, 01:16:40.295 --> 01:16:45.725 - there's an excerpt here of the use table that's on your screen. So you can see if you're going from 01:16:45.725 --> 01:16:51.589 - a bar or dance club to an office, that's a change in use. You're going from the subgroup of food, beverage, 01:16:51.589 --> 01:16:57.182 - and lodging to the subgroup of office, business, and professional services. So that's a change in use. 01:16:57.474 --> 01:17:04.489 - One of the other triggers deals with abandonment So the UDO currently says if a property is empty For 01:17:04.489 --> 01:17:11.504 - more than a year any new use that goes in there after that year is a change in use That one year time 01:17:11.504 --> 01:17:18.519 - frame is very common in zoning ordinances throughout the state And so that's that's in fact, actually 01:17:18.519 --> 01:17:24.158 - we recently I'd say probably three years ago changed it from six months to a year 01:17:24.322 --> 01:17:31.270 - So kind of in light of what we're bringing forward we're proposing to amend that one year to two years 01:17:31.270 --> 01:17:38.082 - That's that's certainly kind of pushing the extreme range of when that is And the abandonment of use 01:17:38.082 --> 01:17:44.895 - comes into play in a couple different aspects in the udio Certainly one of those is to change in use 01:17:44.895 --> 01:17:52.382 - but you also have to kind of look at it from the perspective of one of the reasons for regulating land use and 01:17:52.706 --> 01:17:59.451 - where those uses occur is location of appropriate uses in relation to other uses. So there are certainly 01:17:59.451 --> 01:18:05.940 - situations as we have our use table arrange and zoning districts that you have appropriate uses next 01:18:05.940 --> 01:18:12.492 - to each other. So we do want situations where a use has been removed. That's not a nonconforming use. 01:18:12.492 --> 01:18:17.246 - We don't want to make it easier or more likely that that use will resume. 01:18:17.378 --> 01:18:23.950 - And so it is important to have a time period where a use is considered abandoned and can no longer go 01:18:23.950 --> 01:18:30.522 - back So so two years is like I said kind of the the maximum time period That that we feel comfortable 01:18:30.522 --> 01:18:35.934 - kind of moving forward with that As I mentioned we're proposing to add an allowance 01:18:36.066 --> 01:18:42.946 - That new buildings can be constructed on the site that are under a certain percentage That would be 01:18:42.946 --> 01:18:50.308 - 25 percent of an existing structure and not require full compliance So that would allow for a new building 01:18:50.308 --> 01:18:57.463 - to be built on the site And the limited compliance standards would be the ones that would be applicable 01:18:57.463 --> 01:19:04.894 - And then so as I mentioned with those triggers for when compliance is initiated or required we're adjusting 01:19:05.250 --> 01:19:12.839 - Suggesting that properties with 14 spaces or less are not required to remove any parking spaces over 01:19:12.839 --> 01:19:20.729 - the maximum and then only parking or parking areas with 14 or more spaces then Would remove those number 01:19:20.729 --> 01:19:26.590 - of spaces? over that maximum as I mentioned we're taking out the section that 01:19:26.882 --> 01:19:34.529 - Talks about full compliance being required for the subdivision a property with a subdivision just can't 01:19:34.529 --> 01:19:41.956 - subdivide away something that they need in order to meet a requirement of the UDO for instance green 01:19:41.956 --> 01:19:49.456 - space or landscaping or You know any particular element of a site that that is a requirement So we're 01:19:49.456 --> 01:19:55.486 - hopeful that this will be something that will help spur local development and not 01:19:55.586 --> 01:20:02.759 - Such a financial constraint but at the same time, you know still ensuring that we do have certain triggers 01:20:02.759 --> 01:20:09.864 - To get improvements onto a property which is very important Because we certainly have a lot of properties 01:20:09.864 --> 01:20:16.568 - that that do sit in a very Non-compliant state and we do want to have improvements at some point to 01:20:16.568 --> 01:20:23.070 - get it closer to compliance for all of the reasons that the requirements were put in the UDO for 01:20:23.266 --> 01:20:29.483 - Parking lot management for landscaping for bike racks, you know, just the policies that have progressed 01:20:29.483 --> 01:20:35.520 - over the years You know, it's important to have a trigger for when those things do happen Otherwise, 01:20:35.520 --> 01:20:41.557 - you know, you just don't see those new policies being enacted. So with that We are recommending that 01:20:41.557 --> 01:20:47.833 - the Planning Commission forward this to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation and I'm happy 01:20:47.833 --> 01:20:51.838 - to answer any questions Great. Thank you very much. Okay questions 01:20:55.394 --> 01:21:02.923 - So just a clarification so on the second to last bullet point Removes one of the change in use triggers 01:21:02.923 --> 01:21:10.525 - a new use that is not in the same subheading as the previous table of 031 will no longer trigger limited 01:21:10.525 --> 01:21:18.127 - compliance Can you parse that so it sounds like if the new use is in a different subheading it no longer 01:21:18.127 --> 01:21:19.358 - triggers limited 01:21:19.522 --> 01:21:26.276 - Compliance correct that is that is no longer a change in use So but if a change in use within the same 01:21:26.276 --> 01:21:32.963 - subheading does trigger no, no So, you know, maybe it maybe would be helpful to kind of approach this 01:21:32.963 --> 01:21:40.110 - or summarize what would be a change in use You know based on some of these Adjustments that we are proposing 01:21:40.110 --> 01:21:47.454 - so establishment of a new use after two years would be a change in use adding parking spaces more than that and 01:21:47.650 --> 01:21:54.616 - 25% allowance would be a limited compliance You know certainly anything that is a tear down and start 01:21:54.616 --> 01:22:01.581 - from scratch would be full compliance if you're Increasing the number of dwelling units more than 25% 01:22:01.581 --> 01:22:08.684 - That would be a limited compliance So those would be really the things that would be the triggers would 01:22:08.684 --> 01:22:15.650 - be adding more dwelling units more than 25% adding more parking spaces more than 25% establishment of 01:22:15.650 --> 01:22:17.630 - a new use after two years of 01:22:17.922 --> 01:22:33.454 - Those would be the main triggers and obviously new construction. Thank you Other questions Okay, this 01:22:33.454 --> 01:22:47.006 - one seems clear shall we move to public comment or do we want to Any okay public comment 01:22:47.554 --> 01:22:55.614 - Z oh oh seven if you have a comment and you're online Please you raise your hand or if you're in the 01:22:55.614 --> 01:23:03.754 - room and have a comment about this UDO text change Please approach the podium and sign in and you can 01:23:03.754 --> 01:23:11.734 - speak for three minutes If there is anybody online, please use the raising function I said oh seven 01:23:11.734 --> 01:23:14.846 - and it's oh eight. Sorry about that. I 01:23:19.330 --> 01:23:27.089 - I am not seeing anybody online