Heat. Heat. [Music] Good evening and welcome to this October 23rd 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 planning commission are study items where we will not take formal action, while other items before the planning commission are public hearings where we do take public action. And we do encourage public testimony on our public hearings. However, we we do have one this evening. Item number one is a public hearing. So, if you'd like to testify on that, you're welcome to do so here at city hall or you can do so following the instructions that are on your screen. On some items before the planning commission, we have final decision-making authority where other items the city council will make the final decision and the planning commission acts in an advisory capacity. The planning commission is made up of seven volunteer residents of the city of Bloomington. Six of us are here this evening, so we do have a quorum. I'll ask everyone in the chambers now to please rise for the pledge of allegiance. 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. We will move right into item number one. The city of Bloomington is the applicant for our annual miscellaneous issues ordinance. Miss Hesp, you have the staff report. Good evening, commissioners. Um, so I'm here to present the final miscellaneous issues for 2025. Um, and just to review again what miscellaneous issues is for new commissioners. It's a project we do annually. That's kind of a hodgepodge of different ordinances. Um, whether that be cleanup items or policy change ordinances, um, that don't warrant their own whole project and public hearing. So, we kind of put them together for review. Here's a quick timeline just for remembering. Um, I was here on September 18th and we had a study session to talk about the policy change items. I then went to council on September 29th. We have a public hearing tonight and then there will be a final public hearing at council on November 17th. So, this is a table of all the cleanup items um within the project and there are a lot. There's 26 A through Z um except for we dropped ordinance P at this time. So, really it's A through O and Q through Z. I'm not going to go through each of these individually because that would be a lot. Um, but if you do have questions, I have extra slides and um, we can talk about any of these individually if you want to. Uh, I just have one example of what a cleanup item looks like. So, this is ordinance A and, uh, there's just a grammatical error here and we added an or. And so, that's kind of an example of what a cleanup item looks like. As far as the policy change items go, here is a shorter list of just six. Um, since I was here at the study session, we dropped a couple. So, we took the double public hearing removal out for now and then we moved one of the items into the cleanup section. Um, so we will go through these ones individually. Um so ordinance AA is um changing the exterior lighting section slightly. Um it needs to be updated to specify when lighting plans are required because not every project that involves the installation of lighting necessitates a whole phototric plan. Um and then additionally staff proposed adding a section to um make sure that maintenance of lighting is in good repair and kept up. Ordinance BB um came from the office conversion study from earlier this year. And this ordinance basically is to allow multifamily residential uses um with a combined minimum level of non-residential floor area in the four zoning districts that you see on the screen. Ordinance CC has a few different parts. Um, so first, we currently have a process for appeals to certificates of appropriateness. Um, and that needs to be cleaned up a little bit. The code currently says that appeals of the planning commission's decision would go to a public hearing at the planning commission. Um, but that's inaccurate. It should go to council to be decided on. Um, additionally for the appeals of decision of certificates of appropriateness, there's currently no fee listed in code. So the fee should be $220 mirroring other appeal fee costs. And then lastly, as part of the streamlining development project, we established the process for appealing a variance decision by the planning commission but forgot to add it to the code. Uh the appeal process for that would include a public hearing at council. Ordinance DD is related to garage height limits. Um so currently the accessory structure rules do not allow a garage or accessory structure to be taller than the principal dwelling which can be challenging in some cases. So staff is proposing a maximum of 15 ft in height for the accessory structure and garages that do exceed the height of the principal dwelling. Ordinance E um is proposing to remove a statement requiring architectural unity um a standard that we have for commercial buildings. So currently we require non-residential structures constructed on one site to match style, color, scheme. Um and staff believes that this kind of limits design flexibility and creativity and creates an unnecessary burden for the developer or the business. And then lastly, we have ordinance double F. Um, so currently code requires an eight-foot sidewalk along minor collector roads, but the city engineer has agreed that this could be reduced to six feet when not abuing the curb. Um, this amendment is intended to rightsize pedestrian facilities along lower volume roadways. And after planning commission and council feedback, language was added to this to provide the city engineer discretion as to when those sidewalks may be reduced from 8 to 6 feet. Um, so with that I have the action on the screen and I am available for questions. >> Thank you, Miss Hesp. Questions for staff. >> Seeing none, I will then open the public hearing and ask if there's anyone in the chambers who wishes to testify to this item. Seeing no one coming forward. Is there anybody online? >> All participants online are staff. Thank you, Miss Brown. I will look then for a motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say I. >> I. Opposed. >> That motion passes. 