Good evening and welcome to this February 19th 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 make a formal decision. While other items before the planning commission are public hearings where we will take public testimony here in the chambers or you can also do so from home by following the instructions on your screen. Some items before the planning commission uh the planning commission will have final decision-making authority while on other items before the commission we act in an advisory capacity and the city council will make the final decision. Uh we have four commissioners present here in city hall at the moment. So, we do have a quorum um as part of seven commissioners who are appointed to the planning commission by the city council to serve three-year terms with a two-term limit. As we begin this evening, I'll ask everyone in the chambers to please rise for the pledge of allegiance. 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. All right, we're going to begin this evening with item number one. The city of Bloomington is the applicant for final site and building plans and a variance for the city salt shed and brine building at 9721 James Avenue. Mr. Kareem Sherard is here with a staff report. >> Yes. Good evening chair and commissioners. I'm here to present the proposed salt shed in Brian building at 9721. Let's try this again. Good evening chair and commissioners. I'm here to present the proposed salt shed in Brian building at 9721 James Avenue South. To give context of the proposed building, the site is located on the proposed site will be located along 97 Street and James Avenue. Um, this site has close proximity to other city of Bloomington um, government buildings, namely the public works building and the city of Bloomington civic plaza where we are where we are at currently. Um, to give more insight into the proposed location, the current site of the soul shed is slated to be redeveloped. So that's the reason for a new um, a new site. Um that site is going to be the new fleet garage site which is 1800 West 96th Street. The new site here is going to be sandwiched in between James and Irvin avenues. Uh the project consists of an approximately 6,000 square ft brine building and a 19,000 um square feet salt storage building. Um the current location is predominantly an industrial area. That's important to make note of. Uh the land use guidance is zoning is that it's zoned I3 general industry and is zoned the land use is guidance is um industrial. The proposed site plan that we have here just shows that this building consolidates areas of functions, the multiple functions that is needed to perform um efficient use of the salt shed and the brine buildings um from by the city. Um so this site consolidates different areas, the salt shed, the brine building, the wash off area and it's also a storm water retention pond on site. Um, in addition, uh, sidewalk along James Avenue will be constructed as well as, uh, landscaping. The said landscaping is, um, is in compliance with our city code. Um, there we do recommend that there will be a rain garden feature as part of the infiltration, basin, and flood storage. In terms of the proposed elevations to the brine and short and salt shed building, this the proposed materials are within compliance of our exterior materials um standards. Um there is a special um compli there is a special compliance when it comes to um when it comes to government buildings that's going to contain any type of road any type of materials that's going to treat um the road. So everything is in compliance here when it comes to exterior materials. Um the public sidewalk there's this is this slide on public sidewalk. Let me show you that the area in green shows that's where the sidewalk is going to be constructed. The area in red is where the where there's not going to be sidewalk constructed because there's not there are two reasons. The first reason is that this is an industrial area and there's not an existing sidewalk that's connecting to over to James. So because we the city is not constructing those sidewalks, city council authority is needed to defer construction of those public sidewalks. in terms of the variance that we are seeking that the city is seeking uh seeking a 25 foot variance instead of a 30 foot so a 5-ft variance along West 97th Street and the reason for this is because there's a there's a significant difference in slope when it comes to the eastern side of West 97th Street as opposed to the western portion. So this will make diff this would this will be pose a challenge to any type of um any type of vehicles going into West 97th Street where the proposed entrances. It will be a too steep of a grade. So having that five foot setback pushes the building further east and it just um that would that would greatly that would greatly promote just better circulation to the building and safety. So with that um we do have staff here and architects if you have any questions but we do have two recommendations two motions to be spoke upon. Thank you, Mr. Sherard. We will begin with questions for staff. Commissioner Len. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, Mr. Sherrod, could you please talk about this? Go back to the sidewalk slide. And I think my first question is, is there an existing sidewalk on 98th Street and will that remain or what's the situation with the sidewalk on the 98th Street side? Sure, Chair and Commissioner Len, there is an existing sidewalk along 98th Street that will remain and there's going to be a sidewalk along James, but in terms of the necessity of creating an additional sidewalk along 97th Street and Irvin, we don't see that as being a viable um use of public funds to construct these sidewalks because it's not in an industrial area. So, it's going to um we seeking deferment of that necessity. >> Great. >> Mr. Mr. Johnson, anything? >> Yeah, and Chair, thank you. Uh, Commissioner Len, if I can just add and clarify, too, this site does not go all the way down to 98 Street. So, there would be a gap uh even when constructing uh sidewalk along Irving, for example, there's uh two properties in between this site and 98 Street. So, there still would be a sidewalk gap remaining. Um, so just to clarify that. Any other questions for staff? Seeing none. Thank you, Mr. Schart. Is the applicant here and would wish to speak to this item? Please introduce yourself for us. Hello, I'm Mark Pressure, assistant capital project manager. I work in public works and I will be managing this construction project. Thank you for having me. >> Anything we should know that wasn't covered in the staff report? >> Uh, I think Shard did a a great job. Um I think the only thing I would add is in terms of the uh setback variance that we're looking for. The one of the challenges with the design was the elevation that goes from the uh western portion of 97th to the eastern portion. It's a a very steep grade and in order to meet the flood plane requirements, we have to raise our um the elevation of our foundation on the site. So that's where basically if we're not able to like the further towards the east that we can set the building, the like the less steep our grade is coming out of the building. So that's kind of just the importance of getting the variance for the setback. I just wanted to clarify. Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant? Seeing none. Thank you. >> Thank you. I will open the public hearing now uh only for item number one and I'll ask if there's anyone in the chambers who wishes to testify to this item for the Salt and Brine building. Seeing no one stepping forward in the chambers, is there anybody online? >> All participants online are staff. >> Thank you, Miss Brown. I'll look for a motion to close the public hearing. >> I move to close the public hearing. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say I. I >> opposed. Motion passes 40. The public hearing is closed and we will move to discussion. I can get us started here. Um, historically the city goes to in my at least in my observation pretty great lengths to not request variances. They set a good example for not doing that. And so I trust that when the city does request a variance, it's for legitimate reasons. And uh, my reading of the of the application here suggests it is a reasonable uh, request for a variance. And I can make the findings as such. And I think this uh seems like a fine project here and I will be in support of it. >> Commissioner Len, >> uh I concur with that. I think that in particular I commend the city for finding a way to continue to keep uh as many things in a relatively small footprint as possible. Um and the consolidation and um structuring of this I think is a good use of land and uh warrants a variance. >> Any other thoughts? If not, I would entertain a motion. Commissioner Muster. Uh, in case number, excuse me, PL20260002, having been able to make the required findings, I move to recommend the city council adopt a resolution approving a variance to reduce the required eastern structure setback from 30 feet to 25 ft for the salt storage build salt storage and brine buildings located at 9721 James Avenue South subject to the conditions and code requirements attached to the staff report. >> Is there a second? >> I second. We have a motion and a second for this first motion on the screen. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. That motion passes 4. >> Commissioner Len. Uh, in case PL 20260002, having been able to make the final required findings, I move to recommend approval of final site and building plans for an approximately 19,280 ft salt storage building and approximately 6,50 ft brine building located at 9721 James Avenue South. Subject to the conditions and code requirements attached to the staff report. >> I second. We have a motion and a second for these final site and building plans. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. >> That motion passes 40. These items will go before the city council on March 3rd, 2026 on their consent agenda. Thank you, Mr. Shard. >> Yep. Thanks. We will move then to item number two, which is also a public hearing uh for a variance for lot at 9211 Columbus Avenue South. Mr. Dylan Palmer is here with a staff report. All right. Good evening, chairman and commissioners. Again, I'm Dylan Palmer here to present item number two, which is a lot with variance for 9211 Columbus Avenue South. This is located in East Bloomington, uh, just east of Portland Avenue. This is the location. So, it's a single family dwelling. It's in a neighborhood surrounded by other single family dwellings. And this is the land use guidance and zoning. So in the comprehensive plan, this is guided lowdensity residential as well as the neighborhood surrounding it. And it is zoned R1 single family residential along with the neighborhood surrounding it. So the lot width variance is or the variance is requested in order to reduce the lot width from 60 ft down to 59 1/2 ft. So it's a variance for 6 in. Uh the reason we have to do this is because of the way that we measure lot width in the code. So this graphic here is pulled from the code. Uh we do not measure lot width at the front property line. We measure it at the front setback. So in this case it's 30 feet back from the front property line and then 50 feet uh beyond that front setback. So 70 70 feet 80 feet. Can't do math in my head anymore. Uh 80 feet back from the front parking lot. So, the reason that this is an issue is because the 1951 plat, it was uh lot 9, block 8 of the far third edition plat shows 120 ft. So, on this image here, you can see the lot we're discussing is lot number nine with the star. And then the arrow pointing to that 120 foot lot width measurement. And that of course, it's on the front property line, but it's also 120 ft on the rear property line. Uh based on this measurement, the applicant was looking at that saying, "Okay, great. we can subdivide our lot into two 60 foot wide R1 lots and it wouldn't need a variance or anything special. So they went out and hired a surveyor in order to draw up a plat to subdivide the lot and that surveyor went out there and found out that that 1951 plat was wrong. It was done in error. So as you can see here, this is the plat submitted by W. Brown surveyors. So the uh lot width up at the front property line is 59 feet and 6 in. And then at the setback line, 30 feet back is 59 feet and 7 and 3/4 in. And then you go 50 feet back from there, it's 59 feet and 10 in. And then the rear property line is still uh 60 feet and a/4 of an inch. So the reason they're requesting the variance is just to allow for the lot to be 59 and 1/2 ft wide rather than 60 feet wide. And just to kind of go back to how this error was created initially, at least what we think when surveyors go out and survey the survey the land, they don't just go out and draw it up on a map. They actually dig up the ground and put rods in each property corner. So there's a metal rod at each corner of your property or there should be a metal rod there. In this case, when the surveyor put the rods down back in the 50s, they did it in error. They ended up skewing the lot about 6 in. So again, the applicant is just requesting the variance to reduce the 60 foot lot width down to 59 and a half again because of a surveying error. In the future, they wish to subdivide the lot into two code complying lots. So one of them, let me go back here to the survey. Lot number two, that's the southern lot there. It would be 60 ft wide at all of the uh measurement points. And then lot number one, which is where the existing house is currently, uh would be the one with the shorter lot width. And then just to give you a little bit additional of additional information, there is an attached garage attached to that house. Now they are proposing to demolish that garage and then rebuild a detached garage in the rear of lot number one there. So that won't be an issue with the setback. So staff recommends approval of the variance through the following motion. And if you had any questions for me, I'm available. >> Thank you, Mr. Palmer. I do have a question. I just want to clarify what's before the planning commission tonight. Is it at all related to splitting the lot or is that a future application and before us tonight is just the variance to 59 and a half? >> Chair Hookton, that is correct. The variance, it is just the variance that you'll be uh deciding on tonight. The subdivision application will have to come in after the variance if it is to be approved. It would have to come in after the variance. >> And is that a staff review or does that come before the planning commission? >> The plat application will be reviewed by staff and then ultimately is decided on by city council at their consent agenda. Okay, thank you. Other questions for staff? Commissioner Muster, >> I just want to Can you go back to the the site sketch with the measurements at the different intervals? There we go. >> So, just to make sure I'm understanding the is the variance based on that front property line measurement or the 80 foot measurement that's actually 59 10 and 3/4. We're basing the variance off of that front lot measurement just to give them that extra inch just kind of the to cover all the bases just in case there was another error in surveying. Hope not with modern technology, but just to kind of cover all the different measurements involved. We wanted to give them the widest measurement and they asked for the widest measurement of a six-inch variance. