It's the appointed hour. It is 531 by my clock so we can get started of the Bloomington planned Commission
meeting for September 14th We have a quorum I see so we can do Do our business this evening we have
a number of things on the agenda and I'll just quickly go over them just so we
Make sure that we are all in the right place We'll have our standard roll call and business at the beginning
where we'll approve our August minutes will have any reports resolutions and communications we have
no continued petitions and nothing on the consent agenda and we have two petitions that are you do text
amendments to discuss and then a
petition that is requesting a rezone from residential multifamily to mix you student housing and Includes
a waiver of the required second hearing So that's on the agenda tonight and we'll start by calling the
roll Burrell Seabour here Holmes Kinsey here Smith here
Stossburg here Excellent. Okay, and we have no members present online So that means we'll just do voice
votes this evening and speaking of voice Make sure everybody on the Commission that we use our microphones
and actually lean into it this year From now on lean into it so everybody can hear us Okay, so we have
our first order of business approval of August minutes. I actually have a
Rather trivial correction a typo that I would like to at least make sure we address You know, I know
it seems trivial, but I noticed in the agenda or in the minutes Roberts rules of order was mistakenly
type, you know typo Robertson so they got a new name. So let's make sure that we just get Roberts in
there just so
People of the public don't think that we're operating by some other rules that they're not aware of
So that was the only Error, but I consider it really trivial. So I hope that we can vote on them Pending
there are no other major Fines. Yes, Patrick one. It's another fairly trivial. It's on the z o 20 26
0 6 0 0 6 and at the end of the discussion on that it says bishop motioned to
So let us look into that and revise those and then we'll bring those back next time Yes, I agree and
we have perhaps another one Yeah, I
We try to cite it in the same way that just got cited under that same zio Twenty twenty six. Oh six.
Oh, oh six when we have the motion that I made to amend the red line text the section is not Like a
written the way that our UDO sections are usually written like it's written as one run-on two oh four
one one od2 av
instead of having some dots and stuff in there. And then actually, like earlier in that section, there
are some dots, but the D2AV are still not quite right. So I think that it would be helpful for future
readers of these minutes to have that corrected as well. Yeah, thank you. I see that. We'll get those
three revisions done and bring it back to you guys next month.
Yeah, and then similarly like the electrification and then developments should have a hyphen between
it like electrification Should be capitalized and then hyphen developments in terms of like that's how
the actual you do reads and otherwise it just seems confusing because we're talking about electrification
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
We'll get that revised bring it back October. Thanks Thank you important that we get the minutes correct
anything else as long as we're making corrections All right. Okay, so we'll Not take any action on that
one except to get them corrected and bring it back to the next meeting Do we have any reports resolutions
and communications? from staff or commissioners Nothing from staff. No
anything from Yes, Commissioner Stasburg, I'll go ahead and say since we're talking about The the minutes
from that day that particular petition Has a second reading in front of council this Wednesday if anybody's
interested. Thanks Great. So yes, the things that we took up will be enjoying their second reading In
front of council. Okay. Thank you anybody else Will you be voting on them then?
You think I'm not sure that I can speculate on that in theory. We could vote on it theory could you
could vote on it? I also think that there's a chance that could be moved to a third reading because
of potential pending amendments Because there were no amendments in the packet, but I know that there
were there was some discussion of those so Okay, thank you
All right If we're ready to move on okay, well we have no petitions continued no consent agenda, so
let's move right to our first petition zeo 2026-06-007 the city of Bloomington planning and transportation
a udio text amendment change related to increasing housing attainability and Eric you're gonna present
Thank you. So this is actually the kind of third hearing that this will be presented at. At the first
hearing, this was continued to the August hearing. At the August hearing, there was just a brief overview,
but then this was continued to this hearing here for the required second hearing. So at this time, we'll
kind of step through these three particular aspects that are being proposed
Staff had actually kind of laid out at the beginning of the year a series of amendments to the unified
development ordinance to address several areas that we had identified that could work towards increasing
housing within the community. A lot of those were addressed with a council resolution that dealt with
setbacks and lot area and some other standards that we had had on the list of things to revise.
So once a lot of those were addressed with that particular set of amendments, we still had a few more,
three more that we have identified with this particular set of amendments to look to revise a few aspects
of the zoning code. What is before us tonight are not monumental changes. These are just making some
small adjustments. One of these is to adjust the accessory dwelling unit definition and standards
to align with changes that were done at state code with House Bill 1001 that took effect in July 1st
of this year that revised the definition of an accessory dwelling unit. So we're syncing our definition
to match that. We are modifying the standards for cottage development. So cottage development is an
allowance within the UDO to allow for units to be constructed on a property that are not
technically multi-family. It's not technically single-family because you're not creating individual
lots. So the typical kind of arrangement for a cottage development is some sort of a circular or semi-circle
arrangement of homes around a common area. Oftentimes this is something that happens in a single-family
neighborhood that allows for a different housing type from your typical single-family versus duplex
or multi-family.
So we've had the cottage home development standards within the unified development ordinance for a long
time. However, unfortunately, given some of the restrictions that are placed on them, they haven't really
been utilized. The density of restrictions are certainly one of the biggest ones. So we're looking to
increase the allowed number of units that would be allowed with that.
And then the last one, we're proposing to modify a few aspects of the use specific standards for duplexes.
Specifically, we're proposing to clarify one of the use specific design element requirements. Also proposing
to remove the maximum number of duplexes that are allowed to be approved within a year, as well as remove
the 150 foot spatial limitation that apply for duplexes.
So far for duplexes over the past four years or so that they have been in place Last year we came closest
to hitting the 15 Cap that is allowed we had 11. I think last year and this year. I think we're at about
three However, one of the things that I mentioned were we're just trying to look to do and also is kind
of in keeping with the
Language that was introduced with house bill 1001 is directing communities to look at sections of their
zoning code their unified development ordinance that might be Restricting the implementation of housing
within a community so with this we are proposing to
look at several elements that the HP-1001 directed us to look at, although it directed us to look at
allowing duplex or two-family dwellings by right. We're not pursuing that particular element because
that requires a change to the use table itself. We are looking at some of the restrictions that might
be holding back
the proliferation or the allowance for duplexes within the community. So reducing the buffer and reducing
the cap certainly is something that might help move the needle a little bit in that direction to get
those more incorporated. So that is some of the reasoning behind what we're bringing forward tonight.
So just to kind of start off, as I mentioned, we'll be syncing our definition of accessory dwelling
units with the revised definition that came about earlier this year. So the revised definition states
that an ADU shall not exceed the lesser of 75% of the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit
or 1,000 square feet. So we're modifying our definition to comply with that. With that, we're also proposing
to amend the definition of accessory dwelling unit to accommodate both the situation where it is on
a duplex, a property with a duplex versus on a single family lot, basically just utilizing that same
definition.
with the cottage home development, we're proposing to substantially increase the maximum density that
is allowed in the respective zoning districts for these. When these numbers were initially incorporated
within the UDO, we were looking at them from a perspective of if you have a given size property,
How many houses could you in theory accomplish on that property if you were to subdivide it based on
the minimum lot area and lot with standards of a district? So that's how we got to these numbers that
you see that density of You know three units per acre for the r1 five units per acre for the r2 six
units per acre for the r3 that that equaled
what you could get for a single family subdivision based on that lot area and lot width. So again, as
I mentioned, we haven't really seen this been utilized at all. There's only been one development that
has come forward with this approval. So we'd like to see this utilized more within the community. We
feel it does provide an opportunity to have a diversity of housing. So we'd like to increase the allowable
density on these, as well as remove the minimum project size limitations that were placed on there.
As I mentioned, we're also looking at modifying some of the other other standards within the cottage
home development So there's a heavy buffer yard requirement that is required a heavy landscaping buffer
yard requirement with this use So we're proposing to remove that
and then also adding a U-specific standard that states no more than two units are allowed within a building.
This is to help differentiate it between a multifamily development to keep somebody from utilizing this
and essentially just coming in with a multifamily development. So we're proposing a U-specific standard
that says no more than two units are allowed within one building.
And then with the duplexes as I mentioned we're proposing one change Just a slight clarification to
one of the use specific standards for duplexes there are four elements of a building that the UDO directs
us to look at and ensure that those elements are in general the same size and shape as other elements of
of houses along a block face. So one of those is roof pitch with the utilization of this section of
the code. One of the things that we've looked at is not just roof pitch, but also the general orientation
of the roof. So which way do the gables run? So we have utilized that in kind of our review to help
help ensure that duplexes are somewhat compatible with
Houses within a neighborhood. Certainly this area has been something that We've seen a lot of discussion
on In terms of the application of these you specific standards. They were written in a very general
sense That carries with them a lot of subjectivity Which we'd certainly like to maybe revise at a later
time but right now we're just looking at slightly clarifying one of those you specific standards to
include the orientation of roof is roofs and
Within the block face and then as I mentioned we're proposing to remove the maximum number of units
Duplex is allowed within a calendar year. The UDO currently restricts that to 15 units So we're just
proposing to remove that and then also the UDO has a standard that says No new duplexes may be approved
within 150 foot radius for two years. So we are proposing to remove that element as well and
And then a slight change to the use specific standards for triplex and fourplex To remove the maximum
number of entrances that are allowed we've seen several petitions where somebody has wanted to do a
fourplex and Condo eyes each unit within there to allow that to be sold and so the UDO currently says
and no more than
two entrances are allowed per that building. So having this restriction certainly prevents that situation
that we want to encourage where a townhome is condoized and each unit is sold and is treated somewhat
as its own unit. So having its own door. So this would allow for the townhome to be condoized in that
situation. And so those are the three basic elements that are contained within this ordinance.