6. We'll move to discussion. Commissioner Cunningham. >> Thank you, Chair. Um although I'm for uh item E, it's the only one I wanted to bring up. I think that there was a lot of discussion around uh that particular one on city council. Or am I mixing them up? Um I guess I'm having I didn't have this notebook here that night. Uh remind me again how everyone felt about it. The um architectural standards for joining commercial buildings. Can we back the slide up also to the double E? >> I'll start. Commissioner Cunningham, I believe I was blowing a trumpet on my way out the door. Um, seeing ordinance e, uh, I'm an enormous supporter of this. Um, we've seen development applications come before us and we've had to ask the applicant to change because they wanted to build what they would consider a modern building, but because of the code, they have to actually meet the standards of the buildings that are already there. And so as our infrastructure has aged like many has um we are then asking them uh no you must meet the standards of the 1980s not the 2020s. Sorry about that. And so I believe this ordinance addresses that um so that we're giving developers more flexibility in my opinion by supporting that ordinance. >> Thank you for the refresher. No unless anyone else says anything they want to talk about. All right. Nothing further. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, the only thing I I noticed here is that I was glad we tabled the ordinance on the double public hearing. Uh, we had a lot of conversation and it was a very nuanced conversation about five or six different options that maybe should not have the double public hearing and I think that deserved a deeper dive if we're going to go down that road. So, I was pleased to see that removed and I'm supportive of everything that remains here. Any other comments? If none, I'll look for a motion. Commissioner Len. No, >> I was just going to ask if they could advance the slide again. >> I will make that motion, please. Um, I move to recommend adopting ordinances A through O and Q through Z as included in the meeting packet, thereby amending chapters 6, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, and appendix A of the city code. >> Second motion and a second to approve this first motion. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. >> That motion passes 6. >> Um I move to recommend adopting ordinances double A through double F, excuse me, as included in the meeting packet, thereby amending chapter 21 and appendix A of the city code. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second to approve this second motion. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I >> opposed. That motion passes 6. This move uh this item rather will move to the city council as a public hearing on November 17th. Thank you, Miss Hesp. We'll move then to item number two, uh which is a review of the official building height map of the city of Bloomington. The city is the applicant and Mr. Ramler Olsen has the staff report. Good evening. >> Good evening, Mr. Wills. >> That was quick. >> That was almost late. >> The Vikings are on. I I don't know if that influences. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Good evening, chair, members of the planning commission. Yeah. So, this is a uh study session looking at the official building height map of the city of Bloomington. Can I advance a slide? There we go. And um part of this is um going to be going through the history of what our current height regulations or uh the regulations are uh for building heights in the city of Minneapolis or I'm sorry. Yeah. Holy lord. I made that mistake earlier today. So I apologize with uh with a caller on the phone. So that was that was terrific. And I haven't uh gotten it out of my system apparently. Anyways, let's not waste any more time. So, um the um it's going to be looking at the the history of how we regulate building heights in the city of Bloomington. And uh as part of that, we're going to be proposing or staff has um prepared some proposals to adjust those building heights just for your consideration. And then we'll also be um uh looking at some other aspects that govern building heights in the city. So backgrounds should be background. Um I'm on a roll today. Uh so the regulatory framework that um currently uh um controls building heights in the city of Bloomington. We'll jump all the way back to 2010 when an ordinance was adopted that where you see our current framework being adopted. Um part of that ordinance was uh limit limiting uh the casting of shadows on protected residential properties. Um there's a definition of what's uh considered a protected residential property in the staff report for you to consider. Um there's also um building step um uh stepbacks. That's where you know you um increase in height and uh there's a a greater step back in the uh the building envelope from the you know whatever you're you're stepping back from. That could be a pedestrian street in this instance or it could be other protected residential properties. Again going back to uh that framework. And then uh that last bullet is the map-based height regulation which is what we're considering tonight. So um those are all the the um uh regulations on building height within the city of Bloomington. And uh this is our current uh building height map. Um there are uh five categories right now that uh uh set the limits for building height. Um the lowest is three stories uh 50 feet, the lesser of which. Um and then it goes all the way to no limit. So it can build however tall you want, but you also has have to comply with those other um regulations that I mentioned or those other standards that I mentioned uh the shadow casting and whatnot. Um and then um there there are other uh building height regulations associated with proximity to the airport that need to be considered. So those are imposed by u um uh the uh Minneapolis St. Paul uh zoning um zoning code or yes sorry Minneapolis uh St. air airport zoning code. And so we considered a lot of um information as we were studying this issue. Um the going all the way to the top of the the land use guide plan that's in our compre our 20 240 comprehensive plan or our most recent comprehensive plan. And um what we focused on or what we teased out of that information was um medium density and highdensity residential properties or areas of the city. Um those were uh considered among staff for you know how do we how do we regulate buildings within those areas and then we also looked at planning area uh areas that have uh been the focus of uh planning efforts. So um this is a map showing the the boundaries or the the areas of of those studies. So Norman Lake district uh district plan, the Pen-American district plan, the Lindale Lindale Avenue suburban retrofit plan area and 98th Street Station area and of course the South Loop district plan area. And then um uh completed in 2017 uh by the um uh housing and redevelopment authority, a study of um uh neighborhood commercial areas throughout the city. Uh eight were identified and they're included within our