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Commissioner Lite. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, and how was the decision made? Again, if you can go back to that slide again. um how was the decision made to make the uh lot one the lot that um where the variance was needed versus lot two like where that dividing point would be. >> Yeah, the applicant decided to have lot one be the lot with the reduced width because that's their current home and I presume that's where they intend to live in the future. So rather than subdivide off a 6 inch less wide lot and sell it to somebody else, they decided to keep that lot in their own hands. So, it was just to clarify. So, it was at the applicant's request where the line was. >> That's correct. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner. Uh, Commissioner Summers. >> Thank you, Chair. I'm in a totally different place today. So, um, so the garage situation threw me off a bit. So, can you clarify if we um were to be in support of this, is that creating a situation where there's a garage that's out of compliance that they would then need to tear down? >> Chair, commissioner, that would become an issue when they apply for the subdivision. So, tonight it is just a request for the variance to allow for a lot to be 59 1/2 ft wide. Once they come in with their subdivision application, that's when we'll be requesting of them to show that the garage will be demolished or request a demolition permit prior to approval or some kind of condition on that plat once that application comes in for our review. Any other questions for staff? Thank you, Mr. Palmer. Going to double check if the applicant is here in the chambers. Not seeing so. Uh, Miss Brown, is the applicant online? >> All participants online are staff. >> Very well. We will move then to the public hearing, which I will open now. And I will ask if there's anyone in the chambers who wishes to testify to this item before us. Please step forward. If you could introduce yourself to us, please. >> I am Shirley Winters. This is John Winters. John owns property in that neighborhood. So, we are concerned about the splitting of the lot and the use of the lot and how it affects the neighborhood and residential property value. We understand that the house is there with the garage. The intent is to tear down the garage, build another garage. However, it's not set in stone that that's will happens. That will happen. So, if this lot is approved as two lots, what prevents this person from building two houses on these two pieces of property? >> And as a point of clarification, the way we'll do this here is I'll have you do all your public testimony now and then we'll answer questions at the end here. So, if you have anything else you want to ask of us or let us know now, uh, let's do that first. >> Um, I mean, just to just to speak on on I don't really know how any of this works. But um just to speak on like if we if it was split into two uh public housing spots, which is seems like the direction it would go if it was um required or allowed. Um then like the um that that particular neighborhood doesn't have um very good uh um drainage. Uh it doesn't have curbs. It doesn't have drain drains. Um, so there's already lots of backup on water and stuff like that. So things like cars on the street and stuff like that, extra cars uh that would be created by extra housing would be an issue. Um, and uh I like she spoke about property value. So um I just wanted to bring those kind of things up. Um it just seemed to me that the I know it's not a large variance, but it just seemed like there's a reason that we have these certain sizes. So um yeah, that's that's all I got. >> Thank you very much. If you two could sign in on the sign-in sheet uh right in front of you there would be appreciated. >> Before we get to answering those questions, I'll ask if there's anyone else in the chambers who wishes to testify at this item. >> Seeing none, Miss Brown, is there anybody online? >> All participants online or staff. >> I will then look for a motion to close the public hearing. >> I move to close the public hearing. >> Second. >> Motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. That motion passes 40 zero. The public hearing is closed. >> Uh Mr. Johnson uh or Mr. Palmer, if if you're available, I'll ask either one of you to uh could you comment on some of the questions that were raised about uh minimum lot size, can we fit two homes on a smaller lot, etc. Can you speak to that a little bit? >> Yep. Chair Cooked. Uh the 60 foot lot width requirement is for all R1 lots. So they would be if they are to apply for the subdivision, they would be creating two 60 foot wide lots. Each of those lots could support one house. So the existing house 9211 Columbus would be on one lot. So uh realistically they would be creating one new residence if they were to subdivide that lot and then somebody was were to come in and apply for building permits for a new single family home there. >> Mr. Johnson, anything to add? >> Yeah, thank you Cher Cook. And if I can clarify the process too about the existing garage and the structure setback. So I just want to clarify they're not seeking any variances to structure setback requirements. They have to meet a 5-ft uh setback to a garage or a 10-ft sideyard setback to living space. And so the way that we memorialize that or the way that we effectuate that outcome is that as the subdivision process, the preliminary and final plat comes through typically conditions of approval get uh attached to that as well. And one of those in this case would be that they're meeting the sideyard setback requirement prior to the plat being recorded. We wouldn't want to create an internal lot boundary that doesn't meet the sideyard setback requirement. So they would need to demo that garage prior to recording the plat uh in effect. >> Thank you for that. Uh Mr. Palmer, um another question was asked about uh drainage and other things in the neighborhood. on some things that come before the city. Perhaps a large development we require things like uh traffic studies and other things and we we look at at things like drainage. Would that apply here? How do we judge whether something is going to overwhelm city services? >> Uh Cher Ken, that would be something that would be determined when the subdivision plat is applied for. I know that there was a similar lot subdivision at 911 Columbus and 9117 Columbus where there was to my knowledge and planning manager Johnson can correct me, but to my knowledge there were no additional studies requested from the city uh just because it was going again from one home on a large lot to two homes on two smaller lots. >> Mr. Johnson, anything to add? >> Yeah, Cher Cook, that's correct. And um you know, similar to how we review larger scale development, uh engineering staff also reviews just building permits. And so what they would be reviewing for, for example, our traffic staff will review the driveway, the proposed driveway curb cut location to make sure that there's not significant conflicts with where they're proposing it. Uh and then even constructing a new house typically requires a watershed district permit depending on which wershed you're in. So there is a storm water management review as part of that uh as well, just part of a typical building permit process for a new home. So all the things that you typically see all the things that you typically see with larger scale development are with larger scale development are happening at a smaller scale um with uh happening at a smaller scale um with uh smaller projects as well. smaller projects as well. >> And just to clarify that happens at the >> And just to clarify that happens at the subsequent application, not what we're subsequent application, not what we're reviewing this evening. reviewing this evening. >> It would happen at both the plat uh sub >> It would happen at both the plat uh sub application as well as the building application as well as the building permit application because in the case permit application because in the case of some plats, you know, they might not of some plats, you know, they might not have the driveway location finalized, have the driveway location finalized, for example, or the home location for example, or the home location finalized. They're just creating the finalized. They're just creating the lots. So it happens at both levels. So lots. So it happens at both levels. I understand. Commissioner Lay. >> Thanks, Chair. Um, another process question. So, at what point, so at this point, just to make sure I understand, at this point with the variance, does that create, is that the enabling step so that they can attempt to sell or is it at the plat point that they can attempt to sell the other property? When does it become something that they can really act on? Chair Cook and Commissioner Len, it would be once the plat is recorded and that's when it's officially subdivided is when that lot goes to the county and it's recorded under law. >> Thank you. >> Great. We'll move to discussion, >> Commissioner Lay. Um while I hear the concerns of the neighbors, um I think that recognizing that one of the overarching goals is finding a way to increase housing within Bloomington. I think that um this is a fairly minor request to and I recognize it ultimately does not um dramatically create opportunities, but I think I personally am supportive of smaller lot sizes also throughout Bloomington. Um and so looking at um a a variance that is a relatively small request is something that I think I can support. >> Yeah. I I I'm always a little cautious because what is the definition of small, right? Like well what if the next one is only 59 feet and then the next one's 57 feet. And so like I'm kind of a black and white person of like it either meets it or it doesn't. In this case, I think you have to account for the fact that there was an initial mistake in the platting. We're not talking about someone who is has a lot that just they they can't quite get there because it's not big enough. There was it was intended to be a certain size. It's not the plight of the land owner that they didn't know that their lot was 6 in shorter than it's supposed to be. And so, I think that's a practical difficulty that's been put upon the land owner. That's really out of their control and and not their fault. And so in that case, uh, I can support this because it was intended to be 60 ft. It's it's 1950s technology that didn't quite work out right. And for that, um, I can support the variance. Commissioner Summers, >> I agree with the two commissioners who spoke before me. for me when I'm thinking about is something small enough or um an easy yes I am looking at um if the variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality um although I do resonate with neighbors who are um deeply caring about the land that they're shephering um I think that one more house in this area if that's what happens here. Um, if the city is going over all of the different effects that one more family could have on the neighborhood, um, I trust that that will be okay and won't alter this neighborhood to an extent that would be injurious to the people living there currently. So, I'm in favor of this. >> Thank you, Commissioner Summers. Commissioner Mer >> and I'll just um I'm also in support of this. I I think the findings are made. Um but I do want to echo uh Mr. Chairman what you said that this is truly a sort of flaw of the original platting that the measurements weren't right. Um you know this isn't to say that right we're going to make a habit of saying oh no 59 and a half ft is fine as we go forward. This is this is really sort of an exceptional circumstance and that's what these variances are made to address. >> Any other thoughts? I would entertain a motion otherwise. Commissioner Len. >> Uh, in case PL2026-3, having been able to make the required findings, I move to adopt a resolution approving a variance to allow for a reduced site width from 60 ft to 59.5 ft at 9211 Columbus Avenue South subject to the conditions and code requirements listed in the resolution. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second to approve this variance. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. This motion passes 40. This is the final decision of the planning commission unless an appeal is received to the city council by 4:30 p.m. on February 24th. Thank you very much. Okay, commission. I have a bit of a unique circumstance here with our agenda this evening. Uh we are I'm going to propose that we move items three and four. So just flipping that in the order here while we wait for another commissioner to potentially uh join us remotely. So we need to do that via motion. So I would entertain a motion now to swap items three and four on this evening's agenda. >> I move that we swap items three and four on the agenda. >> Is there a second? >> I second. >> Motion and a second to swap items three and four. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I opposed. That motion passes 4 zero. We will move then to item number four, which the city of Bloomington is the applicant regarding fence standards. Mr. Palmer, you're here with another staff report. >> All right. Thank you, Chair Kton. Again, Dylan Palmer with item number four for the fence standards code update. Bear with me a moment while PowerPoint decides what to do. All right. The uh objectives in the background of this application from the city are to update our fence code to be more concise and allow for residents to have more uh more flexible options for fencing in their yards. Uh it was also done to address concerns about fence materials and fence height. Uh we're making some minor code changes to update language and provide more clarity for both uh residents, businesses, and contractors. This code update was initially proposed as part of the 2025 planning commission work plan. Um we held study sessions here at planning commission on December 4th of last year and then December 15th of last year with city council. So tonight we'll be uh going through each code section and uh I guess uh Chair Cooked and uh planning manager Johnson, did you want to uh have questions and discussion after each item or would you like to hold all of them to the end? >> I think I'd like to hold all of them to the end, please. >> All right. So we begin with the fence height in the corner side yard. So the corner side yard is not a defined term in our zoning code. So, this is just kind of a an area of the sideyard on a corner lot that we're looking at. So, current standards only allow for a 4ft tall fence in that corner sideyard area with a 50% opacity requirement. At study session, we presented four different options. One of those being uh stay with the current code, the other three working their way more lenient. Uh we decided to go with option C which uh this is most similar to the city of Minneapolis where you allow a six-foot height limit in that corner side yard behind the rear plane of the home and a 4ft height limit directly to the side of the home. This was done uh mainly because we had a split here on the planning commission in the study session about should it be at the front plane of the home, should it be at the rear plane, should we allow this at all? And then uh city council was also split but uh leaned a little bit more towards this option to allow for just the six-foot area behind the rear plane of the home. That would allow for residents to have a slightly larger uh backyard area where they could have a sixft tall fence. Both I will say both bodies in the study sessions were okay with having a fence a taller fence in that corner sideyard area. Uh then just a little bit more background about why did we look at doing this in the first place. We have a lot of residents who live on corner lots who cannot fully use their backyard just because of the placement of their home or their garage, driveway, any other kind of structures. So allowing this area to be fenced in at a taller height gives people a little bit more room to do recreation to allow their pets in the backyards. They can have their kids in the backyard and not have to worry about them jumping the fence or anything like that. Uh, I also want to add that there is a two-foot setback from sidewalks in our fence code. That is proposed to remain the same. We're not changing that. And I'd also like to add that I don't want to say all, but a decent majority of property lines in the city inside yards do not directly above the curb or directly above the street. Usually, there's a piece of rightway. It can be anywhere from like 5 to 10 feet between the street and where a fence could go. Again, that's not in all cases, but that's in most cases of corner yards across the city. Move on to our next uh proposed code change, and that is the opacity requirement. So, we brought this up at the study session just as kind of an exploratory question, and uh feedback from the planning commission was generally not supportive. However, city council was more supportive of reducing or uh completely getting rid of the 50% opacity requirement. So, as it stands now, fences in the front yard, they're only allowed to be 4t tall and they have to be 50% opaque. So, they have to be see-through, kind of like a picket fence. Uh, removing this requirement, it would just allow for the 4ft tall. It still be 4 foot tall in the front yard to be clear, but it would allow for fully opaque fences. So, those two examples below from neighboring jurisdictions, the one on the left from Edina and the one on the right from Richfield. And I'd also like to add that in general in my Google Maps exploration looking for these examples, you don't see a lot of fences in the front yard to begin with and you really don't see a lot of opaque fences. So where there is demand for this, I can mainly see people looking if they have a large family or pets or anything like that and they really need that front yard fenced in. That's um the main case where people would put up a fully opaque uh 4ft fence in their front yard. Another uh reason that we propose this item is because people have concerns about screening their garbage cans, their refuge cans, and allowing for this 4 foot opaque fence would provide them a uh kind of a shield to prevent people on the street from seeing those. All right. Our third uh major code change or code proposal here is to amend fence materials language. So, we're proposing language to clarify that plastic slats, so that's the image on the bottom left there, do not count towards screening requirements. The reason that we did this is because of concerns from our environmental health department who enforced the fence standards across the city. They noticed that a lot of these plastic uh slats, they get damaged over the years. Whether it's from snow getting thrown on them from plows, whether it's sun, people, you know, backing cars into them, whatever, these plastic slats, they end up damaged and they create holes in the fence that do not properly screen a property. Properly screen a property, excuse me. Uh we're also proposing language to restrict fence coverings to a commercially built product manufactured specifically for use on fencing. So that's the photo on the right there that's just pulled from the internet. Uh the main point of this code language is to prevent people from uh putting tarps up on their fences or some kind of material that is unsightly and does not promote good neighborhood character. So environmental health did have some concerns with people putting up tarps on their fences. So this that's why this uh piece of language was added in there. So this is our fourth major code change. So this uh I'd like to start out by saying this code change it was not supported by planning commission at the study session. However, it was supported by city council at their study session meeting. Uh the ordinance is proposing to add language to allow for 8ft tall fences at the principal building setback in all zoning districts. So, for example, this graphic below, this is for an R1 property. They have 30 foot front and rear setbacks and then they have 10-ft side setbacks. So, that uh green square in the middle surrounding the principal structure, that's the area where they could place an 8ft tall fence. Uh the rationale behind this was one uh at the structure setback, you're allowed to put a 40 foot tall structure there if you wish. uh in in an R1 district. That is other rationale is there are some lots particularly down along the bluff line along the river that are very deep and people would like to erect these taller 8ft fences for privacy. Again, this is uh very limited places across the city, very few lots where this would actually work to put up an 8ft fence in their front yard. Uh and I'd also like to add the 8ft fence is already allowed in the side in the rear yard at the setback. So, we're just expanding the 8ft fence area to the area or proposing to expand the 8ft fence area in front of the home in lots that are deep enough to uh allow for that. All right. And then our fifth piece of this is just some minor code language cleanup. We're proposing language to remove standards for arbors and trelluses from section 2130108, which is the fence code. There are already standards in place in another section of the code uh that define separate standards. Uh we're also proposing to remove language that states fences may be constructed on the property line. Uh this is mainly just to remove the city from any legal liability if somebody is to build their fence on the property line and where what they think is the property line and it's not it could open the city up to a legal challenge. So we're just removing that language uh to remove the city's liability in those cases. Uh and then an additional note about legal non-conformity. So, fences built prior to the adoption of the fence code in 2008 are legally non-conforming. There are many of these all over the city where people built their fence well prior to 2008. They do not currently conform to our current fence standards, and that's okay. They were there prior to 2008, so they're considered legally non-conforming. One part of this code update, or one of the reasons we're doing this code update, aims to bring some of those fences into conformity. So, they're no longer legally non-conforming. and they're just abiding by the code and it would not create any additional non-conformities. So, that was a uh a request from city council to add that note in there that we are not hurting any current existing fences by amending this code. Uh so, staff recommends approval through the following motion. Uh this will go to the city council on March 23rd uh based off of the recommendation of planning commission this evening. >> Thank you, Mr. Palmer. We'll begin with questions for staff and I'd like to ask a question about the 8-ft fences. What is the opacity allowance on those? >> Uh if uh Chair Cookton, if all of the code amendments are to be approved by city council, it would be a uh there wouldn't be an opacity requirement. So theoretically, you could put up a fully opaque 8ft fence in the front yard. >> Thank you. Questions for staff? Not seeing any. Thank you, Mr. Palmer. Uh, is there anyone here from the city as an applicant that wishes to testify on this? I don't believe so. With that, then well, I will open the public hearing and ask if there's anyone in the chambers who wishes to testify on this item. Seeing no one coming forward, I'll ask if there's anyone online who wishes to testify. >> All participants online are staff. >> Thank you, Miss Brown. I will then ask for a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. I will note that we now have a commissioner remote. So we will do uh roll call voting. Miss Brown. >> Cookton. >> I >> Len. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> Monster. >> Hi. >> Summers. >> And Cunningham >> abstain. That motion passes 40 zero with one abstination. We will move then to discussion. I will get us started. We did see this as a study item um uh a bit while ago. I think it was in December and I haven't uh I haven't been persuaded to feel differently about it. Um I have a couple of issues with the proposed ordinance. Um, I'm not a fan of fully opaque fences. Um, I I just I think it it lends a license for nuisances behind um a fully opaque fence, whether that be just keeping your yard less tidy than if you had an opaque fence or a a fence with that wasn't fully opaque or other things and safety and a variety of other things. And I I don't see a great deal of benefit for front front fences to be fully opaque. So, I can't support that. My bigger problem is the 8-ft tall fences. I just can't support it. Um, I don't think Bloomington is a city that needs 8 foot tall fences. We It's those are huge. An 8 foot tall fence is enormous. And especially to be fully opaque. I mean, that is that's like that's like highway stuff to put a fully opaque 8ft fence. I mean, that is that is a very very aggressive fence that I don't think we need that in an urban community like this. Again, I think it lends itself to nuisances that we we just don't need. I I I think that is building up walls instead of a welcoming community. Welcoming communities are communities that are alive and maybe you don't like your neighbor that much, but you know, big deal. Like, we we see each other. We're in the same community. We're not building up these enormous fences to be by ourselves and and cordoned off from the rest of the world. This is a a dense urban community that is fully populated and looking to densify. And uh I don't think adding that layer of of call it privacy, call it whatever you want is appropriate in Bloomington. I cannot support 8 foot tall fences. I certainly can't support 8 foot tall, fully opaque fences and I can't support this application. Commissioner Len. >> Uh well, in one of the rare cases of disagreement, I uh do not Thank you, Chair. Um I do not take issue with this. Um I don't love the idea of 8 foot fences. I don't love the idea of opaque fences. Um, but having lived in communities where they don't have restrictions like this, I don't think, in my personal experience, it hasn't been a hindrance to community development. And if anything, I do think it can sometimes also prevent conflict um between neighbors, particularly if tidiness is an issue and or um specific breeds of dogs, particularly more uh dangerous dogs, can be a bit of a concern. Um, so while I don't love the idea of living next door to someone with an eight- foot tall uh fully opaque fence, um I do recognize that there are um certain choices individuals may make where having that fence may be beneficial and think that there are advantages to the city uh reducing some of the restrictions. >> Thank you, Commissioner L. Commissioner Meer. Um, I I will disagree with the chair in so far as the um opacity standards, particularly on those 4 foot front yard fences. I I don't see a huge issue there only because it's four feet tall. You can only hide so much back there. People are going to see over it. Um, and I think this ordinance overall is is making a lot of very good changes. Um, I fully appreciate the corner sideyard change. I think that's a good compromise in recognizing sort of the weird character of a corner sideyard that it's kind of a front yard but it's also someone's backyard. Um so I I think that's that is a the right direction there. I am however not at all supportive of 8oot fences in the front of the house. That's something that you know and again and the staff report notes it. We we were against that the first time this came through. I'm sure it's no surprise to anybody that we're not a fan of it now. Um, but aside from that, that I think it's a it's I think it's a good ordinance, but the 8oot fence in the front yard, I just can't support. >> Thank you, Commissioner Meer. Commissioner Summers, >> I Oh, thank you, Chair. Um I the opacity when we first talked about this didn't seem like a um real concern to me. I also think that some of our um more structure structured and strict neighbors don't have um opacity requirements. So I feel more comfortable knowing that they haven't found enough nuisances to add opacity requirements to their fencing. Um, and I think that eliminating that makes things a lot simpler and easier. I appreciate also that I was in favor of not having the sixoot fencing start in front of the back of the property line. So, seeing that in there is something I can support. What I was thinking when I was looking at the um 8 foot fencing graphic was, wow, it would be great to see this with a real house because in my head it looks like a fortress if someone's building an 8ft fence around their home. I am not um in support personally