[music] Good evening and welcome to this April 16th meeting of the Bloomington Planning Commission. The planning commission advises the city council on development proposals, development standards, long-range planning, and transportation issues. On some items before the planning commission, they are study items where we will not take formal action, while other items before the city council are public hearings where we encourage public testimony. If you would like to testify on an item, you can do so by joining us here at city hall in the commission chambers. You can also do so online by following the instructions on your screen. We have no public hearings this evening. Some items before the planning commission are um final decisions of the planning commission where we have final decision-making authority. Other items before us, we act in an advisory capacity and the city council will make the final decision. The planning commission is made up of seven volunteer residents of the city of Bloomington. Each planning commissioner has been appointed to serve a three-year term with a two-term limit. We have seven commissioners present here at city hall this evening. So, we do have a quorum. Our first order of business this evening is the pledge of allegiance. All rise. >> 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. Item number one this evening is a unique one. We are pleased to be joined by our new city manager, Mr. Zack Walker, and he's going to come up and introduce himself to us. >> Good evening, uh, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, and fellow city staff members. Uh, my name is Zach Walker. Uh, I'm the new city manager. Uh, actually, this coming Monday will be my sixmonth anniversary uh, with the city. Uh so getting good and settled in with the organization. Uh tonight I really just wanted to come and make sure I had introduced myself. I had set as a goal when I started to get around to each of our boards and commissions and introduce myself uh so that you were familiar with me uh but also so that I could um make sure I appropriately thanked you for the work that you do as commission members for the uh guidance and help and support that you play and particularly uh this commission as the chairman just said with some of your um statutory authorities that you have for the active role you play in uh advancing issues and policy in our community. So, first and foremost, thank you for the time that you give uh in service to this community. Uh just briefly about myself. Um I came to Bloomington um having served in two previous communities, most recently as the city manager for Independence, Missouri, which is a suburb of the Kansas City metropolitan area. Uh and I'd been in that community for the last 13 years. Uh, and while I was enjoying it very much, I had kind of reached that place where I wanted to try my hand at a new challenge, um, in a new environment with unique issues that I hadn't faced in my career yet. And I found a community and a home in Bloomington that not only allows me to do that, but allows me to do it in a place with um really a great history of um strong uh professional management. Um highly qualified, competent, talented city staff uh and a business, civic, and uh political community. our elected officials uh who really set the bar high and have uh expectations um for this community uh that I wanted to be a part of. So, I'm excited to be here. I'm excited to work alongside of you in service to Bloomington. Uh if there's ever anything uh my office can do to support you, please let me know. But I know you're in very good hands with the staff that you have here supporting you week in and week out. So, pleasure to meet all of you. And Mr. Chair, if there's time for a few questions, I'm happy to field any of those if that's appropriate. Happy to do that. Thank you, Mr. Walker. You said you've visited all the boards and commissions. >> I've been making my way through those. Yep. Um get I don't know that I've been to all of them yet, but I've been working my way through uh that roster. >> And I trust we're the best dressed commission. >> Absolutely. >> Great. Excellent. Any questions for Mr. Walker? >> Seeing none, thanks for visiting us. We appreciate it. >> Okay. Thank you all very much. Appreciate you. >> You're welcome. We will move then to item number two. The city of Bloomington is the applicant uh regarding a parking study in the city. Miss Liz OD is here with the staff report. Thank you uh chair and commission. Yes. Uh item two on the agenda is for uh us to discuss the off- streetet parking uh requirements. Everyone's favorite topic um is parking. Uh so we're here to discuss both on street and off- streetet um parking today. Um so yeah, let's dive right in. So the purpose of this project um this project was identified in the planning commission 2026 work plan. Um our standards have um were created decades ago and conditions have changed significantly since that time. We're also seeing uh consistent use of our um reductions and flexibility tools which s suggests that um our base requirements may not always um meet the actual demand that we see out there in the field. And then at the same time um parking has real costs both financially and environmentally. So this is an opportunity for us to modernize our tools um and [clears throat] better match today's um conditions. So the overall goals of this project is to evaluate um our current off- streetet parking requirements across the board um and also a chance to see what other cities are doing um in this regard and then also identify opportunities um for any updates. So a little bit of background um in general parking minimums were adopted um across uh the country um about mid 20th century. Um and then based on um these minimums were often based on limited um or uh peak demand data meaning that they were taken from scenarios with little transit nearby um sometimes based on um other cities codes. Um, so there's not really a ton of scientific data to back um some of these requirements. And then I found um upon research that Bloomington adopted its first parking standards in 1958 and it only covered uh six use types um which you can see on the right side of the screen just copied from that um city code which I found kind of interesting. Um and then over time we've obviously added um several different use um categories or parking calculations over time um and they've gotten very specific like health clubs or um grocery stores etc. [snorts] Um so there are impacts um to off- streetet parking requirements. Um like I mentioned earlier constructing parking is very expensive. Uh based on research, a surface stall can be anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000. And then structured parking is anywhere from 25 to $50,000. Um and that includes like excavation and storm water management, materials, snow removal, um and then structural engineering requirements if you're going to build a structured um parking. Um and then this cost um gets passed down to residents in their high rent or in just like the goods and services that we all consume whether we use the parking or not. Um [snorts] and then the next uh point is about opportunity cost uh which is basically the land or the value of the land um of what could exist if it weren't used for um parking. So, Bloomington is fully built out with very limited vacant land. Um, and a portion of a surface parking lot could be used to construct housing, uh, retail, public amenity space, etc. Um, and then building uh vertical parking or structured parking um is sometimes just infeasible for many projects and um, highly expensive. And then the heat island effect um basically the asphalt absorbs um the heat which means that areas with extensive heat co or parking coverage stays warmer which thus um results in households using um more energy to cool their homes. Um and then also uh heat can have um impacts on your um personal health as well. And then uh most notably probably the storm water impacts um excessive imperous surface area generates high volumes of runoff. Um sometimes this runoff carries pollutants and then also causes some localized flooding um during an intense rainfall. And then lastly um excess impervious surface means there's more salt that's needed to treat ice. Um and then as we know using salt can have um very detrimental impacts to our um aquatic life. So Bloomington today our standards like I said before haven't been largely unchanged for uh decades. I think I saw the last evaluation done in like 2006 2007. Um but a lot has changed since then right so uh we have more teleawwork um since the pandemic uh growth in e-commerce or online shopping is um drastically increased smaller households um not as many people having children smaller household sizes and then Bloomington uh since then has um been fully built out um and not a lot of vacant land. And then just a couple points about um as you all know you review development projects um large some larger development projects receive parking um deviations that have to go through your all review. Um and then also um it's worth noting that 100% of the OO um multif family projects um have uh received um parking incentive. So that begs the question if it's really incentive or if our baseline standards are just too high if everyone's utilizing this um incentive. And then um our parking existing parking flexibility measures. We already have um a wide range of tools in our pocket um to reduce parking. Um and applicants are using um some of them. I highlighted the ones that are used most often. So, proof of parking, plan development, and then the parking reduction through the OO incentive. Um, and so these are evaluated obviously on a case-byase basis and can sometimes be complex for um applicants to navigate. Um, but as I indicated earlier, the question is um are they working kind of as intended or do we need to kind of re-evaluate um that our standards might be too high? [snorts] And then with um kind of every long range project, we see what other cities are doing. Um so across the top of the screen are um uh kind of a comparison with other cities. Um retail, hotel, and warehouse um uses um in Bloomington are pretty high across other um Twin Cities um municipalities. And then um office is kind of on the lower end, but it's worth noting that many other cities haven't evaluated their office requirements since the pandemic, which um you know, if you evaluated it now, it would probably be um you know, entirely different. Um and then also, um I think we're also pretty high on like senior housing and assembly, um as well. Um, so I didn't include like uh all of these land use types, but these were kind of the most notable um and most interesting in my opinion. Um, and then other cities like St. Paul and Minneapolis, as you probably know, and Duth have removed their parking minimums. Um, and other cities like uh Richfield, Leina, St. Louis Park are kind of making um large strides in their mixeduse districts and also their multifamily um districts. And then um yeah, [snorts] so some of the opportunities for reducing um our parking requirements, it supports redevelopment um underutilized parking lots can be used for um a number of vibrant things like uh gathering space, retail shops or cafes. Um and these can enhance walkability and vibr and add vibrancy to an area and also sponsor growth. Um and usually um uh parking lots don't have any kind of economic um return. And then um this also lowers the cost burden on developers to not construct an over supply of parking. Developers could offset this cost and use it for um amenities or more affordable units or um other things like that. And then this also allows for an enhanced site design like landscaping, gathering spaces, public art, outdoor dining that can improve and attract customers, visitors, residents. And then like I said before, the environmental benefits um are high including reducing excess hard surface and improving the storm water infiltration um and overall um uh health. So with every um opportunity obviously comes some risks and challenges. Um so this could um create uh peak period shortages. So parking demand is not