the most recent comprehensive plan. And so we looked at those and then we uh examined the land uses of each uh commercial area identified. And from that uh we came up with our staff uh um came up with this proposed height limit map for for changes to what we saw were compatible with the land use and those uh planning studies that I identified earlier. the the framework that we that we utilized or that we adopted or the approach that we adopted when we uh formulated that map was looking at again medium-density residential areas. Um there were a lot of areas that are guided medium density residential that are limited to two stories or 40 ft. And based on the description of the medium-density residential land use within the comprehensive plan, staff felt it was appropriate to um have each area that is guided that way to have a minimum height uh limit of at least three stories or or 50 ft which you know the lesser of two of of each. And um uh we also made exceptions based on the context of where these areas are located. Are they are they approximate to a major intersection? Um are they uh were they examined as part of an earlier planning planning effort? So um in which case they the minimum heights actually might be greater than um the three stories or 50 ft. And then the same approach was um applied to high density uh residential areas. And um and then we also looked at max building heights uh within and near PL planning area those planning areas um or areas of those planning studies to reflect the goals and the vision articulated within those plans. So this is an example of kind of how that worked. Um starting out with the current building height limits. Um isol or um highlighting those uh properties that are highdensity residential or med or guided high density residential medium uh medium density residential. And then also considering you looking at that third panel um the planning area that might be nearby or within or um you know within the city and looking at that land use guidance and what was intended for you know the extent of that planning area and then coming up with um a proposed uh building height limit um for for um for the city um using this sort of logic framework. work and then you know uh within the staff report we hide uh staff highlights some additional considerations that um are gerain to this conversation. So there is a relationship with what we're proposing to the um uh uh to uh the incentives for for affordable housing in the OHO um opportunity housing ordinance. My apologies. Um we considered that and we considered that with our colleagues in the um HR and we came to the conclusion that we didn't observe any conflicts between those a incentives to um to provide to provide affordable housing. um right now uh to uh get or to to um to qualify for those incentives for instance for the hype bonus you need to meet uh minimum uh affordability targets but that's about where it ends. It doesn't incentivize going any deeper into affordability. So um you would still and it wouldn't uh conflict with what we're proposing because you would still get that additional height. So, um, we didn't see any issues with, uh, its relationship to the, um, opportunity housing ordinance. And, um, it's important to consider that, you know, the proposed changes that, uh, staff have highlighted on, uh, what we've prepared, um, aren't necessarily going to materialize in buildings meeting those those height limits. They still there are still those zoning standards that were mentioned at the beginning of the presentation that would still need to be met. Um so shadow casting and then additional um uh development standards that the sod uh the city uh um uses or imposes on uh new development. So off street parking, landscaping, etc. And then there's also market forces that are influencing the shape of development and um that may that may influence uh buildings not getting uh to those height limits that we that are being proposed. And then you know the state building code that needs to be considered as that regulates building height based on construction type, occupancy type, uh fire suppression systems, a variety of considerations. So uh next steps for this process are you know there's no formal motion required because this is a study session but we will be taking feedback from you all and um presenting this uh that um as well as um any changes to what we're to or to to the map that we would then present to council at no on November 17th. And then after that taking all that feedback we would prepare prepare an ordinance to be considered um sometime in late December and January for public hearings in front of planning commission and city council respectively. So, um there are some questions that uh staff are prepared to kick off this discussion because this is a study item and um um I can re you know I can certainly read them and we can go one by one or uh however you however you propose to uh address these questions otherwise it could be more free flowing conversation and I'm also happy to answer questions. So, just starting off the first one, um do you agree with staff's proposed amendments to the official building height map and um you know why or why not and we really appreciate that feedback. >> Thank you, Mr. Amler Olsson. Let's start with that first question. Uh thoughts on the amendments to the official building height. >> Commissioner Len. >> Uh thank you, Chair. I'm wonder can you go back to the uh slide that has the plus+? Okay, >> that one. >> I >> have to admit as I was reading through the materials I found this a confusing concept to grasp. So I want to make sure I understand what it is we're talking about here. So if we take the first map, the second map, the third map, which equals the fourth map. The one thing I don't understand is how in the proposed building height limits for example, we get to the So the orange would be six stories 80 feet tall. Correct. Uh, chair commissioner. Yes. >> Okay. And but the planning I guess what I I'm not understanding is the overlay between the planning area and the area that was decided like why one area was selected versus another. So for example, I'm assuming this is Cedar Avenue, right? Uh, if you're going north on Cedar Avenue in that block, >> why is the one that's shaped, for lack of a better description, like Oklahoma on its side, why isn't the green part also orange? Like, what's the logic on that? Do you see what I'm saying? Anyone? Oh, >> see. So, I'm I'm just having a hard time understanding how the decision was made like specifically on where the limits would end on from one to the