Okay. All right, and we're not seeing anyone in the room approach the 01:23:27.089 --> 01:23:35.156 - podium. Okay All right. Okay. What do we think about this one? Do we have a motion? Comments, okay start 01:23:35.156 --> 01:23:42.838 - with I think this is great and it's about time This is shut down a lot of small businesses not shut 01:23:42.838 --> 01:23:47.294 - down not allowed them to move or expand And it's and it's 01:23:47.650 --> 01:23:53.476 - It's an economic issue for small users in our town. We've had a history of Last 10 years specifically 01:23:53.476 --> 01:23:59.245 - 15. You got to be wealthy to do anything around here and that should just be flipped And this goes a 01:23:59.245 --> 01:24:04.956 - long way to do that to help the smaller guy smaller person get ahead Get it figured out. So I'm all 01:24:04.956 --> 01:24:10.725 - for it. I think it's great And I think he has nailed with the 14 spaces I think that's right on with 01:24:10.725 --> 01:24:16.094 - the parking space size because all the smaller lots You don't have to start cutting stuff out 01:24:16.802 --> 01:24:25.252 - And that's the people we're trying to protect. All right. Well, that sounds favorable. So we're ready 01:24:25.252 --> 01:24:33.618 - to make a motion motion this one. I'll move approval of Zio twenty twenty six oh six zero zero eight 01:24:33.618 --> 01:24:41.488 - as recommended by staff. Do we have a second. The most second is to make a favorable favorable 01:24:41.488 --> 01:24:45.630 - recommendation. Yes. So we're making a favorable. 01:24:47.682 --> 01:24:59.405 - Second, thank you. All right Are you ready to vote on this one? Holmes do we need yes Do we need to 01:24:59.405 --> 01:25:11.245 - actually put in the motion that we're recommending that we forward to the petition to Common Council 01:25:11.245 --> 01:25:16.286 - like because I feel like that motion was I 01:25:16.706 --> 01:25:25.201 - Forwarding with forwarding to council with a favorable recommendation Yeah, I just want to make sure 01:25:25.201 --> 01:25:34.200 - that that's the motion that's on file. Yes Yeah, other than being generally pleased with it Okay favorable 01:25:34.200 --> 01:25:43.115 - I Think we can be clear. Okay forward this petition to the common council with a favorable recommendation 01:25:43.115 --> 01:25:45.470 - That's what we're voting on 01:25:46.114 --> 01:25:57.346 - We're second. All right. Okay. Yes first it was made by but let's retain that it was made by Commissioner 01:25:57.346 --> 01:26:08.578 - Smith Seconded by Commissioner Burrell. Okay now we can go Homes yes Kenzie. Yes, Smith. Yes Stosh Burke. 01:26:08.578 --> 01:26:15.678 - Yes Bishop. Yes, Burrell. Yes seaborne. Yes Okay, another majority 01:26:15.906 --> 01:26:24.135 - Excellent. Okay. All right. And now we actually have a petition that is not a UDO tax amendment We now 01:26:24.135 --> 01:26:32.603 - have z o twenty twenty six zero eight zero zero one three MHG regarding a property at 1450 West Arlington 01:26:32.603 --> 01:26:40.752 - Road a request for rezoned from six point nine three acres from residential multifamily RM to mix-use 01:26:40.752 --> 01:26:42.590 - student housing MS and 01:26:43.074 --> 01:26:52.216 - with this rezone it comes a waiver a request for a waiver of the required second hearing and Staff Eric 01:26:52.216 --> 01:27:00.830 - is presenting this one Thank you as mentioned this is a petition for 1450 West Arlington Road and 01:27:00.994 --> 01:27:08.870 - The petitioner Arlington Road Apartments LLC is coming forward tonight to request a rezone of six point 01:27:08.870 --> 01:27:16.897 - nine three acres from residential multifamily to mixed-use student housing and as mentioned is requesting 01:27:16.897 --> 01:27:24.849 - a waiver of the required second hearing so this property is on West 17th Street just past the roundabout 01:27:24.849 --> 01:27:25.758 - at 17th and 01:27:25.986 --> 01:27:33.095 - Arlington and Monroe. It is zoned residential multifamily and was approved in 2022 to be redeveloped 01:27:33.095 --> 01:27:40.416 - with a multifamily dwelling use for an apartment building. The property is currently under construction 01:27:40.416 --> 01:27:48.089 - and is anticipated to be finished hopefully this year. The property, as I mentioned, is zoned RM. Properties 01:27:48.089 --> 01:27:55.550 - to the north and northwest are zoned residential medium lot. Properties to the west of this are zoned MN. 01:27:55.650 --> 01:28:02.971 - To the south of this is also zoned mm and to the east is also zoned mm as well Just to the southeast 01:28:02.971 --> 01:28:10.726 - you have trinorth middle school So with this it's rezoning. There are several factors to take into account 01:28:10.726 --> 01:28:18.046 - And I'll kind of step through several of those at a time You know with the aerial photograph here. I 01:28:18.046 --> 01:28:21.598 - think it's important to just kind of look at the 01:28:21.794 --> 01:28:28.972 - Some of the surrounding context so most of the uses to the north of this have been developed as single-family 01:28:28.972 --> 01:28:35.498 - residences To the west you have several offices that were former single-family residences that were 01:28:35.498 --> 01:28:42.089 - converted into office space to the east of this you have two apartment buildings that were developed 01:28:42.089 --> 01:28:48.158 - completely with multifamily dwellings they do have an office component along 17th Street and 01:28:48.482 --> 01:28:56.355 - Just to the south of this you have a small manufacturing office use and then as I mentioned to the southeast 01:28:56.355 --> 01:29:04.156 - you have trinorth middle school So one of the important components with this as we review rezoning requests 01:29:04.156 --> 01:29:11.451 - Are to is to evaluate the comprehensive plan So the comprehensive plan designates a majority of this 01:29:11.451 --> 01:29:17.374 - site as neighborhood residential so you can see that in kind of the the yellowish 01:29:17.634 --> 01:29:25.326 - Color that moves along here and then you have a section designated as the urban corridor Which you can 01:29:25.326 --> 01:29:33.243 - see kind of moves along the north and south side of 17th Street that goes east-west spanning from college 01:29:33.243 --> 01:29:41.085 - all the way over to the west almost to I-69 so the neighborhood residential designation that encompasses 01:29:41.085 --> 01:29:46.238 - the majority of this site and kind of moves to the north of this and 01:29:46.466 --> 01:29:54.401 - encourages buildings to be smaller in scale, two to four stories in height, does see single family as 01:29:54.401 --> 01:30:02.335 - the main use, with uses including multi-family dwelling as being appropriate, does certainly envision 01:30:02.335 --> 01:30:10.192 - certain commercial uses within this area, mostly in the context of being a neighborhood serving use, 01:30:10.192 --> 01:30:14.782 - and then the urban corridor on the south side of this site 01:30:14.914 --> 01:30:23.783 - As you can see spanning along 17th Street envision that area being more commercial uses along that corridor 01:30:23.783 --> 01:30:32.488 - The petitioner is coming forward to rezone this use to allow for the building to be utilized as a partial 01:30:32.488 --> 01:30:40.783 - hotel So there is a program where? Hotel uses when