of 8 foot tall fences in the front of the home. And there's a tension there because I think that I'm trying to step outside what my personal opinion is when I would see a neighbor building a fence like that, that they didn't want to be my neighbor. Um, so it was helpful clarification that city council members brought up that there were people living in Bloomington who might appreciate the ability to build a fence like that because of the slope of their neighborhood, not because they um don't want to see their neighbor neighbors or interact with them. Um, so there's trouble with the 8- foot fencing. um for me in the front of the home, but I don't think that would be enough for me to um vote against this. I think I am in support. >> Mr. Johnson, do you have any context to provide for us? >> Yeah, thank you, Chair Cook. And if I can pro shed a little more light on the 8-oot fencing um and not to dissuade the or not to move kind of the discussion that's been happening in one direction or the other, but Dylan, can you go back to the slide about the 8-oot fencing? Just some additional information. So, uh the way that the rules work today is that if you're meeting the side and rear yard setbacks and you're even or behind the home, you currently can have an 8 foot tall fence. So, I just want to clarify and be on the record that that's what the rule uh is today. Uh given that that is the current rule, um uh I just want to report that we don't see a lot of 8-foot fencing um constructed in Bloomington despite this current existing allowance. And the reason for that is two twofold. One, people want to build fences along their property boundaries. They don't like segmenting off portions of their lot by having to meet these side and rear yard setback requirements. So that's one factor. Another factor just happens to be uh the fact that 8ft tall fences are very expensive uh to construct. um you have to get a building permit. Uh it really elevates the cost of said project quite a bit. Um so I say that to share that um uh I want to honor the concerns uh I share some of those concerns about taller fencing in front yards. I just want to share this information from the standpoint that I would not anticipate regardless of which direction you go with this to see a proliferation of this type of fencing for the two factors that I just mentioned. Um, another thing to consider is that under today's fence code, uh, for those lots that Dylan mentioned about the very deep lots along the bluff, you're also not allowed to have a 6ft tall fence in front of the front plane of your home, even if your home is uh 50 ft back. You couldn't have a 6ft tall fence at a 40 foot. So, um, whether it be an 8ft fence or a 6ft fence, we've gotten, you know, requests both ways that I'd like some form of, uh, you know, 6ft fencing in front of my yard, my my home because my home is set back a significant distance from the roadway. So, um, either way, that kind of issue, uh, is still there. The final thing I'd say is that uh two years ago the city adopted a reasonable accommodation uh policy in our zoning code which if you are able to demonstrate a re the a need for a reasonable accommodation we have had some circumstances uh where taller fencing uh beyond what is allowed in the fence code has been authorized under a reasonable accommodation. So that does exist in the code. Now today that will continue to exist um in circumstances that uh you know have to do with a disability. Um uh the city has approved that accommodation through this provision that was adopted two years ago. So just a couple additional points of context about this. >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Yeah, I think what was laid out before us kind of only reinforces my thoughts on this. Um, the fact that we don't think many of these are going to be built, I think that's even more reason to we're not helping that many people by allowing this to to go forward. And so, for that reason, I'm still not in support of it. And and furthermore, the reasonable accommodation thing helps me a lot. So if there is a case and we've actually approved one of these I believe on the planning commission a couple years ago where there is a actual need for an 8 foot tall fence for those specific reasons that can be granted by the city. And so that again prevents a proliferation of 8ft tall fences but still allows for something where there is a a real need for it to the point you know and I appreciate staff's opinion on this but I I respectfully disagree. Um, okay. Yeah, there's there's a house there. So, what's the difference between a house and a fence? I think the difference is that one's a house and one's a fence. I I I think it does change the character of a neighborhood to see a house versus a a very large, fully opaque privacy fence. I think those two things send very different messages to your neighbors, to just your your neighborhood in general of, you know, how welcoming it feels. And, you know, it I think it just does not create a welcoming neighborhood when you're putting up huge fences, even if it's in limited capacity. I just can't support it. Commissioner Mer, >> I I concur with that. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I just have one follow-up question for Mr. Johnson, if I may. Since the the talk has sort of been the houses on the bluffs that are set incredibly far back, is that where the current 65 foot rule comes from? And I guess just before you even answer, and if so, then is the 65 foot rule adequate? >> Mr. Johnson. >> Uh, Chair, Commissioner Monster, the 65 ft rule, we were describing it in our last meeting or the study meeting as legacy uh, code. The reason why it was 65 ft is because, uh, the city used to have a standard called prevailing setback, meaning you had to meet the average of the two homes that were next to you. But in no case would the front setback requirement be greater than 65 ft. So that's why that 65 ft dimension uh set back from the front was added to the fence code is because that was uh the furthest setback under this old prevailing uh setback requirement legacy code uh as we talked about it. So um is it adequate uh potentially um you know we again I don't see these projects often enough to really have a good uh data set or uh to choose from to provide good direction there. Um uh I would note that in the ordinance it does show the strikethrough of what the existing code is today. Um uh you know it it just hasn't come up uh very often frankly. >> Commissioner Knight >> um c can you go back to the motion Mr. Palmer? Thank you. So I guess the question is um do we have to go with this motion or can we alter the motion because it seems like we might be at a bit of an impass on this motion as written including everything in a single motion. >> So my understanding is that this is not an all or nothing situation where we have to take the motion before us. We certainly could start with that see where the voting lies. If we don't reach a majority decision, we could then try another motion. Um, there's also the ability here to modify the motion that's proposed. Is that all correct, Mr. Tosski? I'm seeing a head dot of yes. >> Yeah, Chair Cook, that's correct. And I mean, and you're you're wearing your legislating hat right now and so you have the ability to make recommendations to amend the ordinance before you that would would be presented to the city council. >> Commissioner. Well, then I'm going to make a proposal. I'm going to move on this so that we can vote on that to figure out if we need to move forward. Can we do that? Do we need to move to close the discussion first? >> Well, we don't need to move to close the discussion. I will ask if there's any other thoughts before we begin motions. >> I'm not seeing any. Uh, Commissioner Lee, if you'd like to attempt a motion here. >> Okay. In case PL 2026-12, I move to recommend the city council adopt an ordinance clarifying fi fence height exemptions, removing fence opacity standards, and adding fence covering material standards, thereby amending chapter 21 of the city code. >> Is there a second? We have a motion and a second to uh the motion presented before us. I will ask Miss Brown to call the role. >> Cookton, >> no. >> Len, uh, yes. Monster. >> No. >> Summers, >> yes. >> And Cunningham, >> abstain. >> That motion is tied to two, which I believe means it does not pass and it fails. We do have the opportunity to attempt another motion if we choose. >> Commissioner Ler, a question. >> If I may ask a question. >> Yes. In if we modify this, do we have to specify the modification to the proposed ordinance or just with enough detail in the motion that staff can make the change? >> I think enough detail where staff could make the change. So just for the record for chair and commissioners, the the provision with the 8oot fence height is 21301.08 PN C PN 2 PN capital B. So that's >> read that. Can you >> Yep. 21.301 301.08 small PN or PN small C PN 2 then PN's capital B. So that's the section where the change was made regarding the 8oot fence. So sounded like that's where maybe the discussion would be to modify um that change. So, >> and if the motioner so choose, I think they could state the section referenced by the assistant city attorney instead of ret trying to read that perm. >> Okay. Um, >> Commissioner L, >> happy to make a mo a motion. >> I will hold though and ask uh Commissioner Monster if he was planning to make that motion first. >> Um, Commissioner Len. >> Okay. Commissioner Len. Uh, in case PL 2026-12, I move to recommend the city council adopt the ordinance clar clarifying fence height exceptions with the exception of 21301.08 08 PN C PNS 2 PNS B regarding the 8- foot height uh elimination removing fence opacity standards and adding fence covering materials material standards thereby amending chapter 21 of the city code. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right. If I might chair and commissioners just to make sure everybody's on the same page voting on the same thing here. So, what you're doing is making a motion to strike all the changes that were made to that specific section and go back to what it said before. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Commissioners, are we all clear on that? It's okay if we're not. We can take another breath here if we need to clarify. Good. Okay. Is there a Did we get a second? >> Second. >> Okay. We have a motion and a second on the motion proposed by Commissioner Len. Miss Brown, please call the RO. >> Cookton, >> no. >> Len, >> yes. Monster, >> yes. >> And oh, Summers, >> yes. >> And Cunningham, >> abstain. >> That motion passes 31 with one abstination. That recommendation will go before the city council as a public hearing on March 23rd, 2026. Thank you, Mr. Palmer. Noting for the record that Commissioner Cunningham has joined us virtually uh online. We're going to move then to item number three for which I will be abstaining myself to avoid a conflict of interest. Acting chair for this item will be Commissioner Len. Okay. Um so this is my first time doing this so patience. Um so this is a public hearing. Um the applicant is Rosa Development Company and I think we'll believe hear first uh this is a privately initiated city code amendment and I believe first we are going to hear from uh city planner Mike Centinario. Mr. Centinario, >> thank you commissioners. Uh the uh it says item three. Obviously, we changed this the order around a little bit. Um, but we're asking the commission to consider a privately initiated city code amendment related to uh airport parking or remote airport parking specifically. Um, this has been quite a long process. Uh, we went through an airport parking study last year. Uh, made a number of recommendations to the city council. Uh, the city council adopted most of those recommendations. Uh but then asked staff to continue to work with existing sorry existing remote airport parking operators uh which we did. Um and I can provide some more context and we'll we'll go through some of the changes that are before you today. Uh but like we always like to do provide some context. This ordinance that uh you're considering tonight focuses on two really on two sites. Uh park and go and park and fly. Uh those are the two existing remote airport parking facilities within the city of Bloomington and these are the two sites that uh would be uh the ordinance addresses uh in some detail. So Park and Fly as you can see on screen um you know these are slides you you may recall from past meetings but a little over 12 acres over 2,000 parking stalls. Uh the parking structure on the east side of the site uh was built in 1994 intended for an office tower that did not materialize. Um more recently, uh one of the city code amendments that was adopted by the council in September of last year was uh that all interimm use permits for remote airport parking. Uh airport parking has never been a permanently approved use. It's always been under temporary approvals. uh specifically what's called an intermuse permit. Uh the intermuse permit for park and fly uh expires August 8th of next year. Similarly, park and go uh which recently went through uh an interim use permit extension uh their interimmuse permit also expires uh August 8th, 2027. And that was very deliberate uh to put these two sites would have similar uses uh on the same timeline to try and find uh a permanent a permanent solution to uh a use that's been under temporary approvals for well over 30 years. Uh but Park and Go is just a a slightly bit larger site, 12 and a half acres, but it's been 100% surfaced. So has about 1500 uh parking stalls. And so zooming out a little bit on uh the area within the south of district. Uh so the 494 is on the north end of this graphic of the two sites. Park and go is to the left or west and then park and fly is to the right. Uh the the color system here is the zoning. Uh current zoning is HXR or highintensity uh mixed use residential I think is the the title. Um, and then for park and fly, the east remote airport parking facility, that hatching, uh, that stands for the plan development overlay. So, park and go does not have a plan development overlay. Park and Fly does, but both sites, the base zoning or the underlying zoning is HXR. So, a little bit more uh, context setting or background related to this particular application. So your the case file number is 2025153 and so we're obviously not in 2025 anymore. Um and this privately initiated code amendment was originally submitted in October. Um, and what was originally sub, excuse me, what was originally submitted was not supported by staff. And we can go into detail why not, but uh staff recommended a denial of that uh that ordinance and the planning commission uh agreed with staff and recommended city