next. >> Um, can I reply or or did you want to >> No, no, please. >> Oh, okay. Uh, yes. Uh, chair, commissioner, so it was proximity to that intersection that was considered. So it's it's a major intersection and it's had a lot of uh attention devoted to it by um other divisions within community development there, you know. So it is a a prime location for redevelopment and clo getting closer to that intersection, allowing building heights to increase. um seeing that as an asset to being closer to that intersection and then uh shortening building heights as you move away but up cedar still keeping it um um still offering those building heights and in a in um in accordance with the framework that we adopted for highdensity residential as you as you'll see on what we're proposing. But it really was that proximity to the intersection that influenced what we saw was was an appropriate building height limit for um uh development in that area. Okay. So there isn't a specific reason for example why that the panhandle of Oklahoma is not included in that. I just as ana it's I'm not overly fixated on that particular space. I'm just trying to understand how the decisions were made when for example across the street that is listed as the six feet six stories 80 ft. So it's just trying to get a better understanding about the decision is made on where to make the cut off. >> Yes. uh chair commissioner that just it um that panhandle portion of the geometry looked like a good cut off point for again stepping down those building heights as you moved away from the intersection that not really um there on the on the other side of old cedar. So again that's how that's where our treatment was. Granted, uh we also want to um we also want to clarify that some of this stuff is is is a lot of art as well >> as well as science. you know, we're thinking um what looks appropriate from from a a mapping perspective, but we're happy to get into more detail um if that's what you're concerned about is that maybe some of these decisions seem a little too arbitrary and we could maybe um strengthen some of the the logic that we're applying to prepare the the the proposed heights. >> Great. Thank you. >> Uh go ahead commission. >> I have a second unrelated question. Um and it's more to understand the process here. At what point does do conversations with the schools happen? Um obviously if there were suddenly really large significant increases in the highdensity real um residential in this intersection or some of the other intersections, at what point do the conversations start to have with the schools? Um, I asked this purely from a previous experience in another city where the explosion of highdensity real estate was never or residential real estate was never really coordinated with the schools and they ended up with a huge school pressure down the road. Um, and so just curious in the city of Bloomington where that happens in the process. >> Um, I will have to defer to Nick uh, planning manager Nick Johnson with regard to that question. >> Mr. Johnson. Yeah, thank you uh Tom, thank you chair, thank you commissioner Len for the question. So the point uh at which the school district reviews the city's land use plans and policies mostly occurs with the comprehensive plan. So they are one of our adjacent jurisdictions or affected jurisdictions. So every individual property that gets regguided in our comp plan. Um they would typically get a a notice uh of that as well as when the city updates its when it does its dennial update, its tenure update. Uh this the Bloomington Public Schools certainly is one of the entities that we uh notify and engage along the way and review the land the future land use map changes. Um in addition to that, I'd like to emphasize that we have a pretty strong working relationship with the school district. Um so we we definitely are trying to coordinate those things. I'm not going to say that they are involved in every discussion on every development project in Bloomington, but we are required under state law to notify them of comp plan uh changes. This is not a comp comprehensive plan amendment change. This is part of the zoning code. Um uh but just a heads up about that. >> And if I may add to that um chair and commissioner, we have um density standards with that are associated with uh the land use guidance in the comprehensive plan. So the building heights do not change the amount of or the the the density of units on the on the property. It just changes the building height. So, it kind of shifts with um building heights there. There's going to be probably unique arrangements of buildings on the properties, but it doesn't what we're proposing does not touch those densities that we've um uh articulated in the comprehensive plan. >> Great. Thank you. Thank you, chair. >> Uh Mr. I'm going to also have a question and it's not really directly related to your first guiding question, but um I'm struggling with the nomenclature of just say three stories 50 ft or four stories 60 ft and what we're saying is the lesser of those two. Correct. >> Correct. >> Why include the stories? So if we're allowing 60 feet, why do we then care if it's four stories or five stories or six stories? Why why put that on top of it? If we're allowing 60 ft for shadow reasons, what does it matter how many stories there are? >> Chair, I I actually can't answer that because um I'm I um unfortunately within the the meeting minutes where they adopted these height categories that are part of the map-based approach that we that the city uses when uh governing building heights. there was nothing in there that that addressed the this um this measurement that that we've proposed where or that that's that's uh been part of practice with stories versus feet. You're right. I mean, if you can build up to a certain amount of feet, that's the that's the main concern. That's ultimately dictating your height. It's not the stories or that's that's a cleaner ar articulation of your height is the actual feet, not the stories. So, I'm not sure if uh planning manager Nick Johnson can provide any more background on that, but again, this is um we are looking at, you know, an ordinance that can amend these standards. So, if we if if you feel it's appropriate to actually um change this to a system that's disregarding stories and more focused on feet, then this is the time to do it. >> I would like to do that. Um, I think we should look into that. Especially, I mean, even four stories, 60 feet doesn't quite add up. I think you could easily get five stories out of a 60- foot building. So, we're artificially