Heat. Heat. [music] [music] Heat. Heat. Good evening and welcome to this December 4th meeting of the Bloomington Planning Commission. The planning commission advises the city council on development proposals, development standards, long-range planning and transportation issues. Some items before the public uh before the planning commission rather are study items where we will not take formal action. Other items before the planning commission are public hearings and we will accept public testimony on those. If you'd like to testify before the planning commission, you can do so here at city hall in the commission chambers. You can also do so at home or remotely by following the instructions on your screen. Some items before the planning commission, the planning commission will have final decision-making authority. While other items before the planning commission, the city council has the final decision-making authority and the planning commission acts in an advisory comma capacity. Seven volunteer residents of the city of Bloomington make up the planning commission. One, two, three, four, five of us are here this evening. So, we have a quorum. We'll start this evening with the pledge of allegiance. All rise. I pledge algiance 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. >> We will begin with item number one. The city of Bloomington is the applicant regarding the Bloomington Ferry Road Corridor study. Amy Marone is here with the staff report. Good evening, planning commission. Um, we are back before you tonight. We, you last saw us this summer. Since then, we've done some additional public engagement and completed and evaluated several corridor options and we are here tonight to give you the results of the planning study as well as our technical advisory committee recommendation. We'll be looking for a recommendation from you to the city council and we do ask that you um open for public comment after the presentation. And so Phil Collins from SRF Consulting is going to lead our presentation. >> Good evening everyone. So we have a decent amount uh to cover today. We've done quite a bit since we were here last time earlier this year. Um so we're going to go over the analysis that's taken place to date. all the concepts that are developed. Um discuss the input we've received um from the public on those and how that's helped shape really what they are and then go through the recommendations and ultimately look for the um action to uh adopt those recommendations from the the technical advisory committee. Just a reminder of what this project is. Um so it's Bloomington Ferry Road on the west side just east 169. Um, currently it's a four-lane divided roadway. Uh, this study is looking at what can be done to utilize that existing right ofway that's out there. Um, better align with the corridor context that's out there. Um, align the design with the users that are using the corridor, recognizing that the purpose of the roadway has changed over time and it's no longer necessarily uh for all the regional traffic that 169 now carries. Um, so really trying to look ahead here and figure out what we can do with that existing rightway that's out there. um the roadway um there's parts of it that are in need of work right now but then also the whole corridor in the next 15 20 years is due for a reconstruction. So trying to figure out what we can do with the corridor. So looking at it holistically seeing what can be done to improve the modes of transportation. So based on all the input that we gathered from the public from uh planning commission from sustainability commission previously um through all the technical analysis and looking at what what are the needs of the corridor three concepts were developed. All three concepts have one lane of travel in each direction. Uh based on the traffic numbers that are out there today based on looking at historical data for the past 20 years we're not really seeing the need for four lanes of traffic, two lanes each direction. Um so that's why all concepts have the one lane of travel each direction recognizing at intersections though it would open up and there would be um left turn lanes at most the intersections. So this is just at the segment level. The actual concepts at intersections um if they're say stop controlled there's turn lanes if it's roundabout. So there might be different intersections but overall holistically it's one landing direction or one lane travel in each direction. And then really the differences are what how are the ped bike facilities um along the corridor. So concept A is a one-way bikeway on each side of the roadway. So that would be intended to be directional. So if you're going northbound, you'd be on the east side of the road. If you're going southbound, you'd be on the west side of the road. There'd be sidewalks on both sides. Concept B is shared use path on both sides of the roadway. So that's where pedestrians and bicycles, they'd be using the same facility. Um there's not really separation of if you're a bike or a pet out there. And then concept C is a two-way bikeway on the one side of the road. Um so that's both directions of travel on the bikes would be um adjacent to each other and then there's a sidewalk on both sides of the road as well. Um so these were developed again based on the technical analysis as well as all the input. So there on the right you can see input that we've received throughout the project. Um really trying to align the design of the project or design of the roadway with the needs. um really not looking at additional rightway with this project, recognizing that this you this project is pretty unique in the sense that there there's there's a lot of rightway out there. So, we're not really seeing the need to be purchasing additional rightway. So, really trying to utilize what's there. Um there is actually a decent amount of um ped bike facilities that are out there today. So, trying to maintain that. Um all the input we've received from the public is really in favor of those facilities. It's really looking at how can we enhance them. How can we enhance the crossings of Bloomington Ferry Road? That's maybe one of the more barriers. Traveling along Bloomington Ferry Road via um pettitives bikes is pretty good, but crossing it could be more of a challenge. So looking at improving the crossings, so public engagement round two. So this was held back in September. So this is the or the uh open house, the round of engagement where we had the concepts developed and we presented them to the public. Um, so we were at Sunrise Park along the corridor for the open house and then we also used Let's Talk Bloomington throughout the project as well to gather input. So, um, people could provide, uh, input to staff as well as complete surveys at the open house as well as online. The open house was well attended. I mean, we estimate we had roughly 120 130 people there. Um, 88 individuals signed in, but then there were some others that that didn't necessarily sign in. So, it was well attended. We received a lot of input on the concept. So that was great to see um people coming out. It was a super nice day. So it it worked out well in that sense. You can see there on the bottom right is a question that we had on the survey is which concept do you feel best addresses the goals? Concept C um shook out as being the most favored by the public and that was with over 50 of the survey. So a decent representation um roughly yeah 47% concept C. So, that is the two-way um bikeway on the one side of the roadway. Here's some themes that we heard from the second round of engagement. Um so, yeah, there's definitely support for improving the ped bike facilities out there. Um there's already a decent amount of green space out there. It's in the center of the roadway. There is an interest in the public or from the public in maintaining the green infrastructure that's out there, maintaining that green space. And then similar to what we heard at the first go round, there's definitely concern of um speeds along the corridor as well as people yielding to pedestrians at crossings and at intersections. Um so seeing what can be done in the near term, recognizing that this project is or at least the full vision isn't going to be constructed here in the very near future, but seeing what can be done in the near term to improve some of these key locations. So developing interim solutions to help address some of the the immediate concerns. And then there was comments about project funding, cost, priority, understanding how does this fit into the overall um budget of the the city. What's what's driving the need for this and how would this be funded in the future? As I mentioned, there was the green space that was um a common interest of people. um thoughts on it was I mean there was definitely more favoritism for