[music] [music] Good evening and welcome to this November 6th meeting of the Bloomington Planning Commission. The planning commission advises the city council on development proposals, development standards, long-range planning and transportation issues. Some items before the planning commission are study items where we will not take formal action. While other items before the planning commission are uh public hearings where we will take formal action. Included in those public hearings will be the opportunity for public testimony. If you'd like to provide testimony, you can do so here at city hall in the commission chambers or you can do so online remotely by following the instructions on your screen. On some items, the planning commission has final decision-making authority, while on other items, the city council will make the final decision, and the planning commission acts in an advisory capacity. The planning commission is made up of seven volunteer residents of the city of Bloomington. Six of us are here this evening, so we do have a quorum. As we begin this evening, I'll ask everyone in the chambers to please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Six items on our agenda this evening. We'll start with item number one, which is a public hearing. The city of Bloomington is the applicant for the approval of the American Boulevard transit study. Mr. Kirk Roberts, you have a staff report for us. >> All right, Chair Cook and commissioners, glad to be with you tonight. I was previously here on this issue on October 9th. After that, this went to the city council who got the same peri uh presentation on October 27th. And so I'm back tonight with you seeking a recommendation of approval of the study to the city council. Um as was said by Chair Cookton, this board, this body is a uh advisory board to the council on transportation issues and they they value your opinion and your feedback. So I appreciate your time tonight. the um in your packet uh was included chapter nine of the study that was about a 12page summary which is recommendations and outcomes of the study the full report is 260 pages there was a link to that on the let's talk Bloomington page if you didn't read the full report that's that's just fine um it's it's very thick and very voluminous um one of the reasons is because if the outcomes of this study were ever to proceed when and we hope they will into um bus rapid transit or additional transit service on the corridor. Those are typically funded by the federal transit administration and metro met council and there's all sorts of information that they need to know that we've done including you know our outreach and engagement and everything. So all that documentation in that study um is is there because we expect this to move forward into the future and it needs to be there for that. Um I just want to touch though on an outline when I'm asking for a recommendation of approval. It's it's just that you've had the chance to review the recommendations of the findings of the study and and that the the commission is generally in agreement, not that you've committed all those 260 pages to to memory. So, um, there there were three main study areas that I want to hit on, um, as an outcome of the study. The the original purpose was to study transit on the corridor to see if we could continue planning around bus rapid transit on American Boulevard. That was the primary key. So, I'm going to talk about the recommendations that came out of that. Second to that was land use. Are there land use changes that the city can control in terms of our zoning and our code that would affect how the area develops that would be more supportive of transit on the corridor? Uh the symbiotic relationship between transit and land use. Can we make changes as the comprehensive plan is updated in the next few years to support uh transit better? And then the last was infrastructure. Uh and I'll talk on that more as we go. So there were four alternatives that were studied um for transit. The the first was um Mall of America to Centennial Lakes. All of the options we looked at start and end at the Mall of America. Um I think most commissioners are aware that's the one of the largest transit stations in the metro. So the the opportunities for transfers as well as just the amenities for for buses and and drivers and operators and things is is really good there. So that's why they all began and end at the Mall of America. The first up was Mall of America to Centennial Lakes up just across the border in Adina. The second was to extend that a little further, Mall of America up to Southdale Mall. Um, again, malls um make good places to start and end transit. There are a lot of ridership to malls, but they also provide an opportunity for those um transit amenities for drivers, places to lay the buses over and things like that. So, um the next alternative took a line from Mall of America all the way across to Normanddale Lake District on the the west side of the city. And then alternative four, part of this line, this is the red line on the map coming from Minneapolis through Richfield. This line already exists. It's route 4 and it terminates on American Boulevard today. It's just a local route, not a bus rapid transit. This one's in planning for potential upgrades to a BRT line. So, we took that concept and said, "What if you just make a left and extend that route out to Mall of America and call it a BRT line?" And I'll talk about uh a little more on that and how that might turn out later. The two candidate lines, the most viable lines from uh transit use is the the extension of that route for to Mall of America as well as the Centennial Lakes route or excuse me, the uh extension up to Southdale Mall. So the study recommends that we continue to study and develop those two routes moving into the future um for viability. And just worth mentioning, you don't see an unlimited number of of potential routes here. Each of these have to be developed, modeled, studied. Um writership has to be forecast, stations have to be planned and everything like that. So there's only so many of these that we can do that are really feasible. So that's why you don't see an infinite number of routes heading over to St. Paul and and all other destinations in the area. Um they each take a whole lot of development work to just to study to see if they're going to be viable. But these are the top two. And so these will the recommendation is to move these forward to planning into the future land use. One of the questions is how's that corridor looking for redevelopment? Can we expect redevelopment into the future? uh the densities um that the the city's interested in seeing as well as in a way that would support transit. And so the consultant did a good analysis. The the red parcels are where uh we talked about before where there's the highest potential for redevelopment. We can't say for sure that they'll redevelop, but they have the highest potential based on the formulas the consultant used. Um and so there is the good opportunity for redevelopment and there's going to be some recommendations that come from that. Um most of our current zoning supports the kind of development that's that we'd like to see out there. There might be some changes that are needed. Um a couple recommendations uh that would help sort of support what we'd like to see in the future. And so those are going to make their way into the comprehensive plan update next. This map just sort of speaks to how we'd like the transportation network on those parcels as they redevelop, potentially breaking up some of those large parcels into uh with with small roads. Um that's all part of the study and that'll have to be deliberated as the comprehensive plan moves forward. A few other recommendations formalize uh shared parking requirements. This is when businesses can share parking. So if you have a residential use adjacent to a commercial use, maybe in the day most of the parking is allocated to the business as they do business and then they all go home and in the evening residents can use that parking. That's what the shared parking recommendations are. Look at district parking um to take some of the burden off of each individual development that might support some of the smaller development that would like to see. um bicycle parking requirements, built form guidelines, that's just about the buildings, uh internal circulation, uh public art, and so these recommendations if adopted by the council and once adopted by the council will make their way into planning and into the comprehensive plan. Obviously, the planning commission is going to be uh deeply involved in that comprehensive plan update infrastructure. Uh this speaks to what people experience out on the roadway. One of the things we consistently heard from the public is no one particularly likes the roadway as it is right now. It's somewhat uh challenging for bicyclists and pedestrians. It's an environment that is is not that amenable to to spending time there. And so one of the things we did is really listen to the to the public about what they didn't like, what they'd like to see, and developed a preferred concept. And I'm going to talk a little bit more about this, but this under the infrastructure is probably one of the more complicated parts of the study implementation timeline. Those three uses um transit. Once this is adopted by council, there's a couple tasks that we'll have to do in the next few years. The Metro Transit is right now in the middle of their BRT study for the next three arterial BRT lines. Those will be the J, K, and Lines. This speaks to that route 4 that I talked about. Are they going to change route 4 down from Minneapolis to a bus rapid transit line and designate it as such? If so, then we'll start to look at planning around extending that line and see the viability of that in the future. Um, depending on what the outcome of that is too, we'd also want to start engaging with our partners. Uh, city of Adina has some interest in what we're doing and and supporting transit in their city as well. And so we'll start talking to other potential partners. So those are the next steps for transit land use. I touched on the next few years are going to be dealing with updating the comprehensive plan. The commission will be engaged in that no doubt. Um and so these recommendations will find their way into the comprehensive plan update. And then the last one, infrastructure. And this is the most complicated. You've probably all seen the 494 construction that's going to go on for a while. Um that work will start wrapping up in 2030. Um so right now uh the traffic volumes all over the north side of the city are very very high including on American Boulevard. Um and they will probably remain that way for the next few years. As segments of American Boulevard or the 494 come online, we'll expect volumes to drop all over the north side of the city traffic volumes, including American Boulevard. um as some congestion relief is provided on that project then uh as we hit 2030 uh hopefully it's a lovely peaceful area there and we can start to think about the future of American Boulevard without all the burden of the traffic from the interstate and so that crosssection you saw has been perhaps the only somewhat controversial part of the study. If you're out there today and you see the traffic volumes and you manage the congestion and you're in the midst of that and you see a cross-section like this, you wonder what people are thinking, what what I'm thinking. And um that's that's a common reaction. This is what we developed based on what we heard from the community, based on what the community believes that road should do, how it should function. But this can't happen right now. Um, and so what we've put in place is just that this is where we start when we start to reconstruct portions of that corridor. This is where we start those conversations to see if we can get this kind of infrastructure in. There are places where this cross-section would work just fine right now. The volumes have always been low enough, the transit use is high enough it could justify a cross-section like this. There's other sections of that roadway where we wouldn't be able to fit a cross-section um in any time foreseeable and there's some sections where we might just have to add more lanes, we might have to see a second common lane um and things like that. But this is where we start doing that. So when we go to um rather than try to project what traffic in the future is going to look like, there's a lot of moving parts on that. We're not going to get very good projections. Let's develop the way we want the road to look based on our values as a community. And then we'll do those studies. We'll do that heavy lifting, that traffic modeling, and have those conversations with the public as we move this to construction well out into the future. And then we can decide what the ultimate configuration looks like. So the language uh in the plan has been updated to reflect that as well. So, here we are tonight looking for a recommendation of approval from the commission uh at this hearing. The final study uh is planned to go to council on December 8th uh for final adoption. Again, stated seeking a recommendation of approval from the commission. I've included a stated motion. And with that, I'll take any questions you have. >> Thank you, Mr. Roberts. Questions for staff? Commissioner Isa. >> Uh thank you, Chair Gotan. Uh was the on the east side of American Boulevard. Was the kind of community there also uh solicited or engaged or is it just only from the uh Let's Talk Bloomington site? >> Yeah, Chair Kton, Mr. They were extensively uh we did a very comprehensive outreach and engagement um work on this including having people boarding the buses to get people to do surveys and things like that. And the the area around um Portland 12 that whole area was targeted fairly heavy. Um we want to make sure we're talking to the people that will use the system now and and into the future. And so that was a really key part. It's also required by Metro Transit and the Federal Transit Admin Administration too. >> Commissioner White, I'm sorry, Commissioner Len. >> Thank you, Chair Cookton. Um uh I've noticed that Penn Avenue is Henipin County is doing a major uh redesign of Henipin uh excuse me, Penn Avenue in Richfield uh is on the plans for 2028. And I'm wondering sort of on the sequencing of events here based on the outcome of that, is there a potential that there would be yet another option that would be considered um depending on what they decide for the redesign of Penn Avenue or is the plan for Penn already factoring that in. I'm not sure if you know the answer to that question, but thank you. >> Yeah, Cher Kton Lia, there's um there's nothing that I know about from that project that would preclude transit use. In fact, I think that's an important component to Richfield, uh, too. So, there's nothing that I know about what they're planning to do that would make transit more difficult. Uh, hopefully it would make transit use better like we're trying to do on American Boulevard. In terms of the sequence though, I don't have enough information about when they plan to do that to to really forecast that. >> Commissioner Summers, >> thank you for all Oh, thanks, Chair. Thank you for all this research. Um, I am wondering about um I read that in the reinvisioning that driveways to businesses will probably be impacted and I took some time driving down American Boulevard. Um, and I'm wondering there's a lot of driveways that are going in and out of properties and um I don't know if this is answerable, but will 50% be impacted, 30% Is it a lot? Is it a little? >> Yeah, Chair Cookton, Commissioner Summers, it's a really good question. The the road has evolved over time and it much of the road came about when cars were king and so we have a lot of driveways and they're very wide. Um, and so under any circumstance when we rebuild those, we would try to narrow those up. Uh some of them you could you could run an aircraft carrier through those. Um they're very large and that promotes uh a lot of high-speed driving. It makes pedestrians and cyclists feel very unsafe. And so in any case, they would all be narrowed under any kind of reconstruct. In terms of what driveways are eliminated or or driveways that might be eliminated, that would have to be something that's decided at the project level. we um it's it's pretty well known that we have to provide a certain amount of access to properties and that becomes really important when it's the commercial properties and so if we wanted to eliminate a driveway say to pursue a safety issue um that has to be negotiated with that property owner at the time you're doing a project. So yeah, >> Mr. Roberts, if the city council were to ultimately adopt this transit study, what does that mean moving forward, could it be akin to like a district plan or could you maybe help frame for me what does that what does that mean when this transit studies on the books? >> Yeah, Cher Kton, it is um the long-term planning documents that we develop are really important, especially as we go negotiate to partners. They help the city know what it should be focusing on. And so that's where we start with that. If it's in a planning document, it it gives us our charge to go ahead and continue working on that. Um, and like if it's in the comprehensive plan or any of the planning documents we do, that's where staff looks to where our work is going to be. Uh it also starts to establish this expectation on Metro Transit's part um that there is going to be a transit line in the future that we are going to continue to work to develop that and and we would like them to meet us on that project work too. So it's a bit of a stake in the ground um now and into the future that you know we expect transit to happen on that corridor and we're looking for help with that. Great. >> Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Commissioner Summers. Thanks chair. My other question is if we are studying the plan as is so the cross-section concept that study would inform future plans even if they don't look like that or if the study decides that you know this really isn't exactly what we were thinking or