they are at full capacity can lease spaces within 01:30:40.783 --> 01:30:44.478 - adjacent apartment buildings for hotel users 01:30:44.866 --> 01:30:52.115 - So the petition would be utilizing or requesting to utilize portions of the building for the hotel use 01:30:52.115 --> 01:30:59.222 - However, hotel is not a permitted land use in this zoning district. There are three zoning districts 01:30:59.222 --> 01:31:06.401 - where the use hotel is allowed the mixed-use downtown the mixed-use corridor MC and mixed-use student 01:31:06.401 --> 01:31:13.790 - housing MS So obviously this is not in the downtown. So that zoning district was not a viable option and 01:31:14.050 --> 01:31:20.370 - The other two zoning districts and mixed-use student housing and the mixed-use corridor were the only 01:31:20.370 --> 01:31:26.566 - other two zoning districts that allowed for the use hotel The petitioner has chosen to come forward 01:31:26.566 --> 01:31:33.134 - to rezone this to the mixed-use student housing district So that is the request that is before us tonight 01:31:33.134 --> 01:31:35.550 - is to rezone that to this use so while 01:31:35.970 --> 01:31:42.419 - This particular project envisions only using the existing or portions of the building for the use hotel. 01:31:42.419 --> 01:31:48.622 - We have to evaluate it that it is being rezoned in mixed use student housing that will be the zoning 01:31:48.622 --> 01:31:54.948 - for this property. And so it could be developed with any of the uses or the development standards that 01:31:54.948 --> 01:32:01.212 - are allowed within that district. So the mixed use student housing district by right allows buildings 01:32:01.212 --> 01:32:02.686 - up to six stories tall. 01:32:02.818 --> 01:32:09.770 - with the utilization of the incentives, you could go up to eight stories. So we have to envision and 01:32:09.770 --> 01:32:16.722 - evaluate this based on would a use, would a size building of that size be appropriate for this area? 01:32:16.722 --> 01:32:23.605 - So as I mentioned here, the majority of the buildings around here to the north and the west are all 01:32:23.605 --> 01:32:30.626 - single family in nature, one or two stories. The apartments to the east of this are also two stories. 01:32:30.626 --> 01:32:31.934 - So there are not a 01:32:32.386 --> 01:32:38.906 - Pattern here of buildings that are much taller than two stories along this corridor at all either along 01:32:38.906 --> 01:32:45.176 - 17th Street or Arlington Neither of those two areas have have houses that are of that size or scale 01:32:45.176 --> 01:32:51.947 - So that is certainly something that conflicts with the recommendation and the guidance of the comprehensive 01:32:51.947 --> 01:32:58.279 - plan The comprehensive plan does talk about as I mentioned commercial uses being appropriate in some 01:32:58.279 --> 01:33:01.790 - of these areas As long as they are neighborhood serving 01:33:02.082 --> 01:33:09.397 - So the RM district does have certain uses that are allowed in there either as conditional or accessory 01:33:09.397 --> 01:33:16.571 - uses including community center restaurant fitness center grocery or supermarket Personal service so 01:33:16.571 --> 01:33:23.957 - there are some uses that would be allowed by right or as a conditional use within this zoning now which 01:33:23.957 --> 01:33:31.486 - accomplishes what the comprehensive plan and visions for this area so as as we evaluated this request for 01:33:31.586 --> 01:33:38.138 - the requirements of the comprehensive plan as well as all of The criteria that are in the UDO and we 01:33:38.138 --> 01:33:44.755 - outlined this at length within the report UDO talks about evaluating current conditions and character 01:33:44.755 --> 01:33:51.307 - of structures in the uses in the zoning district so that's where I talked about, you know looking at 01:33:51.307 --> 01:33:55.070 - is a use of this entirety of this property as a hotel and 01:33:55.266 --> 01:34:01.631 - Something that would be in keeping with the character here with the development of this property with 01:34:01.631 --> 01:34:07.997 - a Six or possibly eight-story building would that be in keeping with the area? You know, the UDO also 01:34:07.997 --> 01:34:14.362 - talks about analyzing the most desirable land use For the area that is being requested to be rezoned. 01:34:14.362 --> 01:34:20.478 - So, you know from that perspective, you know is this location the most appropriate for a hotel or 01:34:20.674 --> 01:34:27.663 - Arlington is certainly in an arterial road. However, when you look at the development of the built area 01:34:27.663 --> 01:34:34.586 - here You know east of the roundabout you have a certainly a very heavy commercial component But as you 01:34:34.586 --> 01:34:41.441 - move west and certainly north the commercial components die down substantially And it is very heavily 01:34:41.441 --> 01:34:48.699 - residential So again, you know as we evaluated this for the criteria in the UDO for responsible development 01:34:48.699 --> 01:34:49.438 - and growth 01:34:49.538 --> 01:34:56.573 - You know, we just did not find that this was in keeping with those review criteria to place a hotel 01:34:56.573 --> 01:35:03.749 - at this location and again in addition, you know allowing for a much taller building here for student 01:35:03.749 --> 01:35:10.855 - housing. It also is something that we did not feel was responsible development and growth if we feel 01:35:10.855 --> 01:35:14.654 - like the commercial capacity or the expansion of uses 01:35:14.850 --> 01:35:21.158 - Should happen along this area. It really should be kind of evaluated for the corridor as a whole You 01:35:21.158 --> 01:35:27.466 - know not on a property specific basis and the language within the comprehensive plan changed Or even 01:35:27.466 --> 01:35:33.774 - the designation of this area, you know if we want to see this be developed in a more heavily intense 01:35:33.774 --> 01:35:39.582 - manner with higher taller buildings higher density development maybe more commercial uses or 01:35:39.810 --> 01:35:47.007 - That really should be done for the corridor as a whole so while we certainly understand that It seems 01:35:47.007 --> 01:35:54.204 - relatively minor to use or you know request to use a portion of the building for just a hotel We have 01:35:54.204 --> 01:36:01.471 - to evaluate it for all of the implications of that proposed new zoning district So that is where staff 01:36:01.471 --> 01:36:08.950 - was really challenged and could not find that it was compliant with the review criteria That are outlined 01:36:08.950 --> 01:36:09.726 - in the UDO 01:36:09.858 --> 01:36:18.307 - So we are recommending that the the Plain Commission waive the required second hearing And forward this 01:36:18.307 --> 01:36:26.512 - to the Common Council with a negative recommendation And I'm certainly happy to answer any questions 01:36:26.512 --> 01:36:34.880 - Once a petitioner has a chance to speak and I believe they are available online Great. Thank you. Yes, 01:36:34.880 --> 01:36:38.942 - if the petitioner is ready Love to hear from them 01:36:39.170 --> 01:36:46.325 - you should be able to unmute and you'll have 20 minutes. Can you guys hear me now? Yes. Okay. Hey, how 01:36:46.325 --> 01:36:53.480 - are you guys doing? My name is Heron Patel. I'm with MHG Hotels. And yes, so the purpose of this, what 01:36:53.480 --> 01:37:00.496 - we're trying to propose here is just we're not going to change any layouts or anything on a building 01:37:00.496 --> 01:37:02.302 - simply just being able to 01:37:02.402 --> 01:37:08.374 - put these units into the hotel system to be able to catch some overflow, especially right now as the 01:37:08.374 --> 01:37:14.287 - markets are kind of, I mean, you know, I don't know if you guys know this or not, but like a lot of 01:37:14.287 --> 01:37:20.318 - the apartments that are in Bloomington right now, they're seeing very soft lease up. And so, but then 01:37:20.318 --> 01:37:26.290 - we also own other hotels. So apartment-wise, there's the vacancy is starting to get lower and lower. 