Amendment and so with this we are recommending that the Planning Commission forward this to the Common
Council with a favorable recommendation and With that I'm happy to answer any questions Thank you, okay,
we can move right to questions about this to my right Go ahead Commissioner Holmes So just and some
of these may be in here. I apologize if they are but thank you to direct me to some answers I
The first one. So we're currently in the process of changing lot sizes in our one through our four.
I think those are those amendments may still be pending. How do these new sizes for colleges compare to those.
Yes, so in the r1 and and certainly this particular element is a very moving target right now as it
moves through the council Deliberations in the r1. We were just proposing a small decrease. I think
we're going from 9600 to 7200 I'd have to look at the numbers, but it's just a small square footage
there In the r3, for instance, we were proposing to go from 5,000 square feet down to 2,500 square feet
so, you know in essence
Cutting in half. So if you take that same Reduction, you know, this would be the cottage home could
be seen as doubling that but really we're looking at almost kind of tripling the amount the allowed
density that is proposed with the cottage home development as you can see going from 5 to you know 24
Really? You're you're more than more than tripling it in that case. Yes, again, we're just kind of looking
at We don't see these utilized at all
Certainly one of the challenges could be that you know Just getting these number of units on a lot is
challenging just from a financial perspective as well as certain fire code requirements So we just want
to try to remove any of the barriers for density Whether or not it'll actually achieve these these density
numbers, you know, we don't know but we just like to try to see this be utilized a lot more so modifying
this density certainly seemed like the most appropriate way to accomplish that and
Because some of these are like an r3 and r4 if I my math was right there about 30 by 30 lots I know
they can be of different shapes, but you know saying if there can be two if they can be duplexes these
are quite Small so but so it's more dense than It's not a proportional from the changes. We're making
in our window r4. Those are getting reduced These are being reduced just quite a bit more
Yeah, these are being increased, you know the allowable density that way that is being proposed with
cottage homes being substantially increased even beyond The reduction from the minimum lot area if you
were to subdivide again just trying to look at Accomplishing a higher density on on a property and getting
a diversity of housing Sure, and so how do roads work with cottages? Is it the normal road rules? Do
they use lanes like it? How does road access work with? Yeah, so really
And unfortunately, I have a very low sampling rate to give you in terms of what's been utilized according
to the rules on like yeah, so the biggest challenge really I would say with this is fire department
access to those particular units so in the in the
given situation of a cottage home you have the houses that are arranged in some sort of a Horseshoe
perhaps and then a road circles around the backside of that It doesn't have to be a public road, but
certainly to provide fire department access it needs to be 20 foot wide Contained within an access easement
that allows for it to move through there So that would be what I would call that the typical cottage
home development Okay, so those so they don't have special road rules that allow them to use lanes or
anything like that they still have to comply with whatever normal width of
It would be whatever the fire department requires, which is typically a 20-foot wide fire access road
Okay, okay Okay, thank you. Thank you All right, Commissioner Smith. Oh You probably know what I'm gonna
ask the design standards for the duplex Is there any have we talked to architects? Is there any way
to make this less subjective? I
You know what I mean, it's just yeah, and then it's within the block that the house is proposed So if
the next block has a bunch of tall house the block here on as much short houses We have to stay short.
I just don't get it Well, so so so they use specific standards and we can just kind of look at those
and certainly this is this is a very poignant topic within the community and for a lot of
Developments that have come forward. So when these were incorporated within the UDO The general thought
the intent was to have some general constraints on certain elements of a house You know the roof pitch
really it was trying to address situations of you know You you have pitched roofs and somebody wants
to come in with a flat roof modern house That would certainly stand out and not be in keeping so the
language within here just talks about
general shape size And design of these individual elements so roof pitch again very subjective You know
front porch width and depth Again subjective looking at houses along there, you know We obviously don't
have the ability to determine roof pitches or front porch width and depth on every single property we
just have to kind of
look at what we can observe from the public right away and Serve as a general guiding hand to say we
want a duplex to look somewhat similar in only these four respective elements Understanding there's
there's going to be a lot of wide variation within a block face You know the height of a house was not
something that was intended to be regulated here you know, it was just looking at that these four general
elements and
Certainly the Plain Commission could look to incorporate and add other objective elements I think that's
going to be hard to come to a consensus on but certainly it's within your purview if you want to suggest
more objective things We would we would as a staff would certainly prefer that than these subjective
criteria. Well, okay, then let's change the conversation. I
The BZA is your judicial board and right now a conditional use has to go to the BZA because these are
in as a conditional use Why do they have to why can't they come to us where we are? Subjective the BZA
needs to be objective and yet it can't be Because the use itself is a conditional use and only the Board
of Zoning Appeals is empowered to approve them So my question is is there any way to require that to
come to us instead of the BZA? Because it's still a meeting notice, right?
It's the same process. I don't think state code allows for that. I think it only allows for a board
of zoning appeals or hearing officer to approve conditional uses. Is there another definition instead
of conditional use that a duplex could be allowed in? I don't see that there would be a different use
categorization to put a duplex in. In all of the districts, you obviously have permitted uses and then
you have conditional uses, uses that could be situationally appropriate.
and so that's that's the Board of Zoning Appeals purview by State code and legal can certainly correct
me if I'm wrong or our director can correct me if I'm wrong or missing something here but you know,
certainly there are lots of ways to try to address the challenge of the duplex approval review process
certainly one of those is making it a permitted use so it's not being put in front of those boards and
For those review, however changing the use tables a lot It's a lot more complex in terms of the public
notification aspect of it So that's why we are not coming forward with a use table change now Yeah,
certainly if the reason we're not just changing this to an allowable use for condition use is why again
so if we amend the use table we have to send notification to any affected property owners and
So because it is a conditional use in a lot of those districts We would have to send notice to all affected
property owners, which in essence would require Notification to all the properties. I mean you could
certainly boil it down to only ones that adjoin specific zoning districts You know where it's a conditional
use but there's a very hefty public notification element to that That's why we only do you stable changes every
Five so years because there is a heavy public notification aspect to it Okay All right, anybody yes
I just want to continue that train of thought for just a second because what Commissioner Smith was
partly getting at was having duplexes come before this board instead of the BZA and I guess I'm just
wondering about state regulations around what comes before a plan Commission and what
Doesn't and whether they're state required or locally required. So for example things have to come before
us if there are certain size So couldn't we you know, like larger developments have to come before us
even though basically they check all of the boxes in the planning documents So could duplexes ever fall
into that category of being permitted but required to come before Plan Commission for specific Site
plans in the same way that large developments do
Yeah, so state site plans are enabled in a different process. They are directed to the Planning Commission
Which can then delegate to staff to approve certain site plans and and certainly we have got a lot of
criteria in the UDO of you know What has to go to the Planning Commission and what can be approved at
a staff level? However approval of conditional uses As far as I'm aware unless I'm missing something
are only enabled to be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the hearing officer
Right, but if we change it like this is a theoretical question if we theoretically change it to be permitted
Could we then change it to be to have duplexes required to come before Plan Commission? But be permitted
so approval of a use that is permitted by right should not require Approval from a board or commission
you can require approval of review of that for certain design elements or requirements you know if you wanted to
Ensure that it was meeting a requirement of the UDO But you know, we've kind of talked about this in
a couple different contexts over the years of you know If something meets all of the requirements of
the UDO, you know We want it to be approved kind of as fast as possible at a staff level You know the
Plain Commission really kind of is reserved for bigger projects that reserve public scrutiny and transparency
issues And so that's kind of where the line is in the UDO of what goes to Plain Commission. What goes to staff?
I guess because the I mean duplexes are in this town sort of an issue with transparency and public,
you know and that kind of thing and that is one of the pieces of It not being conditional anymore and
then there's no public process whatsoever Which community members might not love that but I certainly
don't love now that it's conditional and everything has to go before the BCA so I'm just trying to understand
what options might lie before us to make it
easier or more clear cut in terms of what Commissioner Smith was getting at in terms of Understanding
what those expectations are a little bit more clearly And the idea of the the BCA needing to be objective
and playing Commission may be having a little bit more Discussion around I don't know. Anyway, thank you. I
Yeah and you know if we go down the route of making them a permitted use certainly there could be other
restrictions or things put on them if that conversation comes up. Eric just one question you mentioned
that use table changes might happen every five years how close where are we in that.
timeframe right now from well, so we just so last year we did Four or five use table changes to amend
for self storage units gas stations car washes Fourth one is escaping me but we did amend the use table to
modify what districts those uses were allowed in. And so that was, oh, it was urban agriculture. That
was the main thing that was kind of spurring that particular. So because we had to amend the use table
for that, you know, we had a small pocket of things in our notebook of, hey, you know, if the use table
ever comes up for amendment, let's try to address these three things that have been highlighted in several
hearings and petitions of, you know, let's look at areas where this use is allowed.