lowering the number of stories and density you could get out of a building by this what I consider to be redundant and ineffective uh nomenclature we have here. So, I would ask that staff takes a look at that if my fellow commissioners agree um that we we should take a look at that before this comes back to us to see if there's some reason I'm not thinking of as to why we're doing that. I'll look for further com comments. Commissioner Cunningham. >> Thank you. Excuse me. Thank you, Chair. Um kind of following in that on the I'm I'm also in agreement that I think that just having a a footage is a good um a good framework for this. Uh, I would encourage staff to look at section 21.301.10-I-1 where we're measuring. It's the prescriptive part of the code that measures what is the actual height of a building. How do you how do we level the playing field and say how it all goes and it includes rooftop equipment, antennas, lightning rods as part of the structure height. And it might be beneficial if we're trying to drive density and overall heights of buildings to exempt certain aspects of the top of buildings that wouldn't throw major shadow if that's the primary concern um in calculating building height. Thanks. >> Thank you, Commissioner Cunningham. Commissioner Isa. >> Thank you, Chair. I definitely agree with uh you chair on that. Uh um and also second what uh Commissioner Cunningham said uh on the exemptions of any like obstacle that or antenna that may not cause a shadow for example. So I just want to say that. Thank you >> Commissioner Mer. >> Uh thank you. I just I I do want to agree uh Mr. Chairman that the the number really the the foot height needs to be the dictating factor. I've seen this same standard in other states that I've worked in. It's common in planning terms, but it's exactly what you said. what we care about is the overall height of the building, then let's just care about the overall height of the building. Um, and then just to follow up on uh Commissioner Cunningham's comment about things that should not count, and I I have not looked at that exact section, so I don't know what's in there, but I would also include not only antennas, but things like elevator penous um as as things that go above the roof line. >> Thank you, Commissioner Meer. Uh, Mr. Ramler Olsson, we apologize for the detour there. Can we go back to your guiding question number one to ensure we have addressed your question? >> Happy to. >> Oops. Oh no. >> Oh, the good stuff. Okay, here we go. Uh, so do we agree with the proposed amendments? I do in principle agree with the proposed amendments to the official height map. I like that we're increasing the um uh density at both Old Cedar Avenue and Old Shock B Road. That's on my list of areas I'd like to see that and also along Lindell Avenue. I was pleased to see that as well. I did have one question though. Uh can we go back to the proposed map? Um at so the Lindell Avenue retrofit plan uh recommended two development nodes as sort of the catalyst for development on Lindale. It was 98th in Lindale and I believe it was 84th in Lindale. Uh chair was 86th. Thank you. 86th. Was there consideration to no limits at 86th in Lindale um as opposed to 80 feet? >> Uh chair, between 98th and 86 um 98th is is the the greater activity node. Um and we let's sorry one second. Let's take a look at what it Okay, so right now uh it's it's capped at four stories 60 feet and we are proposing to raise it up to um six stories uh 80 ft. So we are giving some thought of the development possibilities around 86. Uh 98 definitely shows more potential given the assets within that area. um 86 um right now um doesn't have those same kind of assets. So keeping it um at at a u a modest height of 80 ft seemed uh appropriate. Uh we were not considering um the same sort of treatment that we were applying to 98. Again, different contexts yield different approaches. So, um that's what our what our thinking was, but we're happy to reconsider what what we presented. If you feel we should uh perhaps investigate no uh a no no limit height or um yeah, no height limit at that at that intersection. We're happy to do that. Thank you, Mr. Ramlson. Other thoughts? Commissioner Lind. >> Uh, thank you, Chair. I have no opposition to going to no height limit at 86th than Lindell. I mean, I do think there's a tremendous amount of potential there. I do see staff's point that there's probably more potential at 98th than Lindale. Um, particularly just looking at what's what's there. Um so to your point chair that feeling >> uh chair if if I may there's also just a it's more approximate to a single family residential and so the uh the application of a no height limit might be blunted by just those surrounding land uses which would greatly limit the potential for height. Um but I mean we certainly don't want to take that off the table if that is if that's the city's appetite for you know development in that area. So we could reconsider what we're proposing. >> I'm looking at the map here and I agree with you that on the west side we're pretty close to single family homes, but on the east side I wouldn't have concerns about that. There's a lot of industrial commercial uses over there. So I would be potentially interested in the norththeast and southeast quadrants of 86th and Lindell at at no limit. And I think it's pretty unlikely we're going to get a building over 80 feet than there. But I'd rather just allow the market if hey if someone wants to put a 100 store or 100 foot building there uh I wouldn't want to restrict it at at what we're considering one of the two key nodes on Lindell. Any other thoughts on uh guiding question number one? Let's move then to uh discussion question number two. Thank you chair. Uh so I feel like this has already been part of the conversation already. Um if if you have any worries, concerns, qualms with what we're proposed to the proposed map, um we're happy to reconsider. Um altering it. Um it's not a it's not set in stone. It's not a hard and fast rule that we've we've adopted. So it can certainly vary. um you know this the city has uh you know it's a it has an interesting landscape. So what what may seem appropriate in one area is you know we want to take location into context essentially. Sorry I was about to ramble but that's the short and sweet of it is that we really want to take location into consideration because um just one area is not like the other. And so how do we how do we handle that uh those distinctions? And so if um if you have any um concerns about you know what we used uh for for in I mean here I have it