council deny the ordinance. However, uh the ordinance never made it to city council. Uh the applicant extended the agency action timeline, the shot clock if you will, for cities to take action on proposals and we engaged in a a discourse on uh what what the applicant could accept and what the city could support. Um and that led us to where we are tonight. So the most recent proposal uh ordinance that you are seeing uh tonight and being asked to take action on uh was submitted by the applicant uh Jan a month ago uh which led us to tonight's meeting. So getting into the meat of the ordinance that's before you uh you know just kind of go sequentially. First off is that it would remove remote airport parking as an interimm use uh in the HS HXR district. So again, remote airport parking has been around for decades, all under temporary approvals. Uh and currently they are approved through intermuses in the HXR district that would be removed. And one uh substantial component is it creates the use remote airport parking is a conditional use in the CX2 district. And if you recall from a previous slide, these sites are zoned HX uh HXR. And I'll I'll get to that in a moment why why that is. Uh but this would be uh conditionally permitted as opposed to an intermuse permit, which means permanent approvals. Once a conditional use permit is approved, unless there are some unique circumstances uh or uh a conditional use permit is revoked, which is very rare, uh it should be considered a permanent approval. And this ordinance would allow for permanent remote airport parking um in the CX2 district. And again, if you can look at the precise language, there's two lot there would be two rows, if you will, in the use code. One is within a a existing parking structure uh and then what's being proposed tonight is uh a an existing parking facility. And so again, we're trying to create these distinctions between uh what was an existing parking structure. Think of the Mall of America's conditional use permit and uh existing remote airport parking facilities. And that's where you think of park and go and park and fly. And so I didn't want to go through a whole series of uh screenshots, but I wanted to provide the highlights of what uh this ordinance would accomplish. and uh it's pretty dense and it would allow continued surface surface parking which is existing today. Uh so that would it would continue it would allow that in perpetuity. Uh it would allow for future remote airport parking expansion uh beyond its existing supply on the site. So that is uh park and go for example uh they are 100% surface parked site. they could uh expand their capacity through structured parking. Uh it would allow airport parking to be integrated into future development. And so we have uh our comprehensive plan and our South Loop district plan uh goes into some detail on how we envision the South Loop District developing and we're not uh we're not moving away from that. Uh but we do acknowledge that allowing uh remote airport parking integration with future development that is not airport parking uh helps finance projects. Uh otherwise other than that it does require a 120,000 uh square foot uh actually 2.75 acre uh future development site along American Boulevard East. And so that is to set the stage for future development. It would exempt existing remote airport parking uh from some landscaping requirements, namely parking islands where you have to have an island a landscape parking island at certain intervals and at the end of rows. none exists today and so it that would be allowed to continue where you would not have to retrofit you know dozens of parking islands uh within an existing facility. However, that future development that we're kind of setting the stage for would have to meet the development standards that we have here in the city. So why CX2? Why move away from the HXR district uh and instead seek uh to reszone to CX2? Uh there's a few really critical reasons for that. Uh one is the R and HXR is for residential uses and it actually has a residential requirement. Uh the CX2 district does not. And so uh residential uses are permitted uh in CX2, but they're not required. Uh further the HXR district has a minimum residential density requirement of 30 units an acre. So it requires highdensity residential uses. The CX2 district doesn't have that uh type of prescript prescriptive standard. And more generally the CX2 district is just less prescriptive. Um many more uses are permitted um uh compared to the HXR district. Uh further there is a lower uh minimum floor area uh requirement. So HXR the minimum floor area ratio or F is 1.5 whereas in the CX2 district there isn't a minimum floor area ratio but there is just a minimum building floor area uh and that's 120,000 square feet. So it it's easier to develop is really what it comes down to. It's more flexible and uh that was uh that's appealing to uh folks that would be developing in the future. So speaking of future development, uh you you I've presented similar slides to you before, but the red box is uh really close to what 2.75 acres looks like on uh these sites. And I located this red box where I did because the code would require a future development site along American Boulevard East. You know, we want to have the street presence on American Boulevard to have an urb urban character with along the public realm. And just off this graphic is uh Blue Line LRT. We want this development to be proximate to uh the existing uh transit. And so uh the site area would be outlined in code. There would have to be some screening between the future development and the remote airport parking. And there's different ways to accomplish that in city code. Uh but the compliance date for creating this future site uh would be end of year 2036. If you recall when uh last year when we went through this process ultimately what the planning commission recommended city council adopt was something kind of like this similar uh and the compliance date was December 31st of 2034. And so we're, you know, two years beyond uh what uh the planning commission had originally recommended to city council. Going to the park and go site. Again, uh this is what 2.75 acres looks like if you were to uh draw a box along American Boulevard East. Um again, there would be a screening requirement uh and uh the December 31st, 2036 compliance deadline. And so, uh, what I want to, uh, hopefully make clear is that these these code changes allow the future development to be, uh, designed, uh, and, uh, allows staff to work with the applicants for future development. Um, one of the property owners who's here tonight has been saying literally for years, uh, they need two things, uh, to make redevelopment happen. Um, and they need permanent zoning, meaning they need permanent rights to operate remote airport parking. And they need to be able to integrate remote airport parking within development to help make the numbers work. Um, and uh, this ordinance that's being presented does accomplish those two uh, needs. in according to that property owner. Uh you may have recall there were some development uh well in the case of park and fly uh they actually did go through the development review process and uh they did get approval for a initial phase of redevelopment under different uh approvals that uh that building did not happen obviously. Uh but I just wanted to you know I checked on some of the uh summary summary statistics and that that development site where that where you see that outlined in yellow was I think 2.92 acres so just a little bit larger than what uh this amendment would create for a future development pad and the floor area was just under 200,000. So it would that development exceeded uh the minimum 120,000 square foot u floor area that were that would be envisioned here for park and go uh just very much a conceptual drawing. You know the conceptually that uh the building that you're seeing there uh would meet the intent uh of what the code is proposing. Obviously, when we're having development review, there's a lot of process to go through. If this ordinance were to be adopted, that would set the stage for a a reasonzoning application and actually a regiding application to change the land use designation as well as the conditional use permit application. So, there's a lot of there's a lot of process that would be following this ordinance amendment. So, we are recommending approval. Uh I do have the motion uh in before you and uh this isn't uh super easy understand material so I I'm happy to answer the questions that you have. >> Great. Thank you Mr. Centinario. I think my first question is is for all intents and purposes the key word in what we're approving here is facilities because we've already approved the parking garages in previous correct. >> So we uh commissioner the planning commission approved a conditional use permit for a remote airport parking facility within an existing okay >> uh garage or parking structure. >> Okay. And these uh if this ordinance is adopted, it would be conditional use permits for an existing remote airport parking facility. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Um questions for staff, >> Commissioner Monster. >> Thank you, Acting Chair. Um this is it's just a process question. Can the zoning change application and a conditional use application proceed simultaneously assuming this ordinance is adopted and that happens? >> Yeah, Commissioner, great question. Yeah, you know, ideally I think what we would like to see uh well, first off, this the ordinance has to be amended. Uh so, you know, we we can't process a conditional use permit uh if the use is not conditionally permitted. Uh and so this ordinance would have to be adopted uh by the city council. Following that adoption, uh the next step would be to work with the property owners on preparing uh a subsequent application for the uh land use designation, the reasonzoning and a conditional use permit application and presumably those would be one package. >> Commissioner Summers. Thank you, acting chair. I am in support of removing the um parking islands from the ordinance for these two facilities. >> I think we're just on questions right now, not >> sorry. Sorry. Um can you clarify if So they would never have to install compliant parking islands or structures like that in the facilities at all into the future. commissioners. So if the code is adopted uh as written, the uh the operators would not have to retrofit uh parking islands, landscape parking islands within the surface parking areas. Um so that's correct. They would not have to uh that doesn't mean that the site would be devoid of landscaping. you know, there there are still landscaping requirements, especially around along the perimeter of the site, but then also uh there would be a screening requirement in between the remote airport parking facility and uh the future development. What that looks like, you know, it hasn't been designed. Uh but there would have to be a minimum landscape buffer, some screening and uh and landscaping. But yes, there there as proposed there would remain large swaths of uninterrupted surface parking. >> Other questions for staff? Commissioner Cunningham, do you have any questions for staff? >> No. >> Okay, great. Uh, just one more question for me then. Um what is the enfor what happens if on December 31st 2036 something has happened and this is not to imply any intent on behalf of the applicant who knows there could be another pandemic there could be a global depression whatever what happens on January 1st 2037 if nothing has happened >> commissioners that's a great question uh because there's been so much change in the world but uh as of January 1st 2037 seven. Uh if that development site and the necessary screening has not been established, then we would start enforcement proceedings. >> And do we know what that looks like? Yes, planning manager Johnson. >> Yeah, Chair uh acting chair Len and commissioners and uh Kevin, you can fill in whatever gaps you feel. Um, but one of the elements of a subsequent development application, should that be approved for the resoning conditional use permit, those components, one element that could be attached as a condition of approval, would be some form of development agreement. And what that agreement could entail is some of the provisions andor enforcement mechanisms uh to comply with the development site requirement by the deadline. So, I think some of that would get flushed out um through that subsequent application is my guess. Yeah, chair, acting chair and commissioners, there's a couple different ways you can enforce city code. We have administrative citations which attach a fine after certain notices are given. Um there's revocation of a conditional use permit if conditions aren't followed. We don't we haven't done that that much in the past. We stick with fines usually, but those are options. Um you know, there's court actions, different things um that can take place, but usually we stick to the administrative fines. >> Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Mester. >> And if I could just sort of follow up on that and that technically, again, assuming this is adopted as as it's written, technically speaking, that deadline would not even apply unless the zoning is changed on those properties. Otherwise, it sunsets in 2027. Correct, >> commissioners? Yeah, that's correct. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay, I think I get that. Okay, any other questions? Great. Thank you, Mr. Centinario. Um, and now I'd like to invite the applicant to come up. >> No. >> Good evening. >> Good evening, commissioners. Uh, Bill Griffith representing Rosa Development in this application. Kristen Mir is here with me again and uh she's delighted to be here. uh because we've reached consensus with staff. Obviously, we have a process with you and and the city council, but the first step is getting on the same page with staff. And I know over many meetings, uh that has been the desire of the city council members. It's been the desire of the staff members. It's certainly been the desire of my client not to be at odds with the city. And we've worked very hard over many years to stay in compliance. And this finally, for the first time, I've been at this for a long time. for the first time in at least a couple of years looks like we have a path forward and I'm very grateful for that and I just want to point out a couple of key things. I think Mr. Centinaro did a very nice job of kind of pulling it all together in a in a relatively brief presentation. I think the key here is something that you said about the planning commission's recommendation last summer. Um, this is very close to that recommendation with the with the change uh to CX2, which I think is important for my client and and perhaps uh the other owner. Um, and it's it's also taking into consideration, we were in front of the council, I think three times, and this was the unfinished piece of business. The council knew that in September. um is the reason we came in in October to try and present this while it was still fresh in everybody's minds and get get finally a resolution uh notwithstanding all the steps that we have to take after tonight. Um and so we listened to the council, we listened to the planning commission, we did transcripts of those meetings so we were not missing anything. And then I think the key moment was when we sat down with staff and I think both parties came to the table in good faith over three meetings between holidays and um and then we revised our ordinance and then we accepted virtually every comment from staff. Um and so it was really a true collaboration and something we felt good about. Um something I feel good about standing here this evening. uh we never want to be in a situation where we're trying to put the other party in a in a position that they can't move from. And so this feels like that moment. Um the other thing I would say is this is when when you look at the the code section in uh there was CX2 and HXR, there was a graphic that showed a conditional use permit. So you already you already have permanent rights now in your city for remote airport parking both at hotel properties which were permitted as a matter of right in September and and now at um existing parking structures that have a conditional use permit. So you you've crossed that Rubicon, if you will. Um there are permanent remote airport parking rights within the city limited limited at least at at this juncture to those locations. So um you know you're not going to have a proliferation of the use I don't believe but you also have already crossed that line. There are permanent rights within the city. So this is finally putting the existing operators in in a similar position. I think really really key at at the bottom is you have something that's both and it it both uh resolves the permanent rights that that we believe we had. But I'm not going to talk about that tonight because you know we've got a process to secure those permanent rights. But it but it finally puts that question to bed. But it also does it in a way that really creates an incentive now for these two operators to do something along American Boulevard. And keep in mind that that's a minimum. It it doesn't it doesn't stop either operator from doing more. Um and and likely when you when you propose a development, it it it will likely be more than the minimum. It certainly could be at the minimum, but you know, in my experience, those things tend to morph based on what what's proposed. And another key to this is that the airport parking can be integrated into that development. So you can imagine you can imagine a 5 acre development that has airport parking built into it driving an economic um consideration and financing for that very same project. So there's a lot to like about this. I'm sure we could find things that that aren't quite, you know, quite perfect. That's that's really um that really is the essence of a compromise. You know, my client didn't really want to have the shot clock, but finally conceded that, you know, if this thing was going to have the kind of teeth that council members talked about and planning commissioners talks about talked about, there really had to be a deadline. And and so we looked at a deadline that was essentially 10 years out um in in um you know, looking at kind of what what would be workable. So, with that, I'm going to just uh open it up to any questions you might have of the applicant and just thank again staff and the city attorney's office and everybody who kind of came together to say, "All right, we can roll up our sleeves between Thanksgiving and Christmas and uh and work on this." Thank you. >> Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Griffiths. Questions? Does anyone have any Go ahead, Commissioner Monster. >> Thank you, Acting Chair. Um, just and and I think you already said it, but just to ask and be sure, barring any catastrophic economic events, >> do you all believe 2036 is a reasonable window? >> Yes, we do. Uh, for a couple reasons. There's um you know my my client's very interested in coming in right after this would be adopted if it's adopted by the city council to secure the the next set of entitlements. But once you do that then you then you can say with certainty to proposers developers uh even somebody who might buy out the entire operation here's the set of approvals and entitlements you can rely on and those you know that that doesn't that's something that doesn't necessarily get better with age because councils change uh government change circumstances change and and maybe somebody wants to kind of mess again with this program. So the sooner that these property owners get after the potential opportunities that are coming um the better. Now we're hoping that the cycle interest rates come down. Uh there's some stability in the marketplace in terms of the the potential users. Uh but these are two really wellpositioned sites. And so you know if 10 years isn't a good enough runway I'm not sure what is and and I won't be standing here. I can tell you that. Yeah. >> Thank you. Okay, >> great. Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Cunningham. >> Great. Thank you. >> No questions. >> Great. Um, >> one second. >> Dan Williamson with Park and Go. I'm sorry. >> Okay. Now, they'll open the public hearing and we welcome you to come up, Mr. Williamson. >> All right. Dan Williamson with Park and Go. As you know, we've really been in support of the staff's recommendations from the first round to this round because we're focused on two things. A form of permanent zoning and the ability, and this is kind of icing on the cake, and that is the ability to integrate the parking into a future development. Our plan already was in excess of the 2.75 acres, so that doesn't concern us at all. We're a volume based business, so if you're worried about how big is the hammer, it's pretty big when you take away 2.75 acres. But I was asked a hypothetical question the other day I thought was interesting and this may really help amplify the answer to some of the concerns you have and it's this. Someone said, 'Well, if in 2006 when you move from a conditional use p permit to IUP, which is what Park and Go did, if we would have had this proposal on the table and we would approved it back in 2006, you'd have development there today. So, this is the old when's the best time to plant an oak tree? A 100 years ago or today? My grandkids, we put acorns in the ground. Some of those trees are 15 foot high now. So, this is your day. If we can get this approved 10 years down the line, which is no time at all. Some of us rave kids and stuff and we know how fast it goes. You'll be going, "Wow, I'm glad we did that back then because look what's built today." And that's just kind of my encouragement for us to move forward with this because we support it. >> Any questions rah? >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Williamson. >> And do we have any uh Oh, applicants. Oh, yeah. The Yes, please. >> I'll be brief. >> No. >> Um hi. Um so, yeah, I am not going to take up too much of your time. Kristen Mir with um Rose Development. But um I really like this idea too because I've been spending a lot of time for many years working with staff and trying to put together something that would actually work. And I've said this before in other meetings, but the housing requirement for at least my site, and I can't speak for Dan's site, but in my opinion, it was always a struggle for housing because of the noise level and the highway being right there and just the rent cap that people are going to pay to live next to a h to a a busy freeway. And the freeway is not going anywhere. The airport's not going anywhere. So having the flexibility to move to CX2 I feel like is finally releasing some of the pressure of just trying to be like a round peg in a square hole where I'm like oh you have to do housing you have to have an affordable component you have to do this and it was very narrow narrow the path now it's if it's if there's many more options I think you know it opens it up to food uses or entertainment uses or the mall zoning h has you know a lot more options. So, I think that right there just means the likelihood that it'll redevelop is much higher because you're not being forced to do one use. And also, um you know, I I we listened and we collaborated, but um you know, I didn't want to sit around and wait until August of 2027, like because then what? It's just like spinning your wheels for another year. And you know, I wanted to keep, you know, you've done this for the mall and the hotels, so like let's finish the, you know, trio here and and I think somebody touched on this before, but um and you know, Dan brought it up, but this is, you know, I went to try to get a construction loan and talk to banks. Banks really don't want to finance big projects with temporary rights. So, nobody's been wanting to give us permanent rights, but yet they want us to redevelop. So, it's kind of a catch 22. you can't really get traction on a big scale development with temporary rights. So all in all, I think that it's not 100% what we want. It may not be 100% what everybody else wants, but you know, we did kind of try our best to find a compromise that works for everybody. So, thank you. >> Great. >> And thank you to staff also for collaborating with us. >> Great. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the chambers who would like to come forward during the public hearing? Anyone online? >> All participants online are staff. Okay. I'd entertain a motion to close the public hearing. >> I motion to close the public hearing. >> Second. >> Okay. Uh uh staff, could you take roll call? >> Len. >> Uh yes. >> Monster. >> Yes. >> Summers. >> Yes. >> And Cunningham. >> Hi. Great. We can move on to discussion. If anyone would like to chime in first, Kevin. Um, Commissioner Cunningham. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, apologies for not being there tonight. Uh, I'm in favor of this happy or maybe not so happy middle ground that we've found. Um, I appreciate all the work that staff and the applicants have put in. um having kind of been on this my entire tenure on the planning commission has had something uh every quarter seems to have something to do with airport parking. So I'm uh excited to see uh what I think is a good middle ground proposal for the use of both sites and uh a good runway for development. >> Thank you, Chair. >> Pun intended. Uh thank you. Um other comments? Uh Commissioner Summers. >> Thank you. acting chair. I think I'm so I'm in favor of this. I think what I like to see reflected in comments from the applicants is um a shift into the creativity that we'd like to see in development. So, feeling like there is potentially some um uses that feel like they line up with staff and the applicant and the city of Bloomington. um feels like compromise and compromise can range from really really um uncomfortable. I've heard comprom like good compromise means everyone is unhappy and this feels like we're moving the needle just a little away from very unhappy. Um, and I also want to express gratitude because after the last time that we talked about this, I thought about um where things left off and that the applicant um expressed that this has been a long and tough process and that it's hard to be asked to do more. So, I know that this is one thing and multiple more steps, but um I appreciate the energy that you brought to this and working with the staff. Um and it seems like those conversations helped pave the way for more productive and maybe not easy conversations in the future. >> Great. Other thought, Commissioner Monster? >> Um I will just I will echo that. Um, I think that was that was very well said. And I think that what is before us tonight is is truly a good compromise. It's a good balance of protecting what the city's interests are and protecting the ability of these operators to move forward both in their operation and sort of fulfilling the city's vision for this corridor. Um, so yeah, with that, I mean, I I I support this. >> Thank you. And just to add my two cents, uh I'm also very supportive of this. Very appreciative of the effort that everyone put in to reach this consensus. Um and in particular, um and this goes to the comments the applicant just made. I think the possibility for productive redevelopment are even greater under this zoning um district. So I think huge kudos to everyone who worked on this. other comments from or things people want to weigh in on. >> Okay. >> And I just I just want to uh thank your transcriptionist who had to deal with this. Um my my heart goes out. >> Great. Any other further questions or comments? If not, if someone would like to make a motion. I move to recommend city council adopt the ordinance approving the privately initiated city code amendment to allow existing remote airport parking facilities as a conditional use in the CX2 zoning district and to create performant standards for existing facilities. >> Second. >> Um that motion is passed. No, no, no. Sorry, I forget that I forget the terminology that I have to say to turn it over for voting. >> Acting chair, motion made by Summers. Uh, seconded by Commissioner Monster. >> Great. >> Yep. >> Okay. Len, >> yes. >> Monster, >> yes. >> Summers, >> yes. >> And Cunningham, >> yes. >> That motion is passed. >> Thank you. And then the um hold on, let me get to this. Um the council consideration date is uh I just have to find the March 23rd. And is that all I have to say? Yep, that's it. So, thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Len. Commissioner Cunningham appears to be signing off, so we'll be back to four commissioners here in the chambers. Moving then to item number five, the city of Bloomington is the applicant to discuss the development application fee study. Mr. Johnson, you are here for the staff report. Thank you, Chair Cookton. This item will be uh brief. Um we don't talk about fees very often uh with respect to our development applications, but this has been a project on the city's uh or the planning commission's work plan uh for a year or so. Uh we wanted to evaluate our fees. It's been a number of years since we uh took a look at that. Um butformational update here. You know, really the purview of fees and the fiduciary components of the city really are the uh realm or responsibility of the city council uh to establish those. Um so we're not seeking any formal recommendation