more of the natural ve vegetation um not necessarily just planting grass out there um that it would require mowing consistently um but other strategies that can um help you help draw pollinators to the the corridor improving shade that's along the corridor. There's trees out there today people are in favor of wanting to maintain trees out there and having the the shade as you're walking and biking along the corridor. Um so there's definitely an interest from the public as well um on some of this green infrastructure and improving the overall function of the corridor in that sense. And then based on some input we received at the open house and through that second round of engagement as well as just continuing on some of our technical evaluation. Some activities we did after the second round of engagement um was take a closer look at Lindstöm Avenue. Um we had heard sight distance is was a concern of people being able to see oncoming um vehicles as well as making the turn from Lindstöm onto Bloomington Ferry Road. So we took a closer look at that uh intersection site distance just mentioned we did that Lindstöm as well as we did go look at all of the other intersections um or at least most them where we would be looking at potentially having vehicles stop on the side street and then have to find gaps in traffic on Bloomington Ferry Road. Um so we have to make sure that they have adequate sight distance to make those movements. So we went and evaluated that um Vaness Road. Um so the signal at the very north end that's existing. Um initially we were showing that it does not meet signal warrants today doesn't meet them in the future or is anticipated to. Um but there was definitely comments from the public about removing that signal. So we took a closer look at it. We analyze the warrants under many different scenarios trying to look at it through any lens to see um if really a signal could potentially be warranted there. Based on the analysis, we're not seeing that a signal at Vaness at the north end is really needed or warranted. And then we identified short and interim short-term and interimm recommendations. So, building off the full vision that we're um recommending, seeing what could be implemented in the near future here, recognizing um it's going to be challenging to build the whole project at once, but there are some hotspot locations that have more of a need. Um so, seeing what can be done in the the more immediate future here. And then soil borings. This is tied to um stormwater management, collecting soil borings along the corridor to see what is the soil profile out there for various um types of water treatment. matrix here that I'm guessing most people cannot see um but this was included in the packet here. This is evaluating the alternatives against the goals that had previously been identified and presented. Um so you can see that there's various goals here. Water resources, sustainability, mobility and cost. Um various criteria for each of those. Um the first column for the evaluation, the one that has um mainly yellow, that is the existing no build conditions. And then the three to the right are the um alternatives. Don't necessarily need to dive into this. I mean, we can answer any questions if anyone's reviewed this and wants to look more at it. But big picture is the three concepts overall compare relatively close to each other. And that's due to I mean at least from a traffic perspective in terms of vehicles they all have the one lane. They're all um pretty much the same at intersections and the the segment levels. It's more on the ped bike infrastructure that's different. So that's where you see some of the nuances that are there. Um alt A and B on the non-motorized um transportation. So looking at peds bikes those have those two red items there. And that's really um due to two reasons. So for the shared use path with altB um bikes and peds are having to mix in the same area. They're using the same facilities. Um that might not necessarily be desirable particularly with ebikes now. A lot more people are going faster on bikes. It's not necessarily going 10 15 miles per hour. Those things are clipping along faster. So it's not maybe as desirable to have pads and bikes have to share the same area with with just a speed difference. And then alt A also has red there. And that's due to um sort of the required crossing as well as where some of the crossings are. If you're depending which direction of the road you're or direction you're trying to go, it might require you to cross um the road. And if you go back go past where you're trying to go and you want to turn around, well, now you actually got to cross the road to be able to head the opposite direction. So that's why those two have the red. But otherwise, we're showing um improvements on pretty much all aspects here that we have in terms of storm water management, um flooding, reducing the flooding, improving greenhouse gases, um improving really overall infrastructure, and then cost is there at the bottom as well. So, we did a a cost comparison of what it would take to reconstruct the corridor as a whole in terms of a four-lane roadway if we just put back in what's out there today, as well as if we were to do the three concepts. So we did capital cost as well as looking at maintenance cost here. U maintenance in sense of mill and overlay cost as well as chip seals and then looking at snow plowing um salting mowing and really those didn't make much of a difference with the alternatives um at least in terms of the mowing salting plowing. So project benefits as I just mentioned I mean there really are a lot of benefits to these alternatives I mean the four goal areas that we had there pretty much benefits across the board in terms of what this project would look like implementing really any of the three alternatives that were evaluated. We're we're improving storm water management. There's opportunities to improve water quality as well as the flooding that's around Landout Lane using the existing rightway that's there. there's opportunities to um implement storm water treatment basins um treat that water really before it gets down to where it's causing flooding. Um so that's a big one as well as the mobility. So peds bikes most crossings in our full vision here have um enhanced crossings for pedestrians bikes where there's um the center refuge island that you can cross or stop in you're really only crossing one direction of travel at a time and it's only one lane. Um, so there's definitely a lot of pros for the project in terms of the full vision. Um, and then also sustainability. Um, again, using all that green space that's out there. There's lots of opportunities with the the full vision to enhance that. And then cost. Obviously, there's cost to complete the project. There's cost regardless though having to reconstruct the roadway. Um, recognizing that the road is upcoming on 70 years since it was initially built. So, we'll need reconstruction regardless. Um but with the concepts that we're looking at their long-term maintenance for pavement would be decreased due to the reduction in pavement. So based on the analysis that we completed that matrix that we just showed and was included in your packet um all the discussions with the the technical advisory committee alt C is the recommendation for that. So that's the two-way bikeway with sidewalks on both sides. Um, and this does align also with what we had heard from the public um, based on the the surveys that we had there that this was the most favorite favorite one or the most preferred one um, from the public. And I mean recognizing that there there's still infrastructure that can be utilized that regardless of what moves forward here, there would be intent to preserve as much infrastructure that can be out there. If there's curbs that can be saved, um, we'd be looking at doing that. So holding one curb line most likely and kind of building off that shifting as you need to. But the intent would be to preserve as much existing infrastructure as possible and a lot of those design decisions would be made later in the project once you're getting more into the weeds of what can be saved and what needs replacement. Um just due to some of those details as well as it really depends on when this occurs. Um if it occurs in three years it might change the story as to if it's 15 years for what needs to be replaced. So some of those design decisions will be um further vetted once it gets into that stage of the project and then recognizing again those full vision was alt C the recommendation um but are looking at doing some interimm improvements here that don't necessar necessarily require the full reconstruction of the road um so the corridor I mean it can be restriped um to a single lane of travel in each direction um that's been done elsewhere