specifically for medium density residential and high density residential but again we were looking at even the planning areas and trying to apply um uh a framework of you know what do those plans say about development in those areas and do you have any issues with with that approach? Mr. Rson, could you go back to the map? I believe you have one that shows the medium density and highdensity residential parcels. Okay. Thoughts? Commissioner Mutzer, >> I just have a question and I I held off on the last one. Thinking it fit better here. Um, I have no issue as far as the guiding question. And I think this is this is the appropriate way of going. I just want to be sure that I'm understanding um you said that there's no conflict with the opportunity housing ordinance. So just to make sure I'm understanding correctly how that applies. Essentially if you meet the threshold for affordability, you just get an extra 10 feet or one story. >> Yep. >> So the map essentially regardless of what the map says, you just get 10 feet on top. Got it. Okay. That's what I wanted to make sure. Chair, commissioner. Yes. I should probably say yes instead of not so we can actually type something in the mean minutes regarding this question specific to medium and high density residential. I think I could get myself to a place where we just say both are allowed at the I believe it's six stories 80 feet. I'm pretty bullish on increasing density in the city and I just the parcels I'm looking at here. I think I could get there that look if we're going to add more residents and people want to live here, we've got to build upwards. And I don't think um a six-story building is tremendously ownorous on the surrounding use, whether it's not that far from residential or not. Um, so like if if others felt the same way, I think I could get to a place where medium density residential also falls under six stories 80 feet. However, I think a fair counterpoint to that is that I'm not sure the development community is knocking on the door so loudly that the parcels we've identified for six stories 80 feet is is plenty for a while. And once we fill all of those up with six-story buildings, then we look at medium density residential and in 15 or 20 years or whatever. So, I think I could go either way on it, but I'm open to the idea of exploring medium density residential at uh six stories 80 feet, but I'll look for other thoughts. Uh, Commissioner Len, Mr. Ramler Wilson. >> Oh, yeah. Chair, sorry. Uh we're more conservative than what you're proposing because um our our idea is to uh treat uh medium density residential as having uh having it um have a height limit of three stories 50 ft. M >> so if we are happy to go taller um uh based on your guidance and and to look at that um just want to clarify I mean if I was not clear um uh at the beginning of this um I I want to be clear is that we're proposing that all um highdensity residential um have a minimum height of at least um uh four stories 60 feet medium density residential three stories 50 feet if you'd like them to both go to six stories 80 feet then then we're happy to look at that >> one point of clarification the what we're seeing here are maximum heights correct >> correct >> okay Mr. Johnson. >> Uh, thank you, chair. Except for how the OO can apply just with that caveat. Um, the the only point I was going to make about the medium density residential category, just as a reminder to folks in the comp plan, it has a maximum density limit of 15 units to the acre right now. That might change in the next uh comp plan certainly. Um, but that's the maximum density. So, in terms of seeing a building of that height, you know, it's likely that it would uh exceed uh the maximum density allowance of the comp plan. The other thing I'd point out about the medium density uh category is that there are quite uh quite a few actual single family residential areas that are guided medium density because the city has identified them as an area of transition. That doesn't mean that um higher structure height is inappropriate in that area necessarily, but just clarifying that there are some medium density areas uh that are currently low density residential uses and are surrounded by such. Um uh in terms of the MDR mix in the city, a lot of them are town homes. There are some low-rise apartments as well. Um but the comp plan explicitly does state that um uh apartments are an acceptable or appropriate use for medium. Um so that's why the suggested increase in the the height limit. I'll come back to you in a second, but I want to follow through on this. So if I'm understanding Mr. pronouncing correctly that if we if the commission desired that medium density residential could be at a fourtory 60 ft the um the comp plan does is there I'm sorry which document would not currently allow that? >> Uh chair if I can clarify I think the more than likely a four-story uh multif family building would likely exceed the density limitations of the medium density residential category as it's currently constructed. Doesn't mean that couldn't change in the future, but right now it's limited to 15 units per per acre. >> Right. So that density limit would you encourage planning commission to wait until we are reviewing the um I'm sorry, Mr. John, is that the zoning code that precludes that density? >> It no chair, it's the comp plan. >> Okay, it's the comp plan. Would you advise the planning commission if we desired medium density residential for an increase in NC would you advise us to wait until we're updating the comprehensive plan or if that was a strong desire of the commission now could that be wrapped into this effort? >> Uh chair uh commissioners I would likely wait until the comp plan is updated uh to affectuate the zoning code from a sequence standpoint. you typically want to uh amend your comprehensive plan before updating the zoning uh standards. One thing I will say related to that though is that as part of an internal conversation we've been having as staff about this tool is that the last time we looked at this was 2010 uh formally and so 15 years is probably too long of a time to uh not make any uh more intentional changes to this regulatory tool. So, we've been talking about ways to kind of build in more frequent um kind of akin to miscellaneous issues almost in a way of doing a more routine audit or look at this map. Uh you know, we have development projects that seek to reguide individual properties. Is that is that a time for example to look at increasing uh the height limits map for those properties to kind of correspond with this logic framework