So right right now, you know, we might have a small list of things, you know nothing that is kind of
tipping the scale of You know, we have full-scale public notification requirements to carry forward
with and bring forward So at this time, we don't have any immediate plans to bring forward anything
Okay, it sounds like we might start creating a list again. Okay, good. Yeah All right. This is kind
of for the plan commission and and staff to comment on
What if we remove the design elements? Because it's a subjective conversation that requires to be easy
at a review and I know I shouldn't get into that too much but and maybe we don't remove them all but
I'm just asking the Planning Commission as a whole especially the City Council representation representative
here How did these get here? I mean, I think I know how they got here I can assume but it's a strange
for options and
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
we did it would remove that problem It would certainly so there would still be two Well, really I guess
depending on on the outcome of some of these other changes here in regards to the number of units that
are number Duplexes that are allowed per year and the spatial limitation really you'd only be left with
one You specific standard if you were to strike all four of those, you know being that you know
Each unit hat shall have a separate exterior entrance. That would be the only remaining you specific
standard Is that a problem no Quick anybody on I don't have a strong opinion I only have a I have a
knee-jerk reaction to what just happened. So it's more of a is there a way to make this Simpler anybody
Just to clarify the the concern you're trying to address is that it's too subjective for the planner
or for the developer or the person who wants to build it Yeah, so that just gets us mired and yes,
okay Okay, so it would be eliminating those design elements Or or just roof pitching orientation or
Because front porch width and depth of course is subjective, but I like front porch front porches front
building setbacks Those need to line up I get that we made other adjustments for that vehicle parking
access. I'm not sure what that means, but It's more the architectural Comments that become totally subjective
and we had city had city have always tried to stay away from architectural control So But I've also
been off the Planning Commission for a while, so I'm just asking the question
Yeah, so, you know these four elements when when this came forward, you know, these were certain Elements
that were trying to give the most basic Restrictions on or guidance to staff and the BZA to try to have
a little bit of continuity Within neighborhoods do not have one building particularly stand out for
these four elements understanding at the same time You still want to allow for a lot of variation and
use these stores that used use word neighborhood
It's not the neighborhood, it's that block. It's that side of the street. So again, with all
these restrictions, subjectivity is very challenging. When you say neighborhood, that is so broad. So
we had to define that, obviously, to block face, and then give a definition for what that block face
is to say, we're not looking at trying to make it look like the houses that are four blocks away, but
these things that are along this particular block face. Here are four elements that we typically see
that are somewhat basic in nature to help
from sticking out Terribly much and I get it. Yeah, I'd not argue with you. I get that so I'm asking
the questions anybody got any ideas Because I'd almost rather say hey, let's just remove rich roof pitch
and see what City Council does Think put it back, but at least then it'd be discussed. I
Yeah, I would expect there's probably going to be some discussion. I know three people are gonna have
some strong discussion on this. Yes. So certainly it's at the planning commission's purview. If you
want to propose striking some or all of these and send it forward with that, that's absolutely within
your purview. I guess out of the spirit of what we're trying to do here is increase the opportunity
to build duplexes or to do things.
That would be a way to serve that goal is to remove one or more of these elements So that would fulfill
the HB the the house bill goal Of course From all the elements the one that has caused more issues at
the PZA is the is the block face because people feel
The neighbors understand one thing we understand one thing Everybody is trying to figure out what block
face is. I thought the planner did a fabulous job last time With a drawing showing what the block face
was and showing on the street and showing everything But it makes it very limited
Because in the neighborhood, you have several elements of architecture that you could be used. And when
you limit to just that, those small row of homes, you're limiting, I mean, it really limits what you can do.
Yeah, so you know again we with with regulations we try to induce as much element of objectivity as
possible to say these this is what you're looking at, you know houses specifically within this street
in this street and these four elements of that house in a most general capacity. So the UDO does have
a definition of block face. So that that's that's a very objective application of that term. And then
these four elements, you know as
commission member Smith has Discussed are very hard. They're very subjective and and it leads to a lot
of challenging conversations. I think I think When emotions made I'm gonna move to strike them and I'm
gonna say this to councilmember Stossberg with the goal the council Having to debate this I want them
to make the rule because I'm not here to make the rule I'm here to
Talk about it and I'm also walking a fine line because I'm on the BZA. So I'm trying not to discuss
a case but I think it needs to be discussed at the legislative level and If we don't strike it it won't
be I think Because we're just a recommendation I Guess I could make a recommendation to strike if they
so see fit but I don't think that's how we do this and
So yeah, you should send it to them in your suggested manner and I certainly think striking it would
Ensure a conversation. Oh, yeah would just like the bike racks Okay, I Actually had one question about
the hundred foot 150 foot buffer You know Eric you went through the the number of what it was it?
Or so that we've heard this year is the buffer at all at issue Is that really not an issue? It has actually
come into play in two locations over the past few years But it's not the common problem Okay, but again,
you know with these things we're just looking at you know, what what are some of the constraints and
removing those just to help with the perception of
But also to kind of move a little bit towards compliance with the house bill that looks at ways to remove
restrictions within your UDO for housing Yeah, yeah, you know I I do remember doing all of these when
we put a hundred and fifty foot and we put the cap on when we were reviewing the UDO or when and adopting
the UDO in the first place and all of these things were meant to help the public understand that there would be
stop gaps and guardrails around this and You know clearly house bill is trying to reduce The guardrails
and restrictions in a way that makes housing more possible. So I mean I I'm in favor of the 150 Removing
the buffer. I just wanted and you know as you as you kind of alluded to there when when these were being
implemented we wanted to
put some guardrails on to make sure that it didn't get out of control and alleviate some fears that
it could result in mass tear downs within neighborhoods. Again, that just really hasn't been the thing.
It's not cheap to buy a property with a house on it, tear it down, and then build an entire new structure.
So we've seen the market and just the cost of construction and land
Already serving as somewhat of a self-limiting factor Yes, I guess just going back to the discussion
about roof pitch that will probably voting on here Just I guess reflecting that the current proposal
before us adds Definition or adds almost restriction and we're potentially be talking about reducing
the restriction So it's through proposal adds
Orientation so just trying to we're kind of going one way or the other way and there's the neutral is
just keeping it as it is but Can you go more or explain like why we why the current proposal suggests
adding and orientation? So that was really just kind of reflect the way that we had been approaching
all of these situations You know while it says roof pitch, you know, you you can certainly imply that
how that roof is oriented this addresses and
You know serves as a design element that might really make a house stand out in terms of how that roof
orientation is running So while the you do doesn't say orientation. This has been a very small element
But it is something that we've tried to be consistent about in terms of how roof lines are oriented
and again you're gonna see a lot of variation in terms of main gables of houses and dormers or porches
that might stick out and
That you know, you have your main gable running one direction, but you might have a dorm or something
that sticks out and have a different orientation So, you know if you're proposing to strike all this
I'd probably just strike the orientation as well Thank you, but it was just to clarify, you know a small
element that we have been trying to utilize in practice All right any other questions Yes
I just need to bring up my other thing but I have questions that are actually unrelated to the plexus
In terms of the cottage developments you changed the open space from 400 square feet per dwelling unit
to 200 square feet of open space per dwelling unit across all zoning districts and I guess I wondered
if you had considered having different open space requirements for different districts and
Or whether you had optimized kind of an open space requirement for like one or another one of those
No, we hadn't really you know as as you look at where these zoning districts are RM and RH properties
are typically larger Than r1 r2 r3 and r4 properties But no, we hadn't really looked at
you know, some sort of a graduated, you know, as your density goes up, you're just going to have less
space, so the open space requirement might be seen as kind of a hindrance as you look to something that
tries to accomplish, you know, a density where there is no maximum, that it would, so it might be a
self-limiting factor of number of dwelling units in open space, but I do kind of see where you're looking at.
I guess that just seemed a little bit odd to me that Everything else was graduated and then this one
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
for one particular zoning district with that 200 square feet And so I don't maybe we just want to look
at that a little bit You know with most of these, you know one of the one of the common themes that
we often talk about is You know, this is what we're proposing
Let's see what a development or two might look like that incorporates this if we see that something
is really holding it back Or is not working out, you know, we can come back and change it That might
be just a suggestion or thought Okay. Thanks And then I have one more
This is and this is probably gonna have to be an amendment I I'm sorry that it has to be a full amendment
probably but I noticed in the definition of dwelling accessory unit duplex and single family And you
can bring up on the screen if you want The last sentence of each uses the word terms Plural and I think
it should they should each be term singular because I think that they're talking about the
I mean, it's a definition, and they're talking about that one definition. Let me see if I can find the
slide that it's actually on. It's on slide five. Yeah, I see what you're talking about. The terms does
not include a manufacturer, and it should be the term. And it says that in both of them. So I guess
we have to have a full amendment on that, right? Yes. Thank you for noticing that. Yeah.
I don't know if we want to move that now or whenever the public comment first and then do all the amendments
at the same time. Thanks. All right. Any other questions or ideas here? I got one more cottage development
sidewalks based on the definition shown and the comment on where I see this. Now I missed it.
Comment on sidewalks. It's okay external sidewalks and tree plots with street trees along Along adjacent
public roads are required and internal sidewalks shall connect each cottage to the project external
sidewalk What is your Interpretation of the word external sidewalk. Is that only a long public right
away? Yes Thank you. And then you're requiring that each of these homes if there is this horseshoe concept
for alley load and
Rear load and then there's a into your sidewalk network for each of these houses to walk out to that
just has to connect to that Yes, that is that is the way this so some some way so, you know, you have
a front door You got to be able to get to the public street sidewalk. I'm sorry If you get when you
walk out your front door, you got to be able to get to the public street sidewalk Yeah, so some sort
of internal sidewalk system to get you from your front door to the street. Perfect. Thank you
Ready to go to public comment. Not that there is any, do we have any public, members of the public who
might want to comment? I don't think we have anyone online, but Eric do a. Yes, we do have one member
online. Okay. Kari, you should be able to unmute.
Hi, thank you. This is Kari Bennett. I'm operations director at Habitat for Humanity of Monroe County.
We support the proposed changes to the UDO to provide more flexibility and opportunities to build more
homes. Bloomington needs more of all types of homes to accommodate full-time residency. Those people
who want to live in Bloomington for the long term. That means a variety of starter, family, empty nester
and retiree homes.
for all income levels. The staff report states that this proposal constitutes the public hearing required
by House Enrolled Act 1001. And so in that regard, we also want to recommend that the plan commission
and the common council evaluate and amend the subdivision standards in chapter 20,
0.05 of the UDO to create additional flexibility to build more affordable homes. Doing so would provide
greater upfront certainty and reduce administrative burdens to developers and home builders like Habitat.
