Mhm. >> Good evening everyone and welcome. I will call our Bloomington City Council meeting to order. Tonight is Monday, March 23rd. Thank you for all of you who are joining us you have joined us here in the Council Chambers. Thanks to everybody watching online. We will begin our meeting as we always do. If you're able, if you could please stand, remove any head coverings, and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Once again, welcome and thanks to everybody here tonight. Council, our first order of business is to approve our agenda and our agenda is a full one again tonight. Uh under introductory items, we have five items. Item 2.1, uh we have a group here from the Jefferson High School softball team. We're going to have a a nice talk about the uh the softball field works over at Dred Scott Fields. So, thank you for being here with us tonight. Item 2.2 is a proclamation for National Public Health Week. Item 2.3 is an introduction of new employees. 2.4 is an appointment to our Merit Board and 2.5 is the Advisory Board of Health 2026 Annual Work Plan and report. Item three is our consent business. Uh Council member Carter has our consent agenda tonight and I think she's online. Uh we've got 15 items on tonight's consent business. Item four are hearings, resolutions, and ordinances. We have uh five items, a couple of them public hearings. Item 4.1 is a continued discussion of the missing middle housing phase two ordinance. 4.2 is our first public hearing. That's regarding the Woodbridge Marsh and Polly's Pond drawdown for a storm sewer maintenance. Item 4.3 is a public hearing regarding a moratorium on certain governmental facilities. Item 4.4 privately initiated city code amendment regarding remote airport parking. And item 4.5 city code amendment regarding our fence standards ordinance. And we'll wrap up as we always do with our city council policy and issue update. Council, are there any additions or corrections to tonight's agenda as stated? Council member Loman? Mayor, do you have any interest in changing any of the items 4 through 5? I I think I think we're in good order. I think we should be able to get through these pretty quickly. So, yep. Um Is ready we have is Council member Carter online? So, okay. Uh because we have two folks online, we've got Council member Carter and then Council member Nelson I think will eventually be joining us online. And so uh all of our votes this evening are going to have to be roll call votes. And so uh I will move approval of the agenda as stated. I'll second. Second by Council member Loman. No further Council discussion on this? Ms. Wright. Carter. Council member Carter, are you there with us? Hi. I'm trying to come off camera or on camera. Okay, there we go. Hi. D'Alessandro. >> Hi. Rivas. Hi. Loman. >> I. Robertson. >> Hi. I. Merbasi. I. Motion carries 6-0 and we have an agenda for this evening. Our first item is item 2.1, uh the Dred Scott softball fields work recognition by our friends at the Jefferson High School softball team. We've got Renee Clark here this evening with us. Welcome. Good evening, Mayor, City Council. I'm also here with uh Danny Blazy and Aaron Renz from our maintenance department who have led um project managed the work here at Dred Scott. Dred Scott Playfields is a regionally significant facility that supports girls softball at the local and competitive levels serving Bloomington and teams from across the region. In recent years, the city's made substantial improvements across multiple fields including field six home to Jefferson High School who are here tonight um to improve enhance safety, playability, and overall quality. The upgrades have focused on modernizing irrigation, improving grading and drainage, new field lighting in the wheel, and expanding warning tracks to improve improve player safety. The work at Dred Scott also reflects strong partnerships with organizations like Toro and the Bloomington Fastpitch Association and we have a member of the boosters here tonight as well. Together, these investments ensure that Dred Scott Playfields continues to provide high quality experience for athletes and remains a premier destination for girls softball. This is reflecting City Council's strong commitment to equitably investing in community amenities and youth athletics. So, thank you, City Council, and with that, staff will turn this over to the Bloomington Fastpitch girls softball. Very good. Good evening and welcome. Good evening. Thank you so much for having us. Um I'm I'm Grace. I'm Remi. And I'm Emmy. We are the captains of the varsity softball team at Bloomington Jefferson and we are just here to thank you for investing in our fields, which are very important to our program. And um for investing in our players and our the future of our program, as well. Your contributions will um keep our players safe for many years to come and keep our fields reliable, which is very, very important to our sport. Thank you. And thank you for investing in like the future of our program and our success this year and years forward and also investing in the younger girls who are still in BFA who are aspiring to play and uh it's good The fields will still be good by then, hopefully, so. And then we do have a thank you card to present to the council. This is signed by all of the varsity state roster players from 2025. So. Very good. Thank you so very much. A big thanks Big thanks. Thank you so much. Thank you for having us. >> Thank you. Thank you. Hold on, we got to get over here and get a picture, I can tell. Thank you to the folks at Jefferson and to Bloomington Fast Pitch and to Toro. I mean, they they put in a lot of work out there, as well, so they did outstanding work. Uh it's great to see the improvements that we're able to make now in in our parks and in our public amenities. Uh this coming on the heels of Bloomington Ice Garden, coming on the heels of the the fields of the both high schools. It's just nice to see that we have uh we have fields befitting the programs that we have at our two high schools. And wish you best of luck. I assume season is just getting underway? And uh we're optimistic this year? Fabulous. Well, congratulations and thank you so very much for being here tonight. Thank you all very much. And thank you guys for spearheading the work out there. Appreciate that as well. Thank you. Next up on our agenda is a proclamation for National Public Health Week and that is April 6th through the 12th. I'm going to invite up John Allen