Metroransit makes another decision um would we have to start over with studying American Boulevard or does it still give us usable data to inform redeveloping that space. >> Yeah, Chair Cookton, um, Commissioner Summers, um, it's a starting place for any work that we do on the corridor. Um, we have a fairly aggressive pavement management program. So, a hypothetical on how that cross-section might play out is maybe a segment of the road, let's just say 12th to Portland, is coming up for pavement work in the next 5 years. when we're looking at do we want to go ahead and and rebuild that roadway to conform to that cross-section, we'd start modeling that. We do the traffic modeling, collect the data, start those public conversations about it. Um, and that cross-section is where we start those conversations. Uh, we might ultimately find out we develop a great traffic model and do some forecasting with that and we need an additional lane in the eastbound direction to handle the peak traffic that's occurring there. And so we would we would take that cross-section and modify that and start planning around that. Um but the and so that's that's where we'd start those conversations and start that work. And the key thing is that what's shown there works within that right away. You don't want to take a whole lot of more property because you're taking property that then can't be used by those businesses by those residential developments along there. So what's shown is what fits and there's a little bit of room to spare. And so with that we can start making decisions. The key takeaway though on those crosssections is really the pedestrian facilities uh the cycle the non-motorized facilities the bike lanes and things like that and those really need to go in. Uh and so those would be sort of a stake in the ground where yes these need to go in and then and we start looking at what else we can fit in that corridor and do we need to in some cases buy small price pieces of property from adjacent property owners. That's a complicated answer to what seemed like a simple question. So, I hope that addressed it. Any other questions for staff? Thank you, Mr. Roberts. This is a public hearing which I will open now and ask if there's anyone in the chambers here who would like to testify on this item. Seeing no one coming forward, do we have anybody online? >> All participants online are staff. >> Very good. I will look then for a motion to close the public hearing. >> So move. Second. We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say I. >> I. Opposed. >> That motion passes 6. And we will move then to discussion. Commissioner Summers. Um, so I live a couple blocks off of American and Portland um cross streets and I can um relate to looking at the cross-section and going, "Oh my gosh, wow." Um, can that work? But I think in studying the materials, looking at some of the presentations the staff has given, I feel like this is a an easy yes for me. that betting on um [clears throat] the vision for the future being one that matches what the values of citizens living in Bloomington right now with redevelopment in that area, opening space for more people to live, work, and play in Bloomington is an easy support for me. >> Commissioner White, >> thank you, Chair. Um, yeah, I think it is sometimes hard to imagine this level of change in a road that that gets a lot of use and a lot of attention, but I like the fact that it is ambitious about getting people out of their cars. Uh, I like the fact that it is um something that is being thoughtfully planned with a lot of community input and I appreciate the fact that it's not a we're going to try and do this tomorrow. Um, so I appreciate the intention to um look at the traffic studies again once 494 construction is over, which I think we will all be excited about. Um, so I appreciate the attention that staff's put into this and I appreciate the the commitment to uh sustainability that I see in this. >> Commission L. >> Chair, um, I agree. I think when we first had the presentation, I think I was one of the more vocal people in concerns about the narrowing of for of American Boulevard um particularly for vehicles until we had more data on post494 construction. Having said that, I've been thinking about it quite a bit, especially I spend a lot of time driving through Lindale and 66th in Richfield and remember how I thought it was insane when they were going to go down to one lane in both directions. um and how I've noticed that the traffic is actually much better there. I don't know if it's cuz people are taking the road less um and using whether other modes of transportation or staying on the freeways for those distances. So, I think that I've warmed up to the idea and particularly given um the additional details that staff has worked in about factoring in the 494 construction and being able to revisit this as time goes that what the actual cross-section looks like. I think I can say I can support this as well. >> Yeah, I felt the same. Uh you first see that cross-section and you go, "Oh my gosh, we couldn't possibly do this." And it's comforting to hear that we're going to take a look at this from an engineering standpoint when we get there and that this is a values-based design and there's recognition that we're not promising this is going to work. And so with that, I'm I'm comfortable supporting this. Um I think it's a long way away. Do I think we'll ever get to that cross-section? I don't know. Got a lot of tall buildings on American Boulevard. So, um, you know, they're always going to need some level of service. And so, I'm okay with it as it stands. Any other thoughts? If not, I would look for a motion. Commissioner White, >> I move that we advance a recommendation that the Bloomington City Council adopt the American Boulevard transit study. >> Is there a second? >> Second. Motion and a second recommending that the city council advances the American Boulevard transit study and approves it or adopts it rather. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. That motion passes. 6. This will go before the public uh the city council as a public hearing on December 8th. Thank you, Mr. Roberts. Our next item is a study item, item number two. The city of Bloomington is the applicant reviewing the combined 10-year capital improvement plan for the years of 2026 through 2035. Mr. Dakota Cassand is our planner on this item and he's here for a staff report. >> All right. Uh good evening, planning commission. Yeah, I'm just going to um kind of walk through this annual process that we go through um for the planning commission to um review the capital improvement plan um for compliance with our city's comprehensive plan. Um so the finance department put together these nice slides to kind of outline the CIP um process and um Lori Economy Scherer is also on the line if you'd have questions or I I misspeak on something. Um but the capital improvement plan is just that it's a plan. So it's a planning tool based on long range and long-range physical planning and financial projections for the city. And so approval of this CIP does not authorize funding or guarantee funding on the projects. It's simply a planning document. Uh it includes a detailed description for every capital project over $50,000 um that's anticipated to be initiated um over this next 10-year period. uh the the project does list like the full project cost and it doesn't necessarily mean it's um um like the city's portion or city funds. It it kind of captures all the funding sources in that that total project cost. Um they also provide an executive summary and section highlight and those provide the an overview of any major projects that are a million dollars or more. Um again just reiterating that approval of the CIP does not guarantee funding for the project. each project um for it to move forward has to get all of its funding sources together um and be authorized according to city policy. And so in our case, if a project is $175,000 um less than $175,000, the city manager can authorize that project. If the project cost is $175,000 or more, the city council has to authorize um that project. And so our finance department works with um departments and divisions across the city um throughout the year kind of in line with the um annual budget um to review and define the projects in the CIP. Um it a draft CIP did go to the city council on October 20th and then it's anticipated that the uh final CIP document go to city council on December 8th um for a public hearing and adoption. And so the the step that we're at here tonight um in state statute as the designated planning agency for the city um your role is to to review the CIP to make sure that it's in compliance with the comprehensive plan. So you're not um adopting the CIP. Um your your role is um a little bit more narrow in that you're just reviewing to make sure it's in alignment with the comprehensive plan. Um this is just a summary of um some projects that could be um initiated um in 26 and 27. Um there's a parking ramp project in the south loop district. Um the north central sanitary sewer diversion is in our pen district um where there's been some sewer capacity issues um for redevelopment in that area. Um the 9mm Creek corridor project is part of that local option sales tax. um Bloomington Forward projects, um some wrap up there, um some potential improvements at Civic Plaza, um a rebuild of Fire Station 2, um and some different roadway projects um on um Old Chuck Pee Road. Um there's also a number of um new projects that were added um this year into the CIP. So this on the screen is just kind of some some highle highlights there. Again, a lot of um potential civic plaza um um improvements. The HRA um used to be in the CIP and then it was taken out and now it's added back in. So, that's kind of their um improvements for HA owned properties. Um we mentioned the parking ramp um the project on Old Chakapi Road and then a safe routes to school project at um Stanley A and West 84th Street as well. And then u this just kind of highlights there's a number of um basketball and tennis court um replacements and playground replacements that um are kind of outlined in the park um the master the park system master plan um as well. And so um the comprehensive plan doesn't get at the granular level of specific projects but um as a more a broader vision for the direction of the city. And so when reviewing the CIP um in compliance with the comp plan um staff has historically taken the approach to point to any goals or strategies um in the comprehensive plan that speak to improving community facilities services and infrastructure. And so this table just kind of summarizes what was outlined in the staff report that um this city facilities category of the CIP most closely aligns with our community facilities um chapter of the comprehensive plan. And then there's the relevant um goals and strategies that kind of speak to improving community infrastructure and services. So similarly the the HRA um category aligns with the housing chapter, parks with community facilities, our sewer water, storm water with utilities, um our south loop and port authority projects kind of align with multiple chapters or there's multiple references in the comprehensive plan and our land use chapter, transportation chapter and community facilities chapter. Um and then finally, um all of our surface transportation, uh projects align with our transportation chapter of the comprehensive plan. And so staff did review the draft CIP and did find it to um comply with a comprehensive plan. So uh we recommend you adopt a resolution um finding as such and the um motion language is there on the screen. >> Thank you, Mr. Cassand. Questions for staff? >> Um Mr. Cast, I'll start with a question. Um, so, um, our role this evening is to review the CIP and make sure it's or find that it's in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Um, one of the items that's popped up in the CIP this year is a new parking ramp for the South Loop Water Park. Um, being that that's a very high ticket item, I think we probably have a responsibility to ask about that. So could you provide staff's uh position on how that is in compliance with the comprehensive plan? >> Yeah, uh Chair Cookton and planning commission. So yeah, like we mentioned, we're you know, we're looking at the goals and strategies of the comprehensive plan um that kind of speak to to the alignment with the CIP. So uh you know, I kind of point to in the staff report land use strategy 2.1 that says coordinate infrastructure upgrades and expansion with redevelopment. Um we could also point to land use goal 4 um that promotes economic development for the city and region and then land use strategy 4.4 um that leverages partnerships and funding tools to foster public and private investment in infrastructure, economic development and community services. Um so the port authority in the city has taken a similar approach to other redevelopment in the south loop district um to find ways to support road and other public infrastructure improvements which have included parking ramps um to facilitate development. So kind of thinking about the um uh sik headquarters and kind of campus um as well as the um the AC and element hotel Hazelwood development and the the parking ramp there. And so I think we kind of point to those goals and strategies that we find it in alignment with the comp plan. >> Great. Thank you. >> Other questions for staff, >> Commissioner Muner? >> Um, excuse me. [clears throat] I do thank you for uh clarifying that all of the sanitary well, not all, but most of the sanitary sewer projects that were outlined are to address the need in North Loop. Um, my question is, I know the city was seeking state funding for those projects. Um but I don't believe the state approved it. Okay. That that was my question um as to what the sort of outlook is to getting those kinds of things taken care of. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Chair Kton, if I may, >> please. Um, Chair Kton, uh, Commissioner Munster, while the state legislature did not pass any bonding in the last legislative session, we still have the bonding request for the um, North Central project, and we are doing a tour on November 13th with the um, representatives. So, we still have our fingers crossed, but there's no guarantee. >> Thank you, Miss Long. Other questions for staff? Commissioner Len. >> Thanks, Chair Kton. Um, I see that there's highlight of what's been added to the CIP for next year. Um, do you off the top of your head know what things came off the CIP or is it just a list that's continued to grow from year to year? >> I can take that one if you'd like. >> Great. Um so projects normally would stay on the CIP. We would um unless um something else came that actually replaced that type of um activity. So generally um for example a fire station 2 um that's coming up in 2027 has been on the CIP probably since 2015. So, um, we've kept moving it along depending on when we are able to fund it. But if, um, for example, I would say in the Normandale, uh, area where we have an abatement district, one project came off that abatement district and it came out of the CIP and a new, um, revised project came on. So, that would be a a project that came was on there, came off, and something replaced it. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, Miss Economy Schiller. Any other staff questions? Seeing none for now. Thank you, Mr. Cassand. We'll move then to discussion. Having done this a few times, um these are pretty straightforward. Um the staff does a good job reviews these a lot before they come to us and I we've never even sniffed something I think that is not in compliance with the comprehensive plan. I think uh I have a lot of trust in our city that they're reviewing this for compliance and aren't trying to pull one over on us. And so our scope on this is fairly limited. We are not asked to look at the applications or the uh proposals rather. We're not asked to say whether we like it or not. It's about being in conformance with the comprehensive plan. I can find this is in comprehensive uh in conformance with the comprehensive plan. So, I'll be supporting it. Any other thoughts? If not, I would look for a motion. >> Commissioner Lay. I move to adopt resolution number 2025, a resolution finding that the combined 10-year capital improvement plan for 2026 to 2023rd 2035 complies with the Bloomington comprehensive plan. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second to adopt this resolution. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed? That motion passes 6. Uh Mr. Johnson, this is a study item for the planning commission, but I believe it's a public hearing at the city council. >> Sure, Cook. And that's correct. The city council will be holding a public hearing on the capital improvement plan on their regular meeting on December the 8th uh of this year. >> And would the public have a chance to testify at that item? >> They would, Chair Cook, and they can uh provide feedback on the projects listed in the CIP um other miscellaneous elements related to uh the projects. So certainly there's a avenue to do that. >> There there we go. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson and thanks to all the members of staff that helped us out on that item. We will move then to item number three, which is a development case from Rosa Development Company for a privately initiated code amendment for existing remote airport parking facilities. I will be taking a uh recusal on this item and Commissioner White will be the acting chair. >> Thank you, Chair Cookton. Bear with me. This is my first time chairing. So, if I'm not as smooth as our, uh, regular chair, I'm sure you'll all uh, help correct me. So, uh, but with that, I believe the first thing up would be a present a staff presentation. So, planning manager, >> thank you, acting chair white. Uh, yes, the third item on your agenda is a privately initiated city code amendment. It is a topic that's, uh, familiar to many of us, having, uh, participated in a city initiated study over the course of this summer. uh this fall uh it is submitted by uh Rosa Development Company uh who is in effect operates park and fly. So one thing I want to point out at the start of this uh the start of this presentation forgive me um is that as we've discussed in planning commission trainings and uh just generally speaking about the various applications that come before us uh the planning commission acts uh both in a legislative function and a quasi judicial function. So the applications that you typically act in a quasi judicial function include variances, conditional use permits, uh final site and building plans, uh these are applications that have specified and required findings in the city code that you have to make to approve them. Uh so really you're evaluating them to see if they meet uh the city code, the comprehensive plan, all the tests that are set up um uh according to the required findings for those applications. uh for the other application types um uh you do operate in a legislative uh function and in the legislative function you have a higher level of discretion um than you do when operating in a quasi judicial uh function. So I just want to point that out. So for the quasi judicial items there's a lower level of discretion at the very top building permits certainly if someone meets building code um the city has to issue them. uh when operating on legislative uh function uh the you have much more decision-making authority and discretion. Um there's no specific findings that have to be met uh for uh a city code amendment. Really what you'd be looking to is the city's comprehensive plan, district plans, other adopted city uh policies, land use or otherwise uh in general. Um, another thing I'll point out too is that um, for this application type, despite the fact that it is privately initiated, uh, you have the same level of discretion or decision-m uh, authority as it would be if it were a city initiated, uh, action. So, really, it's similar to any city code amendment um, brought before you. So, it is initiated by uh, the private in this case. Um but just wanting to highlight uh kind of the different levels of discretion and the difference between uh quasi judicial and legis legislative functions that the planning commission has. I will point out here too uh that unlike some of the applications the planning commission uh acts on uh the city council in this case is the final uh decision maker on this application. So, the ordinance before you this evening submitted by Park and Fly, Rosa Development, um operates Park and Fly, um uh would affect two existing properties in Bloomington that we've discussed a fair amount as part of this study. So, right just south of 494 uh along 34th Avenue. Uh there's two existing facilities that are currently in operation. Park and Go on the west side of 34th Avenue uh and Park and Fly. Uh both of these sites are around 12 acres in sight. Park and Fly has around 2,000 uh parking stalls between surface parking and uh parking structure on the east side of their property. Park and Go has around 5500 um parking stalls um as part of their facility. So Park and Fly has been operating since the late 80s. Uh Park and Go um just the early 90s shortly thereafter. So just wanted to level set again uh provide this context um in terms of uh you know what the implications of these uh code amend of the code amendment put forth before you this evening. So to provide a little additional uh background here um uh you know the city council ultimately adopted an ordinance on September 29th. What preceded that ordinance was the study uh that I mentioned the city initiated study uh in October of 2024. the city adopted a moratorum on this use. Not only did that uh pause any potential development applications the city could receive, it also paused enforcement uh and other activities. So that was done in October 2024. Uh following the staff study uh that took about eight months to prepare. Uh we came back to the planning commission and city council presented our findings. Um uh following direction of that uh staff presented a staff recommended ordinance. The key feature of that ordinance uh was that there would be a uh 3 acre development set aside. Uh you recall reviewing that as part of a public hearing. Um and the compliance date and the staff recommended version of that ordinance would have been in 2029 giving the operators time uh to to navigate the development cycles, prepare plans. Um uh in other words, giving them time to kind of prepare for this uh change. Um the planning commission reviewed that ordinance. They did recommend approval, but did recommend back uh backing the compliance date up to 2034. If you recall, that was kind of the key element of the planning commission's action. When it came forward to the city council, uh the city council broadly supported uh the first two elements there listed on your screen. So adopting standards for hotel airport parking as well as new airport parking within existing parking structures uh that are found to have uh adequate capacity or excess supply of parking. Um and so those elements did move forward. I want to note that um uh those developments obviously are paired with more significant uh developments. either a hotel is significant development or in the case of some of these other parking structures uh they're tied to office buildings uh the mall more significant uh uses as part of the city council discussion uh unfortunately consensus was not uh broadly reached in terms of what final policy solution uh was appropriate for the existing uh two operators. So ultimately what they decided to do uh was to uh allow to maintain uh their use designation as an interim use uh in the HXR zoning district and to extend uh the allowance to seek application for interim use permits um or validity uh through August 8th, 2027. Now that seems like a very specific date. Why would they do that? Basically they wanted to align uh the interim uh approval allowance for the two operators uh to a single deadline. Um the reason that they did this is that they wanted to create effectively 20 months of time for the city uh and the two existing operators to continue working together to try and reach some type of um uh more final policy um uh landing spot that could be amendable to uh both parties. Um so effectively that's what they did. Um and then finally the ordinance that was adopted uh removed um uh the moratorum that was in place. So the application before you this evening again submitted by uh park and fly would affect both park and go and park and fly. Um uh the main elements here are listed on the slide and we're outlined in the staff report. The first thing I would note is it would change existing remote airport parking facilities from an interim use to a conditional use. Um uh so many of you have uh held hearings on conditional use permits. You're familiar with the conditional use permit process. Um again, that's acting in a quasi judicial function. The one thing I want to highlight about a conditional use is should a conditional use be approved, it is a permanent uh land use approval that runs with the land um not with the operator. Um so unless uh the use were to remain inactive or vacant for a period of a year or more effectively those rights can continue on uh permanently or indefinitely. So I do want to make that point. The other feature of the privately initiated ordinance put forth by uh Rosa Development would be an optional development set aside um should the facility choose to intensify their use by adding more parking stalls via a parking structure on their site. say they wanted to uh build in more parking supply uh via parking structures, then that would trigger uh a uh development site to be provided along uh American Boulevard. So, in this ordinance, it's really intensification is what triggers a development site. Um there's also a standard that screening would have to be provided uh between the development site and the remote airport parking use uh as as when it's created. The other thing I would note too is that there is not a minimum size uh established within their proposed ordinance for the proposed development site. So the specifications are really locationational limited to location along uh American Boulevard. The final component of the ordinance that they put forth is that they would exempt existing facilities from HXR zoning district uh parking, lighting and landscaping standards uh within the existing facility uh unless the use was intensified unless the site was intensified and then that would um trigger uh code compliance uh in that way. So, uh, based on the significant cost of structured parking, uh, based on some of the history with the site, um, staff just wants to, uh, reiterate that it's really at their choosing, uh, should they want to intensify. Um and I just want to underline that what this could result in is you know should a conditional use permit be approved which has lesser discretion than uh than this type of application uh it could result in uh these facilities operating in their existing or as uh their asbuilt state uh in perpetuity. So just want to highlight that here is the actual uh language of the privately initiated city code amendment. Uh I'm not going to go through it again because I just provided you a summary, but I just wanted to re share or reiterate that I do have the precise language of the applicants uh ordinance uh here on the slides uh should you need them. So again this first part conditional use removing the interim use designation and then here are those uh development standards uh that I mentioned effectively. So staff is not supportive of this application in terms of our uh general recommendation. There's three main factors uh why uh staff is not recommending approval of this application. The first of which is that the city council uh just took action on an ordinance uh that kept the designation of this use as an interim use uh in order to again create that 20 months of space uh to continue conversations to try and reach a mutually agreed upon policy uh solution. Um uh so that has not uh yet occurred. The the they're certainly within their right to submit this application. Absolutely. I do want to honor that. Um uh but as part of the discussions at the city council, I do want to reiterate that there was uh general discussion from multiple city council members that uh remained uh you know committed or uh preferred some redevelopment uh be paired with uh the final policy solution. Uh so I do want to uh highlight that fact as part of the city council deliberations related to this uh slide here. I do want to highlight that uh the city council did consider a motion to allow this use as a flat permitted use. That motion failed 4 to2 uh at the city council level. Uh in addition to that, at their final adoption on the 29th, uh the applicant before you this evening, we also included their preferred policy solution, which was a conditional use. Um similar to tonight's ordinance, although without a development set aside, um the city council also did not take that uh option up um in terms of their final action. So, I just want to highlight those things. In addition to that element, uh the next two element, these are things that really we covered more broadly as part of our study. uh but it's an ongoing uh element of uh that is uh you know essential to staff's analysis as part of the case. Again, as I mentioned, you have high decision-making authority in this case, but you do should look to the comprehensive plan, district plan. Overall, uh this was covered pretty extensively in the the study that was performed, but extensive permanent surface parking along 494 is incompatible with both the comp plan and the district plan. First of all, related to the district, you know, the South Loop District talks about transforming that district from suburban to urban. Uh it has a vision of a uh urban, vibrant, walkable, intensely developed area uh as well as a sustainable district. So, there's elements of that core plan stemming back from 2012 uh that staff still feel is not met here. Um and then more broadly in the comprehensive plan in the land use goals and strategies as well as in the transportation element, it talks about the need to pair the city's largest investments in transportation infrastructure um with high and high density and intense development. Um just more simply put, just emphasizing the importance of transit oriented development um in the city moving forward. The city's experience uh in this is just that market forces alone um have not led to redevelopment. Um that's not to say that it never could occur that way. I don't want to make that statement. But um just more generally uh you know there's a a fair amount of evidence that um market alone uh has not been successful in uh changing the conditions of this site. And then finally just inconsistency with the HXR zoning district. Um you know every zoning district in the city has a number of different intent statements. Of course, HXR was developed um along with the Bloomington Central Station development as well as as a tool to help implement um or to be used to implement the South Loop District plan. So, it was broadly applied to many sites uh throughout Bloomington. Uh and the many factors are kind of detailed in the staff report. So, with that, uh staff is recommending denial uh of this application. I do have a suggested motion uh for you here on the screen. Thank you, planning manager. Um, questions for staff. Commissioner. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Excuse me. I have a series of questions, if you'll be so kind. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. So, I just want to be sure that I'm understanding what this proposal is and we're all clear as to what this proposal is. So, on September 29th, the council took final action on the airport parking study. on October 3rd, I believe it was, this application came through the door, proposing exactly the same thing that was proposed at the council. >> Yeah. >> Planning man, >> Chair, Chair White, uh, Commissioner Monster. So, um, the the version, so, uh, I'd have to look back at the exact date that the application was submitted. It was shortly thereafter. It was a few days after the city council action, I believe. Um uh but what I want to emphasize is that the ordinance before you in the packet this evening was not precisely the exact same uh proposal that uh the applicant put forward um that was included in the September 29th city council packet. There are some uh there are some differences. >> That's right. I do apologize. There was the set aside provision that was added. And for the record, the the letter that was submitted with this is dated October 1st. So, it may or may not have come in on October 1st, but within days of the council taking action, this thing came through the door when the council specifically gave staff 20 months to work with these operators to come up with a workable solution for everyone. >> Is that right, >> Chair Chair White? Commissioner Monster, that's correct. And I do see in the staff report that the application date is October the 1st. So, that's correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, so, and I just again want to be sure that we're all understanding this. So the language as proposed would make airport parking a conditional use which essentially gives permanent rights as you've said, but they're going to be asking for this and giving the city essentially nothing in return other than they now get to be permanent and we don't have to have a hearing for interim uses. Chair White, Commissioner uh Monster, um uh the the trigger for any significant site changes would be intensification of use on their site. So, if they were to add more parking supply, if they were to make uh those types of changes, then that's what would trigger the development set aside. They would not be required uh to do that. And the one thing I'll just stipulate to your statement is that they still, just for a point of clarification, they still have to apply for a conditional use permit and go through the CUP review and approval process. So stipulating that >> absolutely certainly certainly and again and I'm not even talking about the development set aside. I'm talking about the fact that they have according to the language of their proposed ordinance exempted themselves from having to comply with lighting with landscaping with anything but the bare minimum of screening. That essentially what they're looking for is approval to continue on exactly as they are today indefinitely pending a conditional use application. Chair White, Commissioner Monster, I would agree with your statement with the stipulation that um conditions of approval can be added to a conditional use permit again, but cannot be arbitrary and capriccious must be tied to some essential nexus of what the use is uh the impacts that the use creates. >> All right. Thank you. >> And uh chair, commissioners, if I miss add, we don't have the city doesn't have any authority to change those conditions once it's in place, right? We can't unless they come in and ask and and make an application. City has no power to change any of those conditions. So once they're there, they're there. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions for staff? Commissioner Isa. >> Thank you, Chair White. Um yeah, so for is the would the three acre set aside still be uh set aside for this application? that's removed in this uh updated I guess >> just to so I >> chair white >> planning manager I was just I believe >> I'm going to try try and tackle this one tell me if I get it right or wrong um there is this particular language is for an amendment or for an ordinance not for a permit application so um there is a difference there the other thing is that uh I believe that there is no set aside for development required. That's one of the things that would be removed, but it could be done should they have the the change in uh intensification. Did I get that right? >> Yeah, sure. White, the only thing I'll add is so the just the 3acre component was a uh component of the staff recommended ordinance earlier on in the study. The ordinance before you this evening that's submitted by the private party does not clue include a size. It uh talks about orientation or location along American Boulevard East. Does not mention a size um and as Chair White mentioned would only be triggered should they uh seek to intensify the use by uh building structured parking. >> Okay. Thank you, Chair White. >> Thank you, Planning Manager Johnson. Other questions for staff? And I'll let them answer this time. >> Any other questions for staff? All right. Then I believe it is uh time for to hear from the applicant. So if you'd like to step forward and introduce yourself. Hi, how are you? I'm Kristen Mirror with Brosa Development and um I I don't know if I should just start or [laughter] Okay. Um please go ahead. >> Yeah, thank you. Um, I'd like to catch you up on what's happened since the last time I was here because I feel we have a slightly different perspective. Um, but as you know, we've been operating park and fly for 38 years. And last fall, the moratorum was started to find a permanent solution for a long-standing issue. I was very excited over the last year. I tried to attend all the meetings and participate in the study, be proactive in achieving the goal of a permanent solution. Different options were presented. The mayor made a motion for permanent rights. The staff proposed their option and um you know through all that hotels were granted permanent permitted rights. New operators the mall and Mr. Kading's group received a conditional use permit with relative ease just leaprogging right over us. And um in my opinion, the hotels were granted fully permanent rights because they pay Bloomington a lodging tax while we pay a trip fee to the airport or to MAC and instead. And the reason the new operators and the hotels passed so easily is their motions were very simple to understand. They were drafted in a simple way and ours was drafted in a very complicated manner with these performance standards and set aides and different co you know coding and um and at the city council level the staff proposal was never put up for initiated for a motion. So they obviously didn't really were not fond of it. Um so where does that leave us? It leaves us, we've kind of are eliminating all these options. If we don't want it to be permitted that if that's off the table, you can't prohibit it because now you've opened it up to new users. The interim use permit approach does not work. We've been trying it for 38 years. We just had a moratorum for a year working towards this goal and we haven't really gone anywhere. So we've tried to thread the needle between you know these different options and try to find something that is workable. Um where you know we development does come from opportunity not from mandates and we've tried to find a conditional use permit that does incentivize development but without you know the milestone approach that has failed in the past. I do feel a bit like I've been running a marathon and now I'm at mile 25 and being told actually your race is 50 miles and everybody else is finished now. So the reason that we were proactive in early October is because we really want to get this done. We don't want to waste any more time of yours or mine or I I don't want to be you know here forever. Like 38 years is a very long time to be dealing with this. Um, I read about your recent election and one of the main topics was um the 9 and a half% property hike on residents. So, if asked for in general for the citizens of Bloomington, do you think that most residents would really want to pay higher taxes to chase around a long-standing business that really isn't doing anything wrong um and wanting to solve the issue for free right now? So, I've worked hard for over 10 years to try to remain in compliance. I don't want to sit back and wait for my permit to expire, be delayed, diverted, tabled any longer. And and really with with an expiring permit, you you get pushed in the corner and you don't have or you're not able to negotiate or talk in an equitable way. You you're kind of become desperate and I don't want to do that. I don't want to be forced to do that. So I don't see what is going to change in the next 20 months because there's not any other options. We have tried all of the other alternatives. If staff has any other options, I would love to hear them. But, you know, when we tried to float this idea, we didn't hear any feedback. We were not given any ways to move forward. So, this is where we are. And if this compromise fails, I don't see too many options left but being forced to defend my rights. So, we've offered a clear path here, one that I hope does mirror what the new operators received as well as manifest what the council and the mayor were incredibly close and there was a lot of stuff going on that night. They were close to um to coming up with a solution and I feel we we were very close and they voted to delay it because the other operator had an expired permit. the moratorum was expiring and they had to do something to bridge the gap. But I don't think that they honestly want this issue to drag on any longer either because otherwise why would they have had the mortorium to start with? Why would they have you know have wanted this a permanent solution now we're you know oh well we're almost at a permanent solution well we can wait two years. It doesn't make sense to anybody like I want to free up staff's time. I want to free up our time, your time to do bigger and better things for your community. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good evening, commissioners. Bill Griffith representing Rosa Development in this application. Uh Kristen alluded to uh the reason we brought this forward now uh rather than later and it really was um we've been talking to council members, we've been talking to staff, we've been talking about this issue, not not just from the moratorum on for several years now. So this is not a new topic. Our intent in bringing forward this ordinance amendment was so that the council in particular could have that in front of them before the end of the year. Why? Because there's turnover on the council. We start over. we start uh explaining our our situation and the basis for our existing rights with a whole new set of characters or at least a couple new characters. And so um what we did we think was a service to this city. Uh we were close um we were we we talked to the the council members uh individually. We can do that as applicants as owners and we had a sense that we were very close. What they were dealing with was ending the moratorum dealing with park and goes rights. They had no right to to continue their operations. They had three ordinances in front of them and they had to basically resolve that before the moratorum expired. And so now they have the council will have one ordinance in front of them with a very clear difference. Now let's keep in mind that the city staff proposed a conditional use permit permanent rights. This planning commission proposed a conditional use permit with permanent rights. The city council gave new operators a conditional use permit with permanent rights. So what we're asking for is the same treatment, a conditional use permit with permanent rights. The only thing that we really objected to, and it's based on developer experience, is a mandate for a set aside by a date certain. Why did we object to that? Because that's what we've had for 20 years. We've legitimately tried to work with the city. My client spent $2.5 million to entitle an apartment building. It couldn't be built in COVID. It couldn't be built with high interest rates and lumber costs. So, she did the right thing. She's kept her use permit in compliance throughout the 38 years. She made an honest attempt and a very expensive honest attempt to build an apartment building in in an environment that wouldn't allow it. She's learned the hard way that you cannot force development out of a market cycle. So, what we're offering is different from the proposal in September. It's much simpler. It's clear. It says basically if you want to develop a a structured ramp, expand your parking rights with spaces within that ramp, which we can do because there's demand from the airport. The airport has a study that shows that they cannot supply their own demand on that airport property. So, who's going to do it? These existing operators plus the new operators that will have a conditional use permit very soon. But we have to do that in a way that makes sense. And so rather than doing the mandate, which hasn't worked, you know, the staff said you, it hasn't worked. They testified to that point. Rather than do that on a mandatory basis, we're doing that as an incentive. Very simple. There is a mandate here. The mandate is if you want to avail yourself of those additional rights, you must set aside a development site. Now, we didn't provide an acreage because we don't know what the acreage should be. We know it should be along American Boulevard because that's consistent with the comprehensive plan. We know it should be of higher density. We don't know how big. Will it be a hotel? Will it be an apartment building? Will it be a mixeduse uh development that is uh supports the travelers who are coming to that site? It could be any of those things. What we've learned is if we're too prescriptive, we aren't going to get anything. And I testified many years ago when HXR was adopted that it was very very prescriptive. I'm not sure who was here at that time, but it it provides for a minimum floor area ratio of 1.0 and it requires housing. That is a prescriptive ordinance. Now staff justified as your you're next to transit. That's great and it may actually happen. But by being prescriptive, we keep missing market opportunities. And so what we've done is we've taken your work, we've taken the work of the planning commission and the staff and we've simply have removed the mandate by a certain date. There is a mandate that if if we want to add more parking, we've got to do it with a development site and that's how we satisfy the comprehensive plan. Now, keep in mind keep in mind that our position has been and and you have it in writing from us that in 1988 a conditional use per permit was granted for this project for this site and the city attempted to call it temporary but it did not have that authority in law. Later, the legislature amended the statutes, created an opportunity for an interim use permit, and the city started using those interim use permits from 2009 on, but that doesn't wipe away the original permit. And so, rather than fight about that, rather than have a big case about that, some of my partners at Lark and Hoffman would love to have a big case about that, but I'm here trying to to prevent that. I'm here trying to resolve this without an ongoing conflict for the next two years. Why couldn't we get done what we should have done in 14 months? Why couldn't we do that in 12 months or or during that period of the moratorum? I don't know. Everybody calls it complicated. I think it's pretty simple. I think it's very simple. Let's let's issue the conditional use permit that you as a planning commission supported, you as a staff supported, but let's do it without a mandate that didn't work. Let's learn from what we've done in the past and and do it better. We really do want to collaborate with the city. I wouldn't be standing here. I would just turn this over to my litigation partners and I would go on to another project. But I like the mayor, your own mayor said this. I'm going to quote Tim Busy. As mayor Tim Busy said in September, the city is addressing decisions made long before anyone in this chambers was involved in this issue. So, this isn't this isn't your problem. You're you're here solving a problem. Somebody else created a problem and you're here to solve the problem and so are we. I say that sincerely. I'm not a litigator. I am purposely not a litigator because I help try and build things. I don't want to be in a fight with you. Do you understand that? He also said, "I don't I don't think it's in anyone's interest to force the hand of successful businesses and make them redevelop." We took his words and and many of the comments we heard from council members. Now, what council members won't do when I'm talking to them privately, they won't tell me what their vote is because they can't. That would be a violation. They would then have bias in their decision-m prior to the final vote. But, but those indications were on the record and off the record that nobody wanted to tear down existing businesses in this town and force them to redevelop. So, we came up with a very simple solution. And I don't know any developer that I've worked with in my almost 40-year career career that would pass on the opportunity. This opportunity has never been an ordinance before, right? Pass on an opportunity to build structured parking on let's call it twothirds of the site and develop and essentially get a free development pad on onethird of the site. Why is that structured parking? We talked about costs. Structured parking is working at the airport. Your fees just have to match the costs. It's working on our own site. The site adjacent to the nine acres. It works on that site. So why wouldn't it work to build structured parking, take the existing spaces on the nine acres, add some more to make it pencil out, and then you have your development site? That's like a free development pad. Who would not develop under those circumstances? It might not be Kristen Mure and her family. They might sell it to somebody who wants to go through this process with you all and and come up with a mixeduse development of higher intensity. I think she's kind of done. I think that what what would likely occur is once the dust settles on this and there's a clear path to redevelopment and we're not at odds with each other, we're going to be sitting down and working on plans and and and it's going to be done at a time when the market cycle supports it. So that is our proposal. The reason just to address the commissioner's questions, the the only we were listening to the council, Sean Nelson in particular, but several of them said you don't take an existing business of 38 years and have them tear up their site and put in brand new improvements because that would be an impediment. How how much would that cost? It would cost millions of dollars. So those millions of dollars invested in uh renovating surface parking so it can stay as it is would would go against the whole idea of redevelopment because it's a sunk cost and an additional cost to redeveloping. So we listened to the council and matched our amendments to the council comments and and and there was a a forming consensus. I I've been doing this a long time. I can read the council. I can read their comments. There was a forming consensus. We were maybe one vote away from getting it done that night. And the mayor told me, and I'll tell you what the mayor told me. He said, "We're close. We're not there tonight, but we're close. If someone tells me we're close, do you think I'm going to sit on my hands for two years?" No. I'm going to submit a set of amendments that we think are workable that address the feedback that I heard from the the final decision makers on this matter. And that's exactly what we did. And and we and I appreciate that you didn't turn on that time clock because I had a lot to say. and I'm and I really appreciate if you have questions, please call me back up and I'll or or ask them now. I'll be happy to answer them. >> Thank you, M. Mr. Griffith. Um, questions for the applicants. Commissioner Lenny, >> thank you for your presentation and uh, as you may or may not recall from the last time you were in front of us, in concept, I am supportive of the conditional use permit. I will say that I my support waines with seeing this requested is as it is right now. My I feel that my role representing the people of Bloomington on the Blooming Planning Commission is to think about what the people of Bloomington, the citizens of Bloomington want and need. And the comprehensive plan that we have makes it very clear that the goal for Bloomington is to move um forward with af affordable housing and with um more transit oriented development. I'm not convinced and I believe I said this at the previous meeting. >> Oh, I'm going to get Yep. The question's coming. The question's coming >> but I want to make sure that I've framed it so that the answer I get answers the question. Um understanding what the use is currently. What I would really like to understand is how the current use, particularly if there are no mandates or development set aides, where the benefit is to the city of Bloomington. If you could talk through what the taxes paid, um how many residents, what information you have that are residents using the parking lot versus residents from other communities and things like that. I'd like to know how this is directly benefiting the citizens of Bloomington. >> Uh thank you, Commissioner. I'm gonna start out by saying I am a resident of Bloomington. My address till recently was St. Paul. I'm a resident of Bloomington. I'm a business resident. I've my firm has resided in this city for 50 years. And some of our members are residents of the city, but we're all business residents. We pay taxes here. We eat here. We, you know, so I think it's a little narrow to say what do the residents of Bloomington need because you represent the entire community including those businesses that reside here. So to answer your question, by redeveloping the site, a 9 acre site, the the tax impact is two or three times that goes into the city coffers just from redeveloping the site. Uh beyond that, um we this community is a hospitality community. I think one of the largest concentration of hotels is right here along the 494 strip. So by serving the hospitality community with these hospitality related uses, you also serve the city uh directly and indirectly with liquor and lodging taxes. So all of those things are are related. It's it's the same thing that goes into supporting uh development of South Loop with things other than affordable housing. >> But I I what I'm hoping to get is a little bit un direct understanding of what money the remote parking provides the city of Bloomington. I'm not familiar with what what the tax structure is on remote parking to the city. >> It is a real estate tax. Okay. It's a real estate tax pure and simple. If if this incentive works and I firmly believe it will because developers don't leave anything on the table if this opportunity comes to pass. The cloud is removed from this use. Somebody maybe Chris Mure maybe not but somebody will park and go site uh somebody is going to do this because it makes sense. It makes financial sense and what you do is you increase the tax base for the city. That's the direct benefit to the city. The the indirect benefit is as I said is you support the hospitality community. >> Can I ask one follow-up question? >> Yes. >> But just to be clear, if um the Mirror family chose not to sell the property by granting this conditional use permit, they could operate it this way in perpetuity. Never sell it, never redevelop it, never intensify it. Am I correct in my understanding? >> You are correct, Commissioner Commissioner. However, again, the reason I I >> posited this entire presentation against the 1988 use rights and you said it yourself, you called it the original sin. >> You know, I I had to bring that up because you can't you can't exclude that from the conversation. If if we go back to those rights and we prevail on those rights, then nothing happens, right? You can still choose to do nothing. What I'm saying is as a collaborative move with the city, let's create a real world incentive to redevelop and get what you want. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> All right. Other questions? Commissioner Issa. >> Thank you, Chair. Uh, how much cheaper is it uh on average to park uh at park and fly compared to uh let's say on site? >> It it varies, but it's definitely >> if it is cheap. Sorry. Um, it definitely varies with, you know, time of year and occupancy. Um, but it's basically it's significantly cheaper than the airport. >> Do you have like a rough r percentage even or kind of >> Yeah, you I mean it's it really does vary, but go ahead. >> I'm sorry. He's not part of the applicant, so um >> Oh. Oh, the hearing isn't open, right? >> I I bet Mr. Williamson would speak. >> Um, yeah, it's I mean it's definitely like probably $5 cheaper, $10 cheaper. There's because there's quite a lot of differences between, you know, like covered parking in the in the ramp versus surface, which the surface is cheap. The surface is the cheapest, then then the ramp is the next cheapest, and then, you know, and then you get to the airport. >> When it comes to uh if you don't mind, chair, >> go ahead. Uh when it comes to the ramp parking uh versus the airport ramp parking, >> is it still cheaper? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes. >> Other questions for the applicant? Commissioner, >> sorry, Commissioner Monster. Sorry. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um Okay. You mentioned that one of the benefits to the city of Bloomington is the property taxes. And this is this comes from me simply not knowing how Henipin County assesses the taxes. Is it assessed putting the parking ramp aside? Is the lot assessed as vacant land or is it assessed assessed commercially? >> It's assessed commercially as a business in use. >> Okay. Thank you. Because that that's one thing that some communities call it vacant because there's not a building. >> Yep. Right. No, absolutely right. It's assessed as an operating business. >> Okay. Have a few more. Um so because there is not a mandated set aside of area which I certainly understand your position of why say three acres if it comes that three and a half is correct or whatever without something in the code. What's to stop you all from coming in saying we want to build a ramp here's your one acre of land that is utterly undevelopable for something that we wish to see in that zoning district. H how does that get balanced? what what is your vision of how this works? >> Uh, that's a great question, Commissioner. I I believe and I've worked through many development applications with the city that that conversation would occur at the conditional use permit level. Um, we didn't put it in there simply to say we don't know if it's one acre or or 10, you know, and and and somehow the use is built into the ramp, you know, that we can imagine all sorts of uses that would be part of, in fact, you have liner housing in many parts of the city. Well, not many parts. I don't think it worked all that well, but you know, in some places in the city, you have liner housing. Would it be a would it be a use? You know what would be really cool? There is a quick trip. Um, now you might say, "Oh, a quick trip, really?" But what if you had a quick trip that was built into the parking deck? And what if you had a a related travel use? Um, I think there's a a use out in Hollywood where um you can have uh electric vehicles and you can you can have uh dinner or lunch. What if there's a series of those uses? What I'm trying to say here, folks, is let's not prescribe what's going in there now. Let's let's do that as part of a use permit and or let's do it as part of a a planned development. What we're trying to show is a path to what the city wants and a path to what we want. We don't want to be mandated uh by a certain date um to prescribe what's going to happen there and how many acres it's going to be there. Those are those are the type of things that kill development, not encourage at least from the developer perspective. >> That didn't entirely answer the question. So, I guess my to put it a little more directly, what's to stop you all from coming in and saying, "You get this acre now. Give us our parking ramp." >> Yeah. I I >> And that's all we're going to give you is this acre. >> Well, because it says commercial development along uh American Boulevard. You have to have a certain You're not going to do, you know, something 10 feet by a,000 ft. It it's got to be a reasonable development. And and again, this is where we would like some engagement with staff. Um, now I don't want to I don't want to delay this because frankly folks, I want to get to the city council. That's where I I'm headed, right? And so I don't want to I don't want to have a long discussion about I I want to give you some ideas that it that it could be workable, but basically because I believe there was a form and consensus at the council. I want this matter in front of them on December 8th. So I don't I don't want to delay this. I' I've told Mr. Johnson that when we made the application, the reason we made it on that date, by the way, is because we wanted this resolved with this council before the end of the year while the discussion was fresh. So, I'm putting my cards on the table. I'm I'm telling you, it could be a lot of things. Uh I don't know if it's one acre or three. I don't I don't think a one acre development works in that district because it's it's a highintensity district. >> Well, >> but it could be a 4acre, you know, and >> Well, but that's precisely my question is a oneacre development wouldn't work. Mhm. >> But if you all say this, this is all we are setting aside and now give us our parking ramp, what what does the city have aside from simply denying your parking? >> They have a conditional use permit process that gives them a fair amount of discretion to impose conditions reasonably related to the objective of the ordinance. That's law. And you know, I just again, if if the if the staff said to me tonight, uh, you know, we'd support it with a minimum two acre site, we'd probably say, great, let's take that to the council. I I'm just I'm trying to address the fact that, you know, three acres was a number in the ordinance. And, you know, who knows? >> No. And I definitely appreciate that. I'm just trying to make sure that >> Commissioner question. >> Yes. Okay. Why exempt yourself from parking, lighting, and landscaping standards? Keep in mind that we're not exempting ourselves on the future development. It's not tearing up this. If you read it carefully, and I think staff understands this, it's for the existing 9 acres of of uh surface parking. Those exemptions do not pli apply in the redevelopment scenario. >> According to this ordinance, they do. The exemptions are intended to apply only in the scenario of the surface parking, not in a redevelopment scenario. >> All right. Any other questions for Commissioner Summer? >> Chair. Um, so my question is from when council took action on this. >> Uh, excuse me, Commissioner. I just want to make it perfectly clear so the answer is clear. If you read uh se uh subsection 4 of F unless existing remote airport parking is relocated or expanded and structured parking facilities, existing remote airport parking facilities are exempt. So that's the distinction between uh the existing versus redevelopment. To answer Commissioner Mustard's um question, sorry, Commissioner, >> go ahead, Commissioner Summers. Um, I'm curious about from when council took action on this in the council meeting >> to the time that this was submitted to the city, what are the steps that you took to collaborate with the city? So, you talked a little bit about meeting with council members. Can you walk us through who you collaborated with in between the action from city council and the submission of this? >> Uh, Commissioner uh Monster, I will answer that question. or summers, sorry. I will answer that question by saying we have been working with staff for probably over two years on this question. Uh we put forward uh several proposals and my approach to collaborating with the city was to make sure that I didn't lose the council members who are on the council before the end of the year. So, this is my my opportunity as a a development lawyer to get this back in front of the council um prior to the end of the year if you know that's that's the answer that I'll give you. >> Any other questions for the applicant? Keeping in mind we can call them back up if we have more questions later. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Um, we will go ahead and move on to uh public hearing and public testimony. >> Just uh just one comment and question of staff. I saw you two chuckling when I mentioned a quick trip. I love Quick Trip. They're all over the state of Wisconsin. They're all over the state of Minnesota. They're they're a gross You didn't have a grocery store last more than three minutes in airport or South Loop. So, I just I just want you to keep your mind open. [laughter] >> The chair will oblige me. I was not chuckling about Quick Drip for the for the record. >> [laughter] >> Okay, very good chuckling about. Thank you. >> Thank you for clarifying, Planning Manager Johnson. >> All right. Uh we will now open public testimony. If there's anyone in the chamber wishing to testify, please come forward and sign in and then introduce yourself. Thank you for your patience. Good evening. This is a Dan Williamson park and go. I almost got in trouble there a minute ago. [laughter] Um, if you do want answers to those questions, I'd be more than glad to because I'm also the operational manager for the Bloomington operation and I've also been with Park and Go as their development person. I have 40 years of experience as a design builder, construction manager, architect, so on. Um, right from the start when the staff worked to put together their proposal, their recommended proposal, the one that you recommended to the council, the key element for us and from a development perspective is permanent zoning or conditional use. Without that tool, even the council members have agreed with me that there's no tool to bring a project to you that does not 100% conform to the current zoning. So there's no way to bring in creative ideas to get development going. You simply are stuck with what you've kind of said you want there. And there are a lot of creative ideas that are floating around out there right now. And as an interim use permit, basically I'm handcuffed and interest rates are dropping. The plan I had put out and discussed with the staff was one that was going to develop a number of residential units right on American Boulevard. um the 3 acre that they discussed, we would have made that work. It really wasn't the end of the world. We could see that working for us. Now, I used to be a cross-country skier years ago and I one day skied a 100 kilometer race up in Baiji. And I hit the edge of Lake Bamiji and it said 99 kilometers. Anybody know how long Lake Bamiji is? Three miles. The Norwegian guy next to me asked, "What's the deal? This isn't a 100 km race." It ended up being about 110. Needless to say, we kind of feel like that. We've worked hard for a year to get this done with this moratorum. And I I agree with Bill and Christian that the mayor, I've talked to a number of people since their vote. They really want this done before we get to that what is it August 8th of 2027. So, the trigger for us at Park and Go is really simple. It's that permanent zoning for the parking so we can come in with projects because I already know we cannot make projects work without the parking included in the development. Whether it's built into the residential units or it's a ramp on the north side and it's a giant drone charging station up on the roof where drones come in and charge and they deliver products to your house or whatever. But we've got to think a little differently than we are right now. And that's our focus. Um, so you had some questions earlier. If you get our mailer in the mail, if you get those little park and go mailers, you'll pay $11 a day to park at Park and Go. And the rates up at the airport are up were around 26 depending what you pick. And also, you should know that um we pay property tax. If you look at that sheet, which I do, a lot of it goes to your educational programs, Normdale Community College, etc., and things like that of which I was an architect worked on a lot of projects on Normadale Community College, Metro Estate, I could go on and on. Also, we pay in our sales and use tax. There's a section in there that is designed for I'll call it residential development. So, there's a number of things. And then there's all the local tax, the local employment, and remember, we have people that are coming into our lots that are flying out of town. So, the services we provide are for people going from Minnesota, North Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin, that's God's country, Wisconsin, where I'm from. Um, I was raised in Minnesota, so I I got a team in the playoffs all the time. Um, so we are servicing the local community. So, now are there any other questions? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in the in the chamber? >> Is there anyone online? >> All participants online are staff. >> Thank you. Seeing none, I would entertain a motion to close public hearing the club public hearing. >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? All No, this is just about closing testimony. Um, all those in favor of closing the public hearing, >> I >> I >> I. >> All opposed? Motion carries. Now we move into discussion. Um, this is a lot harder than Phil makes it look. Um, so I would entertain a conversation about what you all are thinking. Commissioner Issa. >> Yeah. Um my overall thoughts is uh if you know the business has been established well one of the businesses for 38 years um and they do contribute to the city and it is cheaper for residents uh to park there or non-residents as well anybody I would uh not be in supportive of the recommended motion. I understand that it doesn't align with the South Loop district plan and the comprehensive plan and I definitely understand the city's angle. Um there's a question I had that I wanted to ask staff but I'm not sure if I'm able to now but um am I able to? >> I believe we can ask questions of staff. >> Okay. Thank you chair. uh you know um it says that it would like it's been stretched to 20 months or what it was August whatever it was 2027 uh why does it need to take that long if you know there's for example one of the uh developers they they've tried to build it a building before right spent a lot of money I think is during co um Yeah, I I guess why does it need to take that long if you know um yeah, why does it need to take long? That's my question. City >> planning manager Johnson. >> Yeah, Chair White, uh Commissioner, you say, so the reason why that date was selected, it just had to do with the fact that it was the expiration date of Park and Flies existing uh valid active interim use permit uh approval. So they wanted to align the two operators to not have two different targets if you will uh not have two different uh lifespans or um uh terms of which how long they could operate following this moratorum. So they just wanted to align it. They felt that would be the best means to get all the parties together uh to create more space uh to continue working on this uh vexing issue. >> So yeah, >> follow uh Commissioner Isa. Thank you. way. Uh I guess my question then is like I I I see the developers point, you know, or the developers perspective where like they're going to have to come back at that point two years from now and kind of go through the same thing. So I ideally I would uh I guess personally I would recommend like a solution to be reached earlier rather than later. And I and I'm not in supportive of the recommended motion although I understand like I said the comprehensive plan the city's outlook the uh South Loop district plan. So yeah I think just because they've been established for so long it kind of feels unfair. So that's my take. Thank you. >> Sure. Sure. White, if if I can just make one clarification that might be instructive to the full body. It doesn't mean that the uh policy solution that the city uh would reach with the existing operators would have to wait until August 7th. The city could adopt an ordinance revising the policy at any time between now and then. Um so it's not a mandatory uh time span if that makes sense. Just to clarify that point. That's just by the time by which any active interimm use permit um is valid uh through. So just to clarify that. Thank you for the clarification, planning manager. Other discussion commissioner Monster, >> I would just say that the only thing that again I I I agree that a permanent solution is needed to get this thing done once and for all, but I think whatever comes through needs to protect the city more. This essentially just opens up development but without a lot of very specific