A starting place for this work for the Plan Commission would be to review the requested waivers of the
subdivision standards and any waiver types that this body commonly
receives and approves the subdivision standards should be revised to allow them an Easy one could be
not making developers seek Subdivision waivers for easements that are needed by the City of Bloomington
utilities. Thank you Thank you very much Yeah, we appreciate members of the public Thank you anyone else
If there is anybody else online, please use the raise hand function and we can recognize you I'm not
seeing anybody. Okay All right. So we're back to the council here for the Commission for a motion or
maybe some amendments Real quick. I did do just want to address one of the comments from Kari We will
be having a separate
Commission meeting to address compliance with HB 1001 So we had initially been approaching this hearing
and the last hearing as being that compliant hearing because we were discussing those things but after
further discussion internal we'll have a separate hearing for that specifically just to talk about those
issues and then Have that it'll be most possibly likely part of a regular hearing, but we'll have that
on the agenda specifically Okay. Thank you
So I have a question that's brought up by our Speaker Kari Bennett to staff keep track of common waivers
Do we have a tally of the waivers that are requested and the types that they are? We the waivers that
we typically see are
Subdivision might be from a sidewalk or tree plot requirement We did have one subdivision case where
we modified easement language itself In regards to trying to work with City of Bloomington utilities
and our environmental regulations That was with the North Grove petition but we don't see a commonality
in terms of waivers associated with subdivisions and
Do you keep track of them? Do you have a list not a list? Well, obviously we have staff reports that
address any subdivision any waivers that were associated with it You know, we have a running list within
the Department of UDO amendments So if there are common themes that we see that we constantly encounter
something that needs addressed, you know That will make it to our annual list of UDO amendments. I don't
think we have anything on there right now related to subdivision waivers certainly
This is something that is part of the council Amendment cycle right now. We're looking at some of the
subdivision standards We don't have anything in the amendment tonight that deal with subdivision standards
I'm not saying we can't include something but You know without without knowing more I was just curious
It was I thought it was a good idea that waivers that are commonly requested and probably commonly granted
Why wouldn't we move them into?
Allowed so that they don't have to be waivers anymore. But yeah, certainly and like I said track them,
right? We would need to know what those are Yeah, like I said, I we we don't wait We have not encountered
a typical waiver request other than sidewalks and tree plots and those are always situational Okay,
thank you All right. Any other questions or emotions? Yes, Mr. Stasker
This is just a follow-up on what she said Eric about the the hearing about the bill When do you think
that that is actually going to take place? I Guess this is a big guy question the one in charge House
bill 1001 has a very specific hearing
requirement and in order to Avoid any misunderstanding that we are in compliance we are likely to bring
that to the October 12th Plan Commission and There are eight eight to ten criteria that you need to
cover most of which have been already covered We're just going to review those with you and seek public
input. Make sure there's adequate notice to the public so folks like Carrie Bennett can come and others
who have may have a
Thoughts on how to develop more housing. That's the intent of HB 1001 and in order to meet that we'll
just have that I think the October 12th agenda is light and would accommodate that hearing So that's
our current plan. Otherwise, we would have a special meeting for that Great. Thank you. Thank you All
right, thank you Yes So going back to what I was talking about block face and
When you look at the slide that he has on the duplexes, I, as a member of the BZA, looking at roof pitch
orientation, front porch with depth, front building setback, parking access, I mean, all that, it's
not an issue. I think the issue is we made it so microscopic
when we put it as a block face, when this building is gonna be in a neighborhood. So I think maybe expanding,
taking the word block face from there on the same block face and putting the word neighborhood. Or if
you have a more specific word for it. But expanding that zone,
Place where that building is going to go instead of just you know one small area Yeah, so again, you
know with that I would encourage a very objective definition of blockface You know if you wanted to
expand beyond Adjoining streets to say something other than that, you know neighborhood is a very is
a much broader much broader word so that that might might bring more challenges if people try to
encounter what neighborhood is Flavia may add something. Yes My motion I was gonna strike number one
roof pitch and orientation Council member Stossberg's here. She's heard our discussion. I Love the idea
of at the very least expanding block face the additional two blocks on either side and across the street
as a minimum because that's very specific but I think on our motion we should just
Remove a couple of these or one of these to say hey council members Please address this because I know
they have opinions because I heard them so I'm not sure Whatever we tell them they're gonna do. I think
we should say hey do something I think that's my position sitting here now as opposed to trying to define
this Unless you think we should if we're gonna modify the definition of blockface. I'm fine. I'd do that and
Yeah, what I'm talking about is instead of making the way we have we are talking about not restricting
Right that we are finding ways to not restrict building and this is very restrictive very well It's
very subjective and very subjective because you were making it You know in some examples that we've
been through it's four homes. You're putting this against four homes or five and
So that makes it very microscopic. That's what I'm saying, instead of making it an area. And I'm not
opposed to being specific about an area, like you're saying, on adjacent blocks. I don't know how many
blocks, or what do you want to call it? That's why I'm not sure we should
Try to come up that definition sitting here. I think we say the City Council. Hey, we're gonna remove
these You figure out what you want here. That's less subjective Yeah, let's hear it Okay, Commissioner
Stasberg idea I my Recommendation is the Plan Commission does what they think is best with this and
and not treat it as a Kind of game with council Because I like council really doesn't like as a body.
It's it's really frustrating and I've heard various aspects to it. So if you specifically think that
the design element should just go because they're
Vague and subjective and and too broad then make that motion and let everybody vote on it And don't
just do it as a let's see what council does with this kind of moment If you want to keep some of those
if we want to think about it, I don't know how staff feels about continuing this so that we can
You know think about more specific things as a body or if you want to you know, try to make these more
Specific so then they're less subjective and like
I'm saying is don't necessarily lay this at council's feet to solve the problem because council views
playing commission as the body that is supposed to come up with the good suggestion of how to solve
the problem and I I do appreciate that sometimes it feels like well we come up with a good suggestion
and then there's this like political piece that council like deals with but I Can't like solve that
for you ever So we continue this is there a time limit on us I
No, this is you can certainly continue it. There is not a resolution directing this to go to the council
at any time So if the Plain Commission wants to continue it, that's certainly you're in your in your
purview I'm gonna move to continue Zio 20 2606 007 to next meeting to further discuss this Yeah, and
it makes me wonder if there's another Term, you know, I understand the lack of well neighborhood is
not going to necessarily help
Less restrictive, but I wonder if there's another term or if the sentence were to just end With the
majority of existing single-family or duplex duplex structures Point point of order there was a motion
on the floor. Oh, yes. Sorry. Sorry That's okay. I'll second Commissioner Smith's motion All right now
we could talk. All right. It's that motion is Seconded let's have a conversation about this. Okay, so
ideas I think
we should have a session and come up with them. I don't think we should do it on the fly right here.
I think the definition neighborhood doesn't work. I think the next definition of the current definition
of park block or block face doesn't work. I think there's a solution for this. And I appreciate Hopi's
comment. Actually I do and I'm glad she said it. Okay, let's take the time and give them a recommendation
that makes sense. We've got the knowledge base here, we can do that. I just don't wanna do it sitting
here the next five minutes. If anybody else has a commenter about this too,
I do think that if the staff can think about some of this terminology and if there's another definition,
that would be fabulous. Yeah, we're certainly happy to look at this and evaluate what I'm worried about
is trying to get deeper into it will bring more opinions.
From neighborhoods of what they would like to see and that's a wide range You know that the goal here
with a lot of this was to make housing less restrictive and and not so fine-grained and and I'm just
worried about trying to come up with two definitive of standards that were working in the opposite direction
I think that if we just
Modify the definition of the block We could leave the standards there would give us more things because
right now we have four houses to look at that all look the same and You think by opening up it makes
it worse It depends on what elements you're opening up certainly expanding blockface might help in one
regard But it just depends on how folks want to apply that or interpret that They might say this makes it worse
I'm just saying in general we have to be careful of trying to get too much more specific because it
might make things harder in terms of an analysis That's that's all Then I'm gonna stick with my continuance.
I think we should talk about a little bit All right. Well, we have a motion on the floor. Yes I guess
I'm gonna ask if you could withdraw your motion so that then I could make a motion to amend the terms to
So then that could get taken care of tonight and I'll join my motion Okay, thank you. I'm good with
that. So so I would like to move that we Correct the typo in the definitions of dwelling accessory unit
duplex and dwelling accessory unit single-family So that the last sentence has a singular term instead
of a plural terms in each of those definitions Okay, so we have amendment do we have a second on this second
All right, we can vote on the amendment first Burrell yes seabor yes Holmes. Yes Kinsey. Yes Smith.
Yes Stossberg. Yes Bishop. Yes Okay, we have any other amendments. Thank you Did I hear any others
To go back to removing I'll move to continue Zio twenty twenty six zero six zero zero seven to our next
our next meeting second It's just a question I don't object to a continuation but I guess I also just
want to clarify what will happen between now and the next meeting because I'm just I've been around
and I don't want to have the same discussion a month from now and in my my What I think I'm hearing
Others can disagree or agree but I think the balls in the Commission's court to propose amendments and
I just want to make sure or see if that is correct and if That is clear and if some commissioners will
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
that in a lunch and learn? Have a discussion about this. Yeah, so the Plain Commission lunch sessions
are publicly noticed and
Appropriate to have members public for that or I'm sorry present for that And we can discuss anything
certainly it is appropriate at this hearing now For you to give comments to staff to look at certain
elements and bring forward at the lunch hearing or certainly at the next hearing You know, we would
encourage obviously as much specificity as possible in order to help us help you What what is your objection
to expanding the definition of block face. You seem to say it's becoming too granular, but in my mind,
it's giving you, it's giving the board that has to approve these, in my mind, more options to be less
subjective. Because it gives us more houses to look at. Well, it looks like those three great.