who's the chair of the advisory board of health. Where's John? There he is. He's going to stand up here with me and he's going to take the podium as soon as I get done here with the proclamation. Come on right up here with me. Perfect. Camera's right there so you got to look good. So, proclamation for National Public Health Week, April 6th through the 12th, 2026. Whereas the week of April 6th, 2026 is National Public Health Week and the theme is ready, set, action highlighting that public health actions occurring through scientific discoveries, legislation, and community initiatives have significantly improved the health of all. And whereas one of the city's three objectives in the Bloomington Tomorrow Together Strategic Plan is to achieve significant improvement in the indices measuring health in the environment, health in people, and health in the community as a whole. And whereas black, indigenous, and people of color populations in Bloomington continue to experience disparities in the burden of illness and death as compared with the entire population. And whereas public health professionals work with the community and partners outside of the public health sector, including city staff, first responders, school district staff, and the business community, recognizing that we all need to work together to change health outcomes. And whereas efforts to modernize the public health system in Minnesota will result in a statewide public health system that prevents disease, protects well-being, and improves the health of all residents regardless of where they live. Now, therefore, I, Mayor Tim Busse, do hereby proclaim the week of April 6th, 2026, as National Public Health Week in Bloomington, and call upon the people of this community to observe this week by recognizing how public health has contributed to creating an enduring and remarkable Bloomington. Dated this 23rd day of March, 2026. I have said before we saw the value of our Department of Public Public Health, especially during the pandemic, when it shone through and I was was heard loud and clear just how incredibly valuable our local public health department was then. And as we've continued past that now, their work in public health and mental health has just been unmatched across the state of Minnesota. So, we thank you so very much. Thank you, Dr. Kelly. Thank you for your work, and thanks for the work of the the board. I'm going to turn the microphone over to you, John. Go ahead. Well, thank you very much. This is I was here last year for this, and this year as well. I just really want to acknowledge the tremendous work done by the people that work in public health here. This is incredibly challenging times, both financially and just the burden of disease and problems that we're having all across the nation, but also in Bloomington. And I want to thank the council for tremendous support, not only directly to the public health, but also in creating an environment of health in Bloomington. Slowing our streets down, working with the chief of police to have alternatives for behavioral and mental health, and all the things that we're doing. This is a wonderful place to live, and it really reflects our community as a whole. Very good. Well, congratulations. And again, thank you for your work, and I know we'll hear from the board here in just a minute. But, why don't we get a picture now? What do you want us to make stand right here and do this? Can I hand you that after that? We'll do that. Oh, you're all coming in. perfect. I love that. Perfect. Like this? All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate it. Very good. Thank you very much. All right, absolutely. Good to see you both. Item 2.3 on our agenda is the introduction of new employees. Uh, I think we have folks from public health again. Is that correct? Dr. Nick Kelly. It's all about public health this evening. Good evening, Mayor, council members. Uh, have two new staff to introduce that are part of that incredible team in public health. So, first off, I'd like to introduce uh, John uh, Nienhauser. John joined the city uh, in November uh, just before the end of November as a public health specialist on our substance use prevention team. In this role, he is driving a lot of the work on our opioid work, uh, assisting with some of our cannabis work, and really doing incredible work uh, on substance misuse prevention and well-being across the community. He's doing a lot of the work coordinating our work with Fraser, uh, our big project we're doing on our opioid settlement work right now. He's very focused on youth and young adults and populations that are disproportionately impacted, and he comes to us with a pretty extensive background uh, with a master's in public health and a master in social work, um, and just incredible experience working on behavioral health, sexual health, and chronic disease management. Thank you, Dick. Welcome. Thank you very much. Um yeah, I think my my uh supervisor here shared great background on myself. Um I think the only thing to highlight is I am new to the Bloomington area in general. Uh moved here for this position. Uh came from Milwaukee. Um I think what I'm most looking forward to is kayaking in the mini lakes around here. So, if any of you have any recommendations, I would I would love it. But, thank you very much. Thank you. Welcome. And then our other new staff member tonight is uh Tory Diechmann. Tory joined us uh as our emergency preparedness specialist just over a month ago. And in this role, she really manages a lot of our work preparing for public health emergencies uh with some of our federal grants supporting training, community engagement, and making sure our our communities are prepared and resilient for an emergency. She's got a background working at county and state public health emergency preparedness work, and a master's in public health from the University of Minnesota. Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to introduce myself. Um as Nick said, I came from Chisago County before this, and I live here in the Minneapolis Twin Cities metro area. So, to be able to live and work now in the same community that I I live in is is a joy for myself. Um and I am I'm honored to work for the City of Bloomington. I think so far everybody I've met has been just wonderful. So, thank you for the opportunity. Well, welcome to you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for being here. So, both Tory and John, this is uh I I say this to every all of our new employees that uh we we're the ones who sit up here, but you are the ones who in many cases are the face of the community. That uh folks when they think about the City of Bloomington, they think about working with people like you and how you represent Bloomington. And that that's a big responsibility and a big task, but I have no doubt that you're up to it, and looking forward to having you out in our community and serving the good residents of Bloomington in your your own creative and special ways. So, thank you so very much and welcome. Item 2.4 on our agenda council is an appointment to our merit board. And this item is in the is in the packet and we have we have three members on our merit board in case you didn't know that. The opening is an opening that we have we have somebody not seeking re-appointment. So, there was one opening. We had exactly one applicant for that opening. And so, council what I would like to do is move the name of Thomas Pierce for an appointment to be appointed to the merit board to a term from April 1st, 2026 to December 31st, 2028. Second. Motion and second by council member Lowman to appoint Thomas Pierce to the merit board for a term from April 1st, 2026 to December 31st, 2028. Any further council discussion on this? Hearing none, I do understand now Miss Ray that uh council member Nelson is on board. Yes, he is. Yes, he is. All right. If you could call the roll, please. Carter. I. Nelson. I. D'Alessandro. I. Rivas. I. Lowman. >> I. Robertson. I. Mayor Bassi. I. Motion carries 7-0. Congratulations, Thomas Pierce, your appointment to the advisory board of or excuse me, to the merit board. I can be jumping ahead in the agenda because item 2.5 is our advisory board of health 2026 annual work plan annual report and work plan. And I'm going to turn it back over to Dr. Nick Kelly one more time and we'll hear from our folks in the advisory board of health. >> Well, good evening, Council. Uh Mayor and Council members, uh I'm going to do a quick uh highlight of the Advisory Board of Health and then turn it over to to Dr. Allen, who will do the rest of the board's presentation. Uh quick reminder uh in our city code, uh the Advisory Board of Health really exists to advise Council on issues around health in the environment in the city. And so the board takes that that fairly seriously about how they support uh the Council's decision-making around public health issues. They do that in a few different ways. Uh research and report, study and comment, evaluate and recommend, and participation in uh city events. So, the evaluate and recommend or might be what you might see from letters or recommendations from the board asking for some action or encouraging action. Uh the prior ones are mostly related to things that they put into other minutes or push through uh uh the city manager's office to make sure it's on your radar. And now I'll turn it over to John to highlight what happened in 2025. Thank you very much, Nick. Um as Mayor Busse um said, I I'm John Allen. I've had a 25 year um stint in Bloomington living here and a 45 year medical career, so I've seen a lot of changes in the past, and I do want to highlight a couple of changes that have recently occurred that I do believe we need to monitor. But first to go through the 2025 highlights, we did provide directions and a work plan for substance prevention, well-being, and policy. We participated in a panel discussion with Edina and Richfield, which is very good, and helped plan a tremendously successful mental health summit. And that's one of our areas of focus, as you know. We provided feedback on the cannabis policy, learned about opportunities for collaboration with a community health and wellness center that's being built. We attended and helped participate in the Diamond Service Awards, which was a really wonderful evening. And I would encourage anybody that um is interested to go to those. That was really quite satisfying. And we learned about the very important work of VEAP and what it does in the community, which I think will be even more important as we go forward. Next slide. Our areas of focus in 2026 include mental health and substance abuse. We're looking at a changing cannabis landscape, particularly with the volatility of the federal um changes in the 2018 Farm Bill. That's going to be a tremendous challenge for us not only to develop policy, but also to monitor its compliance. Nicotine pouches, alcohol impacts on community health, particularly our young young people. We continue to look at prevention strategies around mental health and increasing access to care. And I'll mention that in just a moment. Also, access to basic needs, such as housing and food, and all the social determinants of health that really play into the health of Bloomington community. We provided direction on on federal impacts and emphasis on health care, access, vaccination, and funding. This has been a tremendously difficult time to work through, understanding the federal changes, understanding the changes to our Bloomington area. So, we continue to work to understand the cascading impact of the various uh rates of uninsured. Next slide. We provided input on the recovery from the metro surge. Um as you know, that had an impact not only on our citizens of Bloomington, but also on the public health workers, who are often um workers of color and were frankly scared to leave their homes for a bunch of the air much of the time that the virtual surge was here. We continue to provide feedback on the public to the public health department on work grants and outcomes, which again have been challenging and navigate these very complex issues that impact the health of Bloomington. And we anticipate feedback on the comprehensive plan and climate action plan as well. There are three things that I would like to mention that I think we need to monitor very carefully. Uh and this is really a tsunami change in the health care landscape uh in the Twin Cities. The first is it's estimated that 116,000 Minnesotans will lose their health care coverage this year. The effect on our capacity, particularly in the ER and mental health, is going to be dramatic. The second is last week it was announced that Allina was um being merged with Sutter Health. This is the first time in my career here that a Minnesota health um health um system is going to be governed by a non-Minnesota company. Um I'm fairly familiar with Sutter Health. They have a positive margin. They have their