always evenly distributed across the city which means certain times or in certain areas. Demand could exceed supply. So if parking isn't available or if parking um isn't convenient um customers could turn away. Um and then also drivers may seek out available um space on public streets or adjacent um properties as well. Um and then Kirk is here and uh the public works team is here to kind of discuss the on street parking um which is related to this project as well. Um and then [clears throat] excuse me there's um the market uncertainty with the rise of um you know autonomous vehicles and electric vehicle um electric vehicles and changing work patterns and um the world is just constantly changing so it's hard to predict kind of what the future might hold. Um, so that's always kind of like a potential risk or a challenge to keep in mind and maintain uh flexibility um and monitor kind of uh the outcomes. And then lastly, uh the need to improve um alternative transportation. And so this just means that reducing parking might not be like a one-sizefits-all approach. That it requires maybe some like bike infrastructure or um transit access. Um if we're going to reduce um parking, it means um improving kind of the alternative transportation system as well. So with that, I've um kind of come up with um five different approaches or options, and they kind of range on a spectrum of low intervention on the left side all the way up to high intervention on the right side. And I'll go through these kind of one by one. Um so the first policy option is no change. um pretty self-explanatory, but um pros of that is it's um understandable or predictable for developers who know and operate in our city code. Um and then ensures parking availability and greater convenience for um for people. And then cons of that is uh may limit infill and redevelopment opportunities and then the environmental and financial costs um kind of remain the same. So this is a low intervention kind of no impact um approach. And then the next um option is targeted adjustments. Basically reducing our minimums in specific areas like a transit corridor, development district or commercial node. Uh the pros of this is that it preserves parking where it's most needed, supports redevelopment in key areas, and then ensures that there's available parking. The cons of this is that it um might require some uh additional analysis analysis for staff to determine um kind of where this is most appropriate. Um and then this is also like a low to medium intervention and medium impact. And this is um kind of a one of two kind of staff recommendation that I'll get into um in a moment. And then there's moderate reductions which is basically right sizing our minimum uh parking requirements across the board. It's also um staff recommendation. And so here included in the packet as well is like a table of um suggested or recommended um reductions. And you can see that it um doesn't go down a ton but it's you know moderate adjustments. So like 10 or 20% um below um the current requirement. [snorts] So [clears throat] the pros of a a moderate reduction is that it reduces development costs. Um also supports infill development and the cons is it may modestly increase demand for on street parking um during peak periods. And then a step further is parking maximums. Um which basically creates kind of like a ceiling. Um a minimum is the floor, parking maximum is the ceiling. The pros is it limits too much um parking. It maximizes land use efficiency. Cons of that is it reduces uh flexibility for certain uses. So like if you think of like a hospital for example, they use they have um kind of a high demand for um for parking. And so this could um you don't want to set their maximum too low is what I'm uh trying to get at. So it could reduce some flexibility for certain uses like that. And then there's potential concerns from businesses about like not having enough um parking um access for for those businesses. So this is on the higher end of the invent or intervention and has kind of a higher impact. [snorts] And then lastly, um option five, um just removes the minimum parking requirements entirely, allowing um developers in the market to determine um what the appropriate parking is for their project or use. Uh the pros is it maximizes flexibility, supports redevelopment and alternative transportation and the cons of that is the potential for under supply and without um some kind of complimentary strategies like um transit access and bike um infrastructure. And then um also the con of that is more parking um spillover onto adjacent properties or streets is um likely. So that's kind of like at the maximum. Um, I should also specify that um, these approaches can be um, kind of included together. Um, and that you could see that kind of a lot with other cities too is they have like a minimum and a maximum um, in their code. And so um, yeah, so you can kind of use multiple approaches with this. So yeah, like I said um before staff recommendation is to kind of do both a targeted adjustment um in kind of like our commercial node or um development districts um and then also just kind of right sizing our uh code across the board across all land uses and given like Bloomington is a regional destination and an auto do uh autooriented development pattern this is kind of a balanced or more um incremental approach. Um this is our recommendation and we can always um go back later and um kind of take this as um a project that is kind of always moving and always um evaluating kind of how these impact um uh the community. So um let's see what else we got. Okay, so removing unnecessary parking categories. Um this is one of my la uh later slides. So some existing land use types are very specific um and can be removed or consolidated with something else um existing in our um parking table. So example of that is our catering um and we uh separated out by major and minor. Um so our recommendation is to use the manufacturing standard. I think that makes sense with um catering um uses and then also highintensity office um just use the general um office standard um and consolidate it with that. [snorts] So with that um I do have some questions for you all. Um, I do have three questions. Although the first question is kind of where I want to spend the most time tonight, but I also have um number two and three should you have um any comments particularly about our um parking flexibility measures or if you feel like there's a parking standard that should be removed or consolidated with another use. I'm open to hearing that feedback as well. But I kind of just want to get your feedback on um where you all feel um the best approach would uh would be for staff to take. >> Thank you, Miss OD. I think before we jump right into discussion, I'd like to ask if there's any questions of staff before we get going. Commissioner Lidden. >> Thank you, Chair. Um and thank you, Miss OD, for the presentation. Can you talk a little bit about what happens on reduct um if we reduce the standards on calculating the number of uh handicap parking places particularly in commercial entities. >> Uh thank you chair and commissioner. So the accessibility or handicap stalls are not part of this project because it's based on the building code. Um and so that's um entirely different. So that's not um changing with this project. Other [snorts] questions for staff? >> Miss Odette, you said there could be the potential of mixing and matching and taking things out of different buckets here. >> That's correct. >> Okay. [clears throat] Commissioner White. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, just a [clears throat] quick question. If you could go back to the previous slide, you had mentioned highdensity commercial or highdensity office. What is high density versus general? So highintensity office is like a call center. It's like so many people within like a thousand square feet. It qualifies as a highintensity office. [snorts] >> Yep. Miss OD, when staff was looking at this, um, one of my concerns, as you mentioned, it was, um, every application that's come before us that utilizes the opportunity housing ordinance has used the parking, uh, flexibility. Do we have concern about weakening the O by lowering the parking standards? I think that's a great question and I think that um what we've found with um I think I mentioned in my staff report the nexus study is that um developers have seen that 1.2 spaces per unit is kind of what they're seeing with um demand. But I c I think where you lie um tonight will kind of inform how we um use the OO in the future. Um maybe ma making moderations to like the OO um percentages um could be something that we could look at. >> Mr. Johnson, anything to add? >> Thanks, Sher Cook. I would just add that um while the parking incentive is definitely valuable. I echo Liz's comment about making adjustments if the city were to reduce our parking requirements for multifamily so it doesn't get too out of whack. Um, I think it's not as significant as a incentive as say affordable housing trust fund dollars or TIFF or other tools that the city uses to drive lower levels of affordability. So, um, I wouldn't uh preclude the possibility of an impact there, but I wouldn't say that it's the most significant carrot that uh the city uses to drive uh higher levels of affordability. >> Okay, >> thank you chair. Um are there any examples of cities that are doing option five currently the area? >> Uh yeah so Minneapolis and St. Paul have removed their minimum entirely. Um Duth has um Rochester I don't think has removed um minimums but I think they have made some strides um like in their uh mixeduse districts and then obvious um removed minimums like Seattle, Austin, some of the larger um cities but also some smaller um suburban communities of a population like Bloomington have also removed um minimums as well. [snorts] >> Commissioner Len, >> I I'm not sure I'm going to get this right, but I think there was a story in the newspaper this week. I if I don't know if uh anyone from the staff read the article that one that St. Paul just discovered some unintended consequence of reducing the the minimums. Is anyone familiar? I think it had to do with they were hoping it would increase affordable housing and what it ended up doing was creating more um stu it was around St. Thomas. That's what it was. And that it ended up being very high dollar housing that was getting built there, very densely populated um because that but that was linked to the number of units of housing in Bloomington. Are those two separate issues if you can remind me? Go ahead. I think that's what the issue >> Chair Cooken uh Commissioner Len uh thanks for that question. So that article was primarily focused on some of the zoning reform that St. Paul has done about housing types. It's not as uh connected to their actions on off- streetet parking. It's certainly all connected um most certainly. But that had more to do with uh some reforms they did in 2023 related to missing middle types and lower density apartments and those things. Yep. Miss OD, can we see the question again? >> Commissioner Cunningham. Thank you, Chair. Um, my response to these questions, I guess, would be I'm I'm inclined to follow staff's recommendation. And I had the exact same question about I think I wrote the allure of the opportunity housing ordinance incentives. So, uh, if we could maybe touch on that. I'm not trying to add to the 27 work plan. I know that's probably already full, Mr. Johnson, but, uh, just if if we could as part of this study just make sure that we're not getting too close where we're taking away an incentive. Um, that would be my only pause for reducing. I don't think removing minimums or setting maximums is uh kind of the the right thing to do. I feel like that could do setting maximums could do more harm than good. Um for our next item, I'm sure Mr. Roberts has some thoughts on uh putting all the cars on the street. Uh so I'm inclined to go with uh targeted adjustments or moderate reductions. Thanks. >> Thank you, M. Dave, if I could ask another question. Um, how impactful is our answer to this question? Obviously, the