um throughout the Twin Cities here of reducing a lane just via um striping. Again, that doesn't necessarily get to all the goals of um some of the sustainability aspects, but it does help improve um some of that ped bike infrastructure that's out there. Um Vaness Road, as we mentioned, that a signal is not warranted there. Um so looking at removal of that signal and then um implementing some bumpouts there, reducing the width that peds are having to cross to help improve their experience there. Uh Lindstöm Avenue is the same thing as Vaness and sense of bumpout. So it's reducing the lane of travel through there and then having the bumpouts to enhance the pedestrian expo or experience and reduce their exposure at the intersection. A mini roundabout can also be considered here. Um really that one's on the table here as a potential this year. There has been more congestion out there uh really due to um construction on I35W. Um that's resulting in more people using 169 and a lot of the routes to get to 169 have experienced increased traffic this year. Um so that's more prevalent this year. We looked at it. It's not as prevalent in previous years, but we do want to have that as a potential option to see if it's recurring year after year. um maybe designing for some of that traffic is necessary at that intersection. So, I think that just requires some further vetting to see are the conditions that were experienced this year um persistent. Uh Yukon Avenue um kind of the same thing here. Um reducing the lane of travel um keeping this one always stop control that's there today. So, requiring all movements that are coming to this intersection to stop if it remains this mini roundabout obviously would change that. Doesn't require that. um hallway stop would be still there um just due to sight lines that are there. There's not enough sight distance there to have vehicles on the side street have to judge gaps in traffic. So that that would still remain always stop unless it would went to a mini roundabout. And then 102nd Street, this is also a signal today um that accesses the park right there. The signal is not warranted. Um this was um further away from meeting warrants than Vaness Road was. Um so recommending removal of that signal doing the curb bumpouts um reducing the lane of travel through there. In this one we are also recommending the RFB so the rapid flashing beacons there. Um this one is on the curve and it's it um you don't have as gradive sight lines. It does meet the requirements of um stopping sight distance and intersection site distance. Um, but just for pedestrian enhancements, we would be looking at RFBS at this location due to just the curvature through the intersection to help drivers be aware that there are pedestrians in the crossing. And here's just some images of what those interimm improvements um could look like. So on the top left we have the corridor. So that's restriping one of the lanes um essentially just through hatching um to reduce that. And then for each of the intersections there, Vanesse, Lindstöm, Yukon, and 102nd, these are what these intersections could look like. Um, just at the intersection level, you can see that you can tie into these, you can reduce the lane of travel through the intersection, do the curb bumpouts, provide those medium refuge islands for pedestrians and then go back to the um curb lines that are out there. So, it would be simpler. It's not the whole corridor having to do this all at once. So um just looking at what could be done more in the interim and focusing on some of the hotspot locations. Sustainability commission um so um presented the concepts to the sustainability commission uh back in October. Um got their input on the three alternatives. Um really not too much input. I mean, overall, um, liked what they were seeing from the three concepts. Um, one comment was on the two-way bikeway, just being cognizant that depending on what side of the road you're approaching from, there might be a need to cross the road to get to the two-way cycle track on that side. And then just having more of an interest as well as once this gets into more design phase, is there more opportunities to provide inputs? And um, there definitely would be as this gets more into design from where we are right now. Now we are to the action item here. I'm guessing previously prior to this though opportunity to ask questions. See uh if you guys have any questions anything else we can provide any information that you guys would be looking for. >> Thank you Mr. Collins. We'll start with questions for our presenters. >> Commissioner White. >> Thank you. I actually have two qu Thank you chair. Um two questions. The first was with the proposed interim safety improvements. Are those designed to sort of stay once you do the larger overall program or is it something where you're putting it in and then three years from now you're ripping it out because you are coming through with the new design? >> No. Yeah, good question. The intent would be that they would be designed that they could fit in with the full vision that all the interim improvements um don't preclude anything from the full vision and that it helps move towards the full vision. Um so yeah the intent would be to not have to come in and redo those if in the future here. So those would be the inter improvements would just it's a step towards the full vision and help meet the goals of that. >> Thank you. My second question is in terms of the the I know we're not in the planning phase yet but thinking about the bike path and the sidewalks. I mean, and if one of the goals was to reduce the impervious surface, um, are there plans or or preferences for more permeable products to be used in the bike lanes, bike ped lanes, and the sidewalks at all? >> Yeah, we that came up at one point. Um, I I would say no decisions have really been made on that. I think there's definitely something that can be explored. Minnesota, it's always a little challenging with some of those with obviously cold and snow that are out there and and how those function and how they get cleared. Um all concepts do reduce the impervious area roughly three to four and a half acres compared to what's out there today. So it is a pretty sizable thing. Um and one one opportunity is that we did look at like if the curbs or the medians um went from being paved to say natural vegetation that's essentially another acre of all those medians that could also be impervious. Um so they are reducing the impervious area but I think specifically looking at the trails and that I think that require further vetting. We haven't really got to that at this point. >> Other questions for our presenters? Seeing none. Thank you, Mr. Collins. I will, as the uh chair has the discretion to do, open a public comment period for this study item. I don't see anyone in the chambers here other than staff members. Miss Brown, do we have anybody online? >> I'm sorry, that's not Miss Brown. [laughter] I didn't look down the table today. >> Definitely not. Um, this is Kareem. And there is no one online. Thank you, Kareem. All right, we will move then into discussion. Mr. Collins, you can take a seat if you like and we'll move into discussion. >> I do not. Commissioner Cunningham. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, I want to start by thanking staff for the amount of work um the technical advisory committee at the TAC uh put into this and the amount of public outreach. Um the amount of public testimony in the packet is I think something to be admired. Uh that you guys did a great job of engaging neighbors, stakeholders in this job, um and getting their feedback because we we frankly don't get a lot of feedback on planning commission packets. And so uh I I was really happy to see that. I I think that this is the right time to be thinking about a um improvement to this. Not necessarily for every reason. I don't necessarily agree with every reason, but the road is old. It It's ready to be replaced. So, I I think improving it while replacing it for kind of a long-term vision of the city is a a good idea. So, I'm in favor of moving this forward. >> Thank you, Commissioner Cunningham. Other thoughts? >> I too am in favor of the the proposal here. I don't have very strong feelings on the alternates. Um, I didn't the first time we see it. I still don't. Um, I thought the public comment was pretty definitive in the in the on-site survey, but it's a relatively small sample size, too. But I didn't see a great deal of difference between the uh the alternatives. I'm fine with uh alternative C, and I'm comfortable moving this forward as well. If there's no other comments, I would look for a motion. Commissioner Cunningham, >> excuse me, chair. Point of order question, please. Uh >> is this being a study item, is there a formal motion to be taken on this? >> I'll ask for clarification from Mr. Johnson. >> Uh thank you, Chair Cookton. Yes, the staff is seeking a formal recommendation from the planning commission uh on the alternative and the findings of the study, I believe. So, I'll look to them. Yep, they're nodding. So, they are seeking a formal recommendation. >> Very good. I would also, forgive me, chair, I would add that the a public hearing is planned at the city council on December the 22nd. >> Indeed, >> Commissioner Cunningham, >> I move to uh adopt a resolution or >> recommend >> recommend to city council um that the planning commission's preferred concept is concept C of the attached report. Um, >> Commissioner Cing, if if I may advise. >> Thank you. Please do. >> Uh, we have a motion available to us on our screen and I think if you started with I and then started with this word recommend. >> Got it. >> And read through the whole thing, that would be sufficient. >> Got it. I recommend that the city council adopt the recommendations of the Bloomington Ferry Technical Advisory Committee. Corridor visioning corridor vision preferred alternate concept C with project design working to hold one curb line to preserve some existing infrastructure and interim safety improvements that include striping changes and intersection control modifications. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second that you recommend the city council adopt these recommendations. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. That motion passes. 5-0. As Mr. Johnson noted, this will be a public hearing at the city council on December 22nd, 2025. Thank you. We'll move then to item number two. The city of Bloomington again is the applicant to discuss fence standards review. Mr. Dylan Palmer is here with the staff report. All right. Good evening, Chair Cookton, commissioners. Uh my name is Dylan Palmer with the planning division. I'm here to present item number two on tonight's agenda, which is the fence standards review. This is just a study item and tonight uh we're just uh working with the commission to gather some feedback to develop a finalized code. We're looking at bringing that to you guys for a public hearing in January and then taking that to the city council in February of 2026. Uh so just to get started, our objectives of this project are to update the fence code to be clearer for residents uh as well as for staff particularly around fence materials, opacity requirements, and height requirements. Uh we're evaluating opportunities to allow additional privacy fencing for residents as well as make some clerical updates. Uh so just a little bit of history, the code was originally written back in 2008 and there were several uh statements of purpose and intent that were included in the code back when this code was initially written. Uh mostly surrounding uh keeping an open design along city streets. uh providing screening for uh especially commercial industrial properties, enhancing overall aesthetic conditions, limiting sighteline obstructions, uh reducing opportunities for crime, and then preventing conflicts with utilities and drainage flow. And then one extra caveat I'll add is that many of the fences you'll see around the city were installed prior to 2008. So we have a lot of legally non-conforming fences uh that exist in all corners of the city. So, these are the four main topics that staff explored and we're going to work through tonight. Uh, the first is to allow for taller fences in corner side yards. Uh, the second is to evaluate fence opacity requirements. The third is the allowable fence materials and the fourth are just some minor code edits uh to make the uh overall language a little bit clearer. So, we'll begin with our current fence standards for corner side lots. So, when I'm talking about corner side lots, we're looking on the left side of the screen. There's a red circled area uh to the left of the house on the corner lot there. There's no real definition for that area, but we're calling it a corner sideyard just to hopefully that will reduce a little bit of the confusion. Uh these are our current fence standards. This is a graphic that currently exists in our city's fence handout. Uh there's a 4 foot tall fence uh maximum height in the front yard and that applies to any residential property across the city as well as in these corner sideyards. And you can see that there is that uh dashed area. There's also a 6-ft tall requirement in the rear and sideyards. And then uh just to give you comparison, internal lots, their front yard, again they have a 4ft tall max with a 50% opacity requirement. and they're allowed to go up to six feet in their rear and their sideyards. And then one additional note for this is uh this diagram, if you look on the right side of the internal lot, there's uh two words. There's rear plane and front plane. So that's how we're going to be defining our uh our proposed options that we brought before you tonight. the rear plane being uh following the back wall of the house, the rear wall of the house over to the property line, and then the front plane being the same thing, following the front wall of the house over to the side property line. So, these are some proposed options that we're looking for recommendations on. The first option is option A, that's to maintain our current standards. So, that graphic there is the same graphic on the previous slide. That's to have a 4 foot tall maximum height in that corner sideyard. and then 4 foot in front of the house. The second option, option B, would be to allow for a six-foot fence in that corner sideyard with a one- foot setback. This graphic is from the city of Blaine and uh they also show the uh front plane of the house being the uh as far forward as that sixoot fence is allowed to go. These are our next two options. Option C is to allow a six-foot fence at the rear plane of the home. So that's the graphic on the left. That's from the city of Minneapolis. They have a 4 foot height limit going from the rear plane forward to the street and then a sixoot height limit going from the rear plane of the house uh back to the rear property line. And then option D, the graphic on the right, is to allow a sixoot fence going up to the front plane of the home. Uh this graphic is from the city of St. Paul. They have their minimum set at seven feet tall. uh staff does not recommend allowing a 7 foot tall fence. We're proposing a six foot tall fence, but uh same situation. We would allow in this case allow for a 6ft tall fence behind the front plane of the home in that corner sideyard. And then this is a table that lays out all the options uh in going from the left to the right, the most restrictive to the most permissive uh the 4oot max all the way over to the sixoot max. uh staff. At this point, we support option C, which would be to allow for a six- foot tall fence in the corner sideyard behind the rear plane of the principal structure of the home. And that's most similar to Minneapolis's graphic. So, I know that was a mouthful that I uh just threw at you there, but if we could ask uh the chair, commissioners if you have any recommendations, any preferred options, or any kind of feedback for these. >> Okay, Commissioner. I'm going to first start by asking if we anyone would like another review of all of this. It is a lot of information. Are we all clear on what we're seeing or any further explanations? Commissioner White. >> Thank you, Chair. I just had one question. I believe it was uh go back a slide. I don't remember what there. The uh option C. No, sorry. Go one more. There we go. Option B. Sorry about that. Um, so just curious on this one if the curb line, what happens if there's a sidewalk? Is it from a foot from the property line, the sideline? The curb line? So, I just want to make sure I understand the terminology. >> Uh, chair, Commissioner White, we do have a two-foot setback for fences from sidewalks that exists in our current code and that will be maintained. And this is kind of one of the questions we're asking tonight is should there be that two-foot setback and then a one- foot setback in addition to that? And then in cases where there are lots with no side uh sidewalk in that area, would it just be a one- foot setback? >> Uh Commissioner Cunningham. >> Thank you, Chair. Um just so I'm clear on the setbacks, is that setback from property line or rightway? Um, just want to make sure I'm I'm clear on that. >> Chair Cookton and Commissioner Cunningham, that is a setback from the property line. >> Thank you. [snorts] >> So, Mr. Palmer, option B allows a six-foot fence um starting at one foot setback from the the lot line. Is that correct? >> Uh, Chair Cotton, yes, that's correct. Okay. Can >> can we go to the next slide as well, please? Mr. Palmer, what's the difference between option C and option D other