reasons for that and I think we'll see that coming up. Allina Health has had a neg- slightly negative or more negative margin and is really uh struggling from my financial standpoint, but it should be recognized they're very important in terms of community impact and community health here. They've been a wonderful partner. Um so it's unclear as to the impact of what this will be, but we need to monitor it. And the third and most important that I think is the financial crisis at the Hennepin County Medical Center. Um that is an imminent danger of actually closing. It is a tremendous resource in terms of training, particularly in terms of ER, orthopedics, um mental health, geriatrics. It's anticipated they're going to need to close about 100 inpatient beds. The ER sees 195,000 people per year. And if that contracts in any way, that's going to put pressure on the three hospitals that um service Bloomington, that being Methodist, Southdale, and Abbott Northwestern. So, I understand that municipal policy is not directly impacting that, but we really need to monitor that and see the impact. And it really emphasizes the need for continued support for preventive services. Thank you very much. I appreciate your listening. And I'm happy to take questions. Thank you, Dr. Allen. Appreciate it. Thank you, Dr. Kelly. Council any questions? Council member Loman. Um I noticed with the slides there and thank you for mentioning those items that you did. Those are certainly there. Um I'm curious about um you know, either your as is perspectives on the vaccines and the changes at the federal level in terms of how that's organized and how that's administered and and what things that we as policy makers should be thinking about uh as we see the federal government kind of shift and change as to how that is administered, you know, at that level. Well, from a medical standpoint, that's a disaster. I'll just say it. Uh Mayor, Councilman Loman, uh one of the things that we're fortunate in Minnesota is we have a very capable uh state health department. Uh the state health department is working very closely with our state legislators on a process to uh change state law to make sure that Minnesota is able to follow evidence-based recommendations uh from advisory bodies, uh not only the federal government, uh to ensure that our vaccines are being advised with the best science possible. I think the other complication with some of this federal change is the last couple of years we've seen a 50% reduction in our funding to allow us to provide vaccines for uninsured or underinsured individuals. That continues to drop, which creates uh additional challenges in being able to provide vaccinations to individuals at the most risk uh without access to insurance. And finally, the disinformation that's being promulgated across the country is is really a disaster from a public health standpoint. Well, thank you. And I'll hold my my my last question, Mayor. I know we've got a tight agenda here. Um uh so well, I'll I'll hold off and ask you that offline. Thanks. Council member D'Alessandro. Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um are there any Are there any specific um uh state-level um activities that you're closely monitoring right now as the legislative session is underway that would be worth us knowing about? Um and I assume I mean I don't want to assume, but maybe I do assume that you all are um making yourselves available for any public testimony in that regard. So, if you could share that, that'd be great. Mr. Mayor, uh Council member D'Alessandro, there are uh I was trying to remember the exact number. It's It's like a 10 pages of uh legislative priorities that are moving that have a public health impact that uh the association we're part of is monitoring very closely. Uh the one that's most impactful for us outside of some of the other funding in process are a medical consultant. Uh we had a medical consultant retire. Uh it took us a very long time. We had a gap in coverage for a medical consultant for a period of time. Uh it is to allow for nurse practitioners and uh a little broader scope than just an MD. Uh there's much fewer MDs in private practice that are willing to do the medical consultant for a public health agency in today's environment than there were in 1976. Well, thank you for all all you're doing. It's a tough environment and it's great I'm grateful specifically that you all are in place to help us out. It's Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you for your support, too. It means a lot. Agreed, Council Member. Any other questions, Council? If not, on our agenda on our motion sheet it says no action needed, but we typically do uh approve these work plans and our annual reports. So, I'd look for a motion to accept the 2026 annual report and the work plan. Second. >> Motion by Council Member Loman, second by Council Member Dal- or excuse me, by Council Member Rivas, second by Council Member D'Alessandro to accept the Advisory Board of Health annual report and work plan. No further Council discussion on this? Is right. Carter. I. Nelson. I. D'Alessandro. I. Rivas. I. Loman. >> I. Robertson. I. Mayor Bussi. I. Motion carries 7-0. Thank you both for your very, very important work and please share our thanks with the rest of the Advisory Board of Health if you could, please, and uh >> right. continue that work. We certainly appreciate it and we are greatly appreciative of all you do. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you. We're going to move on to item three on our agenda, Council. It is our consent business. Council Member Carter has the consent agenda tonight. Council Member Carter. Yeah, thank you. Um so, I have not hold it heard of any holds, um but I would look I would do one last call here, um and you might have to help me out if there is anybody saying anything, so I'm not sure I can hear them. I see Council Member Loman with his hand up. Yeah, Mayor, uh there's a couple items here, the Pathways to Policing 3.7 and and 3.9, uh the 106th Street Bridge, a preserve part. I just want to comment on this, so I'll just hold off on this until later on. See if we have time. Very good. That sounds good. Any other holds, Council? >> just clarifying not holding them at this time. We are not. No. Council, any other requested holds? You're free to go, Council member Carter. Okay, well then I would um hold 3.1, which are the donations, and then move to approve 3.2 through 3.15. Second. Motion by Council member