01:37:26.290 --> 01:37:29.246 - So we have more vacancy, well, higher and higher. 01:37:29.346 --> 01:37:35.297 - And so, you know, that we had to, you know, kind of look at other ideas and other things. And we also 01:37:35.297 --> 01:37:41.307 - do own the Homewood, Homewood Suites and the Home Two Suites, actually, which is right down the street 01:37:41.307 --> 01:37:47.200 - there, right by the stadium. And so we know with, you know, with those hotels, there are, especially 01:37:47.200 --> 01:37:53.151 - with the football season and all that good stuff going on, there's a big need for hotel rooms. And so 01:37:53.151 --> 01:37:58.110 - we think that this would be a great place for it to kind of come into it because we, 01:37:58.274 --> 01:38:03.545 - You know like the type of rooms that are the market needs a lot more extended stay more rooms as well, 01:38:03.545 --> 01:38:08.663 - which there's a shortage for right now As we own the other two, you know home to and the home would 01:38:08.663 --> 01:38:13.883 - would both be extended stay so they're like apartments they have Your full kitchen and stuff in there 01:38:13.883 --> 01:38:19.205 - work similar to a full kitchen in there And so we think that this would play along, you know, very well 01:38:19.205 --> 01:38:21.662 - with what we have already in the market as well 01:38:29.314 --> 01:38:35.769 - If you guys have any questions, I'm more than happy to answer any questions that you guys may have as 01:38:35.769 --> 01:38:42.098 - well All right, if you're finished with your presentation you do have some time remaining so we can 01:38:42.098 --> 01:38:48.426 - give the back to you if you need to use it But if we're ready for questions for either staff or the 01:38:48.426 --> 01:38:54.818 - petitioner Yeah, okay. We'll start on my left this time Commissioner Stossberg Hi, I have a question 01:38:54.818 --> 01:38:57.982 - for staff Eric. I just want to verify in terms of 01:38:58.274 --> 01:39:07.212 - This This section It appears as though there is this kind of corner there that is all RM and the proposal 01:39:07.212 --> 01:39:15.812 - is just to take this one Property that is all owned by the same person and change that to MS But that 01:39:15.812 --> 01:39:21.630 - would still leave this little long narrow of RM above that right now 01:39:22.338 --> 01:39:29.465 - Yes, that is correct. There is a sliver of property to the north this that was not is not owned by the 01:39:29.465 --> 01:39:36.522 - petitioners Not part of their development. Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to verify that's what I was 01:39:36.522 --> 01:39:43.718 - seeing on the map. Thanks All right, Commissioner Bishop This one's more directed toward the petitioner 01:39:43.718 --> 01:39:44.894 - since this was a 01:39:45.026 --> 01:39:51.715 - about three years ago It seems like this has been a significant development and almost disingenuous 01:39:51.715 --> 01:39:58.672 - from the original approval to ask for this type of a zoning change especially in light of the fact that 01:39:58.672 --> 01:40:05.428 - the development still undergoing so I guess the question would be is what's the calculation here and 01:40:05.428 --> 01:40:12.318 - in choosing now to ask for this and any other point in time prior to the original approval in 2022 and 01:40:15.586 --> 01:40:21.116 - So yeah, yeah, I can answer that. So actually this, uh, this development has, uh, we just were able 01:40:21.116 --> 01:40:26.812 - to, we got a TCO on it right now. So we're, you know, finishing through the final kinks. Uh, and there 01:40:26.812 --> 01:40:32.563 - was a couple of things that made the, you know, kind of this decision for a little led to this decision 01:40:32.563 --> 01:40:36.766 - for us. The first was that, um, these brands and stuff were not around, um, 01:40:36.962 --> 01:40:43.119 - This actually is a brand new brand. It's came out by Hilton So as I said, we own the homewood in the 01:40:43.119 --> 01:40:49.337 - home to there which are both Hilton branded properties as well and Hilton this is something that they 01:40:49.337 --> 01:40:55.128 - just launched in June or July and so they've kind of also approached us as you know, we owning 01:40:55.128 --> 01:41:01.346 - the extended-state market hotels there in that market and they see the occupancy levels are very high 01:41:01.346 --> 01:41:05.918 - so, you know, they can't kind of came to us as a kind of a partnership and 01:41:06.082 --> 01:41:11.423 - to see if this is something of interest that we do and you know obviously us being hotels by nature 01:41:11.423 --> 01:41:17.084 - this is something that's right up our alley and so this was that would you know that's kind of the reason 01:41:17.084 --> 01:41:22.584 - that we're coming forward now is that these brands if this is a brand new brand brand new segment that 01:41:22.584 --> 01:41:26.750 - Marriott and Hilton actually are both getting into that wasn't around before. 01:41:29.474 --> 01:41:36.670 - Thank you is follow-up question if the zoning is not approved I assume everything continues as it is 01:41:36.670 --> 01:41:44.222 - and you go along your merry way with the original plans to put together multifamily housing them Correct. 01:41:44.222 --> 01:41:51.346 - Yes And as I mentioned before I just we just we we know that there's a shortage for how Hotel rooms 01:41:51.346 --> 01:41:57.758 - in Bloomington. I mean, you know because we have the statistical data there we run it and 01:41:57.922 --> 01:42:05.937 - Like an 80% occupancy in our extended state properties there Okay, other other questions Commissioner 01:42:05.937 --> 01:42:13.874 - Stasberg I actually have a question for the petitioner about this too in terms of your extended stay 01:42:13.874 --> 01:42:22.125 - Folks are how long are those extended stays usually like what do you consider an extended stay? Extended 01:42:22.125 --> 01:42:26.526 - stay would be anybody that stays for three days or more 01:42:27.554 --> 01:42:57.246 - Okay, thank you Oops my mic wasn't on I'm so sorry And I don't know if you heard that so my question is 01:42:57.346 --> 01:43:05.120 - also related to its use. What's your expectation about the proportion of, I won't say units, but the 01:43:05.120 --> 01:43:12.894 - proportion of your property that would be allocated or allowed for this or that you would be seeking 01:43:12.894 --> 01:43:20.591 - to use for this purpose? Yeah, so we think that about, you know, like we haven't finalized a number 01:43:20.591 --> 01:43:21.822 - yet, obviously, 