from the planning commission. If you do have questions or input, uh we'll certainly communicate that to the council when we bring this before them. Um but yeah, here's just a quick uh uh reporting out and again welcome your questions and feedback. So regarding uh development application fees and pretty much all fees in general that government agencies impose on the public, uh there is a Minnesota rule 1300 uh.0160 uh that in effect it it's uh you know has verbose language, but what it really means is that you can't charge more fees than this than what it costs to deliver the service. And so that really sets the baseline for all cities in terms of where they can set the floor um or I should say the ceiling maybe rather um of where their fees exist. So that's something to just be cognizant of. In terms of uh ways that cities think about their fees, there's a couple factors um that they look at. One is just pure cost recovery. Um cities study what it costs them both in staff time or consultants that they use uh to deliver the fee. Uh and really what some cities are doing is really trying to capture uh as much of that cost um uh that's incurred to the city organization uh through the fees that they impose on the public seeking uh those uh services or applications. So that's one component. Another component is that cities typically take to look at their peers uh within the region. Uh certainly developers or businesses are operating within uh a regional environment, not just one municipality. they might be looking at a number of different municipalities. Uh while it's rarely the I would say the factor that uh maybe breaks the back or is the most influential factor in where a business uh will locate um if a city had uh you know substantially higher fees that might be a factor in terms of where they choose to pursue an application. And then uh so I say all that to say that you know um cities t tend to try and be within a reasonable range of one another and uh looking at it's important or valuable to note where our peer cities are in terms of their fees. And then finally strategic uh considerations. So this can be a number of factors just depending on the city. There are some cities that are um more simplistically characterized as pro-development or more in favor of economic or development activity within the community. Um in that case um a city might choose to set its fees somewhat lower uh than uh peer cities or just to ensure that the uh access to the approval process is uh you know is there for folks to pursue. Um in the case of Bloomington uh we've gone through multiple strategic planning efforts in the city. The current strategic plan that we have is Bloomington tomorrow together. One of the key priorities of that strategic plan is equitable economic growth. And so um how that connects to our development application fees again is uh that uh we don't want to set our fees at such a level that the process um becomes inaccessible uh for all different types of applicants. Uh really the higher the development application fees that do exist really it's just more favoring uh more resourced more um kind of longer tenure developers and then you're just kind of working with one subset of um of those actors. And then finally, the final factor I'll uh point you to when it comes to fees is that this varies from city to city. Some cities just establish a flat fee uh for a development application type. Um some might take less staff time, some might take more staff time, but they're collecting the same fee for that application type. Other cities uh do favor an approach where they collect an escrow uh from developers. And the reason they do that um is again back to the point around cost recovery um is that they will charge back to the applicant for additional services. I would say that this approach is favored by cities who tend to use more consultants in their uh review of projects if they have a consultant engineer or consultant attorney or those types of things. This escrow is in effect a way to collect fees for those professional services that the city is uh doesn't currently have on staff. um flat fee escrow approach um both work. Uh one thing I would say about the escrow approach is there is additional administrative costs or time to track um uh staff time spent with an escrow approach. Um Bloomington is a fat excuse me flat fee approach and uh I would be remiss not to say that we're more supportive of a flat fee approach given the resources and the um staffing that Bloomington has. So, uh, based on those factors, uh, we evaluated all of our fees based on cost recovery. Again, it's not a perfect science. They are somewhat estimates in terms of the amount of staff time it takes at the easiest or most typical, uh, application type or of that type. Um, so we did cost recovery analysis. We also looked at peer city uh, fees. And between those two factors, what it really illuminated was that there's six application types that we've really kind of fallen behind. um uh and that we're not meeting the mark where we want to be from a cost recovery standpoint and there was enough of a gap between the city of Bloomington um and our peer cities that we felt warranted an increase uh to our fees. So, I'll share that slide in a second. I will note in the packet there was a full reporting on uh our peer city analysis that included more application types than what you're seeing on this slide. I will note uh just for folks looking at that document, it did look like the city of Bloomington has quite a bit higher fees for resonings, comp comp plan amendments, and uh plan developments. But the reason for that again is that uh those three application types are the most common application types for cities to collect escros. And that uh chart that was in your packet did not reflect those escros. Um there was just the base fee only. So I just want to point out that discrepancy. But yeah, the six application types that staff would recommend an increase on are the two uh administrative site plan review application types, that's final site and building plans, admin, and the uh revision to final development plans. Admin, again, those are plan developments as long as they're code complying changes and meet certain criteria. And then final site and building plans, uh acted upon by the planning commission. You had one of those application types with quickrip uh more recently. Uh conditional use permits. you see a lot of conditional use permits. Right now, our our fee is at $220. You can see the median fee in the pure cities that we studied was over $500. And then the interim use permit application, we don't see a ton of those. Um uh and then variance uh for single and two family uses. So, these are the six application types that we felt were warranted an increase. And then just to uh put a pin in it, um this is the increase that staff is recommending. uh it doesn't um account for every scenario of full cost recovery but again we feel it strikes the right balance in terms of fulfilling the city's strategic goals but also uh uh addressing more of the costs that the city has incurred by uh development review. Another thing to think about which I didn't u bring up is that uh there is some strategic elements of development application fees that uh really touch on the fact that the true revenue capture of the city is really downstream of development applications. Development applications are really just a drop in the bucket when you think about building permit uh fees as well as then uh annual taxes collected, property taxes collected should the development actually be constructed. So yeah, this is what we're proposing. Um, again, we're not looking for any formal uh recommendation from you tonight. Um, if uh we're going to present this to the city council on February 23rd. If they support these fee increases or have other direction for us, we're likely to bring a ordinance back to them. It's actually an appendix A of the city code. So, it would not come back to the planning commission. I want to be clear about that. Um, uh, the planning commission doesn't have perview over appendix A. Uh but still because this was a planning commission work plan project, we wanted to give you anformational update about it and uh uh kind of give you an outline of where we're going and give you the opportunity to provide any feedback or ask any questions that you might have. Um so that's it really. Um the rest of their process kind of rests more with the city council, but I welcome any feedback or questions you might have. >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson. This is a study item, so we'll move right into discussion or questions. Commissioner Lay, >> just a quick question. When was the last time the fees were updated? I missed that. >> Yeah, thank you for that, Chair, Commissioner uh Len. The last time there was some amendments was in 2010. So, it's been some time. Um, the city has done uh in the past some percentage uh updates to kind of account for inflation. Um, that's more the more common approach with our building permit fees and other fees that we collect on like parks and recreation program and other thing. Uh, the development application fees has been a little bit different than that approach. we've done tend to do uh kind of strategic increases uh over longer spans of time. Um there is some some discussion about kind of taking more that percentage based approach in the future. Um but for now this is kind of resetting the decks a little bit of where things should be today at least in staff's judgment. >> Commissioner Muster, >> Mr. Johnson, now you're in my wheelhouse. Okay. >> Where I've been for a long time. Um, so I've worked in communities that have both flat fees and cost recovery programs and combinations of the two. Um, so just as a as a question, the fees as they are outlined, does that cover theoretically cover staff time and advertising and all those other costs? >> Chair Commissioner Monster, that's correct. It covers all the staff time and the advertising. Yep. And the mailed notices, postage, uh, the time it takes to prepare those mailed notices as well. Y if there's I would say like for example if there's a traffic study uh that the engineering department requires that is above and beyond what the base fee is that is where they do need to post um there's a negotiated contract with a neutral third party consulting engineer who performs those traffic studies like say with the community center other applications that you've seen um that is not covered by the base fee that's above and beyond. >> Okay, that was actually going to be a second question that I had for sort of those other >> Yep. strange out of the ordinary things. Um, with just considering >> I mean particularly postage rates going up dramatically over and over um are the are the proposed new fees still sufficient to cover staff time and and all of these other external expenses? >> That's a good question and um I think that's where in the future we're likely to lump our fees in with a percentagebased increase along with all of the other uh fees that we provide. Um, right now this is kind of just we've been a little bit behind the eight-ball again since not uh revising it since 2010. So, these are more these strategic updates, but I would anticipate those percentage increases uh to occur to account for postage. Um, public hearing notices isn't the only need for postage in the community. We have we do send out a lot of different mailed notices. So, some of our percentage increases are based on postage. So, we are track we do have finance staff tracking that. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Mr. Mr. Johnson, can we go back to the uh proposed fee chart? There we go. Thank you. I don't know how much I mean I'm qualified to be even providing comments on this, but the the thing that did stick out the most to me was the bottom line there. The variance for single and two family dwellings, which to me is just a regular single resident of the city of Bloomington at $400 is almost the same as final sight and building plans, the topline. And that's like Toro, who's like a Fortune company, and they're only paying $150 less. Can you just walk me through that? >> Yeah, thank you, uh, chair. And, uh, as shocking as it might sound, um, the way that we have to evaluate our fees is based on the most simple type of application, uh, that can be created. So while you're right uh and that's kind of the challenge of a flat fee approach is that you're collecting the same fee for a Toro as you mentioned and just a very small uh dental office development for example that's actually quite straightforward to review and doesn't necessitate a lot of staff time. Um so that's one of the challenges there is that what the fee really is collecting is what is the most simple typical easy uh um uh development that gets reviewed under that category type. Um and believe it or not, like we had I mean I don't want to speak about the application we reviewed tonight, but um when we review applications, it does necessitate review of staff beyond the planning staff. It does involve legal. It does involve um uh engineering. It does involve other departments reviewing developments similar to other application types. Yes, certainly it's not as extensive as that. Um uh but um that being said, you know, we looked at cost recovery, we looked at peer cities. um a $400 fee is not that much out of line with what the median fee for that uh type is. And um we're not recovering our costs currently on that application type certainly. >> And Mr. John, one of the first things you told us um was that we the state law does not allow us to charge more than our costs. Correct. >> That's correct. So, what I'm getting at that is there like we can't charge a little less to our single family dwelling owners and charge a little more to the big guys to make up for it. We we're not allowed to do that. >> We Yeah, thank you for the question, chair. We couldn't charge the a large commercial or industrial property seeking a variance, let's just say a crazy number for the sake of discussion, a $2,000 variance fee when it only costs the city, say $800 to perform that service um to make up or balance the scales for the single family. We don't have the ability to do that. No. >> Yeah. I think the way I would frame it here is charge as much as reasonable to the big guys and charge as little as re as as we can to the single family dwelling owner. It kind of breaks my heart that we're charging 400 bucks to nudge your garage over or whatever to meet the setback. That seems like one of those things that you complain to your your brother about who lives in Egan. You're like, "You're not going to believe what the city is charging me to move my garage over or whatever." and