than these two graphics are rotated? >> Oh, it's seven feet. Is that the >> uh chair cooked? The in this case the >> uh where the six foot tall fence could start is the on the graphic on the left hand side is the rear plane of the home and then the graphic on the right it would start at the front plane of the home. >> Okay. So the difference between option D and B is that D allows it at the front plane of the home while option B allows it effectively at the front of the lot. Uh, Chair Kton, option B would allow for it to go to the front plane of the home with a setback. >> U, could you state that again? >> Option B. >> Yep, chair. Uh, it is the the sixoot allowance goes to the front plane of the home in addition to the one foot sideyard setback. >> Mr. Johnson. Yeah, chair, if I may add to that, I think what um the Blaine exhibit is also demonstrating is that they have a requirement around their uh they have like a more extensive clear view triangle uh requirement um from their corner. So, you can see there's a 60-oot dimension. I I don't know if that extends uh unlots uniformly. Um but in Bloomington, our clear view triangle is defined as 15 ft from the point of intersection and making a triangle. So, this is a larger um uh clear view triangle. lots and Blaine can be larger uh than some lots in Bloomington. So, um but I think that's one of the significant differences. They have a larger clear view triangle requirement. I'd like to Dylan to confirm if I'm interpreting that correctly. >> Yep. Uh planning manager Johnson, that's correct. Commissioner Moser, >> just to clarify, excuse [clears throat] me on that. [snorts] So, in looking at option B, would it be proposed that we would also be adopting the 60 ft or we would retain the 15t triangle that we have now? Uh, Chair Cook and Commissioner Monster, we would maintain the 15 foot clear view triangle. >> Thank you. >> I'm sorry, Mr. Palmer. Uh, I'm still struggling with the difference between B and D. >> Yep. Chair Kton. So, the uh the main difference is option B, there would be an additional setback from the sideyard, whereas option D, you would be able to put the fence up along the property line. So, it's more so that the difference is on the side setback, not the front of the home. >> Yes, chair. That's correct. >> Okay. Thank Thank you for that. >> Commissioner Cunningham. >> Thank you, Chair. Mr. Palmer, I'm I'm rereading the code section that's in the packet. Um, and a question about opacity. Um, so with these options for the 6' tall, is that does that [clears throat] follow the exceptions to the opacity limitations? Like could these sixoot fences that are proposed to be sideyard, rear plane, sideyard, front plane be greater than 50% opaque? >> Uh, Chair Cook and Commissioner Cunningham, in our current code, there are some exceptions. So if the street were to be an arterial street, so like old shockp or pen or something like that, uh they would be allowed to go over the 50% opacity, one of the questions that we'll be proposing tonight is just to remove that opacity requirement altogether. And uh I have some more slides that will further address that in detail, but >> Got it. Thank you, Mr. Palmer. >> Mr. Palmer, can we go back to option A? And so at the front lot line, you can have a 4ft fence or a sixoot fence. >> Sher Cookton, under option A, you're allowed to have a 4ft fence with a 50% opacity in the front and the side lot lines. That's the graphic on it's the far left side there. >> And you could have a sixoot fence at the rear lot uh at the rear line. >> Yes, Chair Cooked. And if you kind of follow, I hate to add a third plane, but the side plane of the house, uh, back to the rear property line, at that point, that's where you would be able to go up to a 6ft fence. Okay. Any other clarifying questions or we can move on to thoughts? Mr. Uh, Palmer, can you go back to the side with the questions? The question. Thank you. Questions for most appropriate, >> Commissioner White. >> So, in in general, I appreciate being a little more flexible with the side plane on on corner lots. Um, some of the corners in Bloomington are a little weird. Um, so, so I think it's good to have some flexibility in there. Um, as long as it's not blocking anyone's safety, it it I don't I've never understood why it needed to be, um, off. My only concern with option C is I do think it's a little funky to have the 4 foot to the from the front of the house to the back of the house and then be able to go up to six foot. So, um, that just seems a little odd to me. So, um I like other things about it. Um but that I I think is a little confusing and probably not very attractive. So, >> Chair Kton, Commissioner White, uh thank you for the question and the recommendation. >> Mr. Johnson, >> thank you, Chair Kton. Um, one thing I would add to that, Commissioner White, is that also some of those cities uh, we we set a lower limit in Bloomington for our clear view triangle of 36 in, but some cities allow a 4ft tall structure uh, in their clear clear view triangle area. Um, so in other words, by allowing a 4ft tall fence in that area, you're also not violating their clear view triangle um, policy. So that's that's kind of those things are two tied together. >> Commissioner Cunningham. Thank you, chair. Um, I don't want to buck the trend. I'm I'm I'm in agreement with option B. Um, and I know we have a great environmental health uh and and city uh you know, just code compliance office in the city, but uh the fence in my backyard is leaning a little bit and so having a one- foot setback is probably um I I think prudent. Um, but that's those are just my thoughts. I'm in favor of option B. >> Commissioner Muster. >> There we go. Thank you, Chairman. Um, [clears throat] I I I like both option B and C. However, I am not a fan of the one foot setback because [snorts] it sort of, at least in my mind, creates this sort of in concept unusable little strip. Um, and I know that, you know, in reality it would just tie into the either the boulevard or part of that setback next to the sidewalk, but it's still that one additional foot that what do you do with that? Um, so that that's that's the only sort of hesitation I have on option B. Um, but as far as whether that fence on the corner side can come to the front plane of the house or at the back plane of the house, I I'm indifferent on that part. >> Commissioner Summers. >> Thank you, Chair. I am in favor of a setback um and in favor of the six foot tall um max starting at the back plane of the house. Um, I spend time driving in East Bloomington and it is a real um real present concern in my head that there's no stop signs um in a lot of areas including I live in a corner lot in that area. And when I think about the concept of six foot tall fences going pretty close to the front plane of those houses, I think about if someone is going just a little bit above the speed limit, they're going towards an intersection with a lot less time to react. Um we've got a lot of kiddos on bikes also in our neighborhood. So um and they're a little less predictable than an adult driving a car, but not always. Um, so for me, I appreciate the setback and I appreciate the back plane um of the house being where a six foot tall fence can be. I don't really know where that falls on here, but does that give enough for you to tell where I fall? >> Chair Cook and Commissioner Summers, yes, it does. >> Cool. >> I'm in favor of option A. Um, I'm not a big fan of six foot fences. I like to minimize them and keep them as far away from the public eye as possible. Um, I think short fences just make a more welcoming and transparent and safe safe community. And so I like keeping us where we're at and in line with where Adina is at with option A. >> Commissioner Cunningham, >> I know we're we're giving recommendations. I I just have a question for staff. Um, thank you. Uh, have we had this be an issue with corner lot like owners of corner lots coming in to talk to city staff about adding fencing for vehicle light screening or something along those lines? >> Chair Cooking, uh, Commissioner Cunningham. Uh yes, we do receive calls, I would say probably once or twice a month from property owners on corner lots who wish to expand the fenced in area in their backyard or have a sixoot fence for usually it's kids or dogs or allowing people to recreate in their backyards. So yes, it is an issue that does come up fairly frequently. >> Anything to add, Mr. Johnson? >> Yeah, Chair Cookton, thanks and thanks Dylan. Thank you. Uh um Commissioner Cunningham. What I would add to that is that it becomes more acute or more problematic for homes that are set back further. Um because the plane of the home establishes where the transition goes from uh 4ft 50% open fencing to 6ft privacy fencing. If your home is set back quite a bit of ways, uh what