guidance as to what the city where the city's negotiating position is. Um when that application does come in that is my biggest concern on this. Thank you. >> Commissioner Issa. >> Yeah. From what I understand the city did uh provide uh guidelines on development. they've developers tried, you know. So, I think it's I think they've tried before and if the city uh works with the developers um on kind of and has more concrete direction, I think they would be able to come up with an agreement. Yeah. Thank you. >> Okay. Other discussion? Commissioner Summers? >> Chair. So, I um reviewed the council's conversation before their action taken on this item and um I do agree with a lot of the sentiments that were shared and one of the main things that I saw was that they were saying that they were close because they felt like more collaboration would come to an answer that would get more people on the council to like approve prove something. Um I think so when we first talked about this or I first talked about it at planning commission um I had reservations about the way that the city had the 3 acre set aside reservations about whether or not what the original recommendation whether it would um help people redevelop and move towards what the comprehensive plan dictates. And I actually feel like as we've walked towards where we are right now, I feel less um I feel more likely to agree with the resolution denying um as I take two things into account. As a planning commissioner, I look at the comprehensive plan um and this does not seem to align >> [clears throat] >> with the comprehensive plan as written. That combined with the council giving some messages in support, but messages that said there's more collaboration needed. So, um I don't see evidence that that has like the two sides have touched each other, whether that be the council or the mayor or the planning staff for the city of Bloomington. So, as is I don't feel I feel like I can support this resolution. >> Thank you. Any other conversation, discussion, I will just say I share sympathy for the operators who I do believe have been operating in good faith. Uh, and I appreciate the the sentiment of wanting to get this over the finish line. um and and have a decision made. Um I had mixed feelings about the original proposal as well as Commissioner Summers mentioned. Um I think that the challenge here is that um that same challenge you run into with so much of growth and change in a city that things that made sense um in the past but up against things that we want now and for the future. And there's always that tension between what do we do with the folks that are already there and the businesses and the entities and the things that are already happening and how do we balance that with where um the community has decided it wants to go and how do we do that in a fair and equitable way. Uh and that's that's where this tension is coming from and that's what makes it so hard um to find a a simple solution because these these challenges are never simple. Um, but I do agree that I don't think that the language that has been proposed by the petitioner adequately protects what the intention of the city um has been. And I think taking um more a little more time as directed by the city council um to find that hopefully sweet spot of giving flexibility and certainty to the operators um while still protecting the uh intention of the comprehensive plan and the zoning decisions that have already been made feels like it's the the right next step to me. I do hope that it will not take until August of 2027. Um, I think we all want to find a solution that is permanent and satisfactory or at least is unsatis equally unsatisfactory to everybody. Uh, which is probably the more likely outcome. So, um, I I I always struggle in these situations. Um, [clears throat] but I I think that uh I would support the motion that's been proposed by the staff to um not support the proposed amendment. So, is there any other discussion? Then I would look for somebody to make a motion. I move to recommend city council adopt a resolution denying the privately initiated city code amendment to allow existing remote parking facilities as a conditional use in the HXR zoning district and to create performance standards for existing facilities. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> It's been moved and seconded. Uh any discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. All opposed? >> Opposed. Motion carries. Thank you for being here this evening. I believe that that will now go to a public hearing with the city council on December 8th, 2025 for um final disposition. With that, we'll call Chair Cookton back into the room. Thankfully, >> thank you, Commissioner White. The fund is not over yet. We have the refu and recycling facility standards to go. And Mr. Cassine is back for a staff report. >> Yes. Uh thank you, chair and planning commission. Yes, I am back uh to talk about our um trash enclosure ordinance. So, uh just we'll briefly touch on the background um refresh everyone on the existing standards and then really just walk through what's in the proposed ordinance in a staff recommendation. So, we've we've talked about this a lot. I don't want to dwell on it too much. Um again, this topic is one of six that was part of our small business codes and processes project. Uh, four of those six topics were adopted in a phase one ordinance earlier this year and now we're here at at phase two. And really the goal of this project was to find ways to lower barriers for business formation and operations in the city. So, as you uh recall, our current um standard for refuse and recycling facilities um are that they have to be attached to the principal building and that they also have to be internally accessible from the building. And then there's some additional requirements um for finishes inside of that trash room for food and grocery store uses. So this is just an example of kind of what you typically see currently for for trash storage facilities in Bloomington. And so the proposed ordinance would allow um all non-residential uses and all zoning districts to provide um an exterior refu enclosure. Um, and then it also establishes performance standards uh for those enclosures. And so here's a picture of an example of kind of what um if this ordinance were adopted um an example of something you might more typically see that in Bloomington um for for trash storage at um non-residential uses. And so just to walk through that first bullet point, when we say all non-residential uses, we're talking about commercial, industrial, um, in institutional and office uses, again, in all zoning districts. Um, this really provides a second option for them to to build the detached enclosure if an attached interior trash room is not preferred for their business. So those existing standards around the um, tra interior trash room would remain um, and could still be an option to meet our minimum standard. Um but then this just again kind of offers an alternative option for them. Um there'd be no changes right now for our residential uses and that includes multifamily uses in mixeduse developments. So they have to meet the current standard to have um an interior trash room that's attached to the building. Um so this really just focused on non-residential. And then um again all of the trash enclosures have to meet the performance standards outlined in the ordinance that we'll we'll walk through now. And so um there's kind of a number of uh proposed performance standards here. Um the first is a general setback. Um so it would be the ordinance is proposing a 20 foot minimum setback from um a property line along a street and then a 5-ft setback um from any other property line that's not adjacent to a street. U in the study session this was 30 feet was kind of where staff was landing as a potential option. Um and now in this ordinance we did reduce that to 20 feet and and really the main reason um after kind of feedback from planning commission city council um and kind of looking at our setbacks in the different um commercial industrial zoning districts um really a lot of the properties require a 20ft landscape barrier along a street and that already restricts placements of structures that would include a trash enclosure and then there's usually typically some kind of easement um along the street that can kind of range um you know from five to 20 or even even greater that would also restrict um placement of structures. So it was really just to have a a flat and clear standard um that kind of aligns with some of the existing standards um in our code in in addition there would be a residential setback from an abuing residential property line um and we're proposing 20 ft there. Um, and again, like we kind of talked about in the the study session, typically the actual home or residential structure is already going to be 30 feet or more from a commercial property line just based on our existing setback. So, in in theory, a lot of these trash enclosures, if they're at that 20 foot setback, um, will really be like 50 feet or more from the actual um structure of the home. and staff felt like that was a um sufficient distance to kind of mitigate any potential um odors or other negative impacts of having the the the trash in a dumpster kind of near the uh residential property line. Um there's proximity to the principal building. So they have to be located within 100 ft of the associated building. That's really to meet the intent of the ordinance for employee safety. So in like a larger multi-tenant commercial building, hopefully in theory that the um worker isn't at like one end of the building and has to walk all the way to the other end of the building to to take out the trash to the the trash room. So it's trying to address that that issue. Uh access and circulation. So this proposed ordinance would say that the enclosure can't block any sidewalks or drive aisles and cannot otherwise impede um vehicle and pedestrian circulation on the site. Um we do have an established lighting standard that matches the existing standards right now for a parking lot. So um this ordinance would say that you need two foot candles within five feet of the enclosure. Um you know foot candles is just kind of a unit of measurement of illumination on the light like by staring at something. Do I know what two foot candles is? No. But we have um you know equipment that we can do to verify and um enforce that. And then uh we would also the ordinance would propose that then across the parking lot. So basically that path from the building to the enclosure um ranges from 1.5 to two foot candles kind of based on the the parking lot standard for that use. So it's really just trying to match what's already there. Um for screening um we would say that the all sides have to be fully opaque with the exception of the access gate. And here we were proposing or the ordinance would um require that the gate be at least 50% opaque. So again trying to find that balance of um wanting to screen the dumpster and the trash inside but then also ensuring that employees can see into the enclosure um just from a safety standpoint. Um exterior materials and and roof. This is probably where um based on some of the feedback that we heard at the study sessions, we did um change this a little bit to say that the materials must match the principal building. Um however um if there's a case where the primary materials of the building are something like wood or stucco that don't quite um maybe make sense for the enclosure. We do allow this exception that an architectural concrete masonry unit or CMU um that's of a similar or complimentary color um could be used on the enclosure instead. And I have some examples to kind of show what that means. But just as a reminder for our definition of an architectural concrete masonry unit, uh they have to be textured in some way to qualify and they have to be integrally colored. So they can't be painted and they can't um have just kind of a smooth or unfinished surface. So there has to be some kind of architectural element. I think you know some of the the sentiment that we heard at study sessions was we also want to make sure these look attractive. And so this was our attempt to try to um find that balance. Um one other item that was kind of added from our study session discussions um was around floor surface and in some of the um pieces by a storm sewer inlet. And this really was a recommendation from our water resources staff that just wanted to ensure we're trying to limit as much as we can um any kind of liquid or solid waste runoff um going into our storm sewer system from these enclosures. So um it's just really kind of saying um a 10-ft setback from the storm sewer inlet. Uh and then in cases where this will be retrofitted in an existing parking lot. just really um kind of reiterating in the ordinance that um that the um enclosure itself can't be within that kind of curb and gutter system on the in the parking lot so that it doesn't impede the flow of you know rain water and and runoff on the site. And then [snorts] finally for height um we just the ordinance would say that they can't exceed 16 feet in height and this just matches um our existing standard for any accessory buildings on a non-residential lot can already be 16 feet or less. And so it's just we see this as an accessory building um and just want to match that standard for ease. Um this slide is really just to kind of help maybe highlight the exterior material piece a little bit on the kind of CMU exception. Um so the kind of three images on the left. Um we're we're just looking at um exterior materials. So ignore if some of them don't have a roof or or some of those other standards. Just really thinking about the exterior material standard. Um the three on the left, you know, are made of materials that uh clearly match the building and would be acceptable. The two on the right are kind of showing um enclosures that are a CMU. Um however, you know, they're um a color that doesn't match the building. So, for example, like to meet our standard, this CMU on this this upper image should be more of a shade of red. Um which you can do in an architectural masonry unit. Um, and then the one on the bottom here again, you know, there's kind of wood paneling for browns and and different colors within the stucco and some of the other materials on that building. So, just having an attempt to to more match the the colors were um on there. And so I think the language in the ordinance just also um gives some of that discretion to the planning manager and staff to to help uh make sure we're being consistent and and um clearly communicate what that expectation is to to match the building. Um and then finally, there's just a few um kind of what I consider cleanup items in the ordinance. Kind of with any ordinance rewrite there oftentimes things might get reorganized um [snorts] to just help with flow of the of the new ordinance. So that's the case where the information around the interior access waiver um is just reorganized in a different section um of the code. So it's not a policy change just strictly moving it in a different area in the ordinance for for um flow and read. Um there were a couple things in the non-conformity section that were removed just because these new um base standards are now more flexible and just kind of provide a better option um for businesses. Um there were exception standards that were approved from a privately initiated code amendment back in 2024. So this ordinance would remove um those standards and so that existing bill uh business if anything doesn't meet these new standards, they'd have legal non-conforming rights. Um but we just for ease of this ordinance didn't want to keep a particular carve out for um you know a commercial business in an industrial district that's 500 ft from a residential property that serves fried food. It just um made more sense now with these standards to apply to everyone. Um and then there's just a general statement that was added um to help with our enforcement staff to just ensure that there's safe and sanitary um conditions at these um trash storage facilities. So I can answer any questions that you have. Otherwise, there's a recommended um uh recommendation here to to for the ordinance. >> Thank you, Mr. Cassidy. Any questions for staff? Commissioner White, >> thank you. Um so just two questions. One related to the setback from the neighboring properties being 20 ft uh instead of 30. Um, do we have any research or statistics that talk about odor, how far odor travels? I realize that you're saying that the house might be 50 feet away, but I like to sit on my deck. So, um, I'm just wondering about whether there's any science behind that particular piece. >> Yeah. Um, Chair Cookton, Commissioner White, um, just one clarification. the the 20 ft from residential was um proposed at the study session. It's the general setback that reduced from 30 to 20. But just to the broader question around um odor, I don't know um offhand um what that number might be. Um in the phase one ordinance on kind of odor mitigation, we did reduce um the requirement from like 250 ft to 150 ft to kind of match some surrounding cities. um as an example from kind of the building from a commercial building to the residential building but um yeah I'm not aware of any kind of specific um number for that. Yeah. >> Thank you. And then just one additional question. Um I really appreciate the attempt to protect um the sewer system from runoff. Um, I am curious though if it's 10 more than 10 feet away from the sewer, it rains, where does the runoff from it, where is it expected to go if it's not going into the sewer? >> Yeah. Um, Chair Kton, Commissioner White, um, yeah, it's a good question. I guess it kind of depends on the site and water water is going to flow to kind of the lowest point on the site. Um, so I guess I should just mention it maybe doesn't quite answer the question, but helps a little bit. Um, there's some language in this ordinance as well that was a recommendation from our water resources staff to if there are cases that there's liquid or solid waste runoff from these enclosures going into the storm sewer system or the sanitary sewer system. um there's some action