. >> GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THIS APRIL 10TH MEETING OF THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADVISES THE CITY COUNCIL ON DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS LONG RANGE PLANNING AND
TRANSPORTATION ISSUES. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS SERVE A THREE YEAR TERM FOR A MAXIMUM OF TWO TERMS EACH PLANNING COMMISSIONER HAS BEEN APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
AND ARE REAPPOINTED AS DESIRED AT THE THREE YEAR LIMIT. THE FINAL DECISION IS SOMETIMES A DECISION MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND ON OTHER TIMES THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKES THE FINAL DECISION
AUTHORITY. WE HAVE A QUORUM THIS EVENING WITH ALL SEVEN PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT HERE AT CITY HALL AND WE ARE GOING TO BEGIN WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PLEASE RISE.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH
LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL . SOME ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING ARE PUBLIC HEARINGS WHERE THE PUBLIC IS ENCOURAGED TO TESTIFY AND YOU CAN DO THAT HERE AT CITY HALL ON OTHER
ITEMS WE HAVE STUDY ITEMS WHERE WE WILL NOT BE TAKING PUBLIC TESTIMONY. ITEM NUMBER ONE IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON IS THE APPLICANTS. WE'RE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING
THE MISSILE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING PLAN AND MR. JOHNSON, YOU HAVE THE STAFF REPORT. YEAH. THANK YOU, CHAIR AND MEMBERS, GOOD TO SEE YOU THIS EVENING. I'LL JUST JUMP INTO MY
PRESENTATION HERE AGAIN JUST TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND. THIS IS A TOPIC WE'VE DISCUSSED QUITE A BIT OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS BUT TRY AND PROVIDE A SNAPSHOT OF WHERE WE COME FROM AND THE
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PHASE ONE MISSING MIDDLE ORDINANCE AND THEN JUST PROVIDE A REMINDER ON SOME OF THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES THAT WE'VE DONE FOR THIS PROJECT AND THEN WRAP UP WITH A STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
SO IN TERMS OF BACKGROUND, THE MISSING MENTAL HOUSING STUDY HAS BEEN A MULTI-YEAR PROJECT ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S WORK PLAN. THE LAST FEW YEARS THERE HAS BEEN A PAUSE IN THE PROJECT AT
ONE TIME OR ANOTHER AS YOU KNOW AND WE'LL WRAP UP THIS ON THE LAST BULLET OF THE SLIDE BUT THERE'S BEEN ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS NOW EFFORTS AT THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO LOOK AT
WAYS TO INCENTIVIZE OR AUTHORIZE MORE HOUSING PRODUCTION. AND SO SOME OF THOSE LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS HAVE INTERSECTED WITH THIS PROJECT
AND AT ONE POINT EFFECTIVELY CAUSED A PAUSE IN ITS PURSUIT IN TERMS OF WHY THE CITY HAS BEEN LOOKING AT MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING. IT'S THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE THEME AND THE THREAD THAT
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT ON OTHER PROJECTS AND SPECIFIC TO THE CITY'S LAND USE ELEMENT AND HOUSING ELEMENT OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. BUT OVERALL JUST TRYING TO REDUCE BARRIERS TO HOUSING
CREATION AND CONVERSION. SO THAT'S THAT'S WHAT SOME OF THESE AMENDMENTS ARE INTENDED TO DO IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH AND FROM THERE'S BEEN
MULTIPLE PUBLIC MEETINGS BUT JUST MORE RECENTLY STUDY SESSIONS WERE HELD ON MISSING MENTAL HOUSING AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND HRA BOARD IN NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR AND AT THE CITY COUNCIL
IN DECEMBER OF 2024 AT THESE MEETINGS AND WHAT'S REFLECTED IN THE ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU WITH LIMITED EXCEPTION BUT ALL OF THESE ITEMS EXCEPT FOR THE TOWNHOME STANDARDS ALL
DISCUSSED WERE DISCUSSED WITH YOU PREVIOUSLY WITH SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS BEING PROPOSED THAT'S REFLECTED IN THE ORDINANCE. WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT
MISSING MIDDLE IS A BROAD TOPIC AND WE'VE ATTEMPTED TO BREAK IT INTO TWO BUCKETS. ONE IS FOCUSED ON STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO EXISTING USES IN OUR CODE AND THE SECOND PHASE WHICH DAKOTA CAST AND
THEY WOULD PRESENT TO YOU LATER THIS SUMMER WOULD BE THE SECOND PHASE OF THAT PROJECT. THE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE
ORDINANCE IS WHAT'S REFLECTED IN IT REPRESENTS THE CONSENSUS ALIGNMENT OF BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE HRA AND CITY COUNCIL ACTUALLY WERE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE ORDINANCE SO
THE THE TABLE ON THE SLIDE WAS A SNIPPET FROM A CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT KIND OF DEMONSTRATING WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND HRA FEEDBACK WAS AND THEY AFFIRMED THAT FEEDBACK AT THEIR DECEMBER STUDY SESSION.
I JUST MENTIONED THIS PREVIOUSLY SO FORGIVE ME FOR BEING DUPLICATIVE AGAIN THE PHASE ONE ORDINANCE THE ONE BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING IS FOCUSED ON USES THAT ALREADY EXIST IN THE BLOOMINGTON ZONING CODE.
THESE ARE DWELLING TYPES AND HOUSING THAT WE'RE MORE FAMILIAR WITH ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS TO USE TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS AND TOWNHOUSES. AND SO THE PLAN AND THAT'S
WHAT CONSTITUTES PHASE ONE THE PLAN IS FOR PHASE TWO TO INCLUDE TRIPLEXES FOURPLEX MULTIPLEXES AND COTTAGE COURTS CLUSTER HOUSING. YOU ALSO DID PROVIDE GUIDANCE ON THAT OUR PLANNING AND A
SUBSEQUENT STUDY SESSION SO THAT YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THOSE PROPOSED CODE CHANGES IN CONCEPT BEFORE A PUBLIC HEARING ENVIRONMENT. BUT THAT EFFECTIVELY IS WHAT WOULD BE PHASE TWO OF THIS
PROJECT TO TAKE PLACE LATER ON THIS YEAR. SO BECAUSE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A NUMBER OF THESE THINGS IN STUDY SESSIONS MY INTENT
HERE WITH MY PRESENTATION IS TO PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE CHANGES ACCORDING TO EACH DWELLING TYPE. SO 80 USE TO FAMILY DWELLINGS AND TOWNHOUSES I'LL PROVIDE A
QUICK SUMMARY OF WHAT THE CHANGE DOES BUT IF NEED BE AND IF THERE'S QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC OR THE COMMISSION I DO HAVE MORE DETAILED SLIDES SHOWING THE PRECISE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING
SHOWN THERE. SO WITH RESPECT TO THE FIRST ONE AND THIS IS A LIST OF CHANGES TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT STANDARDS THE FIRST ONE IS A SIMPLE CLEAN UP KIND OF REFLECTIVE
OF MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES TYPE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT WHERE WE JUST HAVE THE WRONG REFERENCE IN THE 80 STANDARDS OF THE CODE. SO THAT'S JUST A CLEAN UP. THE SECOND ONE IN TERMS OF SETBACK ADJUSTMENTS SO
THERE'S A THERE'S TWO EFFECTIVE CHANGES THAT WOULD OCCUR WITHIN THIS ORDINANCE RELATED TO ADU SETBACKS. THE FIRST IS A REDUCTION IN THE REAR YARD SETBACK CURRENTLY TO USE OR SUBJECT TO
A 30 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK SIMILAR TO A A PRINCIPAL DWELLING OR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THIS ORDINANCE WOULD REDUCE THAT TO 15FT. THE SECOND CHANGE RELATED TO
SETBACK ADJUSTMENTS IS THAT OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN BLOOMINGTON IF YOU HAVE A SHED OR A DETACHED GARAGE YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE THAT STRUCTURE LOCATED CLOSER
TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE THAN YOUR HOME. THE FRONT WALL OF YOUR HOME OR PLANE OF YOUR HOME EFFECTIVELY CREATES THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN WHAT CONSTITUTES THE FRONT YARD AND SO WHAT THIS CHANGE
WOULD DO WOULD AUTHORIZE A TO USE TO BE LOCATED CLOSER TO THE OR TO THE PUBLIC STREET THAN THE HOME BUT STILL MEETING A 30 FOOT MINIMUM SETBACK AS IS REQUIRED IN OUR
ONE SO THOSE ARE THE TWO NOTES ABOUT THE SETBACK COMPONENTS ADU SIZE AND FLOOR AREA SO CURRENTLY THERE'S THREE STANDARDS THAT REGULATE THE SIZE OF ADA USE IN BLOOMINGTON
IT'S MINIMUM SIZE, MAXIMUM SIZE AND A PROPORTIONAL SIZE. WE CURRENTLY HAVE A STANDARD THAT SAYS THAT THE 80 YOU CANNOT EXCEED 33% OF THE COMBINED LIVING SPACE BETWEEN
A HOME AND AN 80 YOU SO THERE'S SOME PROPORTIONALITY THERE. THIS STANDARD HAS PRESENTED SOME CHALLENGES FOR RESIDENTS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN 80 USE BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW THE
PRECISE SQUARE FOOTAGE OR FLURRY OF THEIR HOME AND IT SOMETIMES REQUIRES THEM TO GET MORE DETAILED ARCHITECTURAL CALCULATIONS DONE OF THEIR
PROPERTY IF IF THE CITY'S INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE THROUGH OUR ASSESSING DIVISION OR OTHERWISE IS NOT FULLY ACCURATE. SO THIS ORDINANCE WOULD REMOVE THAT INSTEAD OF JUST FAVORING A MORE SIMPLISTIC APPROACH
OF ESTABLISHING A MINIMUM AND A MAXIMUM IN ADDITION TO THE REMOVING THE PROPORTIONAL CHANGE, THIS ORDINANCE WOULD INCREASE THE MAXIMUM SIZE FROM 960 TO 1000FT.
IT'S JUST A NICE YES IT'S A NICE ROUND NUMBER BUT IT ALSO HAS BEEN SUPPORTED BY ANOTHER CITY CLOSE TO BLOOMINGTON THAT HAS KIND OF SIMILAR RESIDENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS RENTAL ALLOWANCES.
SO CURRENTLY THERE IS A PROVISION IN OUR ADU STANDARDS THAT EFFECTIVELY ALLOW ONLY ONE RENTAL LICENSE AT A SINGLE FAMILY SITE THAT HAS AN 82. WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT THE
SIDE EFFECTIVELY HAS TO BE OWNER OCCUPIED. YOU CAN'T HAVE A SCENARIO WHERE BOTH AN 82 AND THE HOME ARE RENTED UNITS.
THE OWNER NEEDS TO OCCUPY EITHER ONE OR THE OTHER IN EFFECT AND IN SOME OF THE RESEARCH THAT STAFF HAS DONE WITH RESPECT TO 80 USE AND TRYING TO INCENTIVIZE MORE 80 YOU CREATION IS TO REMOVE THAT
BARRIER OF REQUIRED OWNER OCCUPANCY. SO THERE'S A CHANGE IN THE ORDINANCE THAT WOULD ALLOW THAT AND STAFF ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS KIND OF ARRANGEMENT BECAUSE WE HAVE
MANY TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE COMMUNITY THAT HAVE TWO RENTED UNITS ON ONE SITE. SO IT'S EFFECTIVELY VERY SIMILAR SITUATION. AGAIN, I HAVE MORE DETAILS SLIDES IF ANYONE WANTS TO ASK
ABOUT ANY OF THESE CHANGES INDIVIDUALLY WITH RESPECT TO TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS, I'LL JUST GO OVER THIS LIST AS WELL. SO ZONING DISTRICT ALLOWANCE CLEAN UP FIRST OF ALL TWO
FAMILY DWELLINGS THAT AREN'T ALLOWED IN THE THREE DISTRICT. THIS IS THE DISTRICT THAT ULTIMATELY IS ENVISIONED TO TAKE ON MORE OF THESE MISSING MIDDLE USES AND CURRENTLY ALLOWS TOWNHOMES.
STAFF CAN ENVISION A SCENARIO WHERE SOME TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS COULD BE CREATED THROUGH SEPARATE SEPARATE SITES OR OWNERSHIP WITHIN A MEDIUM DENSITY DEVELOPMENT OF SOME KIND.
THE TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE ALLOWED IN THE R FOUR DISTRICT AS WELL. SO OUR STAFF'S THINKING HERE IS JUST TO ALLOW THE R THREE DISTRICT TO HAVE TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS.