Carter, second by Council member Loman to accept uh items 3.2s through 3.15 on our consent agenda tonight. No further Council discussion on this? Is rate. Carter. I. Nelson. I. D'Alessandro. I. Rivas. I. Loman. I. Robertson. I. Mayor Bassi. I. Motion carries 7-0. Council member Carter, item 3.1. Yeah, so 3.1 is the um request for Council to approve to accept donations, and we had several um thanks to the generosity of our community. I would highlight um several donations that have come in for Veterans Memorial um and specifically the purchase of the dog tags um to remember specific veterans. Um and that was around 62,000, so of course that will go toward the memorial itself. Uh in addition, we had several donations to the Bloomington Police Department from individuals in the community and uh businesses. And then a couple of bundles of love for the Public Health Department, and then a an Apple AirTag for IT, which is very nice. Uh so I um uh express my sincere thanks to everybody in our community that have made those donations, and we just ask staff to do the follow-up thank yous on behalf of the Council, and with that would move to approve 3.1. Motion by Council member Carter, second by Council member D'Alessandro to accept item 3.1 on tonight's consent agenda. No further Council discussion on this? Is rate. Carter. I. D'Alessandro. I. Nelson. I. Rivas. I. Loman. I. Robertson. I. Mayor Bassi. I. Motion carries 7-0. Thank you much, Council member Carter, for taking care of tonight's consent agenda. We'll move on to item four on our agenda. Our hearings, resolutions, and ordinances, and we will start with a continued continuation of our discussion regarding the missing middle housing phase two ordinance. This is item 4.1. Dakota Caston Dave from our planning staff is here for us to wrap up this discussion. We had a considerable discussion on this not too long ago, and this I think we had some council questions and and clarifications, but I know staff also has some clarifications and and and planning commission recommendations as well. Yep. Yeah, good evening, Mayor and Council. Yeah, just want to I won't dive into the full ordinance over again. Just going to summarize the changes made from the February 23rd meeting where this item was continued. Um so, at that meeting, Council directed staff to do three things: allow cottage court dwellings to be a permitted use in the R1 zoning district, revise detached townhouse dwellings to be a conditional use in the R1 zoning district instead of permitted, and then just the opportunity for staff to review the full ordinance just for any kind of further cleanup and consistency by making those first two changes. So, those changes have been made and are now reflected in the proposed ordinance A. Um and it's a long ordinance, so really just kind of summarizing here. Those are those key changes kind of for those three bullet points. So, again, detached townhouse dwellings would be conditional in R1, cottage court dwellings would be permitted in R1. Um in the upper right is just a an example of now by now allowing cottage courts in R1, we also just wanted to set kind of reasonable expectations for applicants that um kind of given you need at least five cottages in a cottage court development, and then we have the maximum density threshold of 12 units an acre. That's where we did the math to kind of land at you need at least 3,700 square feet per dwelling unit on that minimum lot size. So, just a a small tweak there. Um by making detached town house dwellings conditional in R1, we also added them as an exception that they do not have to be adjacent to a commercial zoning district or be on an intersection of two arterial streets. Um again, to just kind of meet the more intent of this ordinance to be flexible in in in location. And then at the bottom right is just an example of a cleanup item that truthfully should have just been in the original ordinance, but uh made the change now um just to have a general statement referring people back to this use table instead of explicitly listing all of the zoning districts under each uh type. So, when we want to change it in the future, we can just make changes in the use table and staff don't have to remember to go to multiple sections to make that change. So. And so, staff did um kind of just through this process wanted to also offer another alternative option. And these were just some of the reasons um behind that. And so, um typically a best practice for a conditional use permit application is um kind of reserved for when uses are hazardous or injurious to adjacent properties um or require specific use standards not otherwise reflected in in code. And so, um staff kind of felt that the core detached town house dwelling or a villa, um kind of whatever term you want to use, um is a single family home. It just happens to be on a lot that's narrower than what's um allowed by the zoning district. And so, I think staff would struggle to kind of meet that finding in a future conditional use permit application that a single family home is hazardous to adjacent single family homes. Um and then the ordinance does outline several performance standards for detached town houses. And so, I think um staff I think are concerned a little bit about what additional conditions we would really address through the conditional use permit process. Um just some additional feedback that we heard at previous study sessions with planning commission and council was that any middle housing type that would be allowed in R1, we just want to make sure that it meets the performance standards of a single-family home to maintain consistency in neighborhoods. And then at the meeting on the 23rd, just heard some feedback around maybe concerns on height for detached townhouse dwellings. And then maybe just some clarifications around public notification and public hearing. So even if a use in this case a cottage court detached townhouse would be permitted or conditional, it would still require a public hearing through our final site plan process. And most of these projects also require some kind of platting application. That would also require a public hearing. So in our code that means that we send a notification to all the surrounding properties within 500 feet, as well as posted on our city website and then it gets posted in the Sun Current as well. So just want to provide that context to or clarification that regardless if it was permitted or conditional, there's that public