Might be fun. I mean, I think that in and of itself could be fine. I don't know that that would necessarily
be Hurtful to expand the block face. I don't know I don't know that it changes the perception of how
all of the standards should be interpreted and applied We're not gonna fix that unless we remove them
And so that might be where we end up Go Hopi Yes, Commissioner Stasper. I just have a question about
appropriateness following up on what commissioner
Seabor I think said about process. Is it also appropriate for an individual Planning Commission member
to contact you as the Planning Commission person? Individually and say I have this idea What do you
think of this and it couldn't of course go into the proposal, but it could come forth as a proposed
amendment at our next meeting, correct and
Members us and we are not having any sort of a group email or group chat or any shared group documents
Then that's that's fine. Again legal can correct me if I'm Miss stating anything but individual meetings
with individual plane commission members is certainly fine. Yeah, so that's the other option Commissioner
Smith if you have some specific ideas as to one-on-one with staff
Okay, so we're clear on how this could happen. It's either in the lunch meeting which is publicly noticed
or via single staff members or a single commissioners Interests and questions to devise an alternative
solution. Yeah, I think a quorum is what what can we do you have like up to three two or three of us
talk What is where our rules that's more of a rule question? Yep, so I'll have legal probably dress
that best early
A couple of important things with regard to the open-door law if you do not have a quorum you cannot
do business. So if Fewer than five members show up you really can't take input or do anything like that
from the public It's not a proper meeting as I understand the open-door law rules certainly any member
of the Commission can communicate proposed changes to us and
We would compile them and bring them all back to you on the 12th We won't sort among them and pick winners
and losers We would just bring them all back together with anything we may come up with that we think
would solve this problem Okay, and just to be clear though I also heard
Eric say that there can't be an email exchange either that that violates Yeah, you don't have this group
email where you all mail together and deliberate things. That's a deliberative Event which would require
Could require public notice. It's just it's better to avoid those things and do it in a public environment
or make your individual suggestions which we will then bring back and
Understand that when you make them we won't sort them out We will bring them back on the 12th and you
will choose among them or maybe some other option Okay, okay we're clear on process and what happens
next All right, okay, so now we need to actually vote on the Continuing Okay, we're ready
And what our steps are and we're gonna vote on continuing Z o o well z o twenty twenty six zero six
zero zero zero seven Seaboard yes Holmes yes Kinsey. Yes Smith. Yes Stossburg. Yes Bishop. Yes, Burrell Yes
All right. Okay, we have a majority rule on this one. Yay. All right moving on to the next one Okay,
so now we are discussing z o twenty twenty six dash zero six zero zero zero eight city of Bloomington
planning and transportation Udo text amendment related to change in use and limited compliance requirements
and Eric you're presenting this one, too Thank you Eric really told
Second round of UDO amendments that we are bringing for tonight And so this is a little bit different
goal than the last series of amendments this series of amendments deal with the Process within the unified
development ordinance that governs when there is a change in use that happens on a property and the
site improvements that are required as part of that and
So the unified development ordinance has a term change in use that is defined There are several aspects
of what defines a change in use on a property But essentially it is the trigger that then requires certain
improvements to happen on a property those improvements can range from what's defined as limited compliance
or full compliance and
So limited compliance deals with certain specific design elements of a property that have to be brought
into compliance or as close as possible As compared to full compliance, which means the site comes comes
into full compliance with the udl So with this we are proposing to amend and adjust both of those aspects
both what defines a change in use and
The implications of what happens when there is a change in use So with with many things we obviously
want to make sure to point out advantages disadvantages a lot of a Majority of the development that
we see in Bloomington is redevelopment. We see reuse of properties Most of the time that is through
reusing existing buildings you know, we see a building that has
Gone out of business. It is that vacant for some time period and then a new business comes in there
Very rarely do we see a complete scrape down? In a restart and a new construction on a property So the
change in use process is is probably one of the most frequently encountered reasons for improvements
on a property And it is also at the same time
Something that we we see and have felt a lot of challenges, especially with small businesses as the
implications of that change in use requirement can can be very onerous. You know, one of the biggest
impacts that we have seen has been coming into compliance with the maximum parking
requirements of the UDO So certainly as the Plain Commission is aware we do have maximum parking situations
And so that can be very impacted for a property that was developed back when that didn't exist and there
were just minimums and so when a property has this change in use situation and they are faced with the
Realization that they will have to be removed parking or asphalt that that can be very onerous and very
expensive and
Other change in use requirements include installing landscaping on a property to the extent practical
installing bike racks Analysis of the sidewalk system to see what shape that is in if that has to be
removed or replaced Bringing a property into compliance with lighting standards Paving and striping
You know those those are the items that are on the table for compliance when this is is
Triggered certainly there is a range of opinions of you know Which of these things are the most important
all of these standards within the udio were placed there for a reason You know, we we want parking areas
to be paved. It's ADA accessible It keeps gravel from washing into the storm sewers. We want
Parking areas striped so that we can clearly see where parking spaces are where drive aisles are And
ensure the ADA compliance is occurring, you know We want properties to install landscaping and certainly
this can be felt most Heavily when you have a property that has no landscaping at all and so, you know
as we have shifted policies over decades and certain documents have changed and
You know, we understand the importance of having these site improvements on a property And the benefits
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
triggers that we see for improvements on a property So we just want to make sure to point that out So
with the the changes that we are coming forward with tonight We're looking at of revising several elements
of the UDO that that have kind of been a challenge to
having redevelopment on a property or sometimes more specifically building a new building on a small
corner of a property. So we certainly see lots of situations in Bloomington where you have a large property,
large parking area, and somebody just wants to do a new building on a small corner of that. So in that
situation, sometimes that can be where they want to subdivide and create a small parcel and sell that,
or they just want to put down a new building
that corner of the property and so there are two aspects of the UDO that Have somewhat been challenging
for that one is a requirement in the subdivision section That talks about any subdivision requires the
property to come into full compliance So we're proposing to remove that element We're also proposing
to incorporate an allowance for new buildings to be constructed that are below a certain percentage
of the square footage of an existing building and
We're also allowing for expansions of parking area that are less than 25% To be exempt from the limited
and full compliance We're proposing to adjust then what are the implications of that? limited compliance
Standard so one of those proposals is to allow existing parking areas with 14 parking spaces or less
to not have to remove any parking spaces over that maximum and
Locations that typically have very small number of parking spaces, you know 14 for instance Don't aren't
aren't really as egregious as a property that has a hundred parking spaces or more that are vastly out
of compliance You know a site having one or two or five spaces more than the maximum and
That's not the severity of the problem that we're really trying to address. So we've incorporated language
there that gives a little bit more flexibility or relief from those particular situations. And then
one of the other triggers for change in use, well, two of those things that I would say is probably
the most prevalent is one of the change in use triggers says if you are going from a subgroup
There you go. So within UDO, we have an allowed use table. And so one of the change in use triggers
says that if you are going from one subgroup to another, that that is a change in use. So for instance,
there's an excerpt here of the use table that's on your screen. So you can see if you're going from
a bar or dance club to an office, that's a change in use. You're going from the subgroup of food, beverage,
and lodging to the subgroup of office, business, and professional services. So that's a change in use.
One of the other triggers deals with abandonment So the UDO currently says if a property is empty For
more than a year any new use that goes in there after that year is a change in use That one year time
frame is very common in zoning ordinances throughout the state And so that's that's in fact, actually
we recently I'd say probably three years ago changed it from six months to a year
So kind of in light of what we're bringing forward we're proposing to amend that one year to two years
That's that's certainly kind of pushing the extreme range of when that is And the abandonment of use
comes into play in a couple different aspects in the udio Certainly one of those is to change in use
but you also have to kind of look at it from the perspective of one of the reasons for regulating land use and
where those uses occur is location of appropriate uses in relation to other uses. So there are certainly
situations as we have our use table arrange and zoning districts that you have appropriate uses next
to each other. So we do want situations where a use has been removed. That's not a nonconforming use.
We don't want to make it easier or more likely that that use will resume.
And so it is important to have a time period where a use is considered abandoned and can no longer go
back So so two years is like I said kind of the the maximum time period That that we feel comfortable
kind of moving forward with that As I mentioned we're proposing to add an allowance
That new buildings can be constructed on the site that are under a certain percentage That would be
25 percent of an existing structure and not require full compliance So that would allow for a new building
to be built on the site And the limited compliance standards would be the ones that would be applicable
And then so as I mentioned with those triggers for when compliance is initiated or required we're adjusting
Suggesting that properties with 14 spaces or less are not required to remove any parking spaces over
the maximum and then only parking or parking areas with 14 or more spaces then Would remove those number
of spaces? over that maximum as I mentioned we're taking out the section that
Talks about full compliance being required for the subdivision a property with a subdivision just can't
subdivide away something that they need in order to meet a requirement of the UDO for instance green
space or landscaping or You know any particular element of a site that that is a requirement So we're
hopeful that this will be something that will help spur local development and not
Such a financial constraint but at the same time, you know still ensuring that we do have certain triggers
To get improvements onto a property which is very important Because we certainly have a lot of properties
that that do sit in a very Non-compliant state and we do want to have improvements at some point to
get it closer to compliance for all of the reasons that the requirements were put in the UDO for
Parking lot management for landscaping for bike racks, you know, just the policies that have progressed
over the years You know, it's important to have a trigger for when those things do happen Otherwise,
you know, you just don't see those new policies being enacted. So with that We are recommending that
the Planning Commission forward this to the Common Council with a favorable recommendation and I'm happy
to answer any questions Great. Thank you very much. Okay questions
So just a clarification so on the second to last bullet point Removes one of the change in use triggers
a new use that is not in the same subheading as the previous table of 031 will no longer trigger limited
compliance Can you parse that so it sounds like if the new use is in a different subheading it no longer
triggers limited
Compliance correct that is that is no longer a change in use So but if a change in use within the same
subheading does trigger no, no So, you know, maybe it maybe would be helpful to kind of approach this
or summarize what would be a change in use You know based on some of these Adjustments that we are proposing
so establishment of a new use after two years would be a change in use adding parking spaces more than that and
25% allowance would be a limited compliance You know certainly anything that is a tear down and start
from scratch would be full compliance if you're Increasing the number of dwelling units more than 25%
That would be a limited compliance So those would be really the things that would be the triggers would
be adding more dwelling units more than 25% adding more parking spaces more than 25% establishment of
a new use after two years of
Those would be the main triggers and obviously new construction. Thank you Other questions Okay, this
one seems clear shall we move to public comment or do we want to Any okay public comment
Z oh oh seven if you have a comment and you're online Please you raise your hand or if you're in the
room and have a comment about this UDO text change Please approach the podium and sign in and you can
speak for three minutes If there is anybody online, please use the raising function I said oh seven
and it's oh eight. Sorry about that. I
I am not seeing anybody online Okay. All right, and we're not seeing anyone in the room approach the
podium. Okay All right. Okay. What do we think about this one? Do we have a motion? Comments, okay start
with I think this is great and it's about time This is shut down a lot of small businesses not shut
down not allowed them to move or expand And it's and it's
It's an economic issue for small users in our town. We've had a history of Last 10 years specifically
15. You got to be wealthy to do anything around here and that should just be flipped And this goes a
long way to do that to help the smaller guy smaller person get ahead Get it figured out. So I'm all
for it. I think it's great And I think he has nailed with the 14 spaces I think that's right on with
the parking space size because all the smaller lots You don't have to start cutting stuff out
And that's the people we're trying to protect. All right. Well, that sounds favorable. So we're ready
to make a motion motion this one. I'll move approval of Zio twenty twenty six oh six zero zero eight
as recommended by staff. Do we have a second. The most second is to make a favorable favorable
recommendation. Yes. So we're making a favorable.