it creates is that there's a very small uh area of your rear yard that can be uh enclosed with a privacy fence. And so for most Bloomington lots, it's less of an issue, but we do have, as you mentioned, there are uh is a fair amount of variance of our corner lots where you'll have some set back quite a ways and then the area that they can actually fence in with privacy fencing is quite small. Um so, uh it happens from time to time in that scenario. >> Thank you, Commissioner White. >> Mr. Chair, thank you. Um, I just want to say I really appreciate what Commissioner Summers said about reminding us that not all lots have houses set far back from the street in Bloomington. Um, I think we all probably tend to think about our own neighborhoods when we're thinking about these things. So, um, I really I do think it's really important to take into consideration what the setback of the house is in a corner lot. Um, and I don't want to make things more complicated or require more math, but I do think that that again, as I said in my first comment, that idea of the safety triangle is really important. And while you might have a lot where somebody's 100 feet back from the street, it's not, you know, you're not going to have that issue. But in lots house is maybe only 20 feet from the street, um, it does create more of an issue. So that's why, you know, I'm a little nervous about just a uniform standard without, you know, I want to make sure we keep that language about the visibility in the safety triangle to to um to make sure that that is the top priority for any fence that's that's potentially interfering with vision on the corner. >> Any other thoughts? >> Okay, thank you for the feedback. I know that's it's it's even hard for me to understand still. All right, move on to our next question, which is about opacity. So, currently, uh, as we've already kind of discussed, in front yards for a 4ft tall fence, you're required to be 50% or less opaque. So, that basically means your fence has to be 50% see-through. You can't have a solid board privacy fence in your front yard. uh staff is looking at removing that requirement and allowing there would still be a 4- foot tall uh front yard fence requirement. However, getting rid of the opacity requirement and a good demonstration of that is the photo on the right hand side there. It's a short 4ft tall uh board fence. Our peer cities, Adina, Richfield, and Egan do not have any opacity requirements in their fence code, and they mostly focus on height alone. staff is supportive of removing the opacity requirements just to make it a little bit easier for residents to understand and allow for uh residents in certain areas of the city if they may have concerns with privacy in their front yard to build a fence that is fully opaque. So our main question to the commission is do you support removing opacity requirements? Do you support uh keeping them in place or do you have any other recommendations for us? thoughts. I I think I'm just a fence stick in the mud here, but I I don't support it. Um I think fully opaque fences allow for people to start piling nuisance things in their yard. And when you have a opaque fence, um people get after you and can see that stuff. And like I just I think there's less chance for a nuisance buildup when you have opacity to your fence. That's my opinion. Commissioner White. >> Thank you, Chair. Um yeah, I I tend to agree. Um I think that al although I I understand the there's all sorts of different types of fences. I don't know, 50% is the right number, but I do think that having um particularly in the front yards fence. Um having that be more um more visibility from the street is probably a good thing. Also, from a safety perspective, um people walking by, kids riding their bikes. Um you know, uh I think there's a variety of reasons that it makes sense. Commissioner Muster, >> I think where I land is is it's only a four foot tall fence. I don't necessarily see a difference between it being fully opaque and not more than 50% opaque. You can see over it either way. Um, but I I think it may be if we want to keep something, maybe 50%'s the right number, maybe it isn't. And and the like you said, the good illustration is the fence that's shown in that picture. um you know, it's it's an otherwise attractive fence. It's got some level of of transparency to it, but it certainly is not 50%. Um so that's that's my two cents on that one. >> Commissioner Summers, >> thank you, Chair. I am um it seems like Adina tends to be stickler about um nuisance items and codes that make space for um nuisance or funny business. So when I look at Adina being a pure city that does not have an opa opacity requirement, the curiosity curiosity to me is do they have other codes that protect um against some of the items that a 4ft nonopaque fence would allow for. Um that being said, I'm in general supportive of removing the requirement Okay. Anybody else? Okay. >> Excellent. Thank you, chair and commissioners. Move on to the next issue and that is fence material. So, some proposals from staff are to clarify that plastic fence uh plastic fence slats that go in chain link fences do not count towards screening requirements for commercial and industrial properties. Uh I know that there is an environmental health has told us that there is a lot of issues where people have put these plastic slats in the fences and over time over the years they've broken or fallen out and now they're no longer screening the property properly. So we're just uh making the code change to clarify that they do not count towards screening. Uh we're also proposing to add language that would restrict fence coverings to be a commercially built product manufactured specifically for use on fencing. So that's the image on the left there. That's just the fence cover that you can buy off of Amazon. Uh the main point of this code language is to uh not allow people to put tarps or uh banners or any kind of other things up on the fence that are not uh not sightly and do not look good. Uh, do you guys support or does the commission support making updates to the fence material standards? And do you have any other recommended uh, suggestions for us? >> Mr. Palmer, I can support this one. Um, I do want to make sure we're not going to get ourselves into any trouble here with political signs or anything like that, freedom of expression type situations. >> Uh, Chair Cooken, no. [clears throat] >> Okay. Commissioner Cunningham, >> I am in favor of removing or clarifying that plastic slats do not count towards screening requirements. Uh the amount of times I've seen these things blown out by wind, snow plows, time in the sun, uh they just break down and you know a little microlastic city uh at the bottom of the fence. So I I think that the language that you're proposing the B commercially built product manufactured specifically for use in fencing is broad enough to give applicants leeway and some staff some discretion as well. So I think I'm in I'm in favor of this change. >> Commissioner White, >> I just want to clarify. So, this would just be on industrial and commercial properties, like if somebody's using these slats in their backyard fence to make it a little more private or something like that. Would that still be allowed um with this language? >> Chair Cooked and Commissioner White, that would be allowed for residential properties. They would still be allowed to use the fence slats on their chain link fences. Uh and the maintenance of those would come down to environmental health, just enforcing that if it does turn into an issue or they're broken or falling out of the fence or something. Thank you for clarifying, >> Commissioner Müster. >> Just as a question and and I'll be honest, perhaps if I read through the whole um proposed code language, it would be clearer. What is the interplay between these types of screenings and the 4 foot 50% opaque fences in the front yard? Can you put these things in and it still counts as meeting the standard because that's how the fence is built or >> uh chair cooked and commissioner monster I think in this case it would really just depend on what material is being used to screen. So like in this case the photo on the left there that would be over the 50% opacity limit simply just because you can't see through it. So I think it would it would really come down to a case by case basis just depending on the material that people are using. >> Thank you. Uh, Mr. Palmer, help me understand if we don't if we're not allowing these for industrial and commercial, why are we allowing them for residential? Uh, Chair Cookton, that was an issue brought up by staff in one of our meetings before this, and that was to allow for greater uh flexibility for residents just to be able to screen their property. I believe that these slats are a lot cheaper