like you just I don't know you wish you could be nice to our residents as as well as you can. So that's that's my that's my only comment on it. >> I appreciate that feedback and I think I can communicate that to the city council as well. >> Commissioner Mer if I could just follow up on that. I and this is really more of a question because I don't fully appreciate our fee structure but so final sight and building plans acted upon by planning commission that is whether it's the smallest of of like what does that include? >> Good question. And so that's that's where getting into even evaluating peer cities kind of gets a little bit fraught because the administrative approval authority of different cities on their site plan review varies quite a bit from city to city. So, in Bloomington, what that means is a building uh at least over 10,000 square ft, maybe over 20,000 ft² if there's already approved uh site plan if it's an expansion in effect. Um uh and meets kind of certain proportionality requirements. But typically, what admin uh you know, final site and building plans is really for is small building additions to commercial industrial buildings. it's parking lot changes and improvements um that that kind of change the parking supply um sidewalks things that uh that we have to review for compliance that uh can't just be done through a building permit in effect. So, um the planning commission ones, you know, it it still is substantial development. I mean, we saw the Quick Trip uh project, for example. Um anything that necessitates a conditional use permit has to come through the planning commission as well, like when it's bundled. Um but but yeah it it can be smaller uh development it can be quite large and that's kind of the conundrum around the flat fee approach. That's one of the weaknesses of a flat fee approach. So would we conceptually and it may not even be worth it to to have the exercise. Could we set rates that are final site and building plans up to 20,000 square feet and then 20,000 to 50,000? you know, kind of tar it that way because sort of almost by necessity, the larger the development, the more time will go into it. >> I appreciate the spirit behind that. The only problem is is that sometime I've encountered 80,000 foot developments that require less staff time to deliver than a 20,000t development just on the basis of the complexity of say the civil uh engineering components of the site, the storm water management. uh maybe the site has a significant amount of public engagement which takes a lot of staff time to work with neighbors and explain the project. You have some projects like the salt shed uh this even well again I shouldn't talk about other items. You have projects that don't generate a lot of public interest projects that do tricky uh tricky sites from a civil engineering perspective. Maybe there's other unique characteristics. So building size alone is not the only driver of complexity and how much staff times it takes to get it through the process. Um, that's kind of the only challenge of uh kind of taring it in that way. And I don't know if there's a good standin criteria that really evaluates the complexity of each development as it relates to the amount of staff time. >> Commissioner Lenny. >> Yeah. And I would also to commissioner uh planning manager Johnson's point I would also imagine that there are times where larger projects particularly for major corporations where they have you know large engineering uh in-house council things like that their packages perhaps come better prepared than smaller applications where you may have someone doing it on their own. So, paradoxically, maybe some of those smaller ones that actually generate substantially more work for the city staff. >> I could say a lot. I'm going to choose not to I'm going to choose not to do that, but yes, you're on the right track. >> Any other thoughts on on this item, >> Commissioner Summers? >> Just one um comment. A lot of what I heard were really wonderful questions and great answers. Um, and I did hear staff nod to the fact that this has not been updated for more than 10, 15 years. >> That's right. >> Um, when I see increases that are nearing 100%. That to me feels like um an opportunity for people who are not in this meeting and not paying attention to updates from the city to make conclusions about what that means about what the city is doing. So I would be highly in favor of more incremental increases that are closer to that 30% mark. Um, I think that there is some understanding that everything is getting more expensive and um I think that people are going to notice as um any type of fee goes up. >> Commissioner Summers, as a point of clarification, are you proposing or suggesting that the current increase is around that 30% mark or moving forward we're doing this more often so it's around 30% and not 100%. Thank you for the question, chair. I would suggest moving forward. This feels like a good reset. >> Thank you for that clarification. >> Any other thoughts, Mr. Johnson? Is there anything you need formally from us? >> There is not. Thank you. It's good feedback and I'll share that with the city council when I meet with them on Monday. >> Very good. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. We'll move then to item number six, which is the consideration of two planning commission meeting synopsis. We will begin with January 15, 2026, and I will 2026. And I will entertain a motion. Commissioner Monster. >> Uh I move to approve the draft planning commission meeting synopsis from January 15, 2026 as presented. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Great. And I will note that all planning commissioners were present for that meeting. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Uh. Opposed. None. That motion passes 40. I will now entertain a motion for January 22nd, 2026. Mr. Johnson. Um, Commissioner Len was absent for that meeting. So, we had six commissioners at the meeting. Three commissioners tonight are present. Is that enough to take action on this item? Uh yes, it is the rule rules of procedure do allow that. >> Very well. Thank you. I'll look then for a motion for January 22nd. >> I move to approve the draft planning commission meeting synopsis from January 22nd, 2026 as presented. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second for January 2022nd, 2026. All those in favor say I. >> I opposed. Abstain. >> Abstain. That motion passes 300 with one abstination. Thank you. We'll move to item seven. Our final item this evening is the planning commission policies and issues update. Mr. Johnson. >> Thank you, Chair Cookton. Uh again, previewing the upcoming uh meetings before you. February 26th has officially been cancelled. Um the next next meeting after that is March the 12th. We're planning two study items at that meeting. One is a planning commission well both actually now are planning commission work plan items. um the corner lot study uh corner lot standards. So Bloomington has uh unique standards both for lot width and size for our corner lots in our lowdensity residential zoning district. So taking a look at uh lot size uh as well as some other miscellaneous standards in our code that specifically pertain to corner lots. And then the second item for that would be a uh kickoff discussion around the 2050 comprehensive plan. Um so really kind of setting the foundation uh around the understanding of what a comp plan is, what are the procedures that the city has to follow. Really just kind of doing a deep dive and introduction to that. Uh I will note that on March the 10th a city council concurrent meeting has been called. We're all uh you have been invited as well as multiple other advisory boards and commissions. We will touch on the comp plan as that uh as part of that meeting as well. Uh but we are holding time on March the 12th uh planning commission meeting uh so that there's more there's anticipated to be over 40 officials uh at that meeting. So there's uh it's likely that there'll be less airtime to address every question you might have or discussion item. And so we're holding space on the March 12th meeting um just in case to give the planning commission more time and space to uh connect with staff about the content that was presented for the 2050 comp plan. Um March 19th is a candidate for cancellation uh at this point. Uh we'll send out more notice of that uh moving forward. Uh and then other updates. Just a reminder about the March 10th uh city council meeting. Uh invited uh the planning commission, the sustainability commission, the port authority, and the HA board uh will all be in attendance uh at that meeting. So I'm still working through the physical logistics of uh doing that, but we'll get it uh squared away. And then >> yeah, you may. Um, so there was a meeting invite sent out and then there was a meeting cancellation sent out. Was the cancellation just a venue change or time change? >> That was, forgive me, that was a hold of time. And so there I think maybe what happened is we haven't forwarded the new uh event uh invite for that, but it's still on on March 10th. Okay. >> Forgive us for that procedural hiccup. >> That's okay. Thanks. >> Yeah. Um and then finally, just a reminder that uh we had the planning commission retreat on February the 2nd. Um uh Shante Brown has prepared a survey, a post, uh event survey. If you're willing to provide any feedback, uh on that for her, it'll help us to plan future uh similar events, and we'd thank you in advance for any uh feedback you can offer us. So, that's it. That's my update. >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Um uh to Commissioner Len's point, uh we do have three commissioners that are not present and although I'm sure they're watching. Um you may want to put that hold or something back on the calendar because it did imply that that meeting was canceled and so uh I don't want people to fill that up on their calendars by accident. So maybe a text message or other communication to make sure our commissioners are holding that. Uh, Mr. Johnson, I'd like to ask one other question, and I'm sure you'll go into great detail on March 12th, but could you just help us help me understand uh what is the planning commission's role in the comp plan? >> Yeah, thank you, chair. Uh, as the city's advisory board for land use and transportation, land use and transportation are two critical elements of uh the comprehensive plan. There's two chapters or elements that are dedicated to land use and transportation. Uh but in addition to that as serving as the city's planning agency, uh you are the only advisory board or commission that the the U has to make a formal uh recommendation on the comp plan. Um the comp plan certainly will be the draft that ultimately comes from the community engagement process and the research process and the you know multiple iterations of uh input certainly will be presented to other boards and commissions for their feedback. But you're the only body making a formal recommendation um under the procedural requirements. So um was there is that uh adequately answer that or is there >> uh my question I think is what is our role in drafting or creating the comprehensive plan? Does the planning commission have input on it? Is it more of is it is it strictly a review thing? Someone else has prepared it and we review it or is there more of an input active role by the planning commission? So, if you're willing uh to grant me some patience, I think that some of that content was going to be covered on March 10th and then the subsequent session with you on March the 12th uh deeper dive. So, if you're willing to save that question and I'll ensure that uh Dakota Castday, who's the project manager for the comp plan project um uh is aware of your question uh but there's going to be multiple opportunities to really shape uh the content and the policies of the plan. Um so, I would not uh categorize it or consider it a passive review. Um I think at multiple stages along the way, many different city officials, yourselves included, will have an opportunity to really shape um the its content from an early stage. So >> I will wait with baited breath. >> Okay. >> Um this is an opportunity for planning commissioners to ask any questions of staff, particularly things that were not on this evening's agenda. Uh is there anything would like to be discussed? Commissioner Len? Uh yeah, I would love to know if um obviously in the news quite a bit in the last week or two or last few weeks has been data centers and decisions by other communities and whatnot. And I'm wondering if there's been any conversation I mean I realize we Bloomington doesn't necessarily have the same uh available land options that some of the further out suburbs have. But has this topic come up either at the city council in planning meetings um you know as we look forward to the comp plan? This is going to be a topic of discussion. >> Thanks. >> Yeah, Chair, Commissioner Len, um I don't mean to pat ourselves on the back here, but the city of Bloomington was a little bit ahead of this issue uh a few years ago um where we did adopt uh requirements around uh data centers. In fact, we do have you standards for data centers. I'm trying to navigate to them now. I'm sure I'm not I'm sure it's not uh an intent to prolong this meeting much further. Um but effectively what the main uh brake pedal or restriction on data centers um the first thing we did in this ordinance is we defined the use but the main thing that really uh kind of manages their impacts is that they may not be located within 500 ft of site zoned uh and used residentially. Um and some of this was coming out of a uh expansion of a a a data center or um kind of an industrial site that had lots of coolers and chillers on site. um that uh uh we're making quite a bit of noise. So um the city of Bloomington uh does have uh standards for data centers. This is really the key provision that I have highlighted on the screen. And um uh it has prevented a couple perspective uh interest in a couple site locations from uh just my own anecdotal um involvement and a couple inquiries that we've received. So, we were a little bit ahead of it, but I agree with your your comment that we're likely not a good candidate for large scale uh data centers just on the basis of being a fully developed uh community and they're more looking for green field sites. You can trust your former planning commissioner spent a significant amount of time talking about generators and other things that uh cause noise and and their proximity to residential uh uses, but I think all to positive impact. Any other items wishing to be discussed? Seeing none, that concludes this February 19th meeting of the Bloomington Planning Commission. Good night.