Second, thank you. All right Are you ready to vote on this one? Holmes do we need yes Do we need to
actually put in the motion that we're recommending that we forward to the petition to Common Council
like because I feel like that motion was I
Forwarding with forwarding to council with a favorable recommendation Yeah, I just want to make sure
that that's the motion that's on file. Yes Yeah, other than being generally pleased with it Okay favorable
I Think we can be clear. Okay forward this petition to the common council with a favorable recommendation
That's what we're voting on
We're second. All right. Okay. Yes first it was made by but let's retain that it was made by Commissioner
Smith Seconded by Commissioner Burrell. Okay now we can go Homes yes Kenzie. Yes, Smith. Yes Stosh Burke.
Yes Bishop. Yes, Burrell. Yes seaborne. Yes Okay, another majority
Excellent. Okay. All right. And now we actually have a petition that is not a UDO tax amendment We now
have z o twenty twenty six zero eight zero zero one three MHG regarding a property at 1450 West Arlington
Road a request for rezoned from six point nine three acres from residential multifamily RM to mix-use
student housing MS and
with this rezone it comes a waiver a request for a waiver of the required second hearing and Staff Eric
is presenting this one Thank you as mentioned this is a petition for 1450 West Arlington Road and
The petitioner Arlington Road Apartments LLC is coming forward tonight to request a rezone of six point
nine three acres from residential multifamily to mixed-use student housing and as mentioned is requesting
a waiver of the required second hearing so this property is on West 17th Street just past the roundabout
at 17th and
Arlington and Monroe. It is zoned residential multifamily and was approved in 2022 to be redeveloped
with a multifamily dwelling use for an apartment building. The property is currently under construction
and is anticipated to be finished hopefully this year. The property, as I mentioned, is zoned RM. Properties
to the north and northwest are zoned residential medium lot. Properties to the west of this are zoned MN.
To the south of this is also zoned mm and to the east is also zoned mm as well Just to the southeast
you have trinorth middle school So with this it's rezoning. There are several factors to take into account
And I'll kind of step through several of those at a time You know with the aerial photograph here. I
think it's important to just kind of look at the
Some of the surrounding context so most of the uses to the north of this have been developed as single-family
residences To the west you have several offices that were former single-family residences that were
converted into office space to the east of this you have two apartment buildings that were developed
completely with multifamily dwellings they do have an office component along 17th Street and
Just to the south of this you have a small manufacturing office use and then as I mentioned to the southeast
you have trinorth middle school So one of the important components with this as we review rezoning requests
Are to is to evaluate the comprehensive plan So the comprehensive plan designates a majority of this
site as neighborhood residential so you can see that in kind of the the yellowish
Color that moves along here and then you have a section designated as the urban corridor Which you can
see kind of moves along the north and south side of 17th Street that goes east-west spanning from college
all the way over to the west almost to I-69 so the neighborhood residential designation that encompasses
the majority of this site and kind of moves to the north of this and
encourages buildings to be smaller in scale, two to four stories in height, does see single family as
the main use, with uses including multi-family dwelling as being appropriate, does certainly envision
certain commercial uses within this area, mostly in the context of being a neighborhood serving use,
and then the urban corridor on the south side of this site
As you can see spanning along 17th Street envision that area being more commercial uses along that corridor
The petitioner is coming forward to rezone this use to allow for the building to be utilized as a partial
hotel So there is a program where? Hotel uses when they are at full capacity can lease spaces within
adjacent apartment buildings for hotel users
So the petition would be utilizing or requesting to utilize portions of the building for the hotel use
However, hotel is not a permitted land use in this zoning district. There are three zoning districts
where the use hotel is allowed the mixed-use downtown the mixed-use corridor MC and mixed-use student
housing MS So obviously this is not in the downtown. So that zoning district was not a viable option and
The other two zoning districts and mixed-use student housing and the mixed-use corridor were the only
other two zoning districts that allowed for the use hotel The petitioner has chosen to come forward
to rezone this to the mixed-use student housing district So that is the request that is before us tonight
is to rezone that to this use so while
This particular project envisions only using the existing or portions of the building for the use hotel.
We have to evaluate it that it is being rezoned in mixed use student housing that will be the zoning
for this property. And so it could be developed with any of the uses or the development standards that
are allowed within that district. So the mixed use student housing district by right allows buildings
up to six stories tall.
with the utilization of the incentives, you could go up to eight stories. So we have to envision and
evaluate this based on would a use, would a size building of that size be appropriate for this area?
So as I mentioned here, the majority of the buildings around here to the north and the west are all
single family in nature, one or two stories. The apartments to the east of this are also two stories.
So there are not a
Pattern here of buildings that are much taller than two stories along this corridor at all either along
17th Street or Arlington Neither of those two areas have have houses that are of that size or scale
So that is certainly something that conflicts with the recommendation and the guidance of the comprehensive
plan The comprehensive plan does talk about as I mentioned commercial uses being appropriate in some
of these areas As long as they are neighborhood serving
So the RM district does have certain uses that are allowed in there either as conditional or accessory
uses including community center restaurant fitness center grocery or supermarket Personal service so
there are some uses that would be allowed by right or as a conditional use within this zoning now which
accomplishes what the comprehensive plan and visions for this area so as as we evaluated this request for
the requirements of the comprehensive plan as well as all of The criteria that are in the UDO and we
outlined this at length within the report UDO talks about evaluating current conditions and character
of structures in the uses in the zoning district so that's where I talked about, you know looking at
is a use of this entirety of this property as a hotel and
Something that would be in keeping with the character here with the development of this property with
a Six or possibly eight-story building would that be in keeping with the area? You know, the UDO also
talks about analyzing the most desirable land use For the area that is being requested to be rezoned.
So, you know from that perspective, you know is this location the most appropriate for a hotel or
Arlington is certainly in an arterial road. However, when you look at the development of the built area
here You know east of the roundabout you have a certainly a very heavy commercial component But as you
move west and certainly north the commercial components die down substantially And it is very heavily
residential So again, you know as we evaluated this for the criteria in the UDO for responsible development
and growth
You know, we just did not find that this was in keeping with those review criteria to place a hotel
at this location and again in addition, you know allowing for a much taller building here for student
housing. It also is something that we did not feel was responsible development and growth if we feel
like the commercial capacity or the expansion of uses
Should happen along this area. It really should be kind of evaluated for the corridor as a whole You
know not on a property specific basis and the language within the comprehensive plan changed Or even
the designation of this area, you know if we want to see this be developed in a more heavily intense
manner with higher taller buildings higher density development maybe more commercial uses or
That really should be done for the corridor as a whole so while we certainly understand that It seems
relatively minor to use or you know request to use a portion of the building for just a hotel We have
to evaluate it for all of the implications of that proposed new zoning district So that is where staff
was really challenged and could not find that it was compliant with the review criteria That are outlined
in the UDO
So we are recommending that the the Plain Commission waive the required second hearing And forward this
to the Common Council with a negative recommendation And I'm certainly happy to answer any questions
Once a petitioner has a chance to speak and I believe they are available online Great. Thank you. Yes,
if the petitioner is ready Love to hear from them
you should be able to unmute and you'll have 20 minutes. Can you guys hear me now? Yes. Okay. Hey, how
are you guys doing? My name is Heron Patel. I'm with MHG Hotels. And yes, so the purpose of this, what
we're trying to propose here is just we're not going to change any layouts or anything on a building
simply just being able to
put these units into the hotel system to be able to catch some overflow, especially right now as the
markets are kind of, I mean, you know, I don't know if you guys know this or not, but like a lot of
the apartments that are in Bloomington right now, they're seeing very soft lease up. And so, but then
we also own other hotels. So apartment-wise, there's the vacancy is starting to get lower and lower.
So we have more vacancy, well, higher and higher.