01:43:21.954 --> 01:43:29.417 - you know, probably 80 to 100, somewhere between 80 to 100 units would probably make the law. Okay, 01:43:29.417 --> 01:43:37.182 - thank you. Sorry about that, my kid came running into my room, so. But yeah, so we'd expect about like 01:43:37.182 --> 01:43:44.796 - 80 to 100 units that we're looking to convert over, or not convert over, but adding into the system, 01:43:44.796 --> 01:43:48.414 - because everything else is gonna stay the same. 01:43:51.778 --> 01:44:01.657 - And just to be clear, what is that proportionally approximately? Oh, you mean like we have right now 01:44:01.657 --> 01:44:11.732 - we have 217 Units there right now and so it'd be just a little like I mean By a little less than half, 01:44:11.732 --> 01:44:20.926 - right? Oh, I guess so be one-third almost Okay. Thank you All right one mark another question 01:44:21.666 --> 01:44:29.514 - Commissioner Bishop So with this taking up almost half of your entire space occupancy, it sounds like 01:44:29.514 --> 01:44:37.208 - you're more hotel than Anything else here, even though you're maybe a percent over in that 50% rage 01:44:37.208 --> 01:44:43.902 - to actually being an apartment dwelling unit it sounds like the scope and scale of the 01:44:44.002 --> 01:44:52.923 - This project is not anywhere where it started originally. Can you help us understand? Why that significant 01:44:52.923 --> 01:45:01.261 - change should be acceptable So I guess Could you read could you restate that question? I guess what 01:45:01.261 --> 01:45:09.182 - is it that you're asking? Yes originally your your your project was approved for 213 units and 01:45:09.442 --> 01:45:16.747 - apartment complex and you're now saying that Approximately half of those should go toward Hotel use 01:45:16.747 --> 01:45:24.124 - and it sounds like it's becoming more hotel than it is a multifamily housing unit And I'm curious to 01:45:24.124 --> 01:45:31.429 - to wonder why You think that would be acceptable given where it started and where it is now because 01:45:31.429 --> 01:45:36.542 - it doesn't feel at all Too much like where it was originally approved 01:45:38.114 --> 01:45:44.729 - Yeah, no, I mean, and like I said, when it was approved about three years ago, the dynamics and stuff 01:45:44.729 --> 01:45:51.344 - has changed. As you know, there's been so many more units that have been added into Bloomington, like 01:45:51.344 --> 01:45:58.024 - with the hub, and there's almost, I don't know how many thousands of beds have been added in since the 01:45:58.024 --> 01:46:04.703 - last three years when this project got approved. A, and then B, like I said, I think there's 345 beds, 01:46:04.703 --> 01:46:07.038 - so we'd be actually less than half. 01:46:07.618 --> 01:46:13.435 - We're gonna be quite closer to like I said that 40 by 30 to 40 range percent range So we still feel 01:46:13.435 --> 01:46:19.485 - like we have a significant amount of beds there that we already have to use And the other thing is that 01:46:19.485 --> 01:46:25.419 - there's a significant the compression in the market If we look at all of our you know, everybody that 01:46:25.419 --> 01:46:31.295 - all their competitors With hub coming in and all that everybody's sitting there. Nobody has the same 01:46:31.295 --> 01:46:36.414 - percentage of occupancy as last year I believe last year, you know, most apartments are 01:46:37.218 --> 01:46:43.215 - In the ninety five ninety to ninety five this year. Most of them are in the eighty percent range a and 01:46:43.215 --> 01:46:49.037 - B we think that you know as I stated earlier that there's a shortage for hotel rooms in the city of 01:46:49.037 --> 01:46:55.092 - Bloomington and we hope we feel like this would help kind of alleviate some of that bottleneck and some 01:46:55.092 --> 01:46:57.246 - of the issues there on that as well. 01:46:57.730 --> 01:47:03.734 - Forgive me you it might be a difference between metric and imperial unit conversions, but you keep going 01:47:03.734 --> 01:47:09.681 - between units and beds and You started with 80 to 100 units being the the piece that you wanted to move 01:47:09.681 --> 01:47:15.628 - over to the hotel side out of the 213 units But that doesn't necessarily conflate to the number of beds 01:47:15.628 --> 01:47:21.403 - and I'm not really concerned about the number of beds I'm concerned about the number of units in the 01:47:21.403 --> 01:47:26.206 - project and then how many of those will actually be taken up in the hotel space and 01:47:27.138 --> 01:47:31.749 - Yeah, no, sure. I get what you're saying, but I was just kind of trying to, you know, well, I guess 01:47:31.749 --> 01:47:36.452 - you could say 50%. But what I was trying to get to is that we have unit, all the units have different 01:47:36.452 --> 01:47:41.247 - sizing, right? They're not all just one bed. There's one bed all the way up to three beds. And the ones 01:47:41.247 --> 01:47:46.135 - that are larger for, you know, the two and three beds, those are going to still be staying in apartments. 01:47:46.135 --> 01:47:50.838 - So I guess what I was trying to get to was that I get what you're saying that unit count wise, you're 01:47:50.838 --> 01:47:55.448 - close to that 50%. But the actual bed count wise, we're going to be less than 50% of beds is what I 01:47:55.448 --> 01:47:56.094 - was trying to 01:47:56.834 --> 01:48:03.374 - But we're talking about gross usage of space not necessarily how many people are sleeping in these particular 01:48:03.374 --> 01:48:09.379 - units But I digress The fact that you started bringing this unit online three years ago Knowing full 01:48:09.379 --> 01:48:15.444 - well what your competition was doing and now you're realizing a softness in the leasing market And so 01:48:15.444 --> 01:48:21.568 - you're trying to pivot from there It doesn't seem like that was something that was really well thought 01:48:21.568 --> 01:48:26.800 - out maybe at the management level when you were dealing You know through your financial 01:48:26.800 --> 01:48:35.039 - expect this Given that the units being brought online for the multifamily housing student housing in 01:48:35.039 --> 01:48:43.441 - Bloomington hasn't changed What all of a sudden caused you to wake up and decide? Oh, wow We're in the 01:48:43.441 --> 01:48:49.886 - same boat as everybody else when you kind of saw this coming three years ago I 01:48:50.018 --> 01:48:54.743 - I guess at that point, I don't think we, I don't think HUB and all that stuff had been approved when 01:48:54.743 --> 01:48:59.421 - we had our approvals. I don't think that we knew about those at that time, which, I mean, you know, 01:48:59.421 --> 01:49:04.193 - with those two or three developments, those are pretty massive, significant developments. So, I mean, 01:49:04.193 --> 01:49:08.965 - if we had an idea that, you know, there was gonna be about, you know, 2,000 plus units that are gonna 01:49:08.965 --> 01:49:14.018 - be entering the market or close to 2,000 beds that are gonna be, not units, beds that are gonna be entering 01:49:14.018 --> 01:49:17.854 - the market, then we would have definitely probably reconsidered it at that point. 