than some of the other products on the market now. And then there are a lot of them uh in place in fences throughout the city at this time. So adding more legally non-conforming fences to the city is something that we're not supportive of doing. >> Mr. Cunningham, can I you seem to have more experience with these than I do. Can I ask you if you have any thoughts on that? >> I think that Thank you, Chair. Uh I have a few thoughts. I they are a very cheap way to add privacy to a cyclone chain link fence. Um where they get the most beat up is where they're industrial or commercial screening where they're adjacent to a roadway and get hit by snow like plow wake. That's when they I've seen them get damaged the most um in someone's sideyard on a 4ft fence. It's their home. It like uh Mr. Palmer said it's it's up to environmental health to enforce the um use of that and and kind of the way the code is written and I promise I'm not that passionate about fencing but the way the code is written is that there's no requirement for you you can on like say the side you can be maximum 50% opacity the way that this is proposed to be written is that the the slats don't count which is kind of a different conversation um but the the back of your property can be fully opaque if you want um but if who already have a chain link fence there, you know, and you want a little bit more privacy, add it in. Um, I where where you see these get beat up the most is commercial properties. It home use, especially where it's set back from roadway, it's it is much less. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Cunningham. I guess I'm just a little concerned that we're giving people the license to put up a cheaper fence with a cheaper screening option instead of just putting up a decent looking fence. >> Commissioner White. >> Um, thank you, Chair. I I think the difference is that commercial properties are required to have screening and residential properties aren't. Um, so I think to me that makes a difference. Like if we're requiring commercial properties to put up fence that is meant to screen what's happening behind the fence, then I think it makes sense to have requirements that lead to fences that are more durable and and will last longer and and meet that requirement. Whereas for home use, we we actually, you know, to your words earlier, kind of discourage people from having completely opaque fences. Um, but this they still maintain the flexibility to be able to do that in a more economical way. Um, and so I guess that's that's my thinking on it is that the difference to me is when you require it for screening versus when it's just an option. >> Thank you. Any other thoughts on the questions presented to us? Seeing none, >> thank you, chair and commissioners. Our next question, uh, this is more of a a fairly niche question that we're asking. It's about allowing for taller fences at structure setbacks. So there are uh not many I'd say very few lots in the city where an 8-ft fence can be constructed right now. Uh right now the you can construct an 8ft fence if you are set back 65 feet from the front lot line and then 30 feet from the rear lot line and 10 feet from the side lot line. And that's in an R I should clarify that's in an R1 zoning. Uh what we're proposing is to just reduce or expand the front yard setback to a 30-foot allowance. So that would just meet the structure setbacks of whatever zoning district it is. So in this case in an R1 zoning district, which is where pretty much all of these large lots are, it would be a 30-foot setback for an 8ft fence in the front, a 30- foot setback in the rear, and a 10-ft setback on the side. Did you guys have any or excuse me, did the commission have any recommendations, questions or uh other suggestions for us? >> Commissioner Mer, >> I just have a question. H how does this standard and graphic overlay with what we talked about first and the corner side yards and how all of that play together? Chair Cook and Commissioner Monster, this is for eight foot tall fences. So there are uh I believe it's over seven feet tall fences are required to get a building permit. So in that if somebody is constructing an 8ft fence, it would have to go through a permit review and they are subject to these more restrictive setbacks if they're at 8 feet. >> Go ahead. >> So just I'm I'm thinking of my house as an example. I'm on a corner and the side of my house is far more than 10 feet in the, you know, it's probably closer to 30. Can I meet the 10 foot setback and put an 8ft fence along the corner side or would I have to bring it back to the house? >> That's what I'm trying to figure out is how these all stack on top of each other. >> Yep. Chair Cooked and Commissioner Monster. Not in the case of a corner sideyard. this uh these standards would only really apply to internal lots. >> Yeah, chair. Uh please, Commissioner Monster, if I may. The 10-ft sideyard setback is the for an interior um a 30-foot setback is required for a principal structure from all yards along streets. It kind of treats and that's why we have a corner lot study coming further down the pipeline um at some point. Uh but yeah, it it would apply to the interior lot line. Yeah. Not a corner side. Commissioner White, >> sorry it's it's been a long week. So, um >> I agree. >> Is this allowing an 8 foot fence in front of the structure as opposed to the 4ft fence that we just talked about? Um so this is this and this is R1 residential, correct? So, um Okay. I'm curious as to why eight foot here and four foot anywhere else. >> Chair Cooked and Commissioner White. So the uh current standard allows for an 8oot fence if you are 65 ft from the front property line and that's again that's very few lots in the city. We're just looking at amending it to have the setback at 30 feet from the front property line. So if your your house is let's say 55 ft from the front property line, you can have a 30 foot yard and then an 8ft tall fence and then an additional 25 ft until your home. >> I can I can >> Mr. Johnson. >> Yeah, thank you chair and commissioner. Um it has been a long week uh for whatever reason, but um no, what I would say is that uh this is kind of a remnant of a previous policy where the city used to have prevailing setback and so it pushed a lot of homes further back uh when establishing and subdividing new lots. That standard no longer exists. Um but then again, this is one of those standards that is uh much more influential on the central and west side of town as opposed to the east side of town be based on those building setbacks. Um, in a large proportion of the community, uh, you know, most of the homes are at a 30 or 35t setback. So, there's really little discrepancy between where you could have that taller fence, um, and where the front plane of your home is. Uh, even if your home is set back at say 40 or 55 ft, you could still have an 8 foot tall fence at the the front plane of your home today. You just can't have it in front of the home today. And so uh and I forgive me if I'm not explaining this very well, but right now it's just we have this odd policy of this 65 feet. What the 65 feet relates to was the maximum front setback when prevailing setback existed. So it's kind of a remnant of a former setback policy that still exists in our fence code and we don't know what to do with it. Um, part of staff's thinking is that if a principal structure can be constructed at a 30-foot setback, it makes sense that a fence that qualifies as a structure because it's taller than 7 feet should be subject to those same setback requirements, but it is a policy decision on the part of the city. Um, you don't have to allow uh taller fencing just because it's meeting the principal uh structure setback. And I think I made a mess of that, but it was a it was an attempt. >> Commissioner White. Uh, thank you, Chair, and and Planning Manager Johnson. That I I think that actually was helpful. I think the thing I'm I'm just struggling with is that just because your house is set further back, you get an 8ft fence as opposed to somebody else who only gets a 4ft fence. So, I I definitely understand I understand what you're saying about the historical reason for it and the the sort of thing. I think I just it it sort of seems unfair uh to allow that for folks just because our house is further back from the street. So I that's what I'm struggling with which probably is just an opinion issue >> and chair if I if I can make one correction to that actually is that if your home was set back further your lot would actually as of today would be more restricted in terms of installing that taller fencing because you can install the taller fencing if it's even or behind the front plane of your home if you're still meeting that sideyard setback. That's kind of the key because you can't have the taller fence in front of your uh closer to the street than your home uh today. um unless it's uh beyond 65 ft. And so it's actually the homes that are uh set back further that are have less options, I guess you could say, in this if we want to frame it that way. Um yeah, >> Commissioner White, >> thank you. I I'm all for let them have the, you know, the 30 feet instead of the 65 feet. It's just the 8 foot versus 4 foot that I'm having problems with. So um >> I might get there. I might not. >> I cannot get there. I do not like 8 foot fences. 