And so, you know, that we had to, you know, kind of look at other ideas and other things. And we also
do own the Homewood, Homewood Suites and the Home Two Suites, actually, which is right down the street
there, right by the stadium. And so we know with, you know, with those hotels, there are, especially
with the football season and all that good stuff going on, there's a big need for hotel rooms. And so
we think that this would be a great place for it to kind of come into it because we,
You know like the type of rooms that are the market needs a lot more extended stay more rooms as well,
which there's a shortage for right now As we own the other two, you know home to and the home would
would both be extended stay so they're like apartments they have Your full kitchen and stuff in there
work similar to a full kitchen in there And so we think that this would play along, you know, very well
with what we have already in the market as well
If you guys have any questions, I'm more than happy to answer any questions that you guys may have as
well All right, if you're finished with your presentation you do have some time remaining so we can
give the back to you if you need to use it But if we're ready for questions for either staff or the
petitioner Yeah, okay. We'll start on my left this time Commissioner Stossberg Hi, I have a question
for staff Eric. I just want to verify in terms of
This This section It appears as though there is this kind of corner there that is all RM and the proposal
is just to take this one Property that is all owned by the same person and change that to MS But that
would still leave this little long narrow of RM above that right now
Yes, that is correct. There is a sliver of property to the north this that was not is not owned by the
petitioners Not part of their development. Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to verify that's what I was
seeing on the map. Thanks All right, Commissioner Bishop This one's more directed toward the petitioner
since this was a
about three years ago It seems like this has been a significant development and almost disingenuous
from the original approval to ask for this type of a zoning change especially in light of the fact that
the development still undergoing so I guess the question would be is what's the calculation here and
in choosing now to ask for this and any other point in time prior to the original approval in 2022 and
So yeah, yeah, I can answer that. So actually this, uh, this development has, uh, we just were able
to, we got a TCO on it right now. So we're, you know, finishing through the final kinks. Uh, and there
was a couple of things that made the, you know, kind of this decision for a little led to this decision
for us. The first was that, um, these brands and stuff were not around, um,
This actually is a brand new brand. It's came out by Hilton So as I said, we own the homewood in the
home to there which are both Hilton branded properties as well and Hilton this is something that they
just launched in June or July and so they've kind of also approached us as you know, we owning
the extended-state market hotels there in that market and they see the occupancy levels are very high
so, you know, they can't kind of came to us as a kind of a partnership and
to see if this is something of interest that we do and you know obviously us being hotels by nature
this is something that's right up our alley and so this was that would you know that's kind of the reason
that we're coming forward now is that these brands if this is a brand new brand brand new segment that
Marriott and Hilton actually are both getting into that wasn't around before.
Thank you is follow-up question if the zoning is not approved I assume everything continues as it is
and you go along your merry way with the original plans to put together multifamily housing them Correct.
Yes And as I mentioned before I just we just we we know that there's a shortage for how Hotel rooms
in Bloomington. I mean, you know because we have the statistical data there we run it and
Like an 80% occupancy in our extended state properties there Okay, other other questions Commissioner
Stasberg I actually have a question for the petitioner about this too in terms of your extended stay
Folks are how long are those extended stays usually like what do you consider an extended stay? Extended
stay would be anybody that stays for three days or more
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
also related to its use. What's your expectation about the proportion of, I won't say units, but the
proportion of your property that would be allocated or allowed for this or that you would be seeking
to use for this purpose? Yeah, so we think that about, you know, like we haven't finalized a number
yet, obviously,
you know, probably 80 to 100, somewhere between 80 to 100 units would probably make the law. Okay,
thank you. Sorry about that, my kid came running into my room, so. But yeah, so we'd expect about like
80 to 100 units that we're looking to convert over, or not convert over, but adding into the system,
because everything else is gonna stay the same.
And just to be clear, what is that proportionally approximately? Oh, you mean like we have right now
we have 217 Units there right now and so it'd be just a little like I mean By a little less than half,
right? Oh, I guess so be one-third almost Okay. Thank you All right one mark another question
Commissioner Bishop So with this taking up almost half of your entire space occupancy, it sounds like
you're more hotel than Anything else here, even though you're maybe a percent over in that 50% rage
to actually being an apartment dwelling unit it sounds like the scope and scale of the
This project is not anywhere where it started originally. Can you help us understand? Why that significant
change should be acceptable So I guess Could you read could you restate that question? I guess what
is it that you're asking? Yes originally your your your project was approved for 213 units and
apartment complex and you're now saying that Approximately half of those should go toward Hotel use
and it sounds like it's becoming more hotel than it is a multifamily housing unit And I'm curious to
to wonder why You think that would be acceptable given where it started and where it is now because
it doesn't feel at all Too much like where it was originally approved
Yeah, no, I mean, and like I said, when it was approved about three years ago, the dynamics and stuff
has changed. As you know, there's been so many more units that have been added into Bloomington, like
with the hub, and there's almost, I don't know how many thousands of beds have been added in since the
last three years when this project got approved. A, and then B, like I said, I think there's 345 beds,
so we'd be actually less than half.
We're gonna be quite closer to like I said that 40 by 30 to 40 range percent range So we still feel
like we have a significant amount of beds there that we already have to use And the other thing is that
there's a significant the compression in the market If we look at all of our you know, everybody that
all their competitors With hub coming in and all that everybody's sitting there. Nobody has the same
percentage of occupancy as last year I believe last year, you know, most apartments are
In the ninety five ninety to ninety five this year. Most of them are in the eighty percent range a and
B we think that you know as I stated earlier that there's a shortage for hotel rooms in the city of
Bloomington and we hope we feel like this would help kind of alleviate some of that bottleneck and some
of the issues there on that as well.
Forgive me you it might be a difference between metric and imperial unit conversions, but you keep going
between units and beds and You started with 80 to 100 units being the the piece that you wanted to move
over to the hotel side out of the 213 units But that doesn't necessarily conflate to the number of beds
and I'm not really concerned about the number of beds I'm concerned about the number of units in the
project and then how many of those will actually be taken up in the hotel space and
Yeah, no, sure. I get what you're saying, but I was just kind of trying to, you know, well, I guess
you could say 50%. But what I was trying to get to is that we have unit, all the units have different
sizing, right? They're not all just one bed. There's one bed all the way up to three beds. And the ones
that are larger for, you know, the two and three beds, those are going to still be staying in apartments.
So I guess what I was trying to get to was that I get what you're saying that unit count wise, you're
close to that 50%. But the actual bed count wise, we're going to be less than 50% of beds is what I
was trying to
But we're talking about gross usage of space not necessarily how many people are sleeping in these particular
units But I digress The fact that you started bringing this unit online three years ago Knowing full
well what your competition was doing and now you're realizing a softness in the leasing market And so
you're trying to pivot from there It doesn't seem like that was something that was really well thought
out maybe at the management level when you were dealing You know through your financial
expect this Given that the units being brought online for the multifamily housing student housing in
Bloomington hasn't changed What all of a sudden caused you to wake up and decide? Oh, wow We're in the
same boat as everybody else when you kind of saw this coming three years ago I
I guess at that point, I don't think we, I don't think HUB and all that stuff had been approved when
we had our approvals. I don't think that we knew about those at that time, which, I mean, you know,
with those two or three developments, those are pretty massive, significant developments. So, I mean,
if we had an idea that, you know, there was gonna be about, you know, 2,000 plus units that are gonna
be entering the market or close to 2,000 beds that are gonna be, not units, beds that are gonna be entering
the market, then we would have definitely probably reconsidered it at that point.
But I don't believe that when we had our approvals that that was done at that time. And I could be wrong,
but I'm not. As far as I know, we were not aware of it.
challenge you to go back and maybe look at what was known at the time because a lot of these units have
been known for a period of time here in Bloomington and it's been pointed out that there's becoming
an oversaturation in the multifamily housing market student housing However, you want to slice it and
so now that that's come to fruition it's not necessarily an accommodative effort that this deliberative
body has to make and
Because the business trajectory maybe was short-sighted All right other questions perhaps zoning relate
yes It's not zoning related to use related never mind I Didn't mean to restrict your comment
by my invitation. That's okay. I'll just get to it and comment
All right. Okay. Any other questions? Commissioner burrow so a question for staff. So Obviously the
air when I look at this on the map there's no AMS rezoning near correct Correct. There is no mixed-use
student housing that that is this far west Yeah, so then I'm asked this would be a little tooth out
of in the middle of
This residential area correct and that you know, certainly as I mentioned our staff report that was
something also that that's stuck out this this would be Approving a zoning district that would be very
different than everything that's around. Yeah, then everything Okay. Thank you so much All right, do
we have any do we have any other questions or we're ready to move to comment I
question for staff Does the proximity of this development to a school zone? Make any sort of a difference
in this as well Not not necessarily, you know, there are no buffer requirements from student housing
to schools What about hotels though?