01:49:17.986 --> 01:49:25.186 - But I don't believe that when we had our approvals that that was done at that time. And I could be wrong, 01:49:25.186 --> 01:49:28.990 - but I'm not. As far as I know, we were not aware of it. 01:49:29.122 --> 01:49:35.715 - challenge you to go back and maybe look at what was known at the time because a lot of these units have 01:49:35.715 --> 01:49:42.055 - been known for a period of time here in Bloomington and it's been pointed out that there's becoming 01:49:42.055 --> 01:49:48.521 - an oversaturation in the multifamily housing market student housing However, you want to slice it and 01:49:48.521 --> 01:49:55.115 - so now that that's come to fruition it's not necessarily an accommodative effort that this deliberative 01:49:55.115 --> 01:49:56.446 - body has to make and 01:49:56.546 --> 01:50:07.386 - Because the business trajectory maybe was short-sighted All right other questions perhaps zoning relate 01:50:07.386 --> 01:50:17.079 - yes It's not zoning related to use related never mind I Didn't mean to restrict your comment 01:50:17.079 --> 01:50:23.646 - by my invitation. That's okay. I'll just get to it and comment 01:50:25.186 --> 01:50:34.200 - All right. Okay. Any other questions? Commissioner burrow so a question for staff. So Obviously the 01:50:34.200 --> 01:50:43.485 - air when I look at this on the map there's no AMS rezoning near correct Correct. There is no mixed-use 01:50:43.485 --> 01:50:52.499 - student housing that that is this far west Yeah, so then I'm asked this would be a little tooth out 01:50:52.499 --> 01:50:54.302 - of in the middle of 01:50:54.690 --> 01:51:01.381 - This residential area correct and that you know, certainly as I mentioned our staff report that was 01:51:01.381 --> 01:51:08.274 - something also that that's stuck out this this would be Approving a zoning district that would be very 01:51:08.274 --> 01:51:15.032 - different than everything that's around. Yeah, then everything Okay. Thank you so much All right, do 01:51:15.032 --> 01:51:20.318 - we have any do we have any other questions or we're ready to move to comment I 01:51:24.418 --> 01:51:35.065 - question for staff Does the proximity of this development to a school zone? Make any sort of a difference 01:51:35.065 --> 01:51:45.210 - in this as well Not not necessarily, you know, there are no buffer requirements from student housing 01:51:45.210 --> 01:51:48.926 - to schools What about hotels though? 01:51:49.474 --> 01:51:55.747 - No, there's no no buffering requirement, you know, there there might be obviously maybe you're alluding 01:51:55.747 --> 01:52:01.839 - to you know Liquor licenses or whatnot that can't be within certain distance of churches and schools 01:52:01.839 --> 01:52:07.991 - But specific uses like a hotel. I'm there's nothing in the UDO that has any buffer requirements. Okay 01:52:07.991 --> 01:52:14.022 - Thanks I'm so confused by some of this. This is that large student housing complex on the corner of 01:52:14.022 --> 01:52:17.822 - Arlington Road and 17th Street, right? It's already been built 01:52:18.338 --> 01:52:24.823 - Yes, it's it's under construction and soon to be completed for occupancy, but part of its occupied is 01:52:24.823 --> 01:52:31.181 - a temporary opposite The petitioner mentioned that temporary has been issued III. Yeah, cuz there's 01:52:31.181 --> 01:52:37.921 - there's people live in there So this this petition sounds like he's building something new. That's what's 01:52:37.921 --> 01:52:44.406 - confusing me. They're not building new, right? They're planning on allowing short-term rentals inside 01:52:44.406 --> 01:52:48.030 - their building Yes, they're proposing to allow hotel use 01:52:48.162 --> 01:53:00.040 - So this would be licensed or managed through the hotel platform So that we do have a TCO and yes, we're 01:53:00.040 --> 01:53:12.260 - not it's just that having some of these units will be You were not you were not asked to answer a question 01:53:12.260 --> 01:53:14.430 - Hold on one second 01:53:15.010 --> 01:53:20.777 - Let's finish the staff question the question that was posed to staff first and then hold on a second 01:53:20.777 --> 01:53:26.659 - because we're Mixed-use Student housing it is student housing. That's what I'm confused about. So what 01:53:26.659 --> 01:53:32.426 - are we talking about just the hotel? There's all these other discussions going on confused So so the 01:53:32.426 --> 01:53:35.966 - property is owned residential multifamily. So only the use of 01:53:36.290 --> 01:53:42.150 - Multifamily dwelling is allowed so there's a difference between the uses multifamily dwelling and student 01:53:42.150 --> 01:53:47.900 - housing in terms of the bedroom count That are allowed and what serves as a distinguishing line between 01:53:47.900 --> 01:53:53.706 - student housing and multifamily, but it's built Yes, so that's irrelevant to this discussion. It's built 01:53:53.706 --> 01:53:59.455 - what's well approved and they're trying to change the zoning They they want to change only allows hotel 01:53:59.455 --> 01:54:05.150 - So they want to change the zoning so that it can be used as the partial use of the building as a hotel 01:54:05.890 --> 01:54:16.883 - So hotel is not a permitted use in the current zoning district Okay Okay, so This is now is clear about 01:54:16.883 --> 01:54:27.454 - the fact that well you you heard the staff comment. All right any other questions Okay, we can move 01:54:27.454 --> 01:54:30.942 - to public comment now let's hear 01:54:31.458 --> 01:54:41.319 - members of the public who might want to comment or have any comment on z o twenty twenty six zero eight 01:54:41.319 --> 01:54:50.991 - zero zero one three If you're here to make a comment, please approach the podium and sign in and then 01:54:50.991 --> 01:55:00.094 - state your name For the record and then you'll have three minutes to speak And we'll start with 01:55:00.802 --> 01:55:14.396 - Person in the chamber if there is anybody else online My name is William Goodhue I live at 1135 North 01:55:14.396 --> 01:55:22.526 - Hancock Drive about two blocks away from the elevate project 01:55:23.362 --> 01:55:36.472 - And I am a member of the board on the Crescent Bend neighborhood association I speak from the neighborhood 01:55:36.472 --> 01:55:49.214 - association tonight, and I'd like to read in a Letter from two other members suit to eat and carry This 01:55:49.954 --> 01:56:01.329 - They have written in in regard to Hiram Patel's proposal to rezone the property Yes, I'm sorry. Thank 01:56:01.329 --> 01:56:12.593 - you In in regard to Hiram Patel's proposal to rezone the property at 1450 West Arlington site of the 01:56:12.593 --> 01:56:17.054 - elevate from residential multifamily RM 01:56:17.698 --> 01:56:25.282 - Mixed-use student housing MS as we understand it in the proposal. Mr. Patel submitted No additional 01:56:25.282 --> 01:56:32.866 - development is proposed other than rezoning it to MS To allow portions of the building to be leased 01:56:32.866 --> 01:56:40.449 - and at the used hotel Similarly in an email to the Crescent Bend neighborhood association. Mr Patel 01:56:40.449 --> 01:56:45.758 - wrote that they were proposing to rezone a portion of our complex and 01:56:45.986 --> 01:56:53.894 - MS which includes commercial use along with multifamily Our goal is to put some of the units on the 01:56:53.894 --> 01:57:01.880 - Hilton hotels website for short-term rentals Nothing visually will change with the