we can take as an illicit discharge um into the um sewer system and so that involves a fine and then you know if there's repeated offenses that fine increases and um continues to go so there's some of that protection in place to to help too um >> just a clarifying question >> please >> um so I I mean I I assume that the roof requirement is also designed to keep rain from creating a runoff problem so appreciate the the uh coverage. >> Yeah. Yeah. Chair Cookton, uh Commissioner White, that's correct. That um roof requirement was also the intent there to help protect some of the runoff, too. >> Can I add one thing to that? >> Uh Mr. Johnson. >> Yeah. Chair Cooken, Commissioner White, thanks for that question. It is a tricky and challenging issue uh to solve for. I think one of the things that helps uh protect the storm sewer system as well as ensuring that these facilities are in uh a state of good maintenance. And so there is a provision around uh just pointing to the fact that you have to maintain these uh in a proper and good state. And so what that tool gives us our environmental health staff is the ability to write up or uh work with any property owner who's not maintaining their facilities in a good state. And so some of some of the poor maintenance components are going to contribute uh to that very problem in addition to the tools we have through elicit discharge. >> Other questions for staff? Commissioner Muster. >> Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I have two um very quick questions. The first, where did the 100 ft proximity number come from? It just seems like a long distance to be carrying your little garbage bag. >> Yeah, sure. Um yeah, uh Chair Kton, Commissioner Müster. Um I think where we kind of landed there was probably a little bit more art than science. um trying to we also don't want to be so restrictive I guess that then it maybe doesn't create opportunities for them to place the enclosure on the site. So I guess it was just trying to find a balance of not wanting to go like too far from the building. But if you make it like too short of a distance you might really kind of restrict where it could actually be on the site and then it might require a variance or or or these other things that were we were trying to avoid. So, um, you know, just admittedly, it was probably a little bit more art than a science to do that. >> Fair enough. >> Yeah. >> Um, and the second one, could you go back to the exterior materials slide where you have sort of the the yes and no? Yes. Yep. >> Okay. So, I just wanted to make sure that that this is correct that the doors have to have a minimum of 50% opacity. >> Yeah, Chair Kton, Commissioner Monster, that is correct. So yeah, in a lot of these examples here, the doors are are more than 50% opaque. So yeah, this proposed ordinance was um having that minimum of of 50%. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Can I Mr. Johnson? >> Yeah, Chair Cooked and Commissioner Monster, can I add to that too is just that this is kind of an issue that we as staff have wrestled with a little bit um because there's two things that are intention. one is safety. And so, um, there have been incidents in Bloomington where, you know, someone was hiding in an enclosure and kind of presented unsafe conditions for staff using that facility. At the same time, obviously, having a full screen is going to be a better uh visual, more clean visual. So, these are this is something that's intention that I don't know if we've really uh fully resolved. Um, but we we're appreciate the fact that you're kind of asking that question and shedding more light on it. Other questions for staff? Mr. Cast, I have a question. Is there anything um in the proposed ordinance here that would preclude or allow the uh exterior trash and closer closure to be closer to the street than the principal building? >> Yeah. Uh chair Cookton Planning Commission, uh that is correct. So there could be some cases where um I think in our commercial and industrial districts the principal structure setback kind of ranges based on the district anywhere from 10 ft to 35 ft. So there could be some cases where the principal building has a a 30 or 35 foot setback from the street and this enclosure would have a 20 foot minimum setback. And so there there are cases that could happen. And I think that was also something staff were really kind of grappling with and trying to figure out in the ordinance. At one point in our draft ordinance, we did have some language to say that additionally the enclosure could not be closer to the street than the building. And I think where we landed was a lot of our um commercial industrial properties are on corner lots or even in the ca in a lot of cases uh through lots where you have the street on the front and the back of the building whether it's a public or private street. uh and so it could just be really restrictive um where someone could actually place an enclosure on their lot. And so we were trying to balance that with some of the sentiment again of not wanting to create these standards that then lead to a lot of variances or or flexibilities on the standards um as well. And so we're hoping or the idea I think I think a lot of businesses don't necessarily want a trash enclosure in front of their business um from the street kind of blocking their view of of their business. But if they're in some of these cases on a corner or through lot where the enclosure is closer to the street, um we also have that landscape buffer um to kind of help screen some of the view. So hopefully with the the landscape buffer from the street in addition to having opaque um and solid screening of the enclosure itself and the roof um that hopefully all of those things would help kind of reduce the visual impact if there is an enclosure closer to the street. >> Thank you for that information. Other questions for staff? >> Commissioner Lay. >> Thank you, Chair Coton. Um, very quickly, uh, does the city have ordinances or regulations against advertising if they were to be outside? Like could they signage painted on them, things like that? Has that been considered? >> Um, yeah, Chair Cookin, Commissioner Len. Um, if they wanted to put any kind of signage, they just have to meet our our sign codes. So, I if I haven't done a lot of sign permits recently, but I my understanding is like they're not able to really um paint on there because it'd be considered a mural, which has its own standards. And yeah, it would just have to I guess um meet our our sign code requirements. And maybe planning manager Johnson wants to add to that. >> Mr. Johnson, you know a lot about signs. >> Unfortunately, I'm the I'm the city sign guy, unfortunately. Um, no. I haven't seen any signs be proposed to be uh painted on an accessory structure, for example. Not that accessory structures are that common at commercial buildings, but in terms of my own uh just interpretation of the code on the fly here, I don't think it would constitute a building sign. Uh I think it would be subject to freestanding sign uh standards. But that certainly is a wrinkle. Um yeah, it would just have to meet the code for other sign types. >> Any other questions for staff? Seeing none. Thank you, Mr. Cassende. I will open the public hearing. Ask if there's anyone in the chambers who would wish to testify on this item. Seeing none, do we have anybody online? >> All participants online are staff. >> Thank you, Miss Brown. I will look then for a motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> We have a motion and a second. >> Yeah, second. >> And a third, too. All right. Any further discussion on that? All those in favor say I. I >> opposed. That motion passes 6-0. And we will move to discussion. >> Commissioner Muser, >> I just I want to revisit that 50% number. Um just in a discussion format. Um just 50% as a minimum of coverage seems a little low. Um I don't know what the right number is. it's just to have that as a minimum that then also makes it that you could provide 90% transparency um and it would be fine. So I just I don't know how you balance that exactly but that that's the one thing that concerns me is that having 50% open is a little much but I don't know how we really weigh that to resolve it. >> Thank you Commissioner Monster. Um, I wish I had thought about this at the study session, but I am a little concerned about allowing a trash enclosure closer to the street than the principal building. I think about, you know, most of the places where we would see this, I think, would be at existing buildings, and there's probably plenty. I mean, I'm just thinking about myself driving down Lynville. There's plenty of buildings that are far away from the street and I would hate for Taco Bell or whomever to put an a a trash enclosure right next to the street that you could see. And um I appreciate staff's position and and desire to have less variances and the whole point of this is to try to open things up for businesses, right? We're trying to create less burden and I think we are, but I I am struggling with the allowance of having uh these closer to the street than the principal building. I'm not sure I can get there without language prohibiting that. Um, yes, that makes it more restrictive, but I think in this case, I'm okay with that. As a whole, we're still opening things up. We're just not opening it up as much. And so, I'm struggling with with that, with not having language in there. um precluding that. >> Commissioner Isa, >> thank you. Ter cooked in. Uh I understand where you're coming from with that. Uh but when you think about it kind of from a business's angle, whether it's Taco Bell, having like a stinky trash can or whatever enclosure, right, both aesthetically and if you know, uh sanit sanitary wise would probably hinder their business. So, I don't most of the time I I could see that kind of solving itself out, but that's kind of my take on on that. But I'd love to see your hear further thoughts. >> I'm I'm thinking maybe like an auto parts store. Do do they care if it's a little rough? People are just getting their car taken care of. It's, you know, I I trust that restaurants and very, you know, presentable type businesses would would not do that, but for other businesses that maybe don't care too much about their image, I worry about that. Definitely makes sense. Thank you, >> Commissioner Muster. >> I would agree with that concern. >> Commissioner Summers. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, can I ask staff a question? >> You may. >> So, my understanding is that the 100 foot was there's art to it. Do we know how that lines up with other cities nearby? because I don't see a lot of trash enclosures on the street. Maybe they're well hidden um well screened, but I'm wondering if that lines up with some other cities if that gives us more data. >> Sure. Yeah. Um Chair Kton, Commissioner Summers, um yeah, when I did look at some um adjacent cities, um you know, truthfully, their um trash enclosure standards are not as prescriptive of what as what we're proposing. So, I truthfully didn't see a ton of ordinances that even kind of factor in the distance from the the building. And quite frankly, a lot of their standards were just the um you know, the materials kind of making sure it's enclosed on three sides with some exception on the gates. Um and then, you know, probably follow um kind of the structure setbacks for the underlying zoning district. Um, so yeah, there's not a ton of examples because truthfully a lot of them aren't as prescriptive as even this is being proposed. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Johnson. >> Thank you, Chair Cookton. Uh, Commissioner Summers, I agree with Dakota's point. Um, I just want to clarify, were you also speaking about the it being located closer to the street than the building or just the 100 foot proximity? just the 100 foot proximity because I I also think if you were a neighboring business to a butcher >> and they put their trash can as close to your building as possible but as far away from theirs I might be um annoyed. >> Yeah. So if I can just shed a little more light about the art versus science. So the the similar to the setbacks to residential as well as uh this standard that we're discussing here now what we did do is we tested these standards using GIS measurement on many different industrial and commercial sites you know just to test okay is this going to present us some problems uh specifically the 100 foot proximity standard. The reason that we uh recommend it is that a it's a safety component. you want it to be closer to the building it's serving and B it also lessens the amount of potential for elicit discharge if the if there is any liquid waste um while you're transporting the trash while the 100 foot number sounds quite high 100 that's a lot on a commercial property that's actually not a very far distance if you think about it it's less than a third of a football field right so uh while the number seems quite high commercial and industrial sites tend to be quite a significant size and have uh quite a bit of uh distance. So when we were using the measurement tool to test these standards out, we felt we I encountered a number of different sites where our previous standard was set at 75 ft is actually when we were testing this. We encountered a number of sites where we felt we were likely to uh unfortunately have to receive a variance or some type of flexibility on the part of to uh um site the enclosure in the most logical location if that makes sense. Other thoughts? Uh, Mr. Johnson or Mr. Towski? Sometimes we are advised not to change recommended motions. Um, I think in this case because the city is the applicant. It would not be an issue if the planning commission wanted to add back in that type of language about prohibiting uh a building being closer to not being closer to the street. you you know what I'm saying is that it are we in this case able to change the language that's proposed to us >> chair that's you certainly are you certainly can >> very well the one clarification I would make with respect to the um issue of the enclosure being located closer to the street than the building >> um I would note that that does present difficulty for through lots specifically corner lots um is another issue um and so if your intent is to really uh uh ensure that that doesn't occur on the front lot line. Um it's helpful to get that direction from you in terms of just being precise as opposed to just can't be closer to any street um than the principal building. So just a clarification there. >> Can you um can you describe technically what the front lot line means? Yes, the front lot line. I don't have the code definition in front of us, but typically uh it is the uh the primary yard along the street that the business uh fronts on. Um there is a side corner definition in our code. A through lot is when uh it has both uh public streets on front and back uh the lot line opposite uh the street. So we have a we have a definition for a corner lot. We have addition of side corner uh uh yard or lot line. So I think we can differentiate some of those things by specifying if front is your intent we certainly can ensure that it reflect the front uh lot line. For me the front lot line is my intent. Um so uh Mr. Johnson you started to touch on it there. So if we were to proceed with something that's use the term front lot line. What does that mean for corner lots and uh through lots? Yeah, chair. Without, you know, opening the code and being very precise in terms of legislating from the deis, again, because the city council is the final decision maker, what I what I would likely recommend you to do is just to provide us that uh direction, whether you want to limit that standard to front uh lot line or you would also want it to apply to side corner and then staff can take that uh direction and amend the ordinance to reflect that uh requirement in the the version that's presented to the city council. >> Thank you. Um, so what does that mean in the in the real world for Okay, if we were to proceed and the front lot line is is the directive, does a corner lot have a front lot line? Does it have two front lot lines? How does that work for corner lots? >> Yeah, chair. It has a front line and it has a side corner uh line. You know, the the Bloomington zoning code does treat all yards along streets subject to uh principal front setbacks. for example. Um, but that doesn't mean we don't have the ability to differentiate between the front line and the side corner uh line. So again, our our motives in terms of bringing it forward to you is to ensure that it's not creating uh a higher propensity of variance requests or requests for flexibility just due to um site characteristics or conditions that can't be met otherwise. Um, I think our biggest concern would be uh more related to through lots because that really limits uh where they can be cited uh or where um enclosures can be cited. I would add too that on a corner lot if they were unable to meet this requirement, they would have the opportunity to construct an attached and fully enclosed uh trash room. So, that would be another uh solution that they could seek. >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Any other thoughts? Commissioner Mester U just taking that [clears throat] I I absolutely share the concern with the front lot line. I would also be concerned with that corner side um that you're essentially not just pushing the problem to a side street. Um but I agree that through lots are sort of a separate animal that just just sort of have to be dealt with. Um but that that's uh the only difference that I would have from you, Mr. Chairman. >> I think we're in agreement on that. just to ask the question uh one more time from staff's perspective. Is it easier for us to try to amend the motion here at the DEIS or to table this and have you come back to us at our next meeting with a revised plan? >> I mean, I'll certainly look to Thank you, Chair. I'll look to Dakota to affirm uh my suggestion because he is uh in the cockpit right now. Uh but I think that we uh I think your guidance is clear enough and we actually have language that we already have drafted that uh effectuates that decision because it's something that we wrestled with before. Again, it's something we're very familiar with and is consistent with our accessory structure standard. So, it's not a foreign uh standard for us to create. I think we've understood your direction and uh we would be comfortable moving forward just with a motion recommending the ordinance with amendments as specified not to allow closer to uh front and side corner lot lines along a street. >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Commissioner Isa. >> Uh thank you, Chair. I don't agree with the corner part of it um at all. So, I just wanted to let that be known. >> Thank you, Chair. >> Thank you, Commissioner Isa. So I think the best path forward here is I would look for a motion and for clarity on that motion whether you want no amendments and take the motion as presented before us or whether you want the uh you know however you want to motion that and then uh for us as voters if you agree with it you may vote in favor and if you do not feel comfortable with it you would vote in uh not in favor. So any further discussion? If not I would look for a motion. Commissioner Mester. >> I move to recommend the city council adopt the phase 2 small business codes and processes ordinance, thereby amending chapter 21 of the city code subject to amendments to prohibit dumpster enclosures between the structure and the front line or the corner sideline of a property. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the motion, >> Commissioner Isa? So just so I understand or I guess clarify, right? Uh there's going to be a updated motion that would have the option of either uh >> only if this one does not pass. >> So we'll vote on the motion before us. If it passes, then that would conclude the item. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions or discussion on the motion? Commissioner Summers. I think for me what I'm weighing with this um conditional piece to the move to recommend is um if staff staff took that language out and the kind of intention behind this at its base was to remove impediments for small business owners. So, I think about how hard it is to open a child care and I think that that was actually one of the um in the study session part of the like examples. Um so, with that extra language, it doesn't seem like staff have a really big worry about that, but I just want to check does that feel like just another thing that would be harder for small business owners to get done? Mr. Cassand. >> Yeah. Uh, Chair Kton, Commissioner Summers. Yeah, I think it it's definitely a point of discussion that we had internally as staff. Um, having the language to say that it can't be closer to the street is just another requirement. And I think on corner lots or through lots could limit where they're being located. And so if that is the case, then the direction for the business is to either try to seek flexibility and or a variance or to go the other option and construct the interior trash room which we have heard from businesses or the point of bringing this ordinance is that is also prohibitive and can be costly and they want to do these detached enclosures. So, you know, I I think I originally like had that language in the ordinance and then I think after discussion we removed that um closer to the street requirement. So, um you know, I kind of look to all of you and in the city council we'll kind of really provide that that policy direction and we'll kind of move forward with um what you all think is appropriate. >> Commissioner White, >> thank you. I I appreciate the uh the thoughtfulness that the staff has put into this. Um I I support this proposed amendment. Um because I think that it seems like common sense, but there's always that guy. Um and so I think that that I don't think it creates an unimpeded barrier for business. Um, and I think that, um, although I think the goal has been to make things easier for those who want to do business, it shouldn't be at the expense of, um, the intention of a lot of our our zoning regulations and and ordinances to um, keep the the front yard a little more um, attractive. So, I don't think it creates an an a terrible barrier for any business and I think it just adds clarity and protection um from potential bad actors. >> Commissioner Isa. >> Yeah. Chair, if you don't mind, question, please Commissioner White. Uh would so would you be in support of all of it including the corner lots or like or the amendment including the corner lots? >> I don't have tremendously. Sorry, Mr. Chair. Um, I don't have tremendously strong opinions about the the corner lot other than again it's a it's a side, you know, it's just moving the problem to the side street. And so I think that um our intent is to try and keep the enclosures kind of behind the buildings and being less visible and standing out less while still being close enough to be safe and and uh usable by staff. So, um, honestly, I I'm a little less concerned about the side, but I I don't have a problem with it being in there because I think that's still the intent of keeping it away from being super visible from streets. >> That makes sense. And if you don't mind, Cher staff uh question. >> When uh these business owners do request variances um in these situations, are they approved for the most part? Um, yeah, Chair Cookin, Commissioner Eay, yeah, as long I mean, it just kind of depends on the findings that are are met. Um, and those are in state statute around, you know, kind of unique circumstances and and other things. So, because we our current standard is an interior trash room, there's not a ton of examples of these enclosures getting variances, but um I mean we've had cases where people have gotten setback variances or if they get reszoned in a planned development overlay and get some flexibility on setbacks. Those are um certainly options. It's just as long as those findings can be made to do that. So you feel uh if you don't mind chair uh you feel that it would I mean this would allowing this would uh allow more time for staff to do other things or less time spent on variances was that could you well yeah chair commissioner eay I guess it's a little hard to say I think we're we're seeing in general on corner lots or through lots there could be special circumstances where this um if it can't be closer to the street could just really limit where someone could do an enclosure. So then their options are either to then do the interior trash room or go through the process to get a variance or some kind of flexibility. Um but I guess I don't know planning manager Johnson if you had more to add but it's kind of a little hard to say like how much time or not time it would take from staff but just those would be the options for the applicant to pursue. >> Mr. Johnson. >> Chair Cookton, thanks. And Commissioner, you say, I mean, just uh to provide a um bigger picture statement in terms of all the ordinances we adopt, there's only one way to test standards, and that's to release them into the wild. Um and so, uh I would uh note a comparison to our accessory structure ordinances. Now, I know accessory structures are less common at commercial and industrial uh properties, but but there are many that do exist, and accessory structures are subject to these to the same standard that you're discussing, uh Chair Cookton. Um, and we haven't had any uh uh variances to that those locationational standards that I'm aware of in the last 10 years um uh at least. So, I think that there are uh spaces to find uh on properties that will meet code for the most part. There's always I never close the door on some unique circumstance, but that's why the variance tool uh exists in the first place. So, um I think the majority of staff's concern was more related to through lots. Um, if that's exempted uh from this provision, as I believe your uh motion uh does, then I think that we're most of the way there and uh the city can always make adjustments uh in the future. Any other discussion? I will call for a vote on the motion from Commissioner Monster. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed? Poss. That motion passes 51. This item will go before the city council as a public hearing on December 8th. Thank you, Mr. Cassand. >> All right. Thank you. >> We'll move then to item number five, consideration of the draft planning commission meeting minutes from October 23rd. Do I have a motion? >> So move. >> We have a motion and is there a second? >> We have a motion and a second to approve the draft planning commission meeting minutes from October 23rd. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Opposed? Abstain. >> Abstain. >> That motion passes 50 with one abstination. We will move then to item number six, the planning commission policy and issues update. Mr. Johnson. >> Thank you, Chair Cookton. Preview of the next two meetings here um upcoming on November the 20th and December 4th. On November 20th, there'll be a public hearing for fire station 6 bunk house for a variance to front yard uh excuse me, a front setback and final site and building plans. Uh the second item is a public hearing uh for a conditional use permit for cannabis manufacturing at 10901 Nesbbit uh Avenue South. The third item is a public hearing for interim use permit for remote airport parking at 7901 International Drive. That's for park and go uh the entity speaking at the public hearing. Um the fourth item is a study item uh to discuss uh the draft 2026 planning commission work plan uh laying out uh the uh overall schedule for long-range planning work in the coming year. Um and uh we were planning to uh right now we're currently planning to present to you uh the 2026 uh meeting schedule uh for next year, but I will note that that does have to track behind uh the city council uh adoption of their meeting schedule. So we're still awaiting. We anticipate that could happen on November 17th. Uh but that could be delayed one meeting. So just a heads up about that. Uh on December 4th, we are looking at a public hearing for the commercial vehicles uh and trailer parking standards and residential districts. We had a study item on that. So that's the formal ordinance uh for your consideration. Uh the Bloomington Ferry Road Corridor study uh will be back before you uh for a formal recommendation at the December 4th meeting. Uh and then a uh study item uh for the city's fence ordinance. It's another uh work plan project to evaluate the city's fence uh fencing standards. So, that's the items upcoming on November 20th and the 4th. Two other quick uh updates I'll just mention is um a reminder to if you can please respond to the planning commission retreat uh survey. Uh we're hoping to uh put something together in January should the board support um January, February, March I should say first quarter um hopefully earlier um should the planning commission want to pursue that opportunity. And then finally, something that's come up uh a procedure that the city council has adopted. Um by the way, we very much appreciate when people send us questions in advance if they have questions about agenda items. That's very helpful for us to prepare uh materials and necessary research. So thank you uh for doing that. But a practice that the city council has adopted is actually when they respond uh to set inquiries, they actually share those responses and information with the full uh board with the full city council so that everyone can uh gain access to the responses to those questions. So this more just a brief discussion item. I I welcome uh either way I think works just fine. But if the planning commission had a strong preference one way or the other if you wanted to follow the city council procedure uh in that respect to have everyone be copied on that response uh or not, we certainly could. So this is kind of an unplanned item, but it's something that's come up a couple times and just wanted to check in with you all in terms of what your preference would be. And maybe some members don't want their questions shared with other members. That can be true, too. And of course could be handled with discretion. >> Mr. Johnson, uh and Mr. Tasks, couldn't wouldn't there be a concern about open meeting law, having all of us on a communication? >> Uh, again, as long as it's not reflecting of deliberate, and I invite uh attorneys to uh step in if need be, but as long as it's not deliberating towards a decision, um as long as it's a simple factual question, um that information can be shared uh broadly as a as a group. It's similar akin to the staff report. It's just seeking clarification. Thoughts? >> Kevin agrees. Um, I think out of an abundance of caution, if we were to do that, I think I would ask that you BCC us as recipients so somebody doesn't accidentally reply to that email and have a discussion started unintentionally with all of us. Um, I'm just like, people probably don't realize this at home, but we we do not talk to each other between meetings. And I think I think that's the right thing to do. Um I I think like before I was on the planning commission, I assumed we all saw each other off of this set of seven chairs here and we really don't. And I think that's a good thing and that we come here with unique perspectives that we are not influenced by each other um between meetings and that we have reviewed it with our own lens and we come here and honestly I have no idea what you all are going to say when I get here. And I think there's something I think there's something good about that in that we are not a commission that collaborates with one another. We are not like we are not afraid to disagree with each other. And I think that's the sign of a healthy commission. And I I don't want to have I don't want us to start thinking along the same wavelength before we get here. Um, I like us having independent voices because I I think that challenges us to think critically and to think individually and it puts the responsibility on us to be prepared in our own way to get here. So, I don't know. I if we do it, yeah, I I would just want to make sure that we're not trending towards something before we get here. But I understand like more information is better. So, I'm a little torn on it, I guess. Commissioner Summers, >> Chair, um I think one suggestion I might offset that so that let's say you had a board of commissioners who had a lot of questions. um that is in some ways potentially giving a lot of homework to staff to not only have answers but write them formally >> to the commission. Um and I wonder if a better process would be submitting questions that were then asked to staff in the meeting. So, I um I think that it can be really helpful to send questions in advance, especially things that are data related, so that staff don't feel really surprised um and feel like they can't quite get to the information they need to support the depth and breadth of work that they've done by the time they get to presenting here. Um, I think that that is a good process and that that commissioner can then ask it during the meeting and that it could be up to planning staff if someone asked something that was like, "Oh, we really need to give you a lot of supporting information and everyone should have it." So, I know that sometimes leaving it up to discretion is complicated, but I think the process of submitting questions ahead of time is really a way for the commission to support staff in the work that they do and help them to be best prepared for the conversation. >> Thank you, Commissioner Summers. the other as you were talking there um I you know I work a full day on Thursdays and I often don't have my city iPad with me at work and so I do worry a little bit about if there's a bunch of information coming to us throughout the day on Thursday because a commissioner asked on Wednesday night I may just not see that and then if it's not up brought up during this meeting that some of us have information that others may not and that also makes me a little comfortable to your Commissioner Summers asking that question in this forum not only makes sure all of us get the same answer but also the public then hears the answer to that as well. And so I like the current process of we get a response back and if we feel um it's valuable to bring up in the meeting uh we do that. In fact I did that twice this evening. Uh two of the questions I asked this evening I had previously emailed to Mr. Kassende. Um, and sometimes we get responses where we then understand it's it's not of value and we don't bring it up. Um, the more I talk about it out loud, the more I I'm not a big fan of of the proposal and that we just continue with sending questions in early and then asking them here at the meeting. I think that's the most transparent way for the public and it ensures all of us see the same information. Um, but I'm open to other thoughts. I made sure >> Mr. Johnson and this might fall into the if it's not broke, don't fix it kind of thing. So I didn't necessarily mean to stimulate a longer discussion about it. It's just a discrepancy I noticed between procedures between the city council and the planning commission and to the um to the challenge that the rigor that the city council has there, you know, there's uh 20 30 items on their uh agendas. So I think that's probably inform some of the reason why they do some of those things. Um but yeah and uh again this is uh not a critical uh point or procedural thing for staff. It was just something that I thought given some questions more recently just wanted to ask everyone how they felt about it. So >> Commissioner White >> I appreciate staff bringing it up. I think um I don't feel strongly that we need to make a change right now, but I think we could be thinking about it maybe over the next couple of months and if we notice an uptick in questions or if we want to revisit it um we certainly could, but um I'm inclined to leave things as they are for right now. >> Any other thoughts? >> I think what I'm hearing, Mr. Johnson, is we're going to not proceed with that. Thank you for indulging me. I appreciate it. >> Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity. Any other thoughts from planning commissioners that were not on tonight's agenda? >> Seeing none, that concludes this November 6th meeting of the Bloomington Planning Commission. Good night.