Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rental Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council revisits 707 East Empire special-use denial; debate centers on enforcement gap and housing/quality concerns
Summary
Council members debated an ordinance to deny a special-use permit for 707 East Empire Street following a unanimous Zoning Board of Appeals recommendation; debate included the property's 2006 hearing, a rental-registration enforcement gap, and whether a third unit is livable.
The Bloomington City Council considered a motion to adopt an ordinance denying a special-use permit for 707 East Empire Street, consistent with a unanimous recommendation from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Council discussion focused on the property’s history, enforcement of the rental-registration program, and whether an additional dwelling unit is habitable and appropriate for the neighborhood.
The issue arose after a councilmember pulled item 7(k) from the consent agenda and sought a standalone vote. Councilmember Danenberger moved to approve an ordinance denying the special-use permit; the motion was seconded. Councilmember Strazza recused himself from that discussion.
Planning staff described the property’s 2006 record: the owner at that time applied for a special use; staff and the ZBA recommended approval but council denied it. Planning Manager Alyssa Pemberton said a city enforcement letter then instructed the property owner to remove a kitchen to reduce the building to two units; that work was not completed. Development Services Director Kelly Pfeiffer told the council the property later registered in the city rental-registration program as a three-unit property and that inspection compliance work had been completed, but staff acknowledged the zoning review step was not executed when the property registered. Pfeiffer said the city could record a denial and file it with the property but that an owner could appeal and reapply.
Council debate split between housing-availability arguments and livability/enforcement concerns. Councilmember Montney and others urged caution, arguing the third unit matches prior examples in the neighborhood that are underoccupied and not truly livable. One councilmember cited 1 White Place — a nearby multiunit house — as a case study with persistent low occupancy rates, saying it “is never more than half rented.” Other councilmembers argued that the city should not reduce supply during a housing crisis and cautioned about evicting neighbors.
Staff clarified enforcement options and the distinction between rental registration and zoning review; they said the registration and inspection occurred but the zoning check was missed. The council discussed the precedent set by earlier denials and the implications for consistent enforcement across property transfers.
A motion to approve the ordinance denying the special use was on the table (mover: Councilmember Danenberger; seconder: Montney). The supplied transcript records discussion, recusal, and preparations to vote, but a final roll-call outcome is not present in the provided excerpt.