notification. So ordinance B in the packet just would allow cottage court dwellings and detached house townhouse dwellings to be permitted in R1. And then further ensure that cottage court dwellings and detached townhouse dwellings meet the same height standards as a single-family home in the R1 zoning district. And so in this case that would mean that they cannot exceed two stories or a maximum of 40 feet. And then there's also some additional height standards in relation to how the dwelling sits on the property like in relation to the surrounding property line. So as an example, if your building is like right at the 5-foot side yard setback, it has a maximum height of 19 feet and then it kind of tiers inward as you get further into the property and further away from the street. So those are the the main changes that are then reflected in ordinance B. Um again, just want to summarize here that in the use table it would make detached townhouse dwellings permitted um in the table. And then here is that language that just further clarifies that though the detached townhouse cottage courts in R1 have to follow those same height standards as a single family home stating that it can't exceed two stories in height. If it's flat roofed building, it can't exceed 30 ft. Um and then it has that kind of tiered um setback approach. And so, there's two motions in the packet. Um the first one is if uh you would like to make cottage court dwellings permitted and then detached townhouse dwellings conditional. Um that's the first motion or for ordinance A. Um or if you wanted to make both of those uses permitted but then have those additional height standards reflected in the ordinance. Um there's a recommended motion there for um ordinance B. I'm happy to answer any questions or clarifications. Thank you very much, Mr. Castaneda. I appreciate it. Uh I see your hand, uh Councilmember Nelson. We'll get to you in just a moment, but I I I just wanted to be sure that the um to clarify that uh I think the we we agreed on just about everything else. This was just it just came down to the matter of the um the detached townhome dwellings and whether what what their status was going to be. Is that correct? Yeah, Mayor Council, that that's correct. So, yeah, that's really where the main differences are between option A and B is making detached townhouses either conditional or permitted in that R1 zoning district. >> And and the reason So, staff uh as as you dug into this a bit, it it seemed to make more sense that uh excuse me, the the the detached townhomes would fit better as a permitted use but with these conditions around them. Is that correct? Yeah, Mayor Council, that that's correct. I think just um for some of those reasons um staff just felt uh it might be a little difficult to meet some of those standards in the conditional use permit process or we're We're sure kind of what additional um conditions you would add through that process and so that's we're just wanting to kind of honor some of the feedback at the last meeting around the height concerns. Just want to offer that as permitted and then have that further height requirement in in the code. Yeah, thank you for that clarification. Councilmember Nelson. Yeah, thank you mayor. I'm one of the people that raised some questions about this and I just want to thank staff for their great work and made the feedback that they gave me in between meetings and I agree with their recommendation for option B because in particular there still is an additional review. There's notice to neighbors in most cases if it has to be replatted and it meets all the single family standards. So again, thank you for the time and just the the recheck on this. But I'm comfortable with B making it permitted. I don't have any other comments. Other than what I made last time on college courts, but it seemed like that's good. So thank you. Thanks for the input Councilmember Nelson cuz yeah, you were I remember you were the one just wanting a little bit more information and appreciate that you got your questions answered through through staff and you're comfortable with this. Council, any other questions? Councilmember D'Alessandro. Uh no, not questions, a comment. So I'll wait and >> please. I I think we're Okay. We're we're in the That's okay. I have a question. I just wanted to clarify. I know I was part of the group that was asking about the notifications and things like that and I appreciate the clarification on public notice. My I'll just be blunt. My issue with it is that I think our public notification happens too late in some of these processes and I'd like to see how we could get it bumped up and get our neighborhoods a little bit more informed up front. So that was more my comment than explicitly related to this. I think this is a perfectly reasonable motion and option B looks correct and if Councilmember Nelson, who I also remember was the main reason we had thought about that, is comfortable with it, I'm great with it, too. So, thanks. Very good. Thank you. Council, any other input on this? Questions or comments? If not, uh Council, I would look for action on item 4.1. Council member D'Alessandro Happy to make the motion. I'll move to adopt an ordinance establishing definitions, use allowances, and zoning performance standards for three-family dwellings, fourplex dwellings, detached townhouse dwellings, cottage court dwellings, and multiplex dwellings as amended to make detached townhouse dwellings a permitted use in the R1 zoning district, and requiring cottage court and detached townhouse dwellings in R1 meet the height standards of single and two-family uses, thereby amending chapter 21 of the city code. Motion by Council member D'Alessandro, second by Council member Rivas. Uh and to be clear, this is ordinance option B, the staff-recommended option. Just to be clear on that. Council, any other discussion on this? Hearing none? Ms. Wright Carter Aye. Nelson Aye. D'Alessandro Aye. Rivas Aye. Loman Aye. Robertson Aye. Mayor Bassi Aye. Motion carries 7-0. Uh Mr. Castendyck, thank you much for this. Uh we we also need uh a summary publication motion. Yep. My apologies. Um move to adopt resolutions authorizing summary publication of the adopted ordinance, thereby amending chapter 21 of the city code. Motion by Council member D'Alessandro, second by Council member Robertson summary publication on item 4.1. No further Council discussion on this? Ms. Wright Carter Aye. Nelson Aye. D'Alessandro Aye. Rivas Aye. Loman