as Tom has been describing? Um so I my recommendation in short to your question would be I would amend the comp plan first. Um that's why I think uh we think three stories or if we uh 50 feet is a appropriate limit for these MDR areas that currently are capped at two. So most of these areas are currently capped at 40 foot foot height limit. >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Commissioner Len, for your patience. >> Thank you, Chair. Um I think I I'll go on the record of saying I'd be highly unlikely to support that. Um, I think one thing to note, I believe I'm correct on this, is that particularly in this 98th and Normandale corridor, several of those low density real um or medium density back up directly to single family homes. They share so our house backs up um and I think that would really change the character particularly in that neighborhood. Um, I know based on a few of them surrounding Normanddale, uh, whatever the shopping center at 98th in Normandale is called also, those also back up to single family homes. And I think that, um, I'd have some real concerns about having a whole block of single family homes have to have six-story apartments if they wanted to suddenly now or condos overlooking them. So, I'd be a hard beard to get me on board for that. >> Very well, >> though not impossible. And I think uh to Mr. Johnson's point, the comprehensive plan is a good time to relook at that where you can step the zoning down. So if we did desire six stories at those at those locations, you could then step it down to maybe threetory town houses next to that and then you get back to the single family zones. So that's probably a better time to do that than what we're talking about this evening. Any other thoughts on this question of um recommended densities for medium and high density residential parcels? Seeing none. Okay. Uh thank you chair. So the last question perhaps I should have reordered these questions but um because maybe this answers the other or I mean this would apply to the other two is is the official building height map the preferred approach to regulating building height in the city? Alternatives include within the zoning district having a height limit by use um as opposed to where we really um um are our approach is is partly based on location. So where are these areas located that where we're we feel comfortable with a height that we're proposing. So there's you know so you have that um uh not exactly dueling because they can be complimentary but so it's location or it's more use-based um height limits. Um an example of this is if you're all familiar with is formbased codes. So those are codes that are strictly focused on the form of the building and not so much on the use of the building. So that's where you see that um that kind of tension being dealt with um in uh you know so cities have uh in the United States have adopted a form-based code where they're you know irrespective of the use they allow a certain building form or they want a certain building form to proliferate. Um but there I mean there's there's um pros and cons to to both approaches. Um, the way the city of Bloomington operates is it's it's kind of a a a hybrid of those two. So, there are there are areas that are Oops, sorry. We um where uses um don't allow a certain height to be exceeded. And then we we've gone into great detail on certain geographic locations of the city where we have a certain development vision or the city has a certain they've adopted a certain development division uh vision for an area that may actually again irrespective of use want taller buildings because that fits the form of of what's being desired in that area. So there there are those um visions of you know how to uh regulate building height staff's preference is we uh are uh to to maintain the approach that we have where we do take location into consideration but happy to get your feedback on on what uh the approach has been so far since 2010. >> Thoughts? Commissioner Cunningham. >> Um thank you chair. I I'd like the map. I think it's good for uh people that are looking to develop property to be able to find easily find the the map on the website. Not on the zoning map, but next door. I just pulled it up trying to load a layer. But um I think that it's a good way to visually see what we're looking for for height maximums in various parts of the city for someone looking to develop. Thank you. I agree with Commissioner Cunningham. I like the map. Um, I think the reason I like it the most is it allows for nuance and just taking a, you know, treating an an individual parcel as it is. Um, you know, as I was grow brought up, not all three parcels are the same. You know, that's what my mom always taught me. And so, I'm glad we uh are taking a look at this on an individual basis with the map. I think it's the right way to go. others. [Music] >> So if I may share really quickly. So the um I guess an argument to consider is just um application you know if you have a use-based height limit that is it's a little easier to apply because you would just look at the use it tells you the height limit and that's it. You have the map. You have to find out you know irrespective of the use where where your um where the development is located and does it make sense and why is and having an argument based on like a use over there. I'm I'm I'm proposing the same use yet I have a lower height limit. I'm imagining the perspective of a developer but uh again that's something to consider. we staff we've our perspective is is that we've seen a lot of success with our current approach but there's again there's there's arguments for and against and so I just want to be fair to um to uh approaches. Okay. Do you have any more guiding questions for us, Mr. Ramos? >> Uh chair. No, that's that's it. >> Any final thoughts on this item? Commissioner. Uh thank you, chair. Uh I just want to say I know it takes a lot of uh time and effort on uh to have these presentations, city staff. So thank you and the rest of city staff that worked on this. My overall summary or I guess what I'm in in agreement with is kind of on point one what the chair recommended as well as uh Commissioner Cunningham. So thank you. >> Any other final thoughts on this item? Chair, can I clarify just for the record that you're referring to eliminating limitation on the number of stories, but just favoring a height only uh regulation >> in Commissioner Cunningham's uh thoughts on rooftop equipment? >> Thank you. Just want to clarify. >> Anything else for us, Mr. Rolson? >> Uh no. Uh no, actually that's that's good. Thank you for the feedback, chair and uh members of the planning commission. um you gave us a lot to think about and uh yeah so we'll move on to city council in November. >> Great. Thank you very much. In fact, it'll be November 17th. You will be before the city council as a study item. We will move then to item number three, considerating consideration of the planning commission meeting minutes of October 9th. Do I have a motion? >> Commissioner Cunningham. I move to adopt the planning commission meeting minutes for October 9th, 2025. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> I will note that Commissioner Summers and Commissioner White were absent. They may wish to abstain from this item. All those in favor say I. >> I. Opposed. Abstain. One abstination from Commissioner Summers. We will move then to item number four, the planning commission policy and issues update. Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Chair Cookton. Uh just previewing your next two meetings in November. So November the 6th, I should say both meetings look uh relatively uh busy uh agendas. Um on November 6th, there are three public hearings planned. A privately initiated city code amendment related to existing remote airport parking facilities. Uh a city code amendment related to uh refuse and recycling standards. If you recall, we previously had a study session on that item. Uh a public hearing for the American Boulevard transit study. the uh transportation staff will be coming uh to you seeking a formal recommendation on the findings of that study. Um the annual review of the city's capital improvement plan for consistency with the comprehensive plan. So um that's an item that we bring to you every year as required by state law to review the city's uh CIP before the city council takes action on it. Um the last item would be a um potentially an action item. Uh we're looking uh I have to study when the city council adopts their final uh meeting schedule for next year, but shortly thereafter we bring to you uh a proposed meeting uh calendar, a meeting schedule for 2026. Uh so that could be on the November 6th uh agenda and could be uh an action item. For those that um haven't participated that in before, we had 28 scheduled meetings this year. So that is seven per quarter effectively. Most months have two meetings, occasionally a month with three meetings. Um we'll certainly bring that uh you know kind of past approach back to you uh for your feedback um and and we'll go from there. Um on November 20th uh there's also three public hearings currently planned. Um the first one fire station 6 bunk house. Uh the city will be the applicant in that one seeking a variance setback variance and final site and building plans uh for fire station 6 on Lake View Road. Uh there'll be a public hearing for a uh conditional use permit at 10901 Nesbbit. uh for cannabis manufacturing uh and then a public hearing for an interimmuse permit for remote airport parking at 7901 uh international drive. Um in addition to that uh two study items are planned. One would be a initial review of the city's fence ordinance. That's a project on the planning commission work plan. Uh and then uh Dakota Casten Day plans to bring to you uh the first draft of the 2026 planning commission work plan as a study item for your feedback. Um so that's the the next two upcoming meetings. Um unless there's any questions about any of that. I do have one other update, but I can pause if there's any questions. >> I do have one question, Mr. Johnson. Uh the planning commission work plan, uh might that reflect the recent conversation we had about the South Loop district? >> Uh yes. Uh I will I I have reiterated that to Dakota. Uh he is aware of uh the planning commission and council's adopted guidance in the South Loop district plan update to study uh structure height and flu rate ratio. Uh it's in my inbox. I haven't looked at it quite yet. I believe it is in the draft, but uh I will uh confirm that with him uh tomorrow. >> Thank you. Did I see a hand over here? Commissioner Cing. >> Thank you, Chair. I might have mis uh written something. Do we have a Bloomington Ferry Road corridor study slated for sometime in the near future? >> We Yeah, Chair, Commissioner Cunningham, thank you for that question. They removed that item from uh November 6th. It is going to come back to the planning commission. They're right now um deciding whether or not to have a public hearing either here at the planning commission or at the city council. So, the schedule is a little bit up in the air, but it will be coming back to you for a formal recommendation in terms of a follow-up to that study item. >> Thank you. >> Forgive me. That'll either be on November 20th, I believe, or the first meeting in December. >> Okay. So, yeah. Thank you, chair. The the last item I was just going to bring up to you and and this is something that hasn't happened for some years, but given uh transitions on the planning commission and the tenure of all the members, we were contemplating uh some advisory boards and commissions at Bloomington have had uh an annual retreat. Um we haven't done one for the planning commission in some time. Uh we certainly would want to collect your feedback if you were interested in uh doing something along the lines of a retreat. Um other topics or questions that boards have answered is why do we do this work? Seems like a simple question, but uh without actually uh getting around a table and discussing it with one another, uh sometimes it can be lost or go unsaid. So sometimes uh those are nice things to uh connect with one another about. But uh in addition to that, I think it's just an opportunity to connect as board members outside of the formal meeting. uh um construct or outside of uh this space. Um so I'll be sending out uh uh either a Microsoft form or a survey tool uh to you all to see if this is if this activity would be something of interest to you. I think we'd be looking to roll it out in January um uh and likely get uh trained facilitators to help us um participate in a a potential retreat um or a workshop uh along those lines. So um if you have any feedback for that now that's great. I welcome it. But um I will be sending out a survey tool on that here in the coming weeks. >> Any questions on that for Mr. Johnson? We will look for that email. >> Sounds good. That's all I have for you. >> Very well. Is there anything else the planning commission would like to address this evening? >> Seeing none, we will conclude this October 23rd meeting of the Bloomington Planning Commission. Good night. [Music]