building. It will 01:57:01.880 --> 01:57:10.262 - only be unit changes if all the developer wants to do is to allow some units to be rented as hotel rooms, 01:57:10.262 --> 01:57:12.318 - we have no objections and 01:57:13.026 --> 01:57:21.237 - We also don't oppose commercial use such as coffee shops, etc If that is all that is wanted Couldn't 01:57:21.237 --> 01:57:29.691 - that be done through a variance or similar? We do however oppose rezoning the entire site to MS because 01:57:29.691 --> 01:57:37.983 - that would have far broader implications It not only would allow future changes to the six point nine 01:57:37.983 --> 01:57:39.934 - three acre property and 01:57:40.482 --> 01:57:48.224 - But it also have a much wider impact beyond just this one property among other things rezoning to MS 01:57:48.224 --> 01:57:55.967 - wood number one Remove regulations that mandate a 300 to 900 foot buffer zone separating it from any 01:57:55.967 --> 01:58:03.863 - other student housing building It would leave the site open to for future student housing developments 01:58:03.863 --> 01:58:10.302 - on this property and on any other adjoining parcels that the developers may acquire 01:58:11.682 --> 01:58:20.543 - Number two, it would remove the current RM limits on the ratio of three bedroom four bedroom units Intended 01:58:20.543 --> 01:58:29.075 - to protect the standard family inventory It would allow the developer to adjust floor plans to add more 01:58:29.075 --> 01:58:37.525 - bedrooms per unit four or more And future expansion without needing variance approvals. I'm sorry, but 01:58:37.525 --> 01:58:39.166 - your time is up. Oh 01:58:40.258 --> 01:58:49.728 - If you have written materials, you can submit them to us And I believe they actually I believe it's 01:58:49.728 --> 01:58:59.483 - been some have already been submitted So if that's the remainder, thank you. Thank you very much Other 01:58:59.483 --> 01:59:08.574 - other folks in the council chambers. Yes, please approach And again state your name and sign in 01:59:08.802 --> 01:59:33.985 - My name is Kevin Tracy My wife Rosemary and I own property of 1504 West 17th Street I have a couple 01:59:33.985 --> 01:59:38.014 - of concerns and 01:59:38.178 --> 01:59:47.522 - Questions really really leading this to clarification First of all that if there are actually families 01:59:47.522 --> 01:59:56.866 - living in this building or if that is an intent that families Could be living in this building and the 01:59:56.866 --> 01:59:59.134 - in the remaining units I 02:00:00.066 --> 02:00:08.712 - have concerns about security for any children that would be living there. Clearly there would be a lot 02:00:08.712 --> 02:00:17.861 - of transient, just people coming in and out of the hotel rooms. So I got to wonder about just the protection 02:00:17.861 --> 02:00:26.255 - and security of children that would be in the same area. So that's one issue that I have. I think a 02:00:26.255 --> 02:00:27.934 - very important one. 02:00:28.034 --> 02:00:41.518 - Second of all, if I understand the petition that says that there would not be development on undeveloped 02:00:41.518 --> 02:00:56.286 - land, our property, just to the east of it, has both development and undevelopment sections. I'm concerned that if 02:00:56.674 --> 02:01:07.404 - this rezoning did occur would have set a precedent or allow for either mr. Patel or another developer 02:01:07.404 --> 02:01:18.660 - to to purchase the large section of land to the east of 1504 17th Street and put up a Multi-story building 02:01:18.660 --> 02:01:25.182 - that could be looking right down in our property right now or 02:01:25.314 --> 02:01:35.944 - the back part of our property is Pretty much a nature preserve and We'd like to keep it as such and 02:01:35.944 --> 02:01:47.000 - not have doesn't have a bunch of transient People go in and out I think that's pretty much the concerns 02:01:47.000 --> 02:01:54.654 - Thank you very much. Thank you any other comments in chambers or online 02:01:55.106 --> 02:02:02.883 - If there is someone who's online and would like to make a comment, please raise your hand. Using the 02:02:02.883 --> 02:02:10.582 - raise hand signal on Zoom. I don't know if there is anyone. No, I'm not seeing anybody else online. 02:02:10.582 --> 02:02:16.126 - Okay. Okay. But we might have another commenter in the council chamber. 02:02:54.978 --> 02:03:14.808 - You're ready Okay Okay, I'm going to Take up where bill left off We let's see if you would like stating 02:03:14.808 --> 02:03:23.198 - could you please state your name, please? I 02:03:23.874 --> 02:03:34.207 - Pardon? State your name. Oh, state my name, okay. Rosemary Tracy, 1504 West 17th. And our property goes 02:03:34.207 --> 02:03:44.442 - right up to the buildings directly across the street from this building being talked about. Let's see. 02:03:44.442 --> 02:03:53.086 - If all the developers want to do it, it allows some units to be rented as hotel rooms. 02:03:53.250 --> 02:04:03.456 - we would have no objections except for the concerns for children that are in other apartments. We also 02:04:03.456 --> 02:04:13.365 - don't oppose commercial uses such as a coffee shop in-house. If that is all that is wanted, why can 02:04:13.365 --> 02:04:22.878 - that not be done with a variance or similar? We do, however, oppose rezoning the entire site MS 02:04:24.162 --> 02:04:36.397 - because that would have far broader implications. It not only would allow future changes to this 6.93 02:04:36.397 --> 02:04:48.391 - acre property, but also could have much wider impacts beyond this one property. Among other things, 02:04:48.391 --> 02:04:50.910 - rezoning to MS would 02:04:51.970 --> 02:05:03.247 - bring up some concerns on traffic for the roundabout. I didn't see anything mentioning when statistical 02:05:03.247 --> 02:05:13.656 - concerns were explored and spoken about, but I didn't see anything on there about that traffic, 02:05:13.656 --> 02:05:21.246 - and it's wow, way bigger, way bigger. Over and close to the projects, 02:05:21.826 --> 02:05:31.530 - There is, I don't know, four or five tall building much smaller in size. But all these are new. And 02:05:31.530 --> 02:05:41.914 - then that great big project that's kind of a gated community, I think, along the highway. And the variance 02:05:41.914 --> 02:05:51.230 - of green spaces was changed quite a lot in the history of that coming up, too. And so then this 02:05:51.586 --> 02:06:01.764 - monster Okay, so among other things rezoning rezoning MS would remove regulations that mandate a 300 02:06:01.764 --> 02:06:12.042 - to 900 foot buffer zone Separating it from any other student housing building It would lead leave the 02:06:12.042 --> 02:06:19.902 - site open for future student housing developments on this property and on any 02:06:20.226 --> 02:06:31.261 - adjoining parcels the developers may acquire. It would remove the current RM limits on the ratio of 02:06:31.261 --> 02:06:42.627 - three bedroom and four bedroom units intended to protect standard family inventory and needs. It would 02:06:42.627 --> 02:06:47.262 - allow the developer to adjust floor plans 02:06:47.618 --> 02:06:56.437 - and add more bedrooms per unit, four or more, and future expansion without needing variance approvals. 