Aye. Robertson Aye. Mayor Bassi Aye. Motion carries 7-0. Now I will thank you, Mr. Castendyck, and the work that you and the rest of the planning staff has put into this. I know it's been a long road, and we appreciate the work that you've done. So, thank you so very much. All right. Yeah, thank you Mayor and Council. Have a good night. Moving on, item 4.2 on our agenda. This is our first public hearing of the evening. This is a public hearing regarding the Woodbridge Marsh and Polly's Pond drawdown for storm sewer maintenance. Brian Greedo from our water resources unit is here. Mr. Greedo, welcome. Uh good evening, Mayor and Council. Okay, here we go. Uh so, again, my name is Brian Greedo. I'm with uh the Public Works Engineering Group. And tonight I'm here to talk with you all uh a little bit about uh some temporary drawdowns on Marsh uh on Woodbridge Marsh as well as Polly's Pond to facilitate uh storm sewer maintenance uh to replace the outlet control structures on each of these water bodies. Um project locations, Woodbridge Marsh on the east side of town uh just off uh Bloomington Ferry Road. And Polly's Pond is uh just east of Normandale Boulevard uh north of 84th Street. Uh this is a picture of the current outlet structure on Woodbridge Marsh. Um current the current construct the the current structure routinely plugs with debris. Uh as you can see, it's uh out in the middle of the pond essentially. And so, that makes maintenance of it when it plugs quite difficult. Um and it we've also had reports from the public that it also can endanger wildlife during uh especially during high flow events where it kind of creates like a little vortex as the water's rushing out of there. So, um primarily the maintenance access at uh is one of the main reasons uh to get this out uh to alter it. There we go. Uh so, this is just a quick little snapshot of what we what we plan to do, essentially removing the existing outlet structure to install a uh a skimmer structure. Essentially, what that means is we're going to draw water into this structure from underneath the surface of the of the pond, and so that decreases the likelihood of plugging. It also eliminates the wildlife risk, and then by placing the structure up in the bank, it makes maintenance access much easier. We don't have to get in a boat in order to get out there. Here's a picture of the Polly's Pond outlet structure. It's a little hard to see with the vegetation around it. But this this structure is deteriorating and requires replacement. The like pond control is set by by that inlet pipe, which currently has a plugging issue. It does take surface water flow off the pond, and that sets the elevation of the pond, and so we're looking to replace this deteriorating infrastructure. And by doing so, we're using this similar outlet control structure, which will take water in from below the surface of the pond when the pond is at its normal water levels, and so we're decreasing our plugging risk as well as um decreasing any issue with wildlife or anything like that. So, the reason for the reason that we're here tonight is because we need to bring the water level down on these ponds temporarily in order to facilitate construction of these outlet structures. We get a much better product and longevity if we're able to construct these things like in in dry conditions. And so, when we originally bid the project, we offered flexibility in the bidding documents and offered the contractors to to tell us how they wanted to do it, either draw the draw the pond down in its entirety or build a small dam around the area where you wanted to work and dewater that area. And so, originally the contractor had proposed to build a coffer dam, and so and that's that's the way that the project was awarded. However, after further um further looking into things, it was determined that a full pond drawdown would be the better way to go. And since since both options were bid in the project, there's no change with regards to like project costs or anything like that. And so, in order to obtain DNR permits because both of these ponds are under their public water, so they're under DNR jurisdiction, the public hearing tonight to lower the water levels in these ponds to facilitate this construction is one of our last things that we need to do in order to apply for our DNR permit. So, here's the statute. Again, temporary drawdown of public waters, which both of these are underneath DNR jurisdiction. Jurisdiction, at least 75% of the riparian property owners need to agree, which we which we have accomplished. Our public hearing, which we're holding right now, as well as direct notice to all of the residents as well as the people that you see on the screen here. And all of that has been provided. On Woodridge Marsh, there are two riparian property owners. There's the Iverson Roovers Law Firm up here on the northern part of the pond. And then on the west side of the pond is the Woodridge Townhome Association, and we have received written permission from both property owners there. On Polly's Pond, there are 28 riparian property owners, and we we have received written approval from 21. Those are highlighted in green here on the map. And so, that gets us to our 75%. Um, that does include the city property down here along 84th Street. And then this is where that outlet control structure is located. In order to facilitate this communication with these property owners, we used the Bloomington's Let's We used Let's Talk Bloomington. And each of the residents received a couple of different postcards encouraging them to visit the Let's Talk Bloomington page, where they were able to electronically indicate their approval. We did receive five comments as part of the process. So, two of the comments were regarding project schedule and then there were three comments regarding aquatic vegetation and those comments were included in the packet tonight. So, a couple of frequently asked questions. Uh each project site we estimate to take about 3 weeks to complete. Um both ponds are connected to our storm sewer system and so with normal rainfall we expect that they will return to normal water levels fairly quickly. Uh they're shallow water bodies. Uh they don't support much of a fish population so we don't expect many impacts with fish. Uh part of the part of the reason why we're doing uh doing this at this time is to avoid uh conflicts with turtles. And we don't expect that the drawdown will uh have much impact on the aquatic vegetation out on either of these ponds. It may stress it out a little bit, but we don't expect any long-term uh impact. And so tonight we're here with a public hearing looking at temporarily lowing lowering the water levels on Woodbridge Marsh and Polly's Pond so we can uh remove the deteriorating outlet structures and uh replace them with new ones. Uh the pond pond levels are expected to return to normal after a few rainfall events and again I think I just want to stress that these will be temporary and uh the drawdown will be limited to only the time that we need to actually complete the work. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Creedle. Council Council, any questions of Mr. Creedle? Councilmember D'Alessandro. Uh hi. Thanks for being with us today. Uh two quick questions hopefully for you. The first one was, do we have any other ponds that we've done this kind of work to that we could point to to understand like impact and success? Uh yes. So, uh Mayor and Councilmember Councilmember D'Alessandro, we have done this routinely kind of throughout the city most recently on Victoria Pond which is just north of Polly's Pond and actually drains into um drains into Polly's Pond. We also did another one uh over off 102nd Normandale just just recently which also required a drawdown and so this is pretty pretty common for us and so we are the reason why we're here tonight about this temporary lowering of the water level is because some of these sites are showing up with DNR permitting with the Blanding's turtle and different wildlife impacts and so the permitting is changing a little bit. Understood. The infrastructure that you're going to install about how long do we anticipate that will last once we replace it? So it's all it's all concrete pipe and so the life expectancy on that is anywhere from 75 to about 100 years. Other questions Council? Councilmember Lomen. So just everyone when the Normandale happened I know it's a little bit different in terms of certainly volume and and depth. If you could talk a little bit about that and how these how this is different than that and what residents can expect. Sure Mayor and Councilmember Lomen. So this this temporary drawdown is strictly for the to facilitate the construction of these outlet structures. When we drew down Normandale Lake in cooperation with the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District the goal of that drawdown was to freeze the lake bed as a method of controlling curlyleaf pondweed which is an invasive aquatic species that was in Normandale and so when we did that we needed to try to expose the sediments for the entire winter to those freezing conditions in order to decrease the amount of curlyleaf pondweed that was in Normandale Lake and so that process was a much longer duration than what we're expecting here. Other questions Council? All right. Thank you Mr. Greedle don't go far. We will open the public hearing right now. This is item 4.2 on our agenda, public hearing for the Woodbridge Marsh and Polly's Pond drawdown for stormwater maintenance. Uh everyone is welcome to come and comment on this. A couple of our guidelines for public hearings. First of all, everybody will have an opportunity to speak. Secondly, we've got a 5-minute time limit, and you'll know you're at the 5-minute time limit because of the shot clock on the wall. And when you get to 5 minutes, I will stop you. Not because I'm a jerk, but because I want to make sure everybody's got the same amount of time to speak. And so, I will we will stop you. If you ask any questions, we will hold them until the end of the public hearing and then try and answer the questions, bring staff back up, and try and answer the questions specifically to what you might have rather than just shooting from the hip and trying to come up with answers on the fly. Um and as I said, we'll we will take public hearing from all who would like it like to speak and even online as well. So, open the public hearing on item 4.2. If you'd like to speak, please come forward now. It's probably no surprise that I'm here. Good evening. Good evening. Uh my name is Matthew Hallett, a resident of Bloomington. Obviously, you all know me. Um for me, this sounds like a great opportunity to potentially do habitat restoration depending on what's going on. I have no idea what this site is like. I've driven past it quite a few times when I used to work in Eden Prairie, but um I do know that aquatic system restoring aquatic systems when they have water in them is astronomically expensive. You're not You don't usually get this type of opportunity to do habitat restoration without draining it the system much like normal uh Normandale Lake. So, thank you for asking that question, Dwayne. Um however, uh just taking a a random guess as to what could be in the system apart from what uh was already uh asked, I do know what's in Normandale Lake right now or sorry uh by Normandale. Um at least on France Avenue, there's a lot of purple loosestrife over there. I'm going to guess that there's probably quite a bit over in this area, too. And that's stuff multiplies. One plant can distribute millions of seeds. That's why it just is rampant and it's extremely expensive to get rid of. This might be your golden opportunity to extend um this program or project into a uh habitat restoration opportunity. And that's all I got. Thanks. Apart from that, I do support it. Thank you. Others? Is there anyone on the phone wishing to speak? Mayor, we do not have anyone online. Last call for anybody in the council chambers? Council, no one in the council chambers coming forward. We've got no one on the phone wishing to speak. I'd look for a motion to close the public hearing on item 4.2 this evening. Motion by council member D'Alessandro, second by council member Robertson to close the public hearing on item 4.2. No further council discussion on this? Ms. Wright? Carter? Aye. Nelson? Aye. D'Alessandro? >> Aye. Rivas? Aye. Loman? >> Aye. Robertson? >> Aye. Mayor Busse? Aye. Motion carries 7-0 closing the public hearing. Mr. Greil, can you talk a little bit about restoration plans or possibilities while doing this project? Sure. Uh Mayor Mayor Busse, council members. Um so, the I guess the scope of the scope of this project in particular is to replace the failing infrastructure. There will be disturbance around the uh outlet structure itself. Uh so, we are looking at some uh small amount of restoration activity along 84th Street. So, that