No, there's no no buffering requirement, you know, there there might be obviously maybe you're alluding
to you know Liquor licenses or whatnot that can't be within certain distance of churches and schools
But specific uses like a hotel. I'm there's nothing in the UDO that has any buffer requirements. Okay
Thanks I'm so confused by some of this. This is that large student housing complex on the corner of
Arlington Road and 17th Street, right? It's already been built
Yes, it's it's under construction and soon to be completed for occupancy, but part of its occupied is
a temporary opposite The petitioner mentioned that temporary has been issued III. Yeah, cuz there's
there's people live in there So this this petition sounds like he's building something new. That's what's
confusing me. They're not building new, right? They're planning on allowing short-term rentals inside
their building Yes, they're proposing to allow hotel use
So this would be licensed or managed through the hotel platform So that we do have a TCO and yes, we're
not it's just that having some of these units will be You were not you were not asked to answer a question
Hold on one second
Let's finish the staff question the question that was posed to staff first and then hold on a second
because we're Mixed-use Student housing it is student housing. That's what I'm confused about. So what
are we talking about just the hotel? There's all these other discussions going on confused So so the
property is owned residential multifamily. So only the use of
Multifamily dwelling is allowed so there's a difference between the uses multifamily dwelling and student
housing in terms of the bedroom count That are allowed and what serves as a distinguishing line between
student housing and multifamily, but it's built Yes, so that's irrelevant to this discussion. It's built
what's well approved and they're trying to change the zoning They they want to change only allows hotel
So they want to change the zoning so that it can be used as the partial use of the building as a hotel
So hotel is not a permitted use in the current zoning district Okay Okay, so This is now is clear about
the fact that well you you heard the staff comment. All right any other questions Okay, we can move
to public comment now let's hear
members of the public who might want to comment or have any comment on z o twenty twenty six zero eight
zero zero one three If you're here to make a comment, please approach the podium and sign in and then
state your name For the record and then you'll have three minutes to speak And we'll start with
Person in the chamber if there is anybody else online My name is William Goodhue I live at 1135 North
Hancock Drive about two blocks away from the elevate project
And I am a member of the board on the Crescent Bend neighborhood association I speak from the neighborhood
association tonight, and I'd like to read in a Letter from two other members suit to eat and carry This
They have written in in regard to Hiram Patel's proposal to rezone the property Yes, I'm sorry. Thank
you In in regard to Hiram Patel's proposal to rezone the property at 1450 West Arlington site of the
elevate from residential multifamily RM
Mixed-use student housing MS as we understand it in the proposal. Mr. Patel submitted No additional
development is proposed other than rezoning it to MS To allow portions of the building to be leased
and at the used hotel Similarly in an email to the Crescent Bend neighborhood association. Mr Patel
wrote that they were proposing to rezone a portion of our complex and
MS which includes commercial use along with multifamily Our goal is to put some of the units on the
Hilton hotels website for short-term rentals Nothing visually will change with the building. It will
only be unit changes if all the developer wants to do is to allow some units to be rented as hotel rooms,
we have no objections and
We also don't oppose commercial use such as coffee shops, etc If that is all that is wanted Couldn't
that be done through a variance or similar? We do however oppose rezoning the entire site to MS because
that would have far broader implications It not only would allow future changes to the six point nine
three acre property and
But it also have a much wider impact beyond just this one property among other things rezoning to MS
wood number one Remove regulations that mandate a 300 to 900 foot buffer zone separating it from any
other student housing building It would leave the site open to for future student housing developments
on this property and on any other adjoining parcels that the developers may acquire
Number two, it would remove the current RM limits on the ratio of three bedroom four bedroom units Intended
to protect the standard family inventory It would allow the developer to adjust floor plans to add more
bedrooms per unit four or more And future expansion without needing variance approvals. I'm sorry, but
your time is up. Oh
If you have written materials, you can submit them to us And I believe they actually I believe it's
been some have already been submitted So if that's the remainder, thank you. Thank you very much Other
other folks in the council chambers. Yes, please approach And again state your name and sign in
My name is Kevin Tracy My wife Rosemary and I own property of 1504 West 17th Street I have a couple
of concerns and
Questions really really leading this to clarification First of all that if there are actually families
living in this building or if that is an intent that families Could be living in this building and the
in the remaining units I
have concerns about security for any children that would be living there. Clearly there would be a lot
of transient, just people coming in and out of the hotel rooms. So I got to wonder about just the protection
and security of children that would be in the same area. So that's one issue that I have. I think a
very important one.
Second of all, if I understand the petition that says that there would not be development on undeveloped
land, our property, just to the east of it, has both development and undevelopment sections. I'm concerned that if
this rezoning did occur would have set a precedent or allow for either mr. Patel or another developer
to to purchase the large section of land to the east of 1504 17th Street and put up a Multi-story building
that could be looking right down in our property right now or
the back part of our property is Pretty much a nature preserve and We'd like to keep it as such and
not have doesn't have a bunch of transient People go in and out I think that's pretty much the concerns
Thank you very much. Thank you any other comments in chambers or online
If there is someone who's online and would like to make a comment, please raise your hand. Using the
raise hand signal on Zoom. I don't know if there is anyone. No, I'm not seeing anybody else online.
Okay. Okay. But we might have another commenter in the council chamber.
You're ready Okay Okay, I'm going to Take up where bill left off We let's see if you would like stating
could you please state your name, please? I
Pardon? State your name. Oh, state my name, okay. Rosemary Tracy, 1504 West 17th. And our property goes
right up to the buildings directly across the street from this building being talked about. Let's see.
If all the developers want to do it, it allows some units to be rented as hotel rooms.
we would have no objections except for the concerns for children that are in other apartments. We also
don't oppose commercial uses such as a coffee shop in-house. If that is all that is wanted, why can
that not be done with a variance or similar? We do, however, oppose rezoning the entire site MS
because that would have far broader implications. It not only would allow future changes to this 6.93
acre property, but also could have much wider impacts beyond this one property. Among other things,
rezoning to MS would
bring up some concerns on traffic for the roundabout. I didn't see anything mentioning when statistical
concerns were explored and spoken about, but I didn't see anything on there about that traffic,
and it's wow, way bigger, way bigger. Over and close to the projects,
There is, I don't know, four or five tall building much smaller in size. But all these are new. And
then that great big project that's kind of a gated community, I think, along the highway. And the variance
of green spaces was changed quite a lot in the history of that coming up, too. And so then this
monster Okay, so among other things rezoning rezoning MS would remove regulations that mandate a 300
to 900 foot buffer zone Separating it from any other student housing building It would lead leave the
site open for future student housing developments on this property and on any
adjoining parcels the developers may acquire. It would remove the current RM limits on the ratio of
three bedroom and four bedroom units intended to protect standard family inventory and needs. It would
allow the developer to adjust floor plans
and add more bedrooms per unit, four or more, and future expansion without needing variance approvals.
Oh, I'm afraid we're out of time again. I'm sorry. Well, after reading the Elevate website, we suspect
the developer... Please understand. We have to call your time now. I'm sorry.
It's only three minutes of public comment, so you have now exceeded that. But please be assured we do
have these comments in our packet. We've received this. I think you also have this note from our community.
Yes, we do. The 17th Street Crescent Bend community. And it is publicly available as well, just so you
know that that is part of the publicly available packet.
So all of that information is available. And also I think, well, I wanna say one more sentence. Oh,
I'm afraid I can't permit it. Because I don't know if this has been checked out. What is the...
I'm sorry. How many feet does it have to be from a school? Yes. Because you're gonna have some...
Thank you. Sexually, whatever.
Well, thank you very much where we understand your comments and concerns. Thank you Thank you very much.
Yep. We very much appreciate your comments and input on this Okay, so now I think that we might be We've
exasperated our public comments, okay Okay, how about? Back to Commission questions. I know I have one
at least from the comments that were raised. I wonder if
staff might be able to comment on the suggestion actually by the people who spoke and Included in the
packet about whether there's any other way to Vary this use to allow other than a rezone. I presume
that this has been explored and
We do not have a variance of use So the only way to allow for a use that is not in a zoning district
is to rezone that to a different district that allows that use Okay. All right. Well that answers that
question. Thank you. Okay other other questions by commissioners Comments questions or motion. Yes,
Commissioner Stasberg I'll go ahead and comment I didn't
Pre-prepare a comment for this. So I'm sorry if I'm a little meandering this evening I think that in
general mostly what I see here is spots owning and I kind of have a really huge problem with just saying
Okay, we're just gonna let this one property owner have different rules in this one place so that they
can Have a better economic outcome for their
building. I don't love that in general, especially since it leaves this little rectangle there of the
RM. I think that that just feels very wrong. Secondly, and I could not in the packet access the entire original
proposal that went with this, it came up as a whole bunch of errors. I could see the first page and
then the rest of it was errors, so I couldn't go through and read the whole thing. But there were multiple
developments that went through around the same time that
Talked a good talk about being multifamily housing and then in the end what they've done is they've
advertised pretty exclusively as single-family housing they are renting by the bedroom not by the unit
and That has been a real frustration by myself and and some of the folks over on my side of town that
have had a couple of developments and
end up not quite doing what it is that they originally said that they were going to do. Like I said,
I can't read the original packet. I don't know what you said you were going to do, but it sounds sort
of like you're in this position now where you're going, oh, well, there's so much student housing. We
just can't rent our units anymore. Well, you know what? There's also a housing crisis in this town where
people need units.
Maybe those people just aren't students and so maybe there needs to be some consideration of a different
use which might mean renting to non students and advertising to non students and also then rethinking
perhaps some of your rental rates where a two-bedroom apartment goes for $2,000 because you're renting
it by the bedroom instead of by the unit and maybe that would actually
Benefit you more economically, but I am certainly not interested in changing zoning especially in this
way that as public commenters and staff have pointed out could have some unintended consequences down
the road of allowing things that really were not intended to exist in this area, which is intended to
be residential and
Commercial things that are supporting residential and hotels and other temporary housing like that is
is not doing that. Thank you Thank you other comments commissioners I'll just add I share the concern
about spot rezoning what I
feels like spot rezoning, and I just have some serious reservations about rezoning this for the broader
implications that it invites. If we change this, we're allowing some uses that were way beyond what
was intended. This is not just a simple question of allowing a temporary hotel use because it's a new
phenomenon. This has much wider
Longer implications and I'm not willing to go down that road Anyone ready to make a motion I'll make
a motion move we approve the waiver of the required second hearing and forward z o 20 26-08-0013 to
the common council with a negative recommendation Second
Commissioner Smith, I believe was faster on the draw. So I Just want to say that There might be a time
and place for this down the road with the next round of the UDO amendments or rewriting the UDO It's
just not today. We can't spot rezone Okay, I think we're ready for a vote Holmes yes Kenzie. Yes Smith
Yes, Stossberg. Yes. Bishop. Yes. Burrell. Yes. Seaborg. Yes. All right. Another unanimous seven yeses.
Okay. I believe this ends our meeting. We are adjourned. Thank you.