02:06:56.437 --> 02:07:05.256 - Oh, I'm afraid we're out of time again. I'm sorry. Well, after reading the Elevate website, we suspect 02:07:05.256 --> 02:07:11.934 - the developer... Please understand. We have to call your time now. I'm sorry. 02:07:12.162 --> 02:07:20.056 - It's only three minutes of public comment, so you have now exceeded that. But please be assured we do 02:07:20.056 --> 02:07:28.415 - have these comments in our packet. We've received this. I think you also have this note from our community. 02:07:28.415 --> 02:07:36.387 - Yes, we do. The 17th Street Crescent Bend community. And it is publicly available as well, just so you 02:07:36.387 --> 02:07:40.798 - know that that is part of the publicly available packet. 02:07:41.122 --> 02:07:50.248 - So all of that information is available. And also I think, well, I wanna say one more sentence. Oh, 02:07:50.248 --> 02:07:59.009 - I'm afraid I can't permit it. Because I don't know if this has been checked out. What is the... 02:07:59.009 --> 02:08:07.953 - I'm sorry. How many feet does it have to be from a school? Yes. Because you're gonna have some... 02:08:07.953 --> 02:08:10.782 - Thank you. Sexually, whatever. 02:08:11.330 --> 02:08:19.729 - Well, thank you very much where we understand your comments and concerns. Thank you Thank you very much. 02:08:19.729 --> 02:08:28.128 - Yep. We very much appreciate your comments and input on this Okay, so now I think that we might be We've 02:08:28.128 --> 02:08:36.367 - exasperated our public comments, okay Okay, how about? Back to Commission questions. I know I have one 02:08:36.367 --> 02:08:40.926 - at least from the comments that were raised. I wonder if 02:08:41.506 --> 02:08:50.097 - staff might be able to comment on the suggestion actually by the people who spoke and Included in the 02:08:50.097 --> 02:08:58.519 - packet about whether there's any other way to Vary this use to allow other than a rezone. I presume 02:08:58.519 --> 02:09:01.214 - that this has been explored and 02:09:02.050 --> 02:09:10.393 - We do not have a variance of use So the only way to allow for a use that is not in a zoning district 02:09:10.393 --> 02:09:18.901 - is to rezone that to a different district that allows that use Okay. All right. Well that answers that 02:09:18.901 --> 02:09:27.162 - question. Thank you. Okay other other questions by commissioners Comments questions or motion. Yes, 02:09:27.162 --> 02:09:31.870 - Commissioner Stasberg I'll go ahead and comment I didn't 02:09:32.098 --> 02:09:39.392 - Pre-prepare a comment for this. So I'm sorry if I'm a little meandering this evening I think that in 02:09:39.392 --> 02:09:46.974 - general mostly what I see here is spots owning and I kind of have a really huge problem with just saying 02:09:46.974 --> 02:09:54.412 - Okay, we're just gonna let this one property owner have different rules in this one place so that they 02:09:54.412 --> 02:09:57.662 - can Have a better economic outcome for their 02:09:57.794 --> 02:10:08.270 - building. I don't love that in general, especially since it leaves this little rectangle there of the 02:10:08.270 --> 02:10:19.774 - RM. I think that that just feels very wrong. Secondly, and I could not in the packet access the entire original 02:10:19.874 --> 02:10:24.842 - proposal that went with this, it came up as a whole bunch of errors. I could see the first page and 02:10:24.842 --> 02:10:30.158 - then the rest of it was errors, so I couldn't go through and read the whole thing. But there were multiple 02:10:30.158 --> 02:10:32.990 - developments that went through around the same time that 02:10:33.410 --> 02:10:39.389 - Talked a good talk about being multifamily housing and then in the end what they've done is they've 02:10:39.389 --> 02:10:45.547 - advertised pretty exclusively as single-family housing they are renting by the bedroom not by the unit 02:10:45.547 --> 02:10:51.646 - and That has been a real frustration by myself and and some of the folks over on my side of town that 02:10:51.646 --> 02:10:53.918 - have had a couple of developments and 02:10:54.018 --> 02:10:59.321 - end up not quite doing what it is that they originally said that they were going to do. Like I said, 02:10:59.321 --> 02:11:04.676 - I can't read the original packet. I don't know what you said you were going to do, but it sounds sort 02:11:04.676 --> 02:11:10.032 - of like you're in this position now where you're going, oh, well, there's so much student housing. We 02:11:10.032 --> 02:11:15.544 - just can't rent our units anymore. Well, you know what? There's also a housing crisis in this town where 02:11:15.544 --> 02:11:16.542 - people need units. 02:11:16.738 --> 02:11:23.386 - Maybe those people just aren't students and so maybe there needs to be some consideration of a different 02:11:23.386 --> 02:11:29.845 - use which might mean renting to non students and advertising to non students and also then rethinking 02:11:29.845 --> 02:11:36.366 - perhaps some of your rental rates where a two-bedroom apartment goes for $2,000 because you're renting 02:11:36.366 --> 02:11:40.862 - it by the bedroom instead of by the unit and maybe that would actually 02:11:40.962 --> 02:11:48.533 - Benefit you more economically, but I am certainly not interested in changing zoning especially in this 02:11:48.533 --> 02:11:56.031 - way that as public commenters and staff have pointed out could have some unintended consequences down 02:11:56.031 --> 02:12:03.529 - the road of allowing things that really were not intended to exist in this area, which is intended to 02:12:03.529 --> 02:12:04.926 - be residential and 02:12:05.058 --> 02:12:15.117 - Commercial things that are supporting residential and hotels and other temporary housing like that is 02:12:15.117 --> 02:12:25.175 - is not doing that. Thank you Thank you other comments commissioners I'll just add I share the concern 02:12:25.175 --> 02:12:27.838 - about spot rezoning what I 02:12:27.938 --> 02:12:37.104 - feels like spot rezoning, and I just have some serious reservations about rezoning this for the broader 02:12:37.104 --> 02:12:45.917 - implications that it invites. If we change this, we're allowing some uses that were way beyond what 02:12:45.917 --> 02:12:54.906 - was intended. This is not just a simple question of allowing a temporary hotel use because it's a new 02:12:54.906 --> 02:12:57.726 - phenomenon. This has much wider 02:12:57.922 --> 02:13:08.418 - Longer implications and I'm not willing to go down that road Anyone ready to make a motion I'll make 02:13:08.418 --> 02:13:18.810 - a motion move we approve the waiver of the required second hearing and forward z o 20 26-08-0013 to 02:13:18.810 --> 02:13:24.734 - the common council with a negative recommendation Second 02:13:27.586 --> 02:13:37.634 - Commissioner Smith, I believe was faster on the draw. So I Just want to say that There might be a time 02:13:37.634 --> 02:13:47.486 - and place for this down the road with the next round of the UDO amendments or rewriting the UDO It's 02:13:47.486 --> 02:13:57.534 - just not today. We can't spot rezone Okay, I think we're ready for a vote Holmes yes Kenzie. Yes Smith 02:13:57.730 --> 02:14:09.066 - Yes, Stossberg. Yes. Bishop. Yes. Burrell. Yes. Seaborg. Yes. All right. Another unanimous seven yeses. 02:14:09.066 --> 02:14:16.478 - Okay. I believe this ends our meeting. We are adjourned. Thank you.