city council is going to see this, but is this really charting the course for this or like what's what's the impact of the decision or the guidance we gave you this evening? It's a bit vague. >> Uh, I mean, your your feedback is um important. Um, I value um your input and uh you've seen development [clears throat] projects come through here and you kind of have um the context and um yeah, that's that's what I'll say there. >> Okay, Mr. Johnson, anything? >> Thank I mean what I'd add to that is uh certainly with any policy uh study item that we bring before you um the ordinance should the u city council authorize the preparation of one um is it reflects a combination of the feedback we hear from planning commission and city council. So uh yes you're certainly charting the course. Um we haven't made a firm decision on whether or not we would bring this back before you in a draft form um a more uh firmed up draft draft ordinance uh as of yet. I know some projects like the sign code um uh there was multiple rounds of study sessions and it's not to to lengthen or belabor the issue. It's just that um in some cases like this one you need to set uh what is the um uh direct policy direction uh before we really drill down into every little detail. Now this kind of represents a blend of both where uh planner o has provided a table of recommended adjustments associated with some of these uh potential policy directions. So, um I don't think we need to make that decision today. I think we can use our professional judgment in that. Um but yes, to answer your question, um you're certainly providing the uh policy direction that we're going to pursue, which will take the form of in an ordinance later on. >> Thank you both. Where I was kind of going with that is, you know, what we're seeing here are the buckets of options, but we really haven't dived into the details yet. And what I was going for there was, let's say we pick option five. Doesn't matter which one. And we find that there's some things in there we didn't expect. And this is way different than we had kind of thought about. And we're seeing some unintended consequences that may come out of option five or option three, whatever we pick here. Will there still be an opportunity to get that feedback from staff saying, "We were looking at option three. Here's all the benefits. there are some potential drawbacks of this. It's still open for our consideration to say no or adjust course at that point. >> Yeah, if I can please >> answer that. Uh Chair Kton has, you know, you're wearing your legislative hat in this case. You're not subject to an agency action timeline. Uh the city can prepare an ordinance, bring it before you, and if there is concern either on the part of the planning commissioner, city council, they certainly can pause and adjust course. So um the the only urgency um uh that kind of uh pushes us is just the potential uh policy benefits. I mean certainly there's impacts too or other uh challenges. Doesn't never comes without that. Um but the urgency is really just um kind of self-imposed [clears throat] to an extent and the timeline is selfimposed. Um really it's just about the market response. >> Thank you very much Commissioner Len. >> Sorry I have a lot of questions. Uh, thank you, chair. Um, can you talk a little bit about how it works with um where I see a lot of opportunity is in commercial areas where there's parking lots that were maybe built for one con configuration of a mall and over time things have changed dramatically. I'll use for example like 98th in Normandale um which has a lot of sort of subparking lots within it. How does it work if one of those facilities that's not in the main strip mall decides to change use? Do they have to fit the parking requirements within their kind of walled off area or can they count the underutilized parking spots? Does this make s I'm not sure if this is making sense. Can they count the underutilized parking spots that are maybe in the adjacent lot? because I think that that's an area that with all of the particularly the strip malls um going through fairly significant considerations of redevelopment reusage over the years may be out of whack also and maybe something worth looking at within this conversation. Thanks. >> Yeah, Chair Cook, uh Commissioner Len, not to dive into too many different scenarios of what you're talking about, but it really depends if there's multiple owners. You have some commercial sites that might be a planned development with multiple owners. they might be engaging in a shared parking arrangement, which is why there's a shared parking flexibility tool in our code. Um, so we look at the opportunities for maybe there's uses within these sites that peak at different times. You know, housing versus, uh, retail versus office versus those things, health club, um, all of them have different characteristics and peak at different times. So, we definitely look for that. Uh and in addition to that, even within a site that has one owner, uh depending on what the uh use mix of a multi-tenant retail center is, you can look at shared parking if there's different peaking. The only challenge uh with that approach is that that's kind of locking in a certain mix of tenants or occupancy. Um, so say what you envisioned, you know, in order to reduce parking or not have to add additional parking, that occupancy mix changes later and then uh you have in a, you know, more often than not an inadequate parking supply. Um, so that's just the only challenge of that tool is that things change and it's hard to adjust over time. >> Great. Thank you, >> Commissioner Monster. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, just as a general statement, I would be in support of setting parking maximums. Um, particularly with certain land uses, maybe not across the board for every single thing. Um, I've had the opportunity to work in two different communities in two different states that went from mid-century zoning ordinances to more modern ordinances that included parking maximums. generally those numbers are going to be high enough that the only people who complain are the Walmarts of the world who can never have enough parking. Um, so it's just something to think about that even just maybe putting a cap on there so you don't have somebody that kind of completely wants to cross that line and build an enormous amount of parking. Um, with that said, as you noted, we are fairly built out. Land is at a premium. So unless you are a major type of retailer who wants to pack as many cars as possible in there, most people aren't going to push against that limit. So that's sort of my thoughts on the approaches. >> Thank you, Commissioner Monster. Commissioner White, >> thank you, Mr. Chair, and apologies. My allergies have not left me with much of a voice today, so bear with me. Um, I I agree that the staff recommendations make a lot of sense subject to a million details to be worked out, but um I appreciate in particular um making sure that while we have adequate parking, we're not um overemphasizing single-use um trips and we're not overemphasizing, you know, the use of vehicles and instead we're we're encouraging um through our building practices people to use the the um public transportation options that are available to us. So, I think thinking about different um different requirements for areas that are adjacent to transit, different requirements for areas that maybe don't have access to transit. I think that is an important piece of the of the puzzle. Uh I think the other important piece, as we've talked about, is not pushing cars into the neighborhoods um that surround whatever the facility is. Uh I think that that is um well you know occasionally for a special event is one thing or if you know it's going to happen from 11 to 12 on Sunday morning um is a little bit different but if it's a constant presence of of cars parking in front of homes um in the neighborhoods because we lowered the parking requirements um I think that would cause some unintended that would be an unintended consequence I hope we can avoid. >> Thank you Commissioner White. Um I have a smattering of thoughts. It's hard to get them all in order, but I'll do my my best here. Um, I have no doubt that we're overparked in this city. You can see it everywhere. I see it in my neighborhood. I see it everywhere. I think I can count on one time on one hand the number of times I haven't been able to find a parking spot in Bloomington. It just doesn't happen. We're overparked. And some of these new apartment complexes especially that we're approving, I mean, the fifth and sixth floors of those ramps just sit empty. And it's kind of heartbreaking to see even from a sustainability standpoint, the amount of concrete and everything else we put into these for absolutely no no reason other than our code is outdated. So, I'm super supportive of this and we've been talking about looking at this for years and I'm I'm really glad we're here. Um, one of our former commissioners who I served with for a long time always said, you know, Bloomington was built around cars and it it took us a hundred years to get into this and it's going to take us a hundred years to get out of it. And so I don't think that what we decide tonight is going to all of a sudden make us a city that's not centric on cars, particularly with Mall of America, one of the most car demanding assets in the entire region. like we're we're going to need cars for a long time in this city, but I don't think that precludes us from making our way and and inching towards success and starting to bite off those hundred years till we get to a more walkable and pleasant, less car centric city. Um, you know, in to the concern about neighborhood spillover, I I'm supportive of some neighborhood spillover. Um, you know, Minneapolis and St. Paul have a lot of it. And those residents, they're used to it. They bought their homes knowing that was going to be the case. And yeah, that's going to be different for Bloomington. That is going to be different to have neighborhood spillover in our residential streets. But we're fully built out and we're going to have to urbanize over time. And if we're going to keep adding people into the city over time, we're going to start to look more like Minneapolis and St. Paul. And I'm not against that because I don't think that's going to happen overnight. I don't think that if in 3 months we pass this and let's just say we were to go very aggressive with this number four, number five, our neighborhoods are not going to be full of cars right away. It's going to be one development at a time. It's going to be one developer at a time who is a little less parking and streets slowly start to fill up. And I mean, we're talking years and decades of time before our our neighborhoods really fill up with street parking. And by that time, those houses have turned over and more different people have purchased those homes and they knew what they were getting into. They're moving into a more urban community that has uh amenities of an urban rural or an urban area and uh that they bought their home there with intention. And so I'm not against seeing some neighborhood spillover. I'm really not. My one concern with that though is in in all fairness, I I do want to be sensitive to hurting businesses. And so, you know, as much as I'm ready for it, that doesn't mean all of our residents are. And I live near a coffee shop that has very, very little parking. It's a wonderful coffee shop, but there's not much parking. And I've heard people say, "I don't really like that one because I'm not sure I'm going to find a parking spot." and they're worried about that. Even though there's parking in a structured ramp nearby, I'm not sure the and I'm painting with a broad brush here. The average Bloomington resident is expecting to have to park in a structured ramp to get a cup of coffee. I think people in Minneapolis and St. Paul are used to that. I think we're not quite as used to that. And it could stop people from going to that particular coffee shop. They may choose to go to, you know, the Caribou that has street parking and so um or off streetet parking rather. And