THERE ALSO IS JUST A CLEANUP ISSUE AND THAT THE LIST OF ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ALLOW TWO FAMILY IS OUT OF DATE IN THE TWO FAMILY SECTION I CAN SHOW THAT IF NEED BE BUT
WITH SOME OF THE RECENT CHANGES TO THE IRIS ONE DISTRICT AS WELL AS POTENTIALLY ADDING OUR THREE JUST CLEANING UP THAT LIST MINIMUM SITE SIZE SO CURRENTLY
THE MINIMUM SITE SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR AN INTERIOR LOT FOR A TWO FAMILY DWELLING IS 13,000FT A CORNER LOT IS 14,625FT. THIS ORDINANCE WOULD PROPOSE
TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM SITE SIZE DOWN TO 11,700FT AND 14,625FT FOR CORNER LOTS. YOU COULD ASK HOW DID STAFF ARRIVE AT THESE NUMBERS? AND THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION
EFFECTIVELY WITH SOME OF THE OTHER CHANGES WE'RE PROPOSING TO THE GARAGE SETBACKS RIGHT NOW CURRENTLY GARAGES AND TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS MUST HAVE A TEN FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK AND WE DO HAVE TWO FAMILY DWELLING
SITES THAT HAVE GARAGES EFFECTIVELY ON BOTH SIDES. SO A TEN FOOT SETBACK ON BOTH SIDES OF THE PROPERTY. WHAT THAT WHAT THAT GETS YOU TO IS A TYPICAL LOT DEPTH
OF 130FT AND BLOOMINGTON YOU TAKE THOSE THOSE SAVINGS IN THAT SIDE YARD SETBACK IT GETS YOU TO EFFECTIVELY 1300 SQUARE FEET I HAVE A VISUAL THAT PROBABLY EXPLAINS THIS BETTER THAN MY MATH OFF THE
CUFF HERE BUT EFFECTIVELY REDUCING THE SITE SIZE BY 10% AND THAT SAME 10% APPLICATION WAS APPLIED TO THE CORNER LOT REQUIREMENT.
WE DO BELIEVE THAT THE MINIMUM SITE SIZE FOR TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS CAN ACTUALLY GO LOWER THAN WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IN THIS ORDINANCE FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS. ONE IS IT DOESN'T REALLY
ACCOUNT WELL FOR OVER UNDER TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS WHICH CAN HAVE A SMALLER A NARROWER AND A SMALLER LOT. BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT I MEAN JUST AS A POINT OF CONTEXT,
SOME OF THE STATE LEGISLATION THAT WAS BEING LOOKED AT THIS SESSION HAD SITE SIZES AS LOW AS IN THE 50 500 SQUARE FOOT RANGE TO ALLOW TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS WITH BLOOMINGTON
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS WITH A 35% UP TO 45% MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS PROBABLY CAN'T GO THAT LOW. BUT JUST TO PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT IN TERMS OF HOW LOW
SOME SITE SIZES ARE GOING WITH RESPECT TO TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS GARAGE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS I JUST MENTIONED THE FIVE FEET VERSUS TEN FEET BOTH THIS AND THE ATTACHED GARAGE REQUIREMENT IN TWO
FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE VERY MUCH APPLICABLE TO POTENTIAL CONVERSION PROJECTS. IF YOU WANT TO CONVERT OUR SITE THAT'S CURRENTLY A SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO A TWO FAMILY HOME BY SAY DOING AN ADDITION
OR OTHERWISE THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A REQUIRED GARAGE AND THE FACT THAT YOUR GARAGES MUST MEET A TEN FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK THAT ELIMINATES A LOT OF BLOOMINGTON LOTS FROM THAT
EVEN POTENTIAL RIGHT THERE BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF GARAGES THAT ARE EITHER DETACHED AT A FIVE FOOT SETBACK OR BOTH. AND SO THESE CHANGES ARE INTENDED TO KIND OF AUTHORIZE
OR ALLOW FOR MORE CONVERSIONS. IN ADDITION TO THAT, I WOULD SAY THAT JUST AS A MORE PHILOSOPHICAL MATTER TO FAMILY DWELLINGS AND SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE BOTH SUPPORTED
AND ALLOWED IN THE CITY'S LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY AND OUR COMP PLAN. SO FROM A FROM A CONSISTENCY A STREAMLINING AND KIND OF JUST REDUCING COMPLEXITY STANDPOINT, OUR STAFF THINKS THAT THE STANDARDS FOR THESE
THINGS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY EQUIVALENT HEIGHT STANDARDS CLEAN UP THAT'S JUST MORE OF A AGAIN KIND OF A A CODE CLEAN UP FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM. I ALREADY SPOKE ABOUT THE
ATTACHED GARAGE COMPONENT BUT JUST PROPOSING TO ALLOW DETACHED GARAGE TO SERVE A TWO FAMILY DWELLING. THERE'S ALSO A GARAGE ORIENTATION REQUIREMENT AND SO
IF YOU ARE PROVIDING A TWO FAMILY DWELLING ON A CORNER LOT RIGHT NOW ON TWO LOCAL ROADS YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO AND YOU HAVE TWO SEPARATE GARAGE STRUCTURES. YOU HAVE TO ORIENT THEM TO DIFFERENT STREETS AND SO THIS
IS ONE OF THOSE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT I THINK WAS MORE INTENDED FOR LARGER SCALE AND TO KIND OF MINIMIZE VISUAL IMPACT OF TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS BUT JUST PROVIDES MORE
PRESCRIPTIVE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS THAT SOME BUILDERS HAVE FOUND CHALLENGING OR NOT HELPFUL LANDSCAPING.
SO RIGHT NOW SINGLE FAMILY HOMES DON'T REQUIRE LANDSCAPING IN BLOOMINGTON WE WOULD PROPOSE TO ALIGN THAT FOR TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS BY REMOVING THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT. IT'S NOT THAT STAFF DOES NOT
LIKE LANDSCAPING WE LOVE TREES AND LANDSCAPING OR THE LORAX FOLKS BUT THE FACT REMAINS IS THAT A THE MARKET TYPICALLY TAKES CARE OF IT BY ITSELF. RESIDENTS WANT TO HAVE LANDSCAPING ON THEIR PROPERTIES TWO OR EVEN THE
DEVELOPER TO SELL THEIR PROJECT. BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT IS THAT THE CITY HAS TO COLLECT A SURETY, A FINANCIAL SURETY TO ENSURE THE MATERIAL SURVIVES AND DOES MULTIPLE SITE INSPECTIONS.
SO WHEN WE'RE USING THE SAME PROCESS ON A VERY LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT AS APPLYING IT TO A TWO FAMILY DWELLING IT'S JUST KIND OF A MISALIGNMENT OF PUBLIC RESOURCES AND
EFFECTIVENESS THERE GET INTO TOWNHOMES NOW UH HOPEFULLY I HOPE TO HAVE SOME OF YOUR GRACE HERE AND THIS ONE BUT THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T GO INTO DEPTH WITH AT OUR PREVIOUS STUDY SESSIONS
THE CHANGES THAT WE'RE PROPOSING I THINK STAFF WOULD REPRESENT OR BELIEVE ARE FAIRLY MODEST. BUT THERE'S THREE THIS AND ONE OF THEM IS MORE JUST A CLEAN UP. BUT CURRENTLY IN BLOOMINGTON A
GARAGE MUST BE RECESSED FROM THE FRONT FACADE OF THE BUILDING OR FRONT PORCH BY AT LEAST FOUR FEET THAT WHAT THAT EFFECTIVELY MEANS IS THE THE EXAMPLE THIS THREE UNIT TOWNHOME AS YOU CAN SEE ON
YOUR SCREEN WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN BLOOMINGTON. BUILDING MATERIALS HAVE COME A LONG WAY INCLUDING GARAGE DOORS. I RESPECT THE INTENT OF NOT WANTING THEY'RE CALLED SNOUT HOUSES TYPICALLY IS WHAT
THEY'VE TRADITIONALLY BEEN KNOWN AS WANTING TO HAVE GARAGES KIND OF DOMINATE THE FRONT VIEW. BUT THIS HAS ACTUALLY CAUSED DESIGN CHALLENGES FOR
DEVELOPERS PARTICULARLY ON SHALLOWER SITES BY HAVING TO MOVE THE STRUCTURES BACK FURTHER AND THEN MEET SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IT SEEMS LIKE A MINIMAL THING BUT STAFF WOULD
PROPOSE TO ACTUALLY CHANGE THAT SO THAT THE GARAGE CAN BE NO FURTHER FORWARD THAN THE BUILDING THAN FOUR FEET AS OPPOSED TO MUST BE RECESSED BY FOUR FEET.
IT SEEMS LIKE A SMALL CHANGE BUT IT'S SHOWN UP ON A FEW AND A FEW REVIEWS THAT WE'VE DONE DRIVEWAY DEPTH THAT'S JUST TO CLEAN UP. I MENTIONED THAT IT'S REALLY JUST A WORDING THING THE GARAGE OFFSET REQUIREMENT ODD
THING ABOUT THIS ONE TO US STAFF IS THAT THIS DOES NOT WHAT IT REQUIRES IS THAT GARAGES CAN'T BE THAT ARE RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER CAN'T BE AT THE SAME DEPTH OR SETBACK.
THEY MUST BE STAGGERED BY A CERTAIN DISTANCE AND THAT APPLIES WHETHER IT FACES A PUBLIC STREET OR EVEN JUST A PRIVATE STREET. SO OFTEN YOU'LL HAVE TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENTS THAT ONLY THE
RESIDENTS OF THE INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT CAN ACTUALLY SEE THIS ESTHETIC OR ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT DOESN'T FACE PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY WHICH MOST OF OUR STANDARDS ARE IS THAT'S WHAT IT'S BEING MORE CONSCIOUS
OF AS PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. BUT THIS ONE APPLIES ACROSS THE BOARD AND SO WE WOULD PROPOSE TO ELIMINATE THAT REQUIREMENT THAT THEY BE STAGGERED. SAME COMMENT ON THIS THIS PICTURE THESE GARAGES ARE NOT
STAGGERED IN THIS TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT AND STAFF THINKS IT'S A FAIRLY EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE DESIGN. SO WITH THAT JUST A REMINDER
AGAIN I CAN GO INTO MORE DEPTH ABOUT THESE THINGS AND QUESTIONS BUT JUST AS A REMINDER IN TERMS OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, THIS PROJECT I WOULD SAY HAS HAD MORE
RESOURCES AND STAFF TIME AND INVESTMENT PAID IN PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND SOME OF THE VERY IDEAS THAT ARE REFLECTED IN THIS ORDINANCE AND OTHER IDEAS THAT ARE COMING LATER ON THIS SUMMER AND PHASE TWO ARE
REFLECTIVE OF CONVERSATIONS WE'VE BEEN HAVING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AND JUST RECEPTIVE OF FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE DONE AT TABLING. BUT JUST AS A REMINDER WE'VE
BE HELD TO A SPECIFIC DEVELOPER FOCUS GROUP EIGHT EIGHT DEVELOPERS PARTICIPATED THAT IN TWO SEPARATE SESSIONS FOR EACH WE PRESENTED TO A DEVELOPER COLLABORATIVE KIND
OF FOCUSED ON SMALLER SCALE DEVELOPMENT DONE TABLING A COMMUNITY EVENTS AND THEN OF COURSE AS ALWAYS I CONTINUE TO HOST ONLINE ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH OUR
LET'S TALK BLOOMINGTON PLATFORM. SO WITH THAT I HAVE A MOTION ON THE SLIDE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. I'M HAPPY TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. MR. JOHNSON ARE THERE ANY
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER LISA THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY QUESTION IS WOULD WITH THE
ADU YOU SAID THERE WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE LICENSES FOR BOTH THE MAIN PROPERTY AND THE IDEA IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH. COMMISSIONER YOU SAY I'M EXCUSE ME I'M SORRY CHAIR COMMISSIONER YOU SAY THAT'S
CORRECT. SO THIS IS THE PROVISION THAT EXISTS IN OUR TO USE STANDARDS CURRENTLY SO YOU CAN SEE THE LAST SENTENCE THERE IS THE KEY PROVISION WITHIN THESE RULES
IN OUR ADU SECTION OF OUR CODE IT SAYS ONLY ONE RENTAL LICENSE IS PERMITTED PER RESIDENTIAL SITE AND SO WHAT THAT EFFECTIVELY MEANS IS THE OWNER IF YOU CAN ONLY ISSUE ONE RENTAL LICENSE EITHER FOR
THE ADU OR THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING IT MEANS THE OWNER NEEDS TO BE OCCUPYING THE OTHER UNIT IN EFFECT. SO THIS WOULD PROPOSE TO STRIKE THAT PROHIBITION OR RESTRICTION.
OKAY. I THINK MY CHAIR FOLLOW UP QUESTION. SO SOMEONE COULD BE ABSENTEE OWNER OR RENT OUT BOTH UNITS AND NOT BE ON SITE.
RIGHT. AND THEN YOU SAID THE PROPORTIONAL CODE OR LANGUAGE IN THE 33% COMPLETELY REMOVED FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD. YEAH.
CHAIR COMMISSIONER YOU SAID SO THAT THAT'S TRUE THE THE SIZE PROVISIONS ARE IN SUBSECTION EIGHT OF THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND SUBSECTION C BELOW THAT IS THE PROPORTIONATE SIZE REQUIREMENT
. IT GETS TO BE CONFUSING MATH SOMETIMES FOR SOME FOLKS BUT THE EXAMPLE I TRY AND USE IT IT'S THE KEY LANGUAGE IS THE COMBINED FORCES AND LIVING AREA. BUT WHAT IT MEANS IS IF YOU
HAD A 1000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE IN BLOOMINGTON THE MAXIMUM SIZE 80 YOU COULD YOU COULD HAVE IS 500FT BECAUSE 500 IS ONE THIRD OF 1500 SQUARE FEET. PUTTING THOSE TWO THINGS
TOGETHER. AND SO I DON'T THINK THE MATH IS TOO DIFFICULT TO CREATE ONCE YOU HAVE THE VERIFIED DIMENSIONS OF THE DWELLING
IN THE HOME. BUT THE OTHER CHALLENGE THAT'S BEEN CREATED WE'VE HAD SOME INQUIRIES ABOUT JUST WANTING TO CREATE A BASEMENT. ADU WHERE YOU EFFECTIVELY HAVE A SINGLE STOREY HOME, YOU HAVE
A BASEMENT UNIT WHICH IS LESS THAN 1000FT. YOU CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE OF THAT PROPORTIONATE SIZE. SO IT'S NOT JUST A MATTER OF THE COMPLEXITY, IT'S THAT WE HAVE TURNED AWAY OR NOT
SUPPORTED SOME INTEREST IN THAT USE. THESE ARE INTERNALLY TO USE NOT DETACHED ON THE BASIS OF NOT ALLOWING THE BASEMENT KIND OF MOTHER IN LAW SUITE.
OKAY. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF MR. JONES I HAVE A QUESTION YOU MENTIONED THE RECESSED GARAGE SETBACK FOR TOWNHOUSES HAS HAD
SOME CHALLENGES WITH DEVELOPERS. CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THAT? HAVE HAVE WE LOST ANY TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENTS BECAUSE OF THAT OR IS IT MORE OF A STATE CHANGE OR WHAT HAVE YOU SEEN THERE? YEAH.
THANK YOU CHAIR FOR THAT QUESTION. I WOULDN'T SAY THAT WE'VE LOST PROJECTS AS OF YET BUT AS MORE INTEREST IN MIDDLE HOUSING AND THEN TOWNHOME PROJECTS ARE COMING FORWARD WE DO HAVE A NUMBER OF AREAS OF THE CITY
THAT ARE ON COLLECTOR ROADS OR OTHER GOOD LOCATIONS FOR MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING AND THEY'RE GUIDED AS SUCH AND OUR PLAN BUT SOMEWHAT ALSO
IN ANTICIPATION OF TRYING TO DO MORE INFILL DEVELOPMENT ON NARROWER SITES IS THAT SOME OF THESE ESTHETIC OR ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES WHEN YOU ACTUALLY PUT THEM
FORWARD TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY. THE OTHER THING THAT THEY DO IS THEY ADD COST. SOME DEVELOPERS DO NOT CREATE CUSTOM ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EVERY SINGLE SITE WE WOULD
LIKE THEM TO IF IT DIDN'T HAVE COST IMPLICATIONS TO IT BUT PARTICULARLY WHEN SOME OF THE PERFORMANCE OR MARGINS ARE SO SENSITIVE ON THESE ESPECIALLY THESE MIDDLE HOUSING TYPE
PROJECTS WHEN YOU'RE NOT DOING VOLUME REQUIRING SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY TO CHANGE THEIR PLANS TO MEET SOME OF THESE THINGS HAS COST IMPLICATIONS FOR ARCHITECTURAL REDESIGN. SO THAT'S PART OF IT.
WE AND ONE NARROW SITE THAT WE'VE BEEN STUDYING MORE RECENTLY IT DID REQUIRE SOME ADJUSTMENTS AND DIFFICULTY WITH COMPLIANCE WITH THE REAR SIDE YARD SETBACK BECAUSE
OF THE CHANGES IT'S I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT AN EXAMPLE FORWARD KIND OF DEMONSTRATING DEMONSTRATING IT BUT IT HAS COME UP A COUPLE I WOULDN'T SAY IT'S LOST THOSE PROJECTS
BUT MORE AND MORE AND THIS ACTUALLY IS REFLECTED IN SOME OF THE STATE LEGISLATION THAT'S BEEN UNDER CONSIDERATION AT THE STATE FOR THESE HOUSING BILLS IS TRYING TO LIMIT OR ELIMINATE THESE
MORE PRESCRIPTIVE ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS WITH RESPECT TO LOWER DENSITY HOUSING. SO THIS IS KIND OF IN LINE WITH THAT. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THE BEST REASON THAT REASON I THANK YOU CHAIR SO MY QUESTION IS SO THE I KNOW WE DID LIKE THE SHORT TERM RENTAL STUDY
NOT TOO LONG AGO. I KIND OF WISH WE DID THAT AFTER THIS BECAUSE LIKE WHEN I SEE THE AD IT'S JUST A COMMENT BUT ALSO A QUESTION AT THE END IF WHEN I SEE LIKE HOW MORE
FLEXIBLE IT IS NOW TO HAVE ADUS I THINK THAT LIKE LET'S SAY SOMEONE WERE TO BUILD THE ADU AND ON THEIR LOT AND THEY'RE ABLE TO HAVE A RENTAL LICENSE FOR ONE BUT THEN THE
OTHER ONE THEY'RE LIVING IN IT AND A LOT OF US WHO ARE LIKE OPEN TO A SITUATION AND WHERE SOMEONE SUBLET OR SHORT TERM RENTS A PART OF THEIR PROPERTY
AS LONG AS THEY'RE ON THE PROPERTY, YOU KNOW AND I FEEL LIKE NOW WITH THIS NEWFOUND CODE CHANGES AMENDMENTS IT WOULD BE NICE TO RELOOK AT
SOME OF THAT IF IT'S POSSIBLE . THAT'S MY PERSONAL THOUGHTS AND I GUESS REQUEST YEAH THEY GET A CHAIR. I MEAN I PERSONALLY SEE I CAN
CERTAINLY PASS THAT ALONG. I DON'T WANT THE CITY COUNCIL ULTIMATELY DID NOT DETERMINED NOT TO REMOVE THE PROHIBITION ON SHORT TERM RENTALS BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT WHERE
THEY WERE PRESENTED A MENU OF OPTIONS AND KIND OF BEING THE MOST RESTRICTIVE OF I'M CALLING THAT A FIVE THEY DID LOOK AT THERE WAS SOME POTENTIAL SUPPORT FOR OPTION FOUR WHICH WAS OWNER OCCUPIED
ALLOWING SHORT TERM RENTALS WHEN AN OWNER IS ONSITE OR ENGAGED IN THE PROPERTY SO YOU KNOW, I WOULDN'T SAY THAT THEY WOULD NEVER NOT RELOOK AT THAT . BUT I THINK WHAT THAT WOULD
EFFECTIVELY REQUIRE IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN OR ADDING IT TO A FUTURE WORK PLAN. SO CERTAINLY THAT COULD BE A POSSIBILITY. BUT JUST SHARING WHAT THEIR
FEEDBACK WAS ABOUT THAT KIND OF SCENARIO. OKAY. THANKS FOR THAT, COMMISSIONER CURRY THANKS. VICE CHAIR OUR CHAIR WITH THE
SITE SIZE REDUCTION FOR THE TWO FAMILY, WAS THAT SOMETHING THAT WAS ALSO REDUCED BEFORE THIS IN THE R-1 ZONING UPDATE YEAH.
CHAIR COMMISSIONER CURRY THAT'S CORRECT. SO IN THE IN THE SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY ORDINANCE BACK IN MAY OF 2022 IT REDUCED THE TWO FAMILY DWELLING SIZE I'M
GOING TO BE I'M PULLING A LITTLE BIT FROM MY JUST MEMORY SO FORGIVE ME IF I GET THE PRECISE NUMBER WRONG BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS 15,000FT FOR AN INTERIOR LOT AND 18,000FT
FOR A CORNER LOT WAS THE PREVIOUS STANDARD. SO THE REDUCTION TO WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY 13,000 FOR
INTERIOR THAT EFFECTIVELY REPRESENTED A 2000 SQUARE FOOT REDUCTION AND 2000 SQUARE FOOT REDUCTION TO CORNER LOTS TO EFFECTIVELY NO I'M SORRY 3000
I'M LOOKING AT THE WRONG NUMBERS HERE BUT IT WAS 15 AND 18,000 FOR INTERIOR AND CORNER LOTS. OKAY. AND SO CAN YOU DISTINGUISH TO ME WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS? I THINK BECAUSE I'M SURE I'M
SURE THERE WAS SOME LOGIC LAST TIME AROUND. YEP. THE LOGIC LAST TIME VERSUS THE LOGIC THIS TIME. YEAH. THANK YOU CHAIR COMMISSIONER CURRY SO THE LOGIC LAST TIME IT HAD TO DO WITH THE OVERALL
REDUCTION IN THE SINGLE FAMILY LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT AND SO THE WHAT WHAT STAFF PREPARED WHEN THEY ESTABLISHED THESE NEW NUMBERS IS THEY PUT THE
TWO FAMILY DWELLING SIDE BY SIDE ON A ON THE NEW SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND THEY REMOVED WHAT THE INTERIOR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS WERE OF THE TEN FEET ON EITHER SIDE I'M NOT DOING A GOOD JOB EXPLAINING
THIS. IT WORKS BETTER AS A VISUAL BUT THE POINT IS IS THAT IT WAS INFORMED BY WHAT THE NEW SINGLE FAMILY ADJUSTS THE NEW RULES WERE UNDER THAT ORDINANCE APPLIED TO TWO
FAMILY DWELLINGS. SO BASICALLY IT SHAVED DOWN. IT WAS LIKE EFFECTIVELY PUTTING TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS ON EITHER SIDE AND APPLYING THE STANDARDS BY WHICH OF ELSEWHERE SINGLE FAMILY NEW
RULES. YEAH I COULDN'T HAVE EXPLAINED THAT WERE SUFFICIENT. I THINK I, I GOT IT WAS PRETTY SIMPLE PROPORTIONATE REDUCTION LAST TIME AND NOW YOU'RE
FINDING SOME MORE SPECIFIC YES THIS AND AGAIN STAFF FEELS VERY STRONGLY THAT IT COULD GO LOWER THAN WHAT WE'RE SHOWING YOU IN THIS ORDINANCE. IN FACT, I THINK WE INTEND TO DO MORE RESEARCH OF PEER COMMUNITIES AND POTENTIALLY PRESENT THAT TO YOU LATER.
IT'S NOT TO CONTINUE TO HAVE A MOVING TARGET. WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN THAT SITUATION. SO OUR REGRET ABOUT THAT BUT WHAT THIS REDUCTION EFFECTIVELY REPRESENTS IS SHAVING DOWN THOSE SIDE YARD
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR GARAGES SO FIVE FEET ON EACH SIDE IF YOU'RE SAVING THAT THAT'S TEN FEET TIMES A TYPICAL BLOOMINGTON LOT DEPTH OF 130FT. IT'S JUST KIND OF MATH AT THAT
POINT OF REDUCING IT BY 1300 SQUARE FEET TO KIND OF ACCOUNT FOR THAT. THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS THAT YOU'LL NOTICE ON THIS THAT WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE SITE WIDTH AT THIS TIME.
IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO CHANGE SITE WITH FOR THIS USE. THE REASON WE'RE NOT DOING THAT IS BECAUSE THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL PROJECT ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN FOR LATER THIS YEAR ABOUT OUR CORNER LOT STANDARDS AND SO
BLOOMINGTON EFFECTIVELY REQUIRES TWO FRONT YARD SETBACKS FOR ALL OF OUR CORNER YARDS IN BLOOMINGTON THAT IS SOME CITIES TAKE THAT APPROACH SOME CITIES DON'T TAKE THAT APPROACH.
THEY ALLOW FOR A REDUCED SETBACK FOR CORNER A CORNER LOTS ON THEIR SITE WHAT IS EFFECTIVELY THEIR SIDE YARD OR DESIGNATED THEIR SIDE YARD. IT'S AT THAT POINT AS PART OF THAT PROJECT THAT WE WERE
GOING TO LOOK AT OUR SITE WIDTH REQUIREMENTS FOR A CORNER LOTS BOTH FOR SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY IF THAT MAKES SENSE. YEAH OKAY AND IT DOES THE CITY
GET A I MEAN KIND OF RANDOM THOUGHT BUT I REMEMBER MY NEIGHBOR IN THE PAST COMPLAINING ABOUT ANOTHER NEIGHBOR WHO CALLED THE CITY ON HIM BECAUSE HE HAD A FISH
HOUSE IN THE DRIVEWAY AS THERE ARE THERE LIKE ORDINANCES THAT THE CITY HAS ABOUT PARKING FISH. YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW STORAGE UNITS OR FISH HOUSES OR THAT SORT OF THING IN YOUR FRONT
YARD OR IN YOUR DRIVEWAY. CHAIR COMMISSIONER CURRY WE DO THAT WOULD FALL UNDER THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PROVISIONS IF IT'S ON A TRAILER MOST SPECIFICALLY. OKAY.
SO THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES. YOU CAN PARK THEM IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE BUT IT'S SEASONAL. SO IF IT'S A WINTER ORIENTED RV IT CAN BE THERE IN THE
WINTERTIME SAY SOME SNOWMOBILE OR SNOWMOBILES ON A TRAILER IF IT IS A SUMMER, IF IT'S A BOAT IN THE SUMMERTIME YOU CAN HAVE YOUR BOAT. THERE ARE SOME PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BE, YOU KNOW, POURING OUT INTO THE
PUBLIC STREET, FOR EXAMPLE, OR IT HAS TO MEET CERTAIN SIDE YARD AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS. SURE. BUT YES, WE DO HAVE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STANDARDS AND SO THE 80 USE SETBACK IS
CONTEMPLATING PUTTING AN 82 IN FRONT OF A HOUSE. YEAH. BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND AND THE STREET. YEAH. SO THE THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THIS
ONE SO NOT OBVIOUSLY NOT THE COMMON ELEMENT IN LOT BUT THERE ARE QUITE A FEW BLOOMINGTON LOTS AND THIS ALSO DOES APPLY TO MORE COMMON CORNER LOTS AND I CAN SPEAK TO THAT IN A MOMENT BUT THERE ARE
A NUMBER OF BLOOMINGTON LOTS THAT HAVE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT SETBACKS IN SOME AREAS ALONG THE RIVER IT'S VERY COMMON IN A FEW SUBDIVISIONS MORE IN WESTERN BLOOMINGTON THERE'S
SOME PRETTY SIGNIFICANT SETBACKS AND SO WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THIS WITH THE CITY COUNCIL I BELIEVE IT WAS ACTUALLY PART OF MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES ONE YEAR AND WE WERE MAKING SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO OUR
ADA RULES AND ONE COUNCIL MEMBER OR MAYBE TWO BROUGHT UP THE IDEA THAT IT FRUSTRATED THEM TO A DEGREE THAT YOU CANNOT CREATE ADU IN THE FRONT YARD BECAUSE OF THIS
RESTRICTION TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES YOU CAN'T HAVE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE LOCATED CLOSER TO THE STREET THAN YOUR HOME IF YOUR FALL IF YOUR HOME IS 150FT AWAY FROM THE STREET AND IT'S THE ONLY USABLE PORTION OF YOUR PROPERTY WHERE
YOU COULD BUILD AN 80 YOU PARTICULAR ONLY ON THESE RIVER LOTS BECAUSE THE GRADE IS SO STEEP AND THE ACCESS IS CHALLENGING. THERE WAS DISCUSSION AND
CONSENSUS THAT THAT SHOULD BE ALLOWED SO LONG AS YOU'RE MEETING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS WHERE IT APPLIES IN A MORE COMMON OR CONSISTENT SITUATION IN BLOOMINGTON WOULD BE A
CORNER LOT. SO SAY YOU HAVE A HOME THAT HAS A 30 FOOT SETBACK AT ONE ON THE FRONT SIDE BUT A 45 FOOT SETBACK ON YOUR CORNER YOUR SIDE CORNER SIDE.
THE ADU WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE SETBACK 45FT BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE LOCATED CLOSER TO THE STREET THAN THE DWELLING. SO WHAT THESE RULES EFFECTIVELY BY BY APPLYING OUR
RESTRICTIONS TO TYPICAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES LIKE GARAGES SHEDS YOU KNOW OTHER TYPES OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IT JUST BECAME MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO CITE IN 82 ON
THESE TYPES OF LOTS EFFECTIVELY. SO THEIR THOUGHT WAS AS LONG AS IT'S MEETING PRINCIPAL BUILDING SETBACKS IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED. OKAY. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER.
YOU SO SO SO THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT WOULD BE REMOVED. YOU COULD HAVE ADU AND THEN IN FRONT OF YOUR MAIN DWELLING . CORRECT. AND THEN SECONDLY SO YOU'RE
SAYING IF THERE'S A HOME LOCATED ON A CORNER LOT LIKE THIS YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW BOTH SETBACKS FOR THE THE THE ROAD AND AT THE FRONT AND THE SIDE
IS THAT CORRECT AND WHAT IS THE SETBACK EXACTLY AGAIN YEAH YOU SAY SO THE MINIMUM SETBACK IS 30FT IN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT.
THERE'S A LITTLE BIT HIGHER SETBACK IN OUR ONE ACRE DISTRICT BUT THAT'S NOT A COMMON DISTRICT IN BLOOMINGTON. BUT EFFECTIVELY IT'S 30FT. BUT THE CHALLENGES IS THAT PARTICULARLY OLDER HOMES
IN BLOOMINGTON, SOME OF WHICH WERE ESTABLISHED AT A 45 FOOT SETBACK SO YOU'VE KIND OF EFFECTIVELY MADE 15FT OF YOUR LOT UNUSABLE FROM CITING A STRUCTURE STANDPOINT
AS A RESULT OF THIS PROVISION . IS THERE A STORY LIMITATION? HOW HIGH COULD GO UP? ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE LIMITED. ADA USE ARE DIFFERENT. THERE'S SEPARATE STANDARDS
RELATED TO THAT BUT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS LIMITED TO 15FT AND GARAGES ALSO GARAGES HAVE SEPARATE HEIGHT STANDARDS AND IT DEPENDS ON
THE THE AMOUNT OF SIDE SETBACK THAT YOU HAVE AT A FIVE FOOT SETBACK YOU CAN HAVE A 19 FOOT TALL GARAGE THE FURTHER YOU GET AWAY IT'S KIND OF A STEP UP THE FURTHER YOU CITE THE
STRUCTURE AWAY THE TALLER YOUR GARAGE CAN GET. BUT THERE'S OTHER THERE'S OTHER WAYS I COULD GO ON TO THE WEEDS ABOUT THIS BUT YEAH ,AN 80 YOU CANNOT BE TALLER
THAN THE HOME OF THE LOT. IT'S ON SIMILAR TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ZERO UNDERGROUND DEPTH LIMIT THERE WOULD NOT BE
IT'S JUST THAT IF YOU HAVE MULTIPLE LEVELS BOTH ARE GOING TO COUNT TOWARDS YOUR IT'S NOT A FOOTPRINT SIZE IT'S A LIVING SPACE SIZE THOUGH SO 1000FT IS YOUR LIMIT REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU DEPLOY IT IF THAT
MAKES SENSE. I THINK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER CURRY SORRY. THANKS CHAIR. SO JUST TO CONFIRM SO THAT THE
HEIGHT LIMITATION IS 15FT THEN IS THAT WHAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING? THANK YOU CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER CURRY SO THERE'S NO CHANGES PROPOSED TO THE HEIGHT FOR ANY USE IN THIS OR
IN THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE? ACCESSORY STRUCTURES NOT TO USE ARE LIMITED TO 15FT IN HEIGHT NOT INCLUDING GARAGES. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES CAN BE
TALLER THAN 15FT IN HEIGHT BUT THEY CANNOT BE TALLER THAN THE HOME ON THE LOT THAT THEY ARE LOCATED. SO IF A HOME FOR EXAMPLE WAS 18FT TALL YOU COULDN'T HAVE AN 82 THAT WAS 20FT TALL.
RIGHT. IF THAT MAKES SENSE. YEAH, TOTALLY. SO THEN WHAT WOULD THE WHAT IS THE CURRENT HEIGHT RESTRICTION ? THE CURRENT HEIGHT RESTRICTION IS MATCHES THAT OF GARAGES IS
EFFECTIVELY IT DEPENDS WHERE IT IS ON THE LOT AND A HOUSE TO A LIVING SPACE FOR EXAMPLE ALSO CANNOT EXCEED 24FT IN HEIGHT AT A TEN FOOT SIDE
YARD SETBACK HOMES HAVE THE LIVING SPACE OF A HOME AS A TEN FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK THE MAX HEIGHT NEXT TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF VARIANCES IN THE PAST. IF YOU RECALL ON SOME OF THESE THINGS I'M POINTING TO THE
OTHER COMMISSIONERS BUT IT'S 24FT. BUT ONE REASON THAT THAT'S UNLIKELY TO OCCUR UNLESS IT WAS ON TOP OF A GARAGE WHICH IS POSSIBLE IN A DETACHED
SCENARIO HAS TO DO WITH THAT THOUSAND FOOT MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA THAT'S BEING CONTEMPLATED HERE. 960 IS WHAT THE RULE IS TODAY. SURE. OKAY. THAT MAKES SENSE.
THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING IF OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER WE THANK CHAIR SO I HAD ASKED THIS IN ONE OF OUR PRELIMINARY HEARINGS AND I JUST WANTED TO VERIFY IT AGAIN
WITH THE 80 USE THAT YOU KNOW I BELIEVE THAT PART OF THE REASON FOR HAVING A PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE WAS PROBABLY ALSO RELATED TO
NOT COMPLETELY FILLING UP YOUR LOT WITH IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND SO I JUST WANTED TO YOU KNOW, I GUESS AGAIN JUST ON THE RECORD VERIFY THAT IF WE
DO REMOVE THAT PROPORTIONATE SIZE REQUIREMENT AND GO TO JUST A MAXIMUM SIZE THAT IT WOULD STILL BE SUBJECT TO THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REQUIREMENTS IN THERE IN THE
CITY CODE FOR A LOT AT CHAIR COMMISSIONER RIGHT. THAT'S CORRECT. REGARDLESS OF YOU'RE PUTTING A NEW PATIO IN YOU'RE DOING YOU'RE DOING SIDEWALKS, YOU'RE BUILDING AN 80 YOU YOUR LIMIT IS YOUR LIMIT AND THIS WOULD
NOT PROPOSE TO CREATE ANY EXEMPTIONS FOR THAT. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF SEEING NONE WE WILL MOVE THEN
TO THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I WILL OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING IF ANYONE HERE IN THE CHAMBERS WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY ON THIS ITEM PLEASE STEP FORWARD. AND THE WAY OUR PUBLICS ARE
GOING TO RUN HERE THIS EVENING IS YOU'RE WELCOME TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WE WILL COLLECT THOSE QUESTIONS. WE'RE TAKING NOTES UP HERE. WE MAY NOT WELL WE WON'T ANSWER THEM RIGHT AWAY BUT AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING IS
CLOSED WE WILL RECONVENE AND AND DECIDE WHETHER WE WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON THOSE ITEMS OR DISCUSS THOSE QUESTIONS FURTHER. GO AHEAD. OKAY. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS IF YOU COULD INTRODUCE
YOURSELF, PLEASE THINK YEAH, YEAH. I'M NATHAN ANDERSON. UM, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THOSE. YOU SAID THE STATE WAS 5000
AND YOU SAID THAT DOESN'T THAT'S LIKE ONE EIGHTH OF AN ACRE AND ISN'T EIGHT HOUSES PER ACRE TECHNICALLY LOW RESIDENTIAL IN BLOOMINGTON
EVEN SO SO WHY NOT HAVE JUST THE WHAT DUPLEX IS ALLOWED ON ANY LOT?
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE SIDE? NO. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WOULD ANYONE ELSE IN CHAMBERS LIKE TO TESTIFY?
OKAY. SORRY . AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE EVERYBODY SIGN IN ON THE SHEET . SO MR. ANDERSON, BEFORE YOU
LEAVE THIS EVENING, IF YOU MAKE SURE YOU CAN SIGN IN RIGHT. MY NAME IS MIKE LIST. THANKS FOR GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK BEFORE
YOU. THE ONE CONCERN THAT I HAVE WITH WITH MUCH OF THIS IS THE VERY SIMPLE LINE ITEM THAT YOU
HAVE THAT WILL BE LICENSED BY THE CITY. I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO SPEND A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME DEFINING WHAT THAT MEANS JUST
FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AND PEOPLE YOU KNOW, RENTING OUT ROOMS NEXT DOOR. I MEAN I'VE I'VE ENDED UP
IN FAMILY COURT BECAUSE I SIMPLY ANSWERED MY DOOR AT 130 IN THE EVENING BECAUSE SOMEONE WAS FRANTICALLY KNOCKING ON THE DOOR AND I END UP BY
GETTING RUSHED INTO MY OWN HOME PROTECTING A FAMILY FROM WHAT'S TAKING PLACE IN THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR AND IT'S
IN RENTALS SITUATIONS. I'VE BEEN IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE YOU KNOW, THEY GET IN COMPLETE DISAGREEMENT SO
THEY END UP BY FIGHTING IN THE FRONT YARD AND YOU KNOW, IT GOT TO THE POINT WHERE SIX MONTHS LATER AND THERE WERE SO MANY DISAGREEMENTS GOING ON
ONE OF THEM EFFECTIVELY WASN'T ALLOWED TO BE IN THE HOUSE. SO THE SORT OF A LEAN TO ON THE OUTSIDE AND THE GENTLEMAN
WAS EFFECTIVELY LIVING ON THE OUTSIDE OF THESE QUARTERS AND SO HOW YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO START UNDERSTANDING HOW DO WE
GIVE EFFECTIVE MEDIATION FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO REVOKE LICENSES BECAUSE IT IS CLEARLY CAN BE AN ISSUE AND I JUST
DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE GIVING IT THE PROPER PROPER INSIGHT OR THE PROPER SPECIFICATIONS OF HOW THIS IS GOING TO BE ROLLED OUT.
I CERTAINLY WANT TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF ALL OF THIS. IT IS NOT MY INTENT NOT TO BE SUPPORTIVE BUT AT THE SAME TIME, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO BE
ABLE TO ADDRESS ISSUES THAT ARE GOING TO COME UP ASSOCIATED WITH THIS AND I BELIEVE WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS WITH THE HOME OR THE EDU,
WE'RE SAYING THAT BOTH OF THEM CAN BE RENTALS RIGHT? SO NOW YOU'RE YOU KNOW YOU'RE HAVING SITUATIONS WHERE PEOPLE YOU DON'T YOU DON'T HAVE A
HOMEOWNER THERE THAT'S THAT'S GOING TO BE MANAGING THOSE TYPES OF THINGS AND IT'S GOING TO FALL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO TO MANAGE ALL OF THESE THINGS
. SO IT'S YOU KNOW, VERY CONCERNING TO ME AND IN FACT JUST ANOTHER SOMEWHAT CORNER, LARRY, IN TALKING ABOUT THE
LICENSING PROCESS IN THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ENDED UP IN A SITUATION WHERE IN ANOTHER RESIDENT OR ANOTHER
RESIDENTIAL AREA OR JUST KITTY CORNER FROM MY PROPERTY WE ENDED UP WITH, YOU KNOW, VERBAL ASSAULTS BECAUSE OF A
GROUP HOME THAT WAS GOING ON THAT WAS LICENSED BY THE CITY. SO IN WORKING THROUGH ALL OF THAT THROUGH THE LICENSING PROCESS, TRYING TO FOLLOW THE PROCESSES EFFECTIVELY WHAT
WE'RE ABLE TO DO NOTHING. AND IT'S SO BAD THAT YOU KNOW THE NEIGHBORS I HAVE MY NEIGHBORS GREAT FRIENDS OF MINE HAVE MOVED THEY'VE
LEFT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WITH AND YOU NEED TO THINK ABOUT THIS YOU KNOW GIVEN THE WORK AT HOME AND YOU KNOW THOSE JOBS ALSO WENT WITH THEM.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A LAWYER AND A SOFTWARE DEVELOPER. THOSE JOBS LEFT THE COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, SO WE NEED TO, YOU KNOW, BE THINKING ABOUT THOSE
PARTS OF THESE ORDINANCES AND HOW DO WE REMEDIATE THOSE SO I MEAN THAT AND THE OTHER THING THAT'S VERY CONCERNING TO ME
IS IN IN PARTICULAR WITH THE GROUP HOME JUST BECAUSE I'VE BEEN WORKING ON THAT FOR TWO YEARS NOW I'VE MET WITH MY STATE REPRESENTATIVE, I SAID
HEY, WHEN WE HAVE A HEARING I'D LIKE TO BE A PART OF THAT SO WE CAN EXPLAIN WHAT'S GOING ON IN THESE HOMES AND IT'S AND THIS IS ALSO TO PROTECT THE
PEOPLE WITHIN THOSE HOMES. THERE WERE 63 911 CALLS IN THE THREE YEAR PERIOD, 37 OF THEM
BY STAFF BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T CONTROL THE SITUATIONS. SO YOU KNOW, IT'S ABOUT PROTECTING ALSO THE PEOPLE IN THESE HOMES IN THIS
PARTICULAR SITUATION ASKING TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE STATE HAD THIS HAD THE CONVERSATIONS FACE TO FACE WITH MY REP
IN DECEMBER THEY HAD A HEARING IN FEBRUARY. I WAS NEVER CALLED THE STATE HAS NOW TAKEN AWAY LICENSING
ABILITY OR LIMITED IT BY THE CITY. IT'S NOW ALL CONTROLLED BY THE STATE SO I MEAN WE'VE WE'VE GOT A LOT OF MOVING PIECES
GOING ON HERE BETWEEN THE STATE AND THE CITY AND WHO'S GOING TO BE CONTROLLING THESE THINGS AND WE REALLY NEED TO BE REALLY UNDERSTAND HOW ARE
WE GOING TO BE CONTROLLING THESE THINGS AND HOW ARE WE GOING TO NOT ONLY PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOODS BUT THE PEOPLE WITHIN THOSE HOMES AND MAKE
SURE THEY'RE NOT BEING TARGETED OR ABUSED IN ANY WAY . SO IT'S TWOFOLD IN REFERENCE TO THIS CONVERSATION.
SO ANYWAY, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. I REALIZE IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A LITTLE BIT OF A TANGENTIAL BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, WHERE
DOES THAT CONVERSATION HAPPEN AND YOU KNOW, I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF PASSING THIS UNTIL WE KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO MANAGE IT. YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE THE
RECOURSES FOR THESE SITUATION ? WHY ARE WE APPROVING THESE TYPES OF CHANGES AND WE DON'T KNOW HOW IT'S GOING TO BE ENFORCED AND THAT'S FOR THE
THE RESIDENTS IN THE HOME AND FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I MEAN I WANT BE SUPPORTIVE BUT RIGHT NOW I WOULD SAY, YOU
KNOW, I WOULD NOT SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU, MR. LIST. THANKS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO ANYONE ELSE IN THE CHAMBERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY IN THE SO SEEING NO ONE
STEPPING FORWARD, MR. JOHNSON, IS ANYBODY ONLINE THIS EVENING WHO WANTS TO TESTIFY? I'LL DEFER TO MR. SHIRT AND THERE'S NO A LOT. THANK YOU MISTER. SURE.
OUR LAST CALL FOR ANYONE IN THE CHAMBERS SEEING NO ONE STEP FORWARD OR LOOK FOR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SO MOVED WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ANY
DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I OPPOSED THAT WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE WILL TURN NOW TO DISCUSSION AND I'D
LIKE TO START MR. JOHNSON JUST FOLLOWING UP ON A FEW ITEMS FROM THE TESTIMONY WE HEARD HERE. I'D LIKE TO START WITH THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT I BELIEVE IS UNITS PER ACRE OR HOUSES PER ACRE?
CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE MORE TO THAT? I CAN'T THANK YOU CHAIR AND THANKS TO THE PERSON PROVIDING TESTIMONY WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE. SO YES, OUR LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY IN BLOOMINGTON DOES ALLOW FOR 12 UP TO 12 UNITS OF THE ACRE. HE'S CORRECT THAT SOME OF THE LOT SIZE IS BEING CONSIDERED
DOWN AT THE CAPITOL AND SOME OF THE LEGISLATION EFFECTIVELY WOULD CREATE AN EIGHTH OF AN ACRE LOT SIZE. BUT THE REASON I WOULD EXPLAIN WHY BLOOMINGTON LANDED ON 12
UNITS TO THE ACRE IS BECAUSE IT HAD TO DO WITH BLOOMINGTON'S NEW MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN OUR R-1 DISTRICT WHICH WAS 70 800FT IF YOU HAD A HOME AND KEEP IN MIND YOU CAN
HAVE A SMALLER FOOTPRINT HOME AND IF YOU HAVE AN ¥80 SATELLITE YOU NOW HAVE TWO UNITS EFFECTIVELY ON A 70 800 SQUARE FOOT LOT. AND SO WHAT THAT TRANSLATED TO
FROM A DENSITY CALCULATION WAS 11.3 UNITS PER ACRE. SO IN ORDER TO ENSURE ALLOWANCES FOR 80 USE THAT'S WHERE THAT'S THE MATH THAT GOT US TO 12 UNITS TO THE ACRE
WITH RESPECT TO WHY NOT ALLOW LOTS AS SMALL AS ONE EIGHTH OF AN ACRE? EVERY CITY HAS DIFFERENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS. IN FACT BLOOMINGTON HAS MULTIPLE DIFFERENT PIPE SIZES
THROUGHOUT DIFFERENT PORTIONS OF BLOOMINGTON'S NEIGHBORHOOD . I THINK BLOOMINGTON AS A ORGANIZATION I'M NOT SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE ORGANIZATION BUT I KNOW THAT THERE ARE MANY OTHER CITIES WHO HAVE BEEN MORE CRITICAL OF SOME OF THESE
HOUSING LEGISLATION THAN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON HAS AND THE REASON BEING IS THAT DIRECTIONALLY IT VERY MUCH IS IN LINE WITH MANY OF THE THINGS THAT THE PLANNING DIVISION, THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL HAVE BEEN TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH THESE LAST FEW YEARS. ONE OF THE CHALLENGES OF SOME OF THE LEGISLATION IS THAT IT DOESN'T TAKE INTO PROPER ACCOUNT SOME OF THE PUBLIC
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S NEEDED TO SERVE THESE PROPERTIES AND IN WITH RESPECT TO IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS THAT BLOOMINGTON HAS THE CITIES CITYWIDE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
MODEL IS ONE DATA POINT THAT INFORMS THE CITYWIDE MODEL IS A 35% MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS LIMITATION ON LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. WE DO HAVE ALLOWANCES FOR
SMALLER LOTS TO GO UP TO 45% ALLOWANCES FOR TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS TO GO UP TO 45% FOR EXAMPLE. BUT IN BLOOMINGTON'S LARGER LOTS YOU'RE STILL CAPPED AT
35% EVEN IF YOU HAVE A SMALLER LOT DOWN TO THE SIZE OF KIND OF WHAT'S BEING CONTEMPLATED, IT'S VERY IT'S QUITE CHALLENGING TO ACCOMMODATE A 45% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ON AN
EIGHTH OF AN ACRE LOT ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE FACT THAT MOST OF BLOOMINGTON IS NOT ALLEY LOADED. IT HAS FRONT FACING GARAGES AND DRIVEWAYS. DRIVEWAYS ADD A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.
SO WITH RESPECT TO DIRECTIONALLY WHERE THE SPEAKER IS GOING AND I DON'T I DON'T AND I'M NOT TRYING TO GET INTO A A BACK AND FORTH DISCUSSION ABOUT IT BUT I THINK THAT ONE OF THE
CHALLENGES JUST HAS TO DO WITH THE NUTS AND BOLTS INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE GROUND OF THE CITY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS. I KNOW THERE'S A PROVISION IN SOME OF THE LEGISLATION THAT ACCOUNTS FOR PUBLIC
INFRASTRUCTURE AND I KNOW THIS ISN'T A HEARING ABOUT THE STATE HOUSING BILL SO FORGIVE ME BUT THAT THAT'S IN EFFECT WHY WE LANDED WHERE WE'VE LANDED ON SOME OF THESE THINGS IS BECAUSE THERE ARE
LIMITATIONS ON BLOOMINGTON STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS. THANK YOU. MR. JOHNSON ANOTHER PIECE OF TESTIMONY WE'VE HEARD THIS EVENING WAS ABOUT LICENSING AND COULD YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THE LICENSING
REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER STIPULATIONS WE HAVE? I DO THANK YOU CHAIR FOR THIS ONE AND YOU KNOW, EMPATHY TO THE SPEAKER ABOUT WHAT THEY EXPERIENCE. CERTAINLY I WOULD JUST SAY THAT BLOOMINGTON'S RENTAL
HOUSING PROGRAM IS RUN BY THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION. THEY INSPECT EVERY SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY HOME. THEY GO INSIDE THE UNIT EVERY YEAR THAT HAS A RENTAL LICENSE.
IT'S ON AN ANNUAL BASIS SO THEY ARE VERY RESPONSIVE TO THAT IN ADDITION TO DOING OTHER CODE ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER PROVISIONS THAT THEY HAVE.
SO JUST TO BE ON THE RECORD AND CLEAR ABOUT THIS 80 USE ARE SUBJECT TO THAT SAME FREQUENCY AND INSPECTION REQUIREMENT AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WOULD BE THE OTHER THING
I WAS GOING TO SAY TO ADD TO IS THAT IF YOU CREATED AN INTERNALLY TO YOU SAY IN A BASEMENT SUITE BY PHYSICALLY SEPARATING THE UPSTAIRS FROM THE BASEMENT, ONE COULD ARGUE
THAT THAT ACTUALLY IS A SAFER ARRANGEMENT THAN A ROOMMATE RENTAL SITUATION IN WHICH WE DO HAVE SOME OF EMPLOYMENT AND IT'S NOT A COMMON RENTAL ARRANGEMENT BUT THE ALLOWANCE
TO HAVE TWO SEPARATED UNITS WITHIN A SINGLE SITE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SITE IN SOME WAYS COULD PROVIDE ACTUALLY A SAFER ENVIRONMENT
POTENTIALLY I WOULD ARGUE. BUT WITH RESPECT TO PUBLIC SAFETY I MEAN HUMANS ARE HUMANS. EVERYTHING IS YOU KNOW, SO SITUATIONAL INTO THAT SPECIFIC SITUATION. THE OTHER THING I WANT TO PROVIDE COMMENT ON IS THE
GROUP HOME COMPONENT. SO GROUP HOMES ARE A PROTECTED USE UNDER STATE STATUTE. THAT'S WHY HE WAS REFERRING TO THE THE THE LEGISLATURE AND SOME OF THOSE THINGS STATE LAW
REQUIRES CITIES TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES THAT SERVE SIX PEOPLE OR FEWER. THE ONE THING I WOULD SAY TO THAT IS THAT 80 USE DOES NOT CHANGE THAT ALLOWANCE IN ANY WAY. YOU'RE ALLOWED SIX OR FEWER
REGARDLESS IF THERE'S AN 80 YOU ARE NOT THE RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY IS THE SINGLE SITE. SO IF YOU HAD A HOME THAT YOU
HAD A GROUP HOME IN, IF YOU BUILT AN ADU IT'S NOT AS IF IT GOES TO 12. THAT'S NOT HOW THAT WORKS JUST FROM A REGULATORY AND ZONING PERSPECTIVE. THANK YOU MR. JOHNSON AND FOR THOSE WATCHING AT HOME IF THE
ARE CONCERNED OR HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT WHETHER THAT BE A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY OR OTHERWISE, WHAT IS THEIR POINT OF CONTACT? CHAIR YOU'RE GOING TO GET ME IN TROUBLE WITH OUR
LEGISLATORS BUT IT'S A STATE STATUTE ISSUE. THEY WOULD NEED TO CONNECT WITH THEIR LEGISLATORS. THE ONE THING I WOULD SAY IS THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CITY'S ROLE IN TERMS OF HAVING A RENTAL LICENSE.
THE SPEAKER WAS CORRECT THAT THERE WAS A BILL PASSED THAT REMOVED CITIES RIGHTS TO HAVE A RENTAL LICENSE FOR GROUP HOMES. THERE IS NOW LEGISLATION BEING
CONSIDERED FROM SOME OF THE RESULTS OF TAKING THAT ABILITY AWAY FOR CITIES TO INSPECT AND HAVE MORE OF A TOUCH POINT THERE FOR SAFETY. THEY'RE CONSIDERING PUTTING THAT BACK IN PLACE AND I KNOW
THAT OUR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND LEGAL DIVISIONS ARE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THAT LEGISLATION AND THINK THAT IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO TO INSPECT THESE HAVE THE RIGHT TO INSPECT THESE UNITS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO
RESULT BUT I'M JUST GIVING YOU AN UPDATE AS TO THE LATEST ABOUT IT. THANK YOU, MR. JOHNSON AND I'M SURE YOU TELL ME IF ANYONE HAS ANY SAFETY CONCERNS. THEIR FIRST POINT IN CONTACT WITH PEOPLE WHO AREN'T IN POLICE CHAIR THAT'S CORRECT
. CERTAINLY CAN CONTACT PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICIALS AT BLOOMINGTON ALWAYS AND THEY'RE VERY RESPONSIVE. THANK YOU. DISCUSSION ON THIS APPLICATION . COMMISSIONER ISA THANK YOU.
CHAIR CHECKED IN. I WAS WONDERING WHAT IS THE FEEDBACK THAT OR WHY IS IT THE ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION SUPPORTIVE OF THE CITY
REINFORCED WELL THE STATE TECHNICALLY REINFORCING TO GET RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES OR TO REFER REGISTERED RESIDENTIAL FOR FACILITIES TO HAVE LICENSING BECAUSE I'VE SEEN
THE PROCESS PERSONALLY YOU KNOW AND IS IT THROUGH THE MDH OR DHS IT'S LIKE A VERY VERY IT'S ACTUALLY MORE REQUIREMENTS IN THE CITY HAS YOU KNOW SO LIKE WHAT I'VE
SEEN IS PEOPLE ARE PAYING THAT LIKE 100 SOMETHING ANNUAL FEE AND HAVING THE CITY COME IN BUT AT THE SAME TIME MDH OR MOST OF THE TIME MDH WITH
ASSISTED LIVING IS COMING IN AND DOING THEM EVEN WAY IN DEPTH REVIEW I PERSON WENT TO THEM BOTH AND CONSULTED WITH PEOPLE THAT HAVE GONE
THROUGH BOTH YOU KNOW SO WHAT ARE YOU WHY IS CITY SUPPORTIVE OF THAT OR ARE PUSHING FOR THAT NOT CITY SORRY THE ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION. MR. JOHNSON YEAH. CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER YOU SAY
AND YOU KNOW I HESITATE TO WANT TO SPEAK TOO STRONGLY FOR PEOPLE THAT AREN'T HERE BUT I THINK WHAT THEY WOULD ADVOCATE FOR AND MOST CERTAINLY THERE ARE RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES THAT ARE WELL CARED FOR AND WELL TAKEN CARE OF AND
THOSE INITIAL INSPECTIONS FROM MDH AND OTHER STATE AGENCIES ARE EFFECTIVE. I THINK WHAT THE BLOOMINGTON STAFF WHO I'VE HEARD SPEAK ABOUT IT IS NOT ONLY CHECKING
IN ON HAVING ADDITIONAL CHECKS AND ON LIFE SAFETY ISSUES BUT THE ROUTINE ASPECT OF IT YOU NEED TO GET THE INSPECTION EVERY SINGLE YEAR UNDER THE BLOOMINGTON RENTAL PROGRAM.
SO I DON'T KNOW HOW FREQUENTLY MDH INSPECTS THESE PROPERTIES AFTER THEIR INITIAL AFTER THE INITIAL INSPECTION I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S AN ANNUAL INSPECTION BUT THAT'S JUST
WHAT I KNOW ABOUT IT AS I THINK THAT THEY WOULD ADVOCATE THAT THERE IS BENEFIT FOR THE CITY TO HAVE A SECOND SET OF EYES ON LIFE SAFETY COMPONENTS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS . OKAY.
I BELIEVE IT'S BI ANNUAL LIKE THEY GET SURVEYED FACILITIES ARE SURVEYED EVERY YEAR BUT WHEN YOU FIRST GET THE LICENSE YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. BUT IS IT LIKE SPECIFIC FEEDBACK LIKE WHAT SPECIFICALLY I GUESS FROM THE
CITY IS LIKE OTHER THAN JUST FEELING MORE LIKE HEY I FEEL LIKE OR THIS ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION FEELS OKAY JUST SAFETY. I FEEL LIKE IT'S BETTER WE HAVE OUR EYES. I FEEL LIKE THAT'S REALLY EXTRA RED TAPE, YOU KNOW
BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY A FEE FOR NO REASON. YOU KNOW, AS A AS A LICENSEE, YOU KNOW, I FEEL LIKE THERE'S JUST EXTRA RESOURCES. SO WHAT IS IT I GUESS WHAT
SPECIFIC THINGS HAVE YOU GUYS HAS IF YOU KNOW THE ANSWER THE ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION ST THAT MAKES THEM FEEL THAT WAY IF YOU KNOW MR. TUSKY ARE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY I SEE
YOU HAVE YOUR HAND RAISED FOR US. WE'RE GOING TO GET YOU AS A PRESENTER HERE AND I YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO UNMUTE YOURSELF NOW GET MY CAMERA ON
HERE. SORRY. GOOD EVENING. THERE WE GO. YEAH. YEAH. CHAIR. COMMISSIONER ISSA, I THINK YOU
KNOW IT PROBABLY MORE PRODUCTIVE TO CALL THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANAGER IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT HER REASONING UNDER THAT SHE'S THE ONE THAT ENFORCES IT. IT'S KIND OF BEING LED BY
BROOKLYN PARK IS WHAT I MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY'RE PUSHING FOR THIS TO BE AUTHORITY TO DO RENTAL LICENSES BACK IN THE STATE LAW. SO WE HAVE TO DO WHAT THE
STATE TELLS US WE ONLY HAVE THE RIGHTS THAT THE STATE GIVES US. SO IF THEY TAKE AWAY THE ABILITY TO DO A RENTAL LICENSE WE CAN'T DO IT ANYMORE. IT HAS TO BE PUT BACK IN STATE LAW. >> SO BUT LYNN MOUA IS OUR
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANAGER AND I'M SURE SHE'D BE HAPPY TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH YOU ABOUT HER REASONS IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT. LIKE NICK SAID, I'M HESITANT TO TALK FOR ANOTHER DIVISION WHEN NICK DOESN'T WORK FOR
THAT DIVISION SO I'M SURE SHE'D BE HAPPY TO TALK TO YOU FOR SURE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CURRY, MAKE SURE
I ACTUALLY HAVE ONE QUESTION. THE DO ARE WE ALLOWING 80 USE IN THE YARD OF DUPLEXES AS WELL OR IS IT JUST SINGLE FAMILY?
MR. JOHNSON CHAIR COMMISSIONER CURRY AND IN 80 YOU IS NOT PERMITTED AT A TWO FAMILY DWELLING SITE OR A TOWNHOME SITE OR ANYTHING OTHER THAN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME SITE EFFECTIVELY.
OKAY. AND THEN I KNOW IN THE PAST IT HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS ABOUT IT. AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S JUST DIFFERENT RENTAL
SCENARIOS PEOPLE RENTING BEDROOMS, THAT SORT OF THING AND HOW THAT AFFECTED I FORGET WHAT WAS CALLED BUT ANYWAYS
ARE AIDS WORSE THEN ALLOWED IN THE IN THE YARD OF OF SINGLE FAMILY SCENARIO LIKE WELL THEY WOULDN'T CURRENTLY
BECAUSE WE CAN'T WELL ACTUALLY THEY COULD STILL BE IF SOMEBODY LIVED IN THE ADU AND IT WAS RENTING TO ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE SINGLE FAMILY
HOME BUT WOULD WE ALLOW PEOPLE TO RENT OUT INDIVIDUAL BEDROOMS WHO ARE NOT FAMILY MEMBERS AND HAVE AN ADU IN THE
BACKYARD? MR. TODAY CHAIR COMMISSIONER CURRY TODAY UNLESS ONE OF THOSE TWO OCCUPANCIES WAS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY YOU
COULD ONLY GET ONE RENTAL LICENSE PER SITE CURRENTLY. SO SETTING ASIDE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND I KNOW THAT'S BEEN A DISCUSSION WITH THE CO-LIVING SRO ORDINANCE AND
SOME OF THOSE THINGS BUT SETTING THAT ASPECT ASIDE YOU'RE ONLY ALLOWED TO HAVE ONE RENTAL LICENSE PER SITE RIGHT NOW IF YOU HAVE ANY TWO YOU SO THE OWNER IS EITHER LIVING IN THE CITY OR THEY'RE LIVING IN THE HOME ONE OR THE
OTHER, NOT BOTH. SO THEN THIS ORDINANCE WOULD PROPOSE TO ALLOW RENTERS IN A
RENTER IN THE 82 PLUS THE I GUESS THE INDIVIDUAL KIND OF BEDROOM CO-LIVING IF YOU WILL SITUATION WHERE NON-FAMILY MEMBERS WHICH YOU
KNOW OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE FOLKS YOU KNOW FRIENDS THAT ARE LIVING TOGETHER AND RENTING A PLACE TOGETHER BUT THOSE FOLKS RENTING SEPARATE BEDROOMS
WITHIN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AS WELL. SO YOU HAVE BACK YOU KNOW, SOMEONE RENTING IN THE 80 YOU AND FOLKS RENTING IN THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME AS WELL. IS THAT CORRECT?