30 feet is way too close to the street for me. And I get we've got this weird dinosaur 65 ft in our code, but 30 feet for an 8ft fence is nowhere near where I'm I'm comfortable having fences in this city. Commissioner Mustard, >> for as as generally sort of pro fence as I am, I have to echo the chair on this one, that an eight foot fence, I I completely appreciate the logic that if you can put a building there, you should be able to put a fence there, but it's still in front of the house. Um, and if we're going to say that front yards need to remain open, then front yards need to remain open. Chair, if I may, I mean, one one suggestion I could make then is um is just to uh disallow uh taller fencing closer to the street than the front plane of the dwelling regardless of its location. Um we still do get questions uh at times about uh rear and sideyard. um if it's even in behind, it would be helpful to staff for you to kind of share your um thoughts about that. Um in terms of whether or not uh the existing policy of just having to meet the principal building setbacks is still appropriate for the side and rear yards, say on an internal a typical internal lot. >> Forgive me, Mr. Johnson. Uh Mr. Palmer, what is the current standard? uh chair cooking. The current standard for an 8ft fence in the rear and the side is a 30 foot setback in the rear and a 10-ft setback from the side. >> If it were up to me, I just wouldn't allow eight foot fences. >> Commissioner Cunningham. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, I'm in favor of leaving this as is. Um, I acknowledge that we have some uh legacy code issues with this that might cause a headache for staff, but I echo Commissioner Monster and Commissioner Cook or Chair Cookton's concerns about um an 8- foot tall uh fence in front of someone's home or I guess I know we talked about where the plane is and everything, but um I I think uh you know, if someone wants to come in with like a it wants to propose to put a dog run in and it works with staff on a variance improves a burden or you know that there's no other way to do something you know maybe but I I can't I can't support the 30-foot setback. Thank you >> Commissioner Summers. >> Thank you Chair. I think I am pro tall fences and I also am pro- neighborhood character. Um I don't think those two are mutually exclusive, but I do think that using the back plane of the principal structure helps keep neighborhood character. Um, yeah, that's my feelings on that. >> Thank you, Commissioner Summers. >> Commissioner Meer, >> and I think this also reflects the problem with trying to come up with a simplified code that fits across a very diversely developed community. Because if you're on a lot that's a half an acre and you have an eight foot fence, does anybody really notice? As opposed to, you know, you're meeting 10-ft setbacks between houses and there's an 8ft wall between you. That that's very imposing. Um, but because we are trying to simplify and because we are trying to come up with a standard, I think it would just be easier to remove 8 foot fences altogether. We've been remarkably consistent on our inconsistencies on these fences. I'm sorry, Mr. Palmer. We're not making your life any easier here. >> No worries, Chair. >> I think we've heard from everybody. Does anyone have any further thoughts? Okay, there we are. >> Thank you, chair and commissioners. Next items. These are just some uh kind of housekeeping items that staff is looking at cleaning up. So uh one of the changes is was a recommendation from legal and that is to remove a couple pieces of code language that pertain to locating a fence up to or on the property line. Uh so we had some code language that more or less explicitly states uh you can build your fence on the property line. Uh and it was a recommendation from legal to remove that language in order to remove the city from any kind of liability issues or any other uh you know complaints or anything like that from a resident that may think that that issue lies with the city. Uh fence placement on property lines. If there is a dispute, it ultimately is a private issue and the city is and staff is supportive of removing this code to remove the city's uh liability. This has my support. Commissioner Cunningham. >> Thank you, Chair. It also has my support. >> Seeing some head nods. Okay. Consistency. >> Thank you, chair and commissioners. And the next uh housekeeping item is to remove language governing arbors and trelluses as fences. So arbors and trelluses have currently have two separate different uh regulations in the code. So there was the fence code uh section that defined arbors and trelluses as a fence and applied fence standards to them. And then in code section uh 2130102G4G, it's separately defined as a permitted encroachment. And in the permitted encroachments code section, there is a 5-ft side setback, 10-ft rear setback, and 20 foot front setback for arbors and trelluses. And at this point, staff is just proposing to completely remove the section uh the code section in the fence code pertaining to arbors and trelluses and just using the permitted encroachments uh regulations for arbors and chalicees. Commissioner Muster, >> just a clarifying question. >> So, assuming this is removed that that I have no issue with with that proposal. I can't connect a trellis to my fence because it has a required setback. >> Did I understand that right, >> Commissioner Monster? Uh, yes, that is correct. >> Okay, >> Mr. Johnson. And sheriff, if I might, Commissioner Monster, I think one of the differentiation issues is taller um trelluses, right? So, one of the ways that we can differentiate when setbacks are required or not is when a trellis is a taller um structure or not. So, we can review that in our code and make sure um where that line is and make sure it's being consistent with kind of the intent of our fencing regulations, etc. [snorts] With that, I can support this. >> Seeing enough headnots. >> Yep. Thank you, chair. >> All right. All right. And that's all of the slides that I have. So, if you had any other questions for me, uh, thank you for bearing with me. I know it's clear as mud. [laughter] >> Anything else for Mr. Palmer? Thank you, Mr. Palmer. This will go before the city council as a study item on December 15th. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> We will move then to item number three which is a consideration of the november 6th meeting synopsis synopsis. Is there a motion? Commissioner Summers. >> I move to approve the planning commission meeting synopsis from November 6, 2025 as presented. >> Is there a second? We have a motion and a second to approve these draft meeting minutes. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Abstain. >> That motion passes 4 with one abstination. >> We'll move to our final item. Item number four, which is the planning commission policy and issues update. Mr. Johnson. >> Uh thank you, Chair Cookton. Brief update tonight. December 11th is canceled. You should have received that uh cancellation and it does reflect it as such on the city's website. Uh coming up at the December 18th meeting, we have uh four public hearings and a study item. So, a busier agenda. We have a conditional use permit for a daycare facility at 403 East 78th Street. Uh we have three city code amendments. The first one is for commercial vehicles and residential districts. The second one is an art incentives uh ordinance uh aimed at incentivizing more art and development uh in the zoning code. And the third one is a review of the city's uh height uh map as well as the other uh provisions within the height ordinance uh in the zoning code. All three of those have been before you at various study uh sessions. Uh and then finally uh we'll bring the uh 2026 planning commission work plan back before you uh for your formal recommendation to the city council. And that is uh all the items on the December 18th meeting. That's all I have. >> Very good. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. This is an opportunity for planning commissioners to uh bring up anything that was not on the agenda this evening. Is there any miscellaneous items to be discussed? Seeing none, that concludes this December 4th meeting of the Bloomington Planning Commission. Good night. >> [music]