so I do have some concern about that, but I think I'd go back to an earlier point that just says, you know, this is going to happen one business at a time. And I'm a believer, just my opinion, that we need to urbanize and are going to have to urbanize to uh grow this city and not stay stagnant. And I'm willing to deal with some of the consequences that are slowly going to happen um over time. The only other concern I do have is that unlike Minneapolis, we have some areas of our city that don't have any street parking. And so I remember years ago we we approved a parking reduction for a senior housing development in Normandale Lake Office Park. And man, Normanddale Lake Office Park has no street parking. You they're huge streets. You can't park on those. And so if that lot fills up and you've got senior development, that can be a bad situation. And so I don't think it's necessarily just go wild and and not have any thought to parking. Uh so, you know, we do have some places where it's really not appropriate to underpark, but I think they're relatively few and far between. And I think we have enough people on staff that could take that as a case-by case basis so long as we're being a little bit careful about how we craft the language. So, all of that is to say that I'm willing to be uh pretty aggressive on this. Um because I don't think we're going to have massive problems overnight. I think we would see those changes relatively slowly in our builtout city. I would be pretty comfortable going towards option four or option five. Um, I'd like to, you know, I would want to see, the reason I can't make up my mind on that is because I I want to see a little bit more details of what those two look like, but I'm prepared to be pretty aggressive on this, and it's my opinion to go towards uh more options four or five. Commissioner Summers. >> Thank you, Chair. I agree with much of what the chair has commented. I'm actually surprised to see the staff recommendation so far to the left of this graphic. Um yet I also um feel like the presentation helped me understand why the staff recommendation ended up there. Um I want to note that this is the first time this specific piece of the puzzle has been visited in a quarter century. So, if we are to be really conservative in our choices, I think it's worth noting that the world is changing faster um than it was 25 years ago. Um and there are more urgent needs and better uses we'd like to see. So, um I would like to see this circle move to the right a little bit. I also worked in St. Paul as the removal of the minimum parking went into effect and saw it really impact small businesses, people who were mom and pop shops or owning a small business for the first time and feeling like, wow, this is a great spa space in a really busy neighborhood and then those shutter and reopen and shutter and reopen. So, I don't know the answer there, but how do we ensure that um we're not just keeping in mind large businesses, although we do want to keep them in mind, um that we're paying attention to how this impacts small um independentlyowned businesses because those are the businesses that really do impact our economy long term and people live here and spend their money there. instead of that money going to wherever Walmart shareholders live. Um, which some of them could live here. Um, and not to single Walmart out, we have a lot of big business in Bloomington. Um, and that does contribute to our economy, but how are we creating a mix that is balanced so that our economy in Bloomington can thrive long term? For me, that means we're supporting locallyowned places. The um removal of minimums also has significant impact in the ecosystem of snow removal, which I'm guessing will probably come up in the next segment, but that's something I'm aware of when I'm thinking about where this circle moves to the left or to the right. Um, so I am for moderate change if we are revisiting this at more than a 25-y year interval. Um, and I think for me, I'm like, should it move a little to the right? >> Thank you, Commissioner Summers. Commissioner Isa. >> Uh, thank you, Chair. I definitely agree with uh both Commissioner Summers and you, Chair Kton, as well. Um, I'm For now, I'm leaning more towards the right um more towards five. Um I think it's best to allow the market to determine the approved parking supply. It's a bit of a paradox seeing or yeah, I guess a paradox seeing the how it's considered high intervention here. I know it's re in relation to what it's at, but uh yeah, I think that's and and basically letting the market decide um with the caveat of finding new ways to incentivize affordable housing if possible or we should, you know. So that's that's definitely important. um to your one of the examples you brought up there. I think it was a was it an apartment building that had a garage parking that had like two levels of uh parking uh two parking levels that are usually empty. I think that's uh from the develop from a developer angle pretty wasteful that could go into other development especially if it's uh it could be market rent or especially if it's affordable housing you know that's taking away from uh somewhere else that could have had develop that could have developed affordable housing um [clears throat] I would definitely encourage or try to I I would have done it myself if I wouldn't looked into a little more, but definitely encourage staff to look more into like cities that are simil simil uh similar population wise to Bloomington. Uh I think the closest one you mentioned was Duth, I guess, in Minnesota at least and see and get feedback of how it's been like for them. And yeah, I think that's that's everything. >> Thank you, Commissioner. So, Mr. Johnson, anything to Yeah, Cherry Cooking, if I can make one just clarification too, just to help uh the nature of the discussion is that I know that on the slide it's kind of presented as a a range of um you know low versus more significant intervention. But one thing I would point out just in the the because you can select multiple of these strategies at one time. When we're talking about moderate reductions, we're talking about across the board for the whole city, the whole juris uh geography. Um when we're talking about set parking maximums, we're talking about across the whole geography. Same for removing minimums. We're talking about the whole geography. One of the things you can consider in the targeted adjustments piece is if you feel like there are portions of the community where parking minimums should be removed, you know, you think of that as an aggressive or more aggressive strategy, but if it's limited to say a development district only, like South Loop, like Pan-American, um uh that is an option um while still pursuing moderate reductions for the remainder of the geography. So, um, you know, [clears throat] we'll we'll rethink this graphic a little bit. We're always trying to provide helpful visuals of how to think about these things, but, um, if you put every single detail in there, then it gets gets a little bit lost in translation, too. Um, but it could be some blending of uh a more aggressive posture or policy choice in the areas where the city strives to seek the most intense development, the most density, those things while still taking a more uh tempered or more uh moderate approach in the remainder of the city. So, that's kind of the aspect of the menu that's you can choose multiple of these things. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Another thing I would like to add because there's been a little conversation about small business and I appreciate Commissioner Summer's experience in St. Paul and uh I totally agree with her on the sensitivity of it. I one of the things I've kind of been thinking about is you know where are we going with small business in Bloomington and it's not something we're particularly good at in this city. We're very good at at national attractions and other things. Small business is is far from our strong point. I don't think there's any secret about that. Um, as we move towards more urban character in our design code where buildings are closer to the street and everything and we're, you know, we're not really in the age of strip centers anymore. We're in trying to have more street focused retail. You know, I think there's a lot of places in South Minneapolis, whatever, that don't have any parking and there's it's just on the street. And when you talk to the people that live in South Minneapolis, I have many colleagues, etc., we all do that live there and you ask them why they like it so much, it's because they always talk about their neighborhood commercial corridors and those are the ones that have no parking. I mean, they're just at a street corner and it's the it's the coffee shop and it's the, you know, in previous years maybe a hardware store or whatever and there's not really any parking, but it provides a lot of neighborhood character. It's people walking to it. It encourages people to be out on the streets on foot and um by bicycle instead of by car. And again, I think that starts to move us a little bit more towards getting away from being such a car centered city into one that's more walkable and inviting and and um I think there could be also although we want to be certainly sensitive to small businesses and not hurting them, we also may open doors for small business over time by not forcing parking and having someone be able to have a much smaller footprint that's just on the street and they can count on people walking by and they don't need the bargaining because there's just more people on the streets. Commissioner Len, >> thank you, Chair. Um, and while I generally agree with everything that's been said, I think the one other thing that I would encourage staff um to think about as you navigate through this is how this interplays with other potential incentives and initiatives. So, for initiatives is more the word I meant. Um, sticking with the South Minneapolis example, you know, one of the challenges they've had in particular in a couple of the areas, I'll use Bryant Avenue as an example, the installation of the bike lane and the lack of parking in that neighborhood has been really, really devastating to a lot of the businesses along there. And so I think factoring in where and this goes to the targeted adjustments where we consider removing minimums being mindful of the fact that that may limit other well I shouldn't say limit but may force other considerations down the road on other activities we pursue at the risk of having no parking um available which goes back to the reason why I'd asked the question about handicap because I think that's the other thing is being mindful of the fact that there are people for whom the difference between being able to park right in front of someplace and having to park a block away is a deal breakaker and recognizing that we do have, you know, an not significantly tiny um older population in Bloomington, making sure that we're not making it impossible for them to get the things they need to get done in the city. >> Thanks. >> Thank you, Commissioner Lenny. Those are really good comments. What I'm hopeful of is that our streets are generally wider here, I think. Um I don't know, maybe Mr. Roberts can comment on that in the next uh application that we're going to see. But Minneapolis has just by nature very narrow streets because they are a much older city than we are. And so hopefully we have a little more room to work with for those bike lanes and other things that were not so tight as as the two twin cities are. But uh lots of investigation to come, I suspect. Other comments or questions on on this? Uh, Miss OD, do we have two more questions to look at here or do we >> Yeah, if you'd like to address some of the parking flexibility measures that we already have in um, city code, should that be um, looked at? Um if um if I'm hearing that maybe some of you would like to maybe go a little bit on towards the right, what does that, you know, mean for parking flexibility is something that we'll need to kind of figure out um is kind of how to how to address that parking flexibility. So um yeah, curious if you all have any ideas if there should be any changes to parking flexibility. Um, yeah, I'll stop there. >> And if I if I can just add from a >> uh Mr. Johnson, >> thank you. If I can just add from a staff perspective, we think the flexibility measures we have work well. Um, while the bulk of, you know, three of them are the most frequent that we use, we use a couple of the other ones less frequently. Um, but we think that the mix or the menu of that we have uh does work well. Um so you know absent just removing parking requirements citywide we think uh retaining them on some level is valuable um we might we would you know potentially adjust some of the uh limits or the numbers of them to correspond with some of the adjustments but if that just provides a little more context. >> Yeah Mr. Monster >> has that actually >> lowered his hand. Okay. >> Any thoughts on parking flexibility? Seeing a lot of sideways shaking heads, Mr. Johnson. >> That's okay. It's just a temp check. You know, we're looking we're looking at this issue. So, we just want to pressure test some of the things in the policy. >> Great. >> Y >> is there a third question? >> Yeah. So um there are some um outdated or um unnecessary um parking categories like catering and minor um major minor catering and then highintensity office. If you um agree or disagree that um that should be consolidated with um our general manufacturing standard for catering and then the general office standard for highintensity office. >> I will admit I don't spend a lot of my planning commission time thinking about catering but uh more than happy to help clean up the code. >> Okay. >> Seeing a thumbs up from Commissioner Cunningham and some other commissioners as well. Commissioner Monster. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The only comment I would have is um to just pay attention to how it gets structured in the code at the end of the revisions that everything that is a defined use ends up not necessarily with its own parking requirements but to where you can tell which one it falls under. >> So 10 years from now somebody's not looking for catering and has no clue that they should be looking under manufacturing. >> Yep. >> That's helpful. Commissioner White. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry to this isn't about this question, so I should ask if anybody has other things to >> but it just sort of popped into my head and and I if I should know this, I apologize, but when we're encouraging sort of these mixeduse developments, we have retail and and businesses on the the bottom floor and you have um living space up above. Um, how are those do we have separate parking requirements for those as opposed to residential or retail? Um, correct. >> And how would that be impacted potentially by what you're suggesting here in the staff recommendations? >> Yeah. So, we calculate each use out separately. So, we don't have like a mixeduse like broad um like parking calculator or parking calculation. Um, so yeah, everything is kind of just its own separate use and that's how it's calculated. Same thing with like a shopping center. We calculate each like retail, health club, restaurant each individually um and then put it all together in a total and that's your requirement for the shopping center. But what but what I'd add to that is that um again varied peaking has been a factor in supporting flexibility measures either through a plan development or similar process to reduce the overall parking requirement. If by doing that calculation as planner day you know mentions gets you to 100. Well we know that they don't need 100 because uh of the peaking they're going to share some of that parking between the retail and the residential use. Right. So >> good feedback. Thank you. >> Any additional questions for us, Miss OD? >> That is all. >> All right. Any final thoughts from the commission? [snorts] >> All right. Thank you, Miss OD. >> Thank you. Just when you thought the parking fund was over, we're going to move to item number three, which is on street parking policies. Again, the city of Bloomington is the applicant. Mr. uh Kirk Roberts, I believe, is in the audience, and Miss Amy Ron is Marone is coming up as well with the staff report. >> Thank you. Let me get this pulled up. There we go. Good evening, planning commission. I'm Amy Marone, assistant traffic engineer, and happy to be discussing parking again with you tonight. Um, we thought that this item, it's been something that we've been talking about and working on internally a little bit and thought that this was a really good opportunity to bring it along with um the plannings um items for for dealing with the parking potential reductions in parking supply. So um let's jump in. So the presentation will kind of go through um the historical approach on how public on street parking was viewed in the past um the current parking policy and then we'll talk discuss some of the benefits as long as as well as some of the challenges that come along with on street parking. um give some specific kind of um results of the restrictions that we have in in areas and then um welcome discussion with the planning commission to see kind of um there if if we do look at doing some changes in um public on street parking and how it's managed. It really would be a communitywide adjustment and expectations and so that's why these um the decision making and this discussion should come from the policy level leaders. So that's why we're bringing this to planning commission and to council for consideration at a high level. All right. So historical approach Bloomington um like as it was being developed there was a strong value on having um open the open the roads open and free of parking. And so I know Liz mentioned in 1958 was the first um code adoption of some um parking requirements. We um Kirk found a document from 1970 that talked about you know project that was the projected street plan and there's some interesting notes in there that I think really just kind of help talk kind of give us a view of like what the thought was at the time. So um you know there's many reasons for restrictions on for of on street parking on the major street system, pedestrian and vehicular safety, movement of traffic, and aesthetic reasons being the most obvious. Um there's a lot of discussion about um people just not being accustomed to public on street parking in Bloomington and that there shouldn't be any allowed especially around um apartment buildings and non-residential areas. And then um lastly, there's the reference to very great benefits derived from parking regulations and that parking just and that those regulations should not be underestimated. So we just bring that to kind of set the tone that we you know this was historically the approach and that is how we ended up with a lot of public on street parking restrictions. All right. So since the time of development, the city's really taken kind of a hands-off approach regarding public on street parking. So um the only locations where staff actively goes to restrict parking is if there's been an identified safety problem or if we are changing the roadway configuration and there's no longer um you know we're changing the uses on the roadway and there's no room for public on street parking. And that would be like if we're adding a bike lane. Um but other than that, um parking changes have been mostly driven by the preference of the adjacent um adjacent property residents. I don't want to get too much into the existing parking policy, but this is the this is the process that's laid out. And I think that the main points are that um it's placing a lot of the power over of the decision making on whether parking should be allowed like in a neighborhood or not be allowed in a neighborhood. It really the current pro process and policy leaves those much of that decision making in the hands of like the adjacent residents. I mean ultimately it is the city council's decision but this process um really is tallying the bal you know like the survey of the adjacent property owners um and then we take the final decision to the council for formal approval. I think um it's important to point out that it's this process is a little got a little bit streamlined in 2013. So, it's less time inensive. It is still hugely time inensive under this current process and the outcomes are really wildly unpredictable. Everybody thinks they know how their neighbor feels about public on street parking. They do not. So, this is just example graphics of the responses that we get back and you know it's there's it's never a unanimous decision. I can tell you that much. All right. So, we wanted to talk a little bit about some of the benefits of providing public on street parking. Um, one is that on street parking can provide traffic calming and safety improvements. So, Bloomington staff participated in a local road research board study that really didn't seem like it was going to have to do with parking, but that was one of the huge outcomes of it. It was called the safety benefits of occasional hazard warning signs in case anybody wants to look it up. But um we were trying to look and see is there any speed reduction value and adding like playground signs or kids are in the area and there was absolutely no speed reduction from those signs. But there was a very measurable 10 mph speed reduction around the parks where parking was taking place versus where there wasn't. So that's one example. We have other places that we can see that as well. Um the other bullet here is persons interacting with roadway um cause drivers to use greater caution. And there's a lot of research that shows that people drive based on the conditions on the roadway. And one of those conditions is if they can make eye contact or can see faces of people, they act drivers actually reduce their speeds. All right. Um, more benefits of public on street parking. It provides overflow parking opportunities. There are some environmental impacts of providing too much on-site parking. And so with the with the potential of on street parking, you could possibly reduce some of the impervious service. Um and then it would be a way to fully utilize or fully use um public infrastructure that in some cases is sitting primarily unused. All right. I don't want to underplay the challenges of on street parking and there were a lot of mention of them in some of the other discussion. So um there are instances where public on street parking can provide reduced visibility especially um at intersections, driveways, um crosswalks. So that would be that that's something that we have to spend some time managing as well. Um there even though we have wide roads in Bloomington, we still do need to balance the needs. So if we have onroad bike lanes a lot of time in on busier roadways a lot of times we don't have the space for um on street parking in those locations. We also have a huge number of roadways that do not have any off-road bike or ped facilities. And so if you do start mixing in dense on street parking along with the two-way traffic and bikes and peds on the roadway, those are locations where we do hear a lot of concerns about um well people often call and they just say there's too much traffic. What it is is sometimes just that there's too much interaction between the vehicles and pedestrians in that shared space. Um there is a strong sense of ownership by of adjacent properties. So we everybody here lives in Bloomington and you've um some people feel very possessive of the space in front of their home. So I think you can understand that but it truly does get very emotional for some people. I mean they take it very very personally if someone is parked in front of their home you know for too long or if there's garbage that spilled. So I it it's it's something that would definitely would be a change for people to get used to if if there was a change and how we handled public on street parking. Um street plowing and maintenance. So everybody knows that when there's a snow emergency declared in Bloomington, you have to move your cars off the street until the snow is cleared curb to curb. But usually we only