YEAH. CHAIR COMMISSIONER CURRY THAT IS CORRECT. THE ONLY ADDITIONAL KIND OF WHAT'S NOT FOR YOU ON THE PAPER OF THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE IS THERE'S ALSO A
BEDROOM LIMITATION WITH ADA USE YOU CAN ONLY HAVE A MAXIMUM OF TWO BEDROOMS IN AN 80 YOU SO THAT COUPLED WITH A MAXIMUM SIZE OF 1000FT THE
BUILDING CODE HAS LIMITATIONS AROUND HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN OCCUPY A DWELLING AND I KNOW THAT THEY'RE NOT SIGNIFICANTLY LARGE BUT BETWEEN THE BEDROOMS AND THE MAXIMUM SIZE COMPONENT
AND THE OTHER THINGS YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE IN A DWELLING WITH RESPECT TO SANITARY AND COOKING FACILITIES, I DON'T THINK THAT I THINK IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO MAXIMIZE THE
OCCUPANCY OF AN ADU BEYOND JUST A FEW PEOPLE, RIGHT? YEAH. OKAY. SO THEN EFFECTIVELY THE TWO BEDROOMS AND THE ADU AND WHAT
DO WE HAVE A OH I KNOW WE DON'T REALLY HAVE LIKE A LIMIT FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON A RENTAL BASIS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. OBVIOUSLY WE DO NOT. IT WOULD JUST BE THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY AS IT
EITHER STANDS TODAY OR IF THE CITY COUNCIL MAKES ANY AMENDMENTS TO THAT SUBSEQUENT WITH THAT CO-LIVING SRO PROJECT. GOT IT. OKAY.
THANK YOU. OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM I THINK I'LL ADD JUST ONE BIT
OF $0.02 HERE AND THAT I HAVE TO ADMIT I'M NOT A HUGE FAN OF THE RECESSED GARAGE REQUIREMENT FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSES. I, I RECOGNIZE THAT ALLOWING
THE GARAGE TO BE IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE CREATES MORE FLEXIBILITY WHICH IN TURN ALLOWS MORE FLEXIBILITY TO ACTUALLY GET THIS MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING BUILT.
THAT SAID, I'M NOT A FAN OF NEIGHBORHOODS THAT JUST LOOK LIKE GARAGES. I, I JUST DON'T FIND THAT TO BE A PLEASING NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE IN AND I WOULD PREFER THAT
WE STAY WITH THE GARAGES HAVING TO BE RECESSED FROM THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE OF THE HOME OR WHATEVER WE CALL IT. THAT'S MY PREFERENCE. I'M NOT GOING TO DIE ON THAT HILL. BUT IF IF I WAS CRAFTING THIS
MYSELF I WOULD NOT HAVE THE GARAGES ALLOWED TO BE IN FRONT OF THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING. OTHER THAN THAT I'M SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED THIS EVENING. COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM THANK
YOU CHAIR. QUESTION FOR STAFF THIS GARAGE DOOR ITEM THE CHAIR COOKED IN WAS TALKING ABOUT IT'S THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN IS THAT CAN BE IN PLAIN WITH THE FRONT
OF THE HOUSE BUT NOT IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE CORRECT LIKE NOT IN FRONT OF THE PLAIN OF THE FRONT DOOR PORCH OF THE HOUSE HOME RIGHT. CHAIR MR. CUNNINGHAM SO THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. TO CLARIFY THE THE CURRENT
STANDARD IS THAT THE GARAGE HAS TO BE FOUR FEET BEHIND THE FRONT PLAIN OF THE HOUSE OR A PORCH. THAT'S THE CURRENT STANDARD. WHAT THE ORDINANCE WOULD DO
WOULD BE TO SHIFT THAT A BIT SO THAT THE GARAGE CAN BE NO FURTHER EXCUSE ME THE FRONT WALL OF THE DWELLING CAN BE NO FURTHER BACK THAN THE GARAGE
THAN FOUR FEET. SO IT'S A SUBTLE CHANGE IN EFFECT WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT IT'S AN EIGHT FOOT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHERE THE FRONT PLANE OF YOUR HOUSE WAS IN THIS VISUAL. I HAVE THE CODE LANGUAGE HERE .
I CAN GO BACK TO THAT IF NEED BE. BUT IN THIS VISUAL IMAGE EXAMPLE YOU CAN SEE THE LIVING SPACE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE GARAGE IN THIS PARTICULAR
EXAMPLE THAT'S ABOUT A TWO FOOT RECESSION OF WHERE THE LIVING SPACES YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A SIDEWALK THAT GOES AROUND BUT THIS ARRANGEMENT IS NOT ALLOWED UNDER TODAY'S
CURRENT BLOOMINGTON CODE. I WOULD ALSO NOTE AND NOT THAT THIS IS ESSENTIAL TO WHAT HAPPENS MOVING FORWARD BUT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF BLOOMINGTON TOWNHOMES TODAY THAT WERE BUILT IN THE 1970S
AND 80S THAT DON'T MEET THIS STANDARD IN EFFECT THEY'RE LEGALLY NON CONFORMING FOR THAT STANDARD. SO AGAIN IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR CITIES TO WANT TO TRY AND REGULATE SNOUT HOUSES AS
THEY'RE CALLED OR LIMIT THE VISUAL IMPACT OF GARAGES ON THESE PROPERTIES. IT JUST HAPPENS TO BE A DESIGN THAT WE SEE FREQUENTLY IN OTHER COMMUNITIES WHERE MORE TOWNHOMES ARE BEING
BUILT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CURRY THANKS. SURE. OKAY. SO MY OVERALL THOUGHTS ARE GENERALLY I AM NOT SUPPORTIVE
OF THE ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY I THINK THE FRONT TO YOU IS BESIDES KIND OF BEING CONTRADICTORY TO OTHER
ORDINANCES THE CITY HAS I JUST THINK PUTTING THE POTENTIAL FOR NAY TO YOU IN THE FRONT YARD IS AN EYESORE AND I THINK WOULD REDUCE PROPERTY VALUES AROUND YOU KNOW, THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY. I THINK THE RENTAL ALLOWANCE IS AN ISSUE. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS GOING TO WANT TO LIVE NEXT TO A
PROPERTY THAT HAS THAT DOESN'T HAVE AN OWNER LIVING ON THE PROPERTY SPECIFICALLY WITH SOMEBODY LIVING POTENTIALLY IN AN 80 YOU IN THE BACKYARD AND WITH POTENTIALLY A SMALLER
SETBACK. BUT AND I THINK YOU KNOW IN GENERAL I WOULD I'M MORE SUPPORTIVE OF THE CO-LIVING SITUATION THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT AND I THINK IF
YOU IF YOU ALLOW THAT THEN YOU'RE STACKING ONE THING ON TOP OF ANOTHER WHICH I DON'T THINK I DON'T THINK WE'VE REALLY CONSIDERED THAT SO I'D
RATHER SEE CO-LIVING BE SUPPORTED RATHER THAN ALLOWING FULLY A FULLY RENTED OUT PROPERTY WITH AN 82 AND A CO-LIVING SITUATION
POTENTIALLY GOING ON. SO I WILL NOW BE VOTING FOR IT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CURRY. MR.. ALBRECHT THANK YOU, CHAIR.
AND I REALLY STRUGGLE THROUGH THIS A BIT THOUGH I APPRECIATE THE TESTIMONY FROM THE MEMBER
OF THE PUBLIC REGARDING RENTAL ISSUES. THOSE SAME ISSUES CAN BE SAID FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOME OWNERS AND I THINK WE NEED TO BE VERY
CAREFUL ABOUT DECIDING THAT LIVING NEXT TO RENTAL HOUSING DECREASES PROPERTY VALUES OR
SOME LEVEL OF SAFETY FOR THE REST OF OUR COMMUNITY. I LOOKED IT UP WE HAVE OVER 10,000 UNITS OF MULTIFAMILY AND THAT'S PROBABLY OLD IN OUR
COMMUNITY 25,000 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. SO A LARGE PORTION OF OUR HOUSING IS ACTUALLY MULTIFAMILY IN OUR RENTERS AND
I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY QUALIFY RENTERS BEING UNSAFE OR UNCARING FOR THE PROPERTY.
I AM IN SUPPORT OF PUTTING A TO USE IN THE FRONT. I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS ORDINANCE. I THINK THIS IS SORT OF JUST A FIRST STEP. I THINK THIS IS A GREAT FIRST
STEP AND A BABY STEP IN MY OPINION. I THINK WE COULD DO A LOT MORE TO INCENTIVIZE THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT IN BLOOMINGTON BECAUSE THERE IS A NEED FOR
MORE HOUSING AND WE NEED TO GET MORE CREATIVE WITH WHAT THE HOUSING LOOKS LIKE. I ACTUALLY DO AGREE WITH MR. COOKED IN ABOUT THE RECESSED
GARAGE REQUIREMENT. I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF CHANGING THAT PORTION OF I THINK THAT
THERE'S SOME LEVEL OF ESTHETIC IF WE ARE GOING TO INCREASE THE OVERALL DENSITY OF OUR SINGLE FAMILY HOME NEIGHBORHOODS WE NEED TO BE VERY COGNIZANT ABOUT WHAT THE
DESIGN ACTUALLY IS AND BE VERY IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO HAVE THE DESIGN OF ANY SORT OF ADDITIONAL DENSITY NOT FEEL
TOO OVERWHELMING OR TOO GARAGE CENTRIC. THE ONLY WAY I CAN THINK OF IT SO I AM IN SUPPORT BUT I AM
ALSO HESITANT ABOUT THE RECESSED GARAGE REQUIREMENT. I THINK THAT AS LONG AS THERE IS SOME LEVEL OF VISUAL
INTEREST I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THAT IT NEEDS TO BE RECESSED. BUT IF THERE'S SOME WAY THAT WE COULD ACQUIRE REQUIRE ADDITIONAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
RATHER THAN WHERE HOW THE GARAGES SITUATED ON THE LOT I THINK THAT WOULD BE INTERESTING THOUGH THAT WOULD GO AGAINST ANY OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION OR THAT
LEGISLATION THAT'S AT THE CAPITOL THOUGH IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S GOING THROUGH. THE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED
TO MENTION WAS BLOOMINGTON IS REALLY UNIQUE IN THAT OUR LOT SIZES GENERALLY THEY WE HAVE A LOT OF LONG LOT SIZES SO THERE
IS ACTUALLY A LOT OF SPACE FOR US TO ADD ADDITIONAL UNITS AND I BELIEVE THAT THE FRONT YARD IS A GREAT PLACE FOR US TO DO
THAT PARTICULARLY IF IT IS AN ADU AND IT MIGHT BE YOUR RENTER MIGHT BE HERE MOTHER IN LAW OR YOUR MOM OR YOUR BROTHER IN LAW OR WHOEVER IT IS.
SO I THINK ALLOWING FOR FAMILIES OF DIFFERENT TYPES AND SIZES AND SITUATIONS TO BE IN BLOOMINGTON AND IN BLOOMINGTON LONG TERM IS A
GOOD IDEA. GENERATIONAL HOUSING WHICH I KNOW IS PART OF THE PLAN IS A GOAL SO THAT TO STOP THERE AND I'M IN SUPPORT BUT I DO THINK
WE NEED TO REALLY DISCUSS THIS RESOURCE GARAGE REQUIREMENT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ALBRECHT COMMISSIONER LISA YEAH THANK YOU CHAIR COOKED AND I WANT TO KIND OF ADD ON
TO YOUR POINT GO SHARE THAT. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD ADD MUCH RESPECT TO THE TESTIMONY THE PERSON WHO TESTIFIED AND I
DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND WHERE HE'S COMING FROM BUT JUST GENERALLY I GUESS I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD MAKE PAINT A BROAD BRUSH ON RENTERS. YOU KNOW THERE'S A LOT
OF RENTERS WHO BECAUSE THEY ARE RENTING OR BECAUSE HE OR THEY WENT THROUGH A DUE DILIGENCE PROCESS YOU KNOW APPLICATION HISTORY THERE THEY'RE REALLY TAKE GOOD CARE OF THE PROPERTY AND THERE ARE
PEOPLE WHO RENT BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO RENT RIGHT. THAT THEY CAN'T BUY A HOME BECAUSE MAYBE THEY CAN'T INDULGE IN INTEREST AND SO THEY HAVE TO RENT AT LEAST
UNTIL THERE'S A PRODUCT THAT IS INTEREST FREE. YOU KNOW THERE'S A LARGE PORTION OF THE COMMUNITY THAT KIND OF IS IN THAT IN THOSE SHOES.
