The new amendment limits multifamily “plexes” on property in the R1, R2 and R3 districts where at least 35 percent of the main dwelling structure was demolished within the previous three years and the construction of the duplex structure would exceed the gross square footage of the original structure by more than 25 percent.
Councilmember Isabel Piedmont-Smith (District 5) sponsored the amendment in an attempt to create some compromise on the hotly-contested issue of plexes in the city’s core neighborhoods.
“I feel like I’m in the U.S. Congress,” she says. “Because ‘compromise’ has been a dirty word. I put forward this amendment in the spirit of compromise. And it’s still being called ‘lipstick on a pig.’”
Although it passed 6-3, residents and councilmembers alike sounded off on the amendment.
The amendment makes developers wait at least three years to begin work on a duplex or triplex after moderate demolition. But those who are against plexes said they felt the three-year waiting period would not be enough to deter big-money, out-of-town developers from just waiting on an empty lot to build what could be a lucrative plex.
“They’ll drive out those people who are building equity in small single-family homes,” says Council President Dave Rollo (District 4). “And it’s going to be transformed to plexes renting at market rate. They’re not going to be affordable. This is counter to owner-occupancy for neighborhoods; it’s counter to affordability.”
Nonetheless, Rollo voted in favor of the amendment.
Piedmont-Smith proposed another amendment, which failed because it was amended during the meeting.
The amendment attempted to deal with public concerns about increased density by reducing the maximum number of bedrooms a plex could have. Originally, the maximum number of bedrooms in a duplex was cut from six to four, and the maximum number of bedrooms in a triplex was knocked down from nine to six.
But some on the council were concerned that would allow for odd bedroom setups that could turn plexes into “party houses,” so the amendment’s language was clarified to allow for a balanced maximum of two bedrooms per unit.
However, this modification to the amendment actually ended up sinking the amendment.
While pro-plex residents generally backed the amendment, there were some who thought its new wording was too limiting and would negatively affect families with children.
“I’m a little disappointed with the idea of limiting it to two bedrooms,” says resident Sarah Kopper. “I’m a parent with two young children. We would have loved to find a duplex in a core neighborhood. We were incredibly fortunate and were able to purchase a home just east of Bryan Park. But I would love to have more neighbors; I would love for my kids to have more children to play with. And I think that allowing three bedrooms [per unit] would make it so more families could utilize this kind of housing, and that can only be a good thing.”
Those who were against plexes agreed, maintaining that the two-bedroom maximum per unit would actually increase the chances students, not families, would move in.
Public comment even changed the mind of Council Vice President Dorothy Granger (District 2).
“I appreciate this amendment,” she says. “But after listening to so many people talk about it, I kinda wish we could go back to the original amendment. I’m not sure that limiting the number of bedrooms really increases diversity. I think I’m gonna have to vote against it as amended.”
The amended amendment failed, 4-5.
During public comment on the bedroom amendment, multiple residents brought up the idea of allowing a certain number of plexes as an experiment to see how the housing market would react.
At-large Councilmember Jim Sims seemed keen to the idea.
“A couple years ago, we were talking about ADUs [accessory dwelling units] and there was talk of by-right, there was talk of conditional approval,” Sims began. “We agreed we would allow 30 of them to be built under conditional use, or conditional approval. And I think last I heard there were seven built or something. That was two years ago.”
“I was thinking, why couldn’t we do that with plexes?” he asked. “As a compromise of all this. Let’s come back in, let’s say, three years. And then we can see: what has the impact been?”
Wednesday was the first of four possible meetings that will make up one long hearing on proposed amendments.
Councilmembers anticipated discussing amendments for just two nights – Wednesday and Thursday – but have left open the possibility of continuing into next week. The way Wednesday’s session went, meetings next week seem likely.
The Bloomington City Council will meet again Thursday night at 6 p.m. to continue discussing amendments to the UDO.