declare a snow emergency when there's like 3 in of snow. And that happens, you know, like three to four times a year. We on average they plow 25 times a year. So that is a huge number of times that maintenance is out there trying to meet the expectations of Bloomington residents and drivers of having the roads cleared pretty curb to curb. So that would be something else as well that's like it's definitely an expectation and it would be a change. There'd have to be an adjustment of expectations. Um, enforcement is something that it's of course easier for police when it's just posted as no parking. I think the the nuance can be um if on street parking is allowed then we have um a restriction that you can't leave your car parked in the same place for more than 24 hours, 24 consecutive hours. And that is the intention of that is that the roadway isn't used for storage of vehicles. that gets much more tricky and time inensive if police get called to enforce that. So there's some different nuances with enforcement and then fire and emergency response. So in locations where we do have where you do have dense on street parking um fire starts to get more and more concerned and wanting to make sure that they have clear and open access to for for their emergency response. So, those are some of the challenges that come along with public on street barking. Now, Kirk Roberts is going to come up and go through the rest. Commissioner, so looking at some some potential changes and then the first question comes up is why? Um, as as Amy Marone talked about, we have ended up with a lot of parking restrictions and a lot of those focus in certain areas of the city. um parks, trail heads, and public facilities. Parking is restricted around a significant portion of the parks in the city. Um trail heads, for instance, along the river valley, uh there's numerous trail heads that actually are pretty nice spots to to get down into that wonderful area. Parking is restricted. You can't do that unless you live there. Um there are numerous restrictions around multifamily. This is, you know, town homes, apartments, things like that. Those were um as mentioned very when they came in the parking was just automatically restricted. The road is typically wide enough to handle parking but we just that was our practice at the time. That was the aesthetic and that's what we did. Places of assembly there are numerous locations where parking is restricted. And places of assembly can be anything from like our our um religious uses um community centers um those other places uh just where people gather. Um there is parking restricted around a lot of those. Um most of our industrial areas have restricted parking. So as the local rural road authority the the way public streets work is it is public right away. The city doesn't own it. We manage it but it's actually dedicated to the public. So we try to manage it for its highest and best use. Can we make the maximum use of this space towards the public good? uh when you have all these restrictions, you kind of think, well, we might not be there. We might be missing the target on some of these. Um and so we're we're looking at these changes to see if they're necessary just to make the the best and highest use of the public rideway. A couple of the the restrictions that I talked about, so around parks, we're on the cusp of summer and I'm so happy about that and we all are. and our parks. Uh, one of the center points of the community here, they see a lot of a significant increase this time of year is the sports, uh, the parks and recreations, those are sporting events and just the natural flow of life. Um, when you restrict parking, and this is example here is DreadScott Playfields. This is a regional facility. You've all probably been there, the wonderful ball fields and things like that. Parking is restricted around the entire park. Very typical. And so you have to build these large parking lots around it. There's no place for overflow. So when you have a very large sporting event here, there's no place for that overflow. There's plenty of parking in the park. It's not used a lot of the year. It's used very seasonally and so you've got a lot of asphalt. There's a song about paving paradise I won't put in your your heads, but um it kind of speaks to this situation. Um, and so the other impact of this is you'll see parking the restrictions start to fade away as you get further away from the park. The demand doesn't fade. It's there. So you push traffic further into those single family neighborhoods. So that's kind of one of the unintended consequences that happens with these and other restrictions. And then the worst another thing is that people just start to improvise and so you get people parking where they shouldn't. It affects the land use. Uh transportation behavior, as Liz alluded to, changes over time. Um and having a supply of overflow parking can really keep those areas vital. What I'm showing here is um an area where there's multif family and an assembly use right together. Um the multif family, how this uh takes shape is just for holidays and things like that. there's probably more than adequate supply of parking for normal use for that multif family development. But when you get a holiday or you just have somebody with a really good get together, um the there's not enough places for guests to park and the parking's restricted on the streets. Another unintended consequence is is the the parking demand doesn't go away. It just finds its way further into the single family neighborhoods that this was intended to keep good. The assembly uses, this is where there is a significant impact. These are where our lives, these these wonderful community gatherings that we have, this is where they take place. And sometimes there's a lot of people there. This is weddings, this is funerals, um just seasonal and holiday celebrations. And so restricting parking around those assembly uses makes them less viable and it really impacts the ability for the community to gather and pushes it into adjacent areas. There's u one other point worth mentioning. We do have a process that you've all probably seen where we allow parking upon request in areas like this. So let's say the assembly use was going to have a a big wedding for a very popular person that I don't know uh lots of guests. They can request that the city allow parking and if there's no safety issues we do that. Um but it takes time to manage that. We issue about yeah over 200 of those a year. um too. So there's the staff time involved there. Amy talked about speed reduction. So here's a really good example uh towards the westerly side of the city Reynolds Park. It's wonderful facility over there. The south side of the park is primarily multif family. Parking is completely restricted. The north side is single family. Parking is available. We see a much higher a higher speed on 84 street where that parking is restricted than we would up on 83rd Street where parking is allowed. So, it does have a significant effect on traffic calming. Um, speed limit is 25 and I'm sure you all adhere to that strictly. And then one of the the biggest issues is when you have a lot of restrictions that don't make sense, whether it's speed limits or or kind of any other thing, people just start to disregard that. And so, you get the violations. And sometimes those violations take place in in areas we really wouldn't want people at the park for safety reasons. And so we get this enforcement issue. And so the police are called in, we have interactions we don't love, don't want to see. Um, and it's also, frankly, a bit challenging for the police. This could be someone's that's just there to watch their kid learn how to play baseball. The police do not want to go give those people a ticket. So, this is where we want to the way Liz did, we want to want to get a gauge on on what the planning commission thinks about this. On street parking is a community discussion. It's not the one person gets to decide that, but it's a community- based decision. Um, and we want to find out, you all live in Bloomington, you've experienced these things. What's your take on this? It wouldn't be fair to ask you to give your opinion without uh talk talking about staff's recommendation um and where we stand on that. The restrictions around parks would absolutely love to remove those. Um there's um great reasons to do so as mentioned and the consequences aren't as um problematic as we might see in some other areas. parks aren't used in the middle of winter generally when we have a lot of snow that needs to be cleared off the road and so we don't see those unintended consequences like we do with others and we see a lot of good um you know that speed reduction that we get and so yes absolutely staff would would love to see some changes to our policy that allows us to get rid of most of those restrictions places of assembly yes this is where our community gathers to to mark those significant events and just get together and do the things you do with your friends and loved ones um removing doing those restrictions is is um is warranted. U multif family the restrictions that drive the parking further into the neighborhood. Yes, those should be those should be removed. Staff would love to see some latitude to remove those. Um beyond those, it's a little more complicated. And so we would take a middle of the road sort of opinion on this one because you do see times where that parking that takes place can can be systematic and persistent and create some problems that then impact the community. And so I think we'd argue for a more middle of the road there. Get rid of the con get rid of the restrictions that create the unintended consequences and be careful as we look at the rest of those. Um, and so I think that's that's staff's opinion, but we are more interested in your opinion. So we're here for questions and comments. >> Thank you, Miss Maron and Mr. Roberts. Great presentation. We'll start with questions. >> Commissioner Risa. >> Thank you, Chair. for industrial or I might have missed this so sorry if I did but for industrial or other what what could other be defined as anything that's not industrial places um no I think we have a lot of restrictions um that are just historical based on school sites that that have closed down and just sort of miscellaneous restrictions that that are have just been sitting out there so kind of we put those all into one bucket Commissioner Cunningham. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, I just want to make sure I'm understanding this correct. Excuse me. [clears throat] Understanding this correctly. Uh, any change made to decisions related to the right of way, I think you guys mentioned earlier needs to be a ballot referendum as a community- based decision or I guess kind of what's what's the action here from city staff recommendation on? >> Yeah. Um, Chair Cunningham. So the current it's an actual policy that drives how we handle local on street parking. And really within the policy right now if we were to if if staff wanted to go and remove the parking restrictions around a park, we have to survey the adjacent properties and see if those residents want it or not. they don't necessarily have the greater community best interest in mind when they're sending back those surveys, but there really isn't a process outside of the current policy. And so what we're looking for is you think do you think that there is um like enough interest in in moving forward with policy changes that would allow those types of changes to happen that don't require like a vote from the adjacent properties. >> Thank you, Commissioner Len. >> Thank you, Chair. Um for the uh removing in place restrictions, would overnight parking restrictions remain or some form of overnight parking restrictions remain >> or that's also up for debate? >> Yeah. Um so I think that's all that's all on the table. So, I think the one thing I would um want to make sure that we were that was we were being mindful of is the fact that if we remove the overnight parking restrictions, particularly in areas that are close to where um one can get to the airport, I think that we would really run the risk of people I lived in on the south side of Chicago by Midway Airport and that was an enormous problem in our neighborhood was people would circumvent having to pay for parking by parking on the street to then take the subway or the L to get to the airport. Um, and it was a lot of work to get that undone. Um, so I think we'd want to be mindful of that. >> So to commissioner, to be clear, we don't have we don't have like a citywide overnight parking restriction. Is that something that you would like us to explore or are you talking about locations where that may already be specifically in place that there may we'd want to explore be? I think what I where I'm going with this is that places for example parks where no one is there overnight, people can it's much easier for them to feel it's a public space and they can park overnight there for seven days straight and leave their car. they're much less likely to do that in front of someone's house where they know someone is paying, you know, IS. So, I just think being mindful that um particularly in areas that are not residential areas or not in front of schools um that people can very quickly view that as truly public parking at all times if there are zero parking restrictions, particularly in the overnight space. >> That's a really good point. So, um, the only restriction now is that you cannot leave your vehicle more than 24 hours unattended. And so, there is that restriction in place. And so, you're you can't fly to some far remote location, leave your car there. But, you raised the good point in a place like uh some of the South Loop area where you could park your car, hop on the light rail, head over to the airport, fly out to some nice that that could certainly be an issue. So, yeah, appreciate that. >> Commissioner Monster. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up on uh Commissioner Cunningham's question, when you when you say policy change, are we talking about an ordinance of the council to say this shall be our policy going forward or is it some other mechanism? >> Um current so policies are council adopted and then they they guide the the practice on how we you know move things forward. So, um there would be some likely be some ordinance changes that go along with this, but the um the ordinance doesn't reference the policy necessarily, but the the policy once it's approved, it's a public document and that's that's what we that's like the framework that we work under. Okay. >> I have a question about uh snow storage. and try to put the positive spin on this. When compared to Minneapolis and St. Paul, why is Bloomington so much better at plowing? Why Why are our urban streets so much easier to navigate than Minneapolis and St. Paul during the winter? Is it because our streets are bigger? Is it because we spend more money on it? Is it because we have better plow drivers? Why Why are our streets better? Commissioner Cooton. Um I'm not sure that I can fully answer that because I don't speak for all the public works, but I do think that there has been a high value placed on snow removal. And so the council has given them a lot of, you know, adequate money for good equipment and um staff to do multiple plows. So they it's not like they're out there just hitting one, you know, when the snow falls. They don't just like make one pass through. Like there's a level of standard currently where they will go back if they know that cars were parked and that they need to come back and clean up in an area. So I would I would guess that the low demand for public on street parking in the winter kind of helps with that effort of trying to go to bare pavement and curb to curb paving. But other than that, I I don't know what the budget numbers are or any of those specifics. >> Thank you, Commissioner Summers. >> Thank you, Chair. >> So, you mentioned, and this is not something I thought a lot about, the sidewalks. So, if there's parking on both sides and um kids on bikes, people walking and traffic that that's even with some of our really wide streets, that's a lot on the road. Um when we're looking at I when I look at this, I'm like, yeah, I'm pretty in favor of parks, trail heads, public facilities, u multif family units being able to have people come visit. Um, and is there has there been thought to maybe doing one side of the street with parking instead of both in some of those areas that without sidewalks? Commissioner Summers, I think that would definitely be a consideration. So, we're not asking tonight like should we just open up parking everywhere? We're we're asking do you think there's an appetite because some of you have seen like how in-depth the process is when parking concerns do come up and I don't anticipate that these changes will all be easy and so that's why we need to like see is there is there an appetite do you think that there that there is strong enough interest and kind of willpower to to move forward with this but we're not not necessarily saying um it would be on both sides there' be no restrictions involved at all, but just um is there an appetite to move towards more availability and and modifying the policy to provide more opportunities? Okay, I I'll jump in a little bit with some thoughts. Um I'm in favor of this uh sort of in line with uh our last discussion. Yeah, I I like the idea and a lot of the unintended consequences that were pointed out I think are totally and um things we have the opportunity to fix and not being able to street park around parks terrible. Not being around places of assembly, terrible, right? Like some opportunities to fix some things that aren't great. And so I'm pretty bullish on being able to park on the street more and I'm certainly have an appetite for allowing the loosening of restrictions. My my biggest concern is I said, you know, I said in the last application that, okay, over time, we're going to start to look more like our two twin cities. The thing I really don't like about our two twin cities is navigating their streets in the winter. Um maybe it's because I drive a tiny car, but I really struggle to drive in the in Minneapolis and St. Paul proper uh during this during the winter. They they don't plow well and intersections are tough to navigate. and I I worry about it and I don't want us to turn into that. And so I'm hopeful that we're better because we have better staff and we care more and that we're just better at it. Um and that it's not an infrastructure problem. But I'm sure it's like anything a mixture of all those things. And so I don't want us to be so aggressive where we can't power streets anymore. That is too far for me. I value us having clean streets. Um, but I think there's a lot of room to nudge forward before we, you know, and I'm saying this out of out of, you know, as not an expert, but I suspect we have a long way we could go before we start making our streets um as hard to navigate as it is in the Two Twin Cities during the winter. Commissioner Monster, >> thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I I would say that as a starting point in any policy, we have to remember exactly what what you all said that these are owned by the public. The default really should be how can the public use them. Um and that's not to say free-for-all, park wherever you want, but as a starting point, particularly around things like parks and trail heads and public facilities. Sure, the people who live across the street from a park love that there's no parking in front of their house. But too bad. You live across the street from a park. It's the park is owned by everyone. The street is owned by everyone. Everyone has a right to be there. It's not yours. Um so just as as a starting point, that's I think where any revision needs to be. >> Commissioner Cunningham. >> Thank you, Chair. Um I agree with your sentiment. We all own the right of way. We all own the public property of the city. I even have a shirt that says public land owner on it. But um to kind of uh take the chair's comments, Commissioner Muner's comments on this, my thought is uh perhaps instead of allowing free-for-all parking, there's a lot of cities. I I work in Excelsier and they have a ordinance where or all the signs say no parking. I think it's like 1:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. So that might alleviate some of the plowing concerns because then there's a stated no parking time where if your car is there at a certain time could get a ticket. We obviously we don't want to burden the police department with giving out parking tickets, but it it allows a churn a movement of cars parked in these areas. Um, one thing I really want to stress, and I'm flipping back in my notes from last, uh, July and August, uh, almost every person that spoke out against the, uh, the, um, Community Health and Wellness Center had a concern about the parking on Newton Avenue. Um, and so, uh, every time you're up here, Kirk, I seem to always quote you saying like parking in traffic is an emotional science. Um, and uh, [laughter] so I just want to make sure that we're cognizant of that since that's top of mind for me still is we had a lot of public uh, input on that and I just want to make sure that under a year later we're not undo or not taking into account their concerns. I know there's no parking signs on Newton Avenue now. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner White. I saw you motioning there. Okay, please. >> No, >> thank [clears throat] you, Chair. Um, yeah. Generally, I think this is the right approach to start with some of the places that that logically make sense. Um, I would not want to see I can't park in front of my own house from 1:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. Um, I would not want to see that kind of a thing implemented. But for places where it's a park or you're concerned about uh airport traffic, uh I think that there are a lot of a lot of reasons to to examine that. Um, and I think that the this list that you have in front of us is a great place to start with considering that. I also think that um revisiting that 2013 requirement probably policy for um basically a a vote uh before anything can be changed is probably also worth revisiting. Um and uh so I I appreciate you bringing this forward. >> Thank you, Commissioner White. Commissioner Cunningham, I'd like to uh reply to your one of your comments about the community center. And it's not to disagree with you, but I think it's to round out the conversation. And uh one of the things that one of I I think one of the reasons we have a planning commission is that we see the community as a whole. And if if you're a planning commission super fan like I was and still am, um you'll know that the lion's share of the public feedback we get is um against an application and we get feedback sometimes where take any application. Well, five people testified and all five of them were against the application. How could you possibly approve this application? Well, our response to that is that it's not that we didn't hear you and it's not that we didn't appreciate your testimony because we do a lot. Um, but it's that we still have to keep in mind the lens of the entire city. And one thing I'm certain of as a planning commissioner is that people who are in support of something do not testify at the planning commission. Only someone who is emotionally charged against an application is is going to come all the way to city hall and testify. if you don't care or like something, you're not going to come here. And so my point with that is though, although we do hear quite frequently that I I don't want parking here or we need to restrict parking or there's too much parking or whatever, I think our role as the planning commission is to have the lens of that's a very focused feedback that we're getting and again appreciate it and want to keep having people here come to city hall. Um, but we also have to keep in mind the people who aren't testifying, the people who would benefit by this but aren't convinced enough to come here. And so I do think that's one of the reasons we're here is to provide the voice of all of our residents and not always just the one who live across the street from a particular application. >> Commissioner Cunningham, >> thank you for those words. I almost 100% agree with you. The reason I brought up the community health and wellness center is because I believe and maybe planning manager Johnson can help me with this. We were under the parking requirements and it was a variance request. And so one of the concerns I raised was okay well if if I'm going to park in the back 40 of this parking lot or if I can park on Newton Avenue and be 300 feet closer I'm going to park on Newton Avenue. >> Um but yes, totally agree um with the purpose of uh kind of our commission and looking at the broad picture. uh in my professional life, I come to a lot of these uh in other cities and it's never positive. >> Thanks. >> Thank you, Commissioner Summers. >> Thank you, Chair. I think that this question is for planning manager Johnson, but I it maybe is for someone else and I just don't know enough. Um, I'm wondering about how changes to this policy might impact the >> [clears throat] >> um, conversation that came before the planning commission on work vehicles, trucks, and trailers. Is there an interaction that you could see or are they >> Yeah, Cher Cook, uh, Commissioner Summers. So, right now, commercial vehicles are not allowed to be parked on the street. Um there's a variety of reasons for that um that have to do with kind of enforcement and safety uh type reasons. Um but I don't while the there certainly is some connective tissue between that policy decision that the city made and this discussion um I think you should be thinking more broadly just about typical passenger automobiles. Um commercial vehicles are prohibited to be parked on the street. >> Great great comment, Commissioner Summers. Commissioner Monster. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just I wanted to clarify that certainly I don't mean for a parking freeall, but I think it it there needs to be a heavy reliance on and not to put more work on already overwork staff, but on you guys to decide where parking should not be allowed. That the science can dictate that. Again, if it's one side of the street, it's one side of the street. if it's, you know, some other configuration, if it's not within, you know, 40 feet of a church, whatever it is, um it it there needs to be a lot more of a deferral to you all and what is best from an engineering standpoint um than sort of an arbitrary decision that there shall not be parking here or there. >> Thank you, Commissioner Monster. Commissioner Summers. Thank you, chair. Um, if over time there are more cars on the street, does that impact the amount of time that the infrastructure the street has lasts >> or don't worry about it. >> You're you're So, uh, Chair Cookton, Commissioner Summers, I think what you're thinking about is does the does the pavement wear out quicker or anything like that? Generally, no. Um, pavement condition is much more a function of those heavier vehicles and the city engineers behind me and she can come up and correct me if I'm wrong on this, but yeah, generally they wouldn't wear out uh the pavement any faster whether they're parked there or not. Yeah. So, assuming all the maintenance can be formed be performed as it would be on a normal road. So, yeah. Well, there is a question before us and I want to make sure we're being clear to our staff who have given their time to us this evening. So, the question before us is should we maintain status quo or do we support the revision of the parking policy in a way that would start removing in place restrictions? Commissioner Len, I saw >> I thank you, Chair. I fully support uh revision of the parking policy. Um, I think that I've I at least in my case I've I've articulated my concerns, but yeah, in general very supportive of revision and considering what Bloomington needs going forward. >> As am I. I saw some thumbs up from Commissioner White. Commissioner Coney has some hands up. I'm seeing a lot of thumbs up here. So, I think we have general support for that. Is that clear enough for you? >> That is. Thank you. That was um really good discussion. we both took notes and um it will help us guide moving forward. So we are in the phase right now of gauging policy level interest. So we're also going to have this similar discussion at city council um study discussion at [snorts] the end of this month and then um what we've heard from you so far and probably or what we anticipate hearing from the council as well, but we'll wait and see. will probably be working on some um draft policy changes um accompanying city code revisions and we will plan to revisit you um later this summer. >> Great. Thank you, Miss Marone. Thank you, Mr. Roberts. This along with item number two is going to be a study item before the city council on May 4th. Thank you very much. Thank you. >> We're going to move then to item number four, which is the consideration of the draft planning meeting synopsis from April 2nd. We had one absence that evening, Commissioner Monster, is there a motion. Commissioner Cunningham? >> I move to adopt the just the April 2nd. >> Uh thank you, uh Commissioner Cunningham. We also have March 19th, uh in which I believe everyone was in attendance. >> I'll start with March 19th. I move to adopt the planning commission meeting synopsis for March 19th, 2026 as stated in the agenda packet. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second specifically regarding the March 19th planning commission meeting synopsis. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. That motion passes 70. I would look for a motion for April 2nd. Commissioner Cunningham. I move to approve the planning commission meeting synopsis for April 2nd, 2026 as stated in the agenda packet. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second for the April 2nd planning commission meeting synopsis. All those in favor say I. >> I. Opposed. Abstain. That motion passes 6 with one abstination from Commissioner Monster. We'll move then to our final item, which is the planning commission policies and issues update. Mr. Johnson. >> Thank you, Chair Kton. Uh, previewing your next two planning commission meetings on April the 23rd. There's two public hearings scheduled. Uh, reszoning of 8030 uh, Old Cedar Avenue South. It's an office building uh, site uh, from FD2 to B1 uh, to pave the way for a potential retail tenant. Second public hearing is a conditional use permit for uh heavy equipment uh sales at 9545 Penn Avenue South. Uh previewing the May 7th meeting, there are uh three public hearings scheduled. One is a variance for a freestanding sign at Southtown at 7803 uh Penn Avenue. Uh the second public hearing is final site and building plans and preliminary and final plat, a type three plat uh for detached town homes at three sites along at the south end of Bloomington Ferry Road um utilizing the new missing middle housing provisions. That's at 1114011208 and 11216 Bloomington Ferry Road. And then third, a public hearing for resoning, preliminary and final development plans, uh for Gallery Apartments, um uh two phases, uh at 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, that's the east, uh site of the Wells Fargo Tower property. Um I think it's 360 total units in two phases um on that site. Other updates I have for you, the Bloomington Home Fair is uh here at Civic Plaza on April the 25th, Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 3M. So, if you're a Planning Commission super fan and want to meet some of us in person or actually have substantive questions about improving your home or your property, uh you can meet us here at Bloomington Civic Plaza from 10:00 a.m. to 3 p.m. Um, we're also going to be tableabling for the 2050 uh comp plan. uh some initial uh and early uh tableabling opportunities and public engagement there for the comp plan. Uh second update um the you might notice some subtle changes to our packets following the May 7th uh planning commission packet. I spoke about this some um on our city website. It has to do with ADA uh compliance. Um so if you notice any changes that might be tied to the city getting in compliance with ADA requirements. Um uh there are two technically two openings on the planning commission uh for the next application window. That application window is open through May the 6th. Uh we have one sitting member uh whose term is ending and uh Chair Kton's uh second and final term is uh coming to an end this year. So we'll figure out a proper way to celebrate that. Um but if you know uh or want to share with uh contacts or share with community members, you know, we're interested in the planning commission. And there is an open application process for that uh and sharing that for the public of course. Um finally uh one thing that um that came up I won't mention specific uh items or applications but uh we know sometimes there's questions from the public uh about kind of the sequence or the phasing of development review. Uh why is the cake not fully baked in every single detail uh when it's before the planning commission and council? I know those questions have come up from the public before. So, one item, uh, before we went into the effort of putting it together for you all, we wanted to check and see if this was of interest to you to provide more of an educational study item about all of the phases of development review uh, that are performed by the city. What is the actual process uh, look like from point A all the way to point Z? So, if that's something that would be of interest to you, if you feel like it would help uh in kind of navigating questions from the public about where uh your role plays, what in terms of that sequence and and whatnot, um that's feedback that we would be happy to take and could prepare a future study item for that. >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Commissioner Cunningham. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Johnson. Just to address your last uh kind of open-ended question, I think it would be immensely valuable for not just us, but maybe the planning commission website page on Bloomington or Bloomington.gov uh just so that members of the public can better understand without cracking open the city code books on how things progress through the development process. >> Commissioner White. >> Uh thank you, Chair. Yes. Also, in regards to the potential um presentation, I think it's a great idea. Um two things. I think it would be best on a night where we don't have a lot of other items on the agenda and I would encourage us to wait until um new commissioners would be seated later this summer um in order to allow them to participate as well. >> Thanks for the feedback. >> I was going to make that same recommendation. Uh Commissioner White. Yeah, let's that's could be a great first item when we on board one or two new commissioners. Anything else from you, Mr. Johnson? >> I do not. Thank you so much. Good feedback. >> Thank you. And can just to be clear, how do you apply for this new and open planning commission uh opportunity for two seats? >> Uh good question. Uh there is a uh there are several uh areas on the city's website. Uh if you just search planning commission, uh that should get you there. But there is u if you click on the tab of government and advisory boards and commissions, it's right on the front uh page of that on the city's website um that allow you to uh form u submit that application. I believe there's a couple other ownings openings on a couple other uh boards and commissions right now too. So um yeah, there's a number of ways and uh if nothing else, you can contact the Bloomington Planning Division at our phone number or email as well, which is also on the website. we can direct you. >> And if folks have questions about the roles or responsibilities, you're happy to chat through that with them. >> I am. >> Very welcome. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> This is an opportunity for planning commissioners to bring up anything that was not on this evening's agenda. Does anyone have any topics of interest? Seeing none, that concludes our April 16th meeting of the Bloomington Planning Commission. Good night.