AND SO AND THEN AS WELL AS THE WHOLE AS I HEAR THIS QUITE OFTEN AND YOU KNOW IT'S A CASE BY CASE THING WHERE THERE'S GROUP HOMES OR ASSISTED LIVING
OR CONGREGATE LIVING OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO NAME IT THAT PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT INCREASE OF POLICE OR
AMBULANCES OR ACTIVITY, YOU KNOW AND WE I OFTEN TELL MYSELF LIKE IF THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE LIVING THERE THEIR ONLY OTHER OPTION OTHER
THAN BEING IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LIKE THAT WHICH TECHNICALLY IS LIKE BEING IN THE COMMUNITY IS IS A LARGE FACILITY YOU KNOW AND THE HOT THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY OTHER
OPTION AND THAT'S NOT VERY FAR FROM BEING IN AN INSTITUTIONAL LIKE STATE SETTING FACILITY OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. AND SO IF EVERY PERSON IF
EVERY CITY WERE TO LIKE OUTLAW THAT OR TO TO MAKE IT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO HAVE RESIDENTS IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THESE PEOPLE WOULD BE FORCED TO LIVE IN THAT AND
THOSE ARE LIKE MY GRANDMOTHER OR A GRANDFATHER, YOU KNOW AND SO THAT'S THAT'S AND WITH THAT TOPIC BUT I DEFINITELY ALSO THINK THAT AS FAR AS ED SPEAK
I DEFINITELY SUPPORT THE ADUS AND THERE ARE SCENARIOS WHERE THERE'S A LARGE FAMILY OR YOU KNOW YOUR KID IS LIKE 18 BUT CAN'T AFFORD A HOME YET AND SO YOU WANT TO LIKE TEACH THEM
THE FOUNDATIONS LIKE BUILD A FOUNDATION LIKE OR HIM OR HER AND LIKE RENT OUT YOUR ADU AND OR IF YOU HAVE LIKE A LARGE FAMILY LIKE A LOT OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES THEY'RE VERY LARGE.
MY FAMILY WAS PRETTY LARGE AND THAT WOULD BE NICE IF WE HAD THAT OPTION, YOU KNOW? AND SO JUST A REMINDER TO EVERYBODY THAT THAT'S ALSO COMMON AND THAT'S WHY I'M
IN SUPPORT OF ADUS AND ALSO IT GIVES PEOPLE THE OPTION OF HAVING EXTRA INCOME BECAUSE INFLATION IS ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE, YOU KNOW, AND AT LEAST
IN MY OPINION SO AS LONG AS THERE'S A WAY FOR THE CITY TO MITIGATE RISKS AND OBVIOUSLY THERE'S GOING TO BE LICENSING PROCESS WHERE THEY GO TO THE SAME REGULATIONS AS NORMAL
SINGLE FAMILY HOME. SO IN SUMMARY I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE ADU SITUATION. OUR ORDINANCE TO MAKE IT LESS
LESS RED TAPE I GUESS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER LISA COMMISSIONER GREAT. THANKS. SURE.
YEAH. SO JUST I MEAN IN GENERAL LIKE I LIVED IN A DUPLEX FOR 13 YEARS, FOUND IT FOR 17 YEARS. WE HAVE GREAT RENTERS. I LOVE OUR RENTERS.
I WOULDN'T WANT TO BUILD AN 82 IN THE BACKYARD AND RENT THAT OUT AS WELL. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A PAIN TO MANAGE SO SO ANYWAY, SO THAT'S JUST WHERE I'M COMING
FROM. THANK YOU FOR FOR A MOTION IS MADE THIS EVENING WE DID HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMISSIONERS BRING UP THE PREVAILING
SETBACK ON THE GARAGES AND WANTED TO HEAR IF THERE'S ANY MORE TESTS OR ANY MORE THOUGHTS ON THAT FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS. COMMISSIONER ROBERT I WOULD
HAVE ONE MORE THING. THANK YOU CHAIRS I THINK AS A FIRST STEP THIS IS OKAY BUT I WOULD ENCOURAGE STAFF TO LOOK
INTO THIS A LITTLE MORE FOR PHASE TWO OF THE ORDINANCE I THINK WE'RE NOT SEEING A LOT
OF TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON. WE'RE NOT SEEING A LOT OF ACTIVE DEVELOPMENT IN BLOOMINGTON EITHER. BUT I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE
THE THING THAT GETS IN THE WAY EITHER. SO I GUESS I'D BE FINE MOVING FORWARD WITH IT AS IS AS LONG AS WE REALLY LOOK INTO IF
THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE CAN DO TO MAKE IT MORE APPEALING FROM THE STREET ANY
OTHER THOUGHTS OR I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AND MR. JONES, IF WE COULD GET THAT MOTION BACK UP ON THE SCREEN
PLEASE . >> COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN I ENTERTAIN THE MOTION. GO AHEAD PLEASE. I MOVE TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT PHASE ONE
MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING ORDINANCE THEREBY AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE CITY CODE. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO RECOMMEND THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPTS THIS MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING ORDINANCE. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I OPPOSED OPPOSED THAT MOTION
PASSES SIX ONE WITH COMMISSIONER CURRY OPPOSING THIS ITEM WILL MOVE FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THERE MAY 5TH 2025 AGENDA. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE WILL MOVE THEN TO ITEM NUMBER TWO WHICH IS THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINI MEETING SYNOPSIS FROM MARCH 27TH IS
THERE ANY DISCUSSION OR A MOTION? COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM I MOVE
TO ADOPT THE MARCH 27TH, 2025 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. SYNOPSIS IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND TO ADOPT THE MEETING MINUTES FROM MARCH 27TH 2025.
I DO JUST WANT A QUICK CHECK ON ANY ABSTENTIONS FROM THAT MEETING. I DO BELIEVE EVERYONE WAS IN PERSON SO FOR A VOTE
OF AFFIRMING THOSE MEETING MINUTES I WILL ASK FOR AN I FOR A PROOF I ANY OPPOSED THAT MOTION PASSES 7 TO 0 WE WILL
MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER THREE WHICH IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY AND ISSUE UPDATE MR. JOHNSON I WILL TURN IT TO YOU. YEAH. THANK YOU. ACTING CHAIR KOKTAN SO
CURRENTLY AT THREE. WELL I'LL SPEAK TO THE NEXT FOUR UPCOMING MEETINGS BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE SOME SCHEDULING DECISIONS TO THINK ABOUT HERE AT THE END OF MAY AND EARLY JUNE JUST WITH SOME OF THE THOSE POTENTIAL ITEMS
BUT THE UPCOMING MEETING ON APRIL THE 24TH WE DON'T HAVE ANY ITEMS CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR THAT MEETING THAT MEETING IS LIKELY TO BE CANCELED. WE'LL FOLLOW UP WITH YOU WHEN THAT IS AFFIRMED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
THE MAY 8TH MEETING CURRENTLY IS SCHEDULED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE BULK OF THE SMALL BUSINESS CODES AND PROCESSES ORDINANCE. I DO WANT TO MAKE A SMALL UPDATE ABOUT THAT. IF YOU RECALL THERE WAS A
PRETTY LONG BUCKET LIST OF ITEMS CONTAINED WITHIN THAT PROJECT AND ONE OF THOSE ITEMS SPECIFICALLY THE CITY'S TRASH AND REFUSE ORDINANCE IS NOT READY FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING
QUITE YET. WE WANT TO COME BACK AND PROVIDE SOME POTENTIAL CONCEPT CODE LANGUAGE AND KIND OF PROBE THAT ONE A LITTLE BIT. THERE'S SOME MORE NUANCE AND COMPLEXITY OF THAT ONE THAN
THAN THE STUDY SESSION INITIALLY PROVIDED US AND THAT WAS THE WAY THAT WE DESIGNED IT. SO THAT'S ON US. BUT SUFFICE TO SAY IS THAT WE NEED TO DO A LITTLE BIT MORE STUDY OF THAT COMPONENT OF IT
AND BRING SOME IDEAS BACK TO YOU BUT THE REST OF IT CAN BE BROUGHT FORWARD IN A SUBSEQUENT ORDINANCE ON MAY 22ND AND JUNE 5TH. CURRENTLY WE HAVE THREE ITEMS
POTENTIALLY PLANNED FOR THOSE TWO MEETING DATES. ONE IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SOUTH LOOP DISTRICT PLAN UPDATE. THE NEXT IS A STUDY ITEM ON THE REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING CITY'S WATER PORT PARKING
POLICIES. AND THEN THE THIRD THING IS ANNUAL HOUSING REPORT OUR PRESENTATION WE TYPICALLY HAVE ASKED HOA STAFF TO COME BEFORE YOU ON AN ANNUAL BASIS AND
PROVIDE AN UPDATE AS TO THE CITY'S HOUSING SITUATION. SO THOSE ARE THE UPCOMING MEETINGS. AS I SAID JUST ON THAT LAST BULK OF ITEMS WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT SCHEDULING ON SOME
OF THOSE IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION WE ANTICIPATE IN TESTIMONY POTENTIALLY AND SOME OF THEM. SO THAT'S IT. THAT'S MY REPORT ON THE UPCOMING MEETINGS.
SORRY, CHAIR BEFORE YOU AS A HANDOUT ABOUT AN ADVISORY BOARD SURVEY, THE CITY'S COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT STAFF ASKED ME TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE THEIR SURVEY. THEY WOULD LIKE TO LEARN MORE
ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE SERVING AS BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND ALWAYS WANTING TO SEEK YOUR FEEDBACK OF HOW WE CAN MAKE IT THE BEST EXPERIENCE IT POSSIBLY CAN BE.
SO IF YOU COULD TAKE THAT SURVEY YOU WOULD MAKE EMILY LARSON IN OUR COED DIVISION VERY, VERY HAPPY AND WITH THAT I HOPE THAT IS MY UPDATE.
THANK YOU MR. JOHNSON WHERE ARE WE AT WITH THE OPEN PLANNING COMMISSION SEAT APPLICATIONS? YEAH. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP. SO THE APPLICATION WINDOW IS CURRENTLY OPEN.
IT RUNS THROUGH MAY THE 7TH SO IF YOU ARE CONTEMPLATING REAPPLYING IF YOU HAVE ELIGIBILITY YOU HAVE NOW UNTIL MAY 7TH AND I ENCOURAGE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY TO ALSO CONSIDER APPLYING.
THERE'S TECHNICALLY THREE POSITIONS THAT WILL BE OPEN THROUGH THE NEXT APPLICATION CYCLE VERY WELL. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP THIS EVENING?
SEEING NONE WE WILL MOVE THEN TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR WHICH IS A SPECIAL ITEM THIS EVENING WHICH IS THE APPOINTMENT OF A NEW PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY. MR. JOHNSON YES. THANK YOU CHAIR KIRK DANZA AS
YOU KNOW, ELIOT BROOKS WAS PROMOTED AND NOW WORKS AS THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AS EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT. SO HE'S CERTAINLY NEARBY AND THAT'S APPRECIATED BY MANY PEOPLE THAT WE CAN RELY ON HIS
EXPERTISE AND POSITIVE SERVANT SPIRIT. BUT WE HAD THE GOOD FORTUNE OF COMPLETING A HIRING PROCESS FOR THE NEW PLANNING DIVISION OFFICE SUPPORT SPECIALIST
SHANTE BROWN IS A FORMER BLOOMINGTON AND SO A POSITIVE PARTICIPANT IN THAT PROGRAM IS ALSO A BLOOMINGTON RESIDENT AND HAS WORKED FOR THE
BLOOMINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT AS WELL. SO HAS A VERY A LOT OF STRONG TIES TO BLOOMINGTON. THE THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RULES OF PROCEDURE REQUIRE YOU
TO APPOINT SOMEONE AS YOUR SECRETARY CURRENTLY ELLIOT BROOKS AS YOUR SECRETARY AND AS HE'S NO LONGER GOING TO BE SERVING IN THAT CAPACITY. STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THE APPOINTMENT OF SHANTE BROWN AS
YOUR SECRETARY. THE RULES OF PROCEDURE CALL FOR THE CHAIR TO MAKE A NOMINATION AND THEN A VOICE VOTE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO AFFIRM THAT NOMINATION.
VERY WELL. THANK YOU, MR. JOHNSON AND WE WISH MR. BROOKS WELL IN HIS NEW POSITION AT THE CITY. I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND SHANTE BROWN AS SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND
I'LL ASK FOR A VOICE VOTE NOW ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I I ANY OPPOSED AT A VOTE OF SEVEN TWO NO AS ACTING CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION I APPOINT
SHANTE BROWN AS SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH WITH THAT
THIS CONCLUDES THE APRIL 10TH MEETING OF THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION. >> GOOD NIGHT