The most pressing topic during the meeting was the discussion on corner lot zoning standards. Emily Peck introduced a study revealing that existing zoning rules classify all street-facing yards as front yards, leading to larger lot size requirements and increased setbacks. This has inhibited infill development and housing affordability while creating inequities for corner lot owners. Peck’s analysis of 15 comparable cities found that most do not impose separate minimum lot width or area requirements for corner lots, typically regulating these properties with a side yard setback along the street, commonly between 15 and 25 feet.

The current Bloomington code requires a 30-foot setback for all street-facing yards. Peck proposed reducing the side yard setback adjacent to a street to 20 feet. This proposal aligns with existing landscaping requirements and was presented alongside three options for the Commission’s consideration. Option one suggested a 20-foot setback with lot area and width the same as interior lots, though it could lead to increased requests for zoning variances. Option two, the staff recommendation, also proposed a 20-foot setback but suggested different regulations for lot area and width compared to interior lots. The third option was to maintain the current standards of a 30-foot setback with separate regulations for corner lots.

The Commission engaged in extensive discussion about these options. A member raised concerns about whether building permits might be issued within a right-of-way if the right-of-way extends beyond 20 feet into a property. Planning Manager Destry Johnson clarified that boulevards typically range between 10 and 12 feet, indicating that the proposed 20-foot setback would apply from the property line, not the right-of-way line.

The conversation highlighted a preference for option two, which was seen as a practical approach to accommodating corner lot development while maintaining necessary regulations. The staff’s recommendation gained traction among commissioners, who expressed a desire to adjust regulations to better meet contemporary housing needs while still addressing established aesthetic and developmental standards.

Further discussions centered on the broader implications of planning policies concerning lot sizes and setbacks. The method of assessing public infrastructure costs, particularly in the context of splitting lots and building modern homes, was a key point. The city assesses these costs on a per linear foot basis, with existing mechanisms to address unique lot shapes, such as flag lots. The need for adequate minimum building pads to meet contemporary expectations was emphasized, especially given the shift in house designs toward narrower and longer structures.

Questions arose regarding whether the city should continue to impose minimum lot width requirements when setbacks are being met. Some commissioners expressed skepticism about the necessity of maintaining a minimum lot width if setbacks are observed, advocating for a flexible approach that would allow homeowners to densify their properties. Concerns about the risk of overburdening city infrastructure, such as the sewer system, if lot widths were reduced too drastically, were also voiced. There was a general agreement towards supporting a modest increase in minimum lot width to 90 feet for two-family lots, aligning with the intention to provide equal building opportunities and a consistent approach in the planning code.

The commission also explored the topic of accessory structures, focusing on materials and setbacks for detached garages, sheds, and gazebos. A point of contention arose regarding the interpretation of materials allowed for these structures. While the code mandates that accessory structures complement the principal structure, it does not explicitly prohibit certain materials. Staff discourages flimsy materials like certain plastics and thin metals due to their poor performance against environmental elements. The discussion also covered setbacks for these structures, with a recommendation for a minimum setback of ten feet to ensure adequate driveway length for parking. A consensus formed around the idea that all accessory structures should adhere to a 20-foot setback from the primary dwelling and the adjacent side yard property line.

Finally, the meeting touched upon the Bloomington Comprehensive Plan update. The staff emphasized the importance of community engagement in the planning process, with public hearings and outreach programs planned to gather resident input. A Community Advisory Council, consisting of residents and representatives from local boards, will be established to ensure diverse perspectives are considered. Staff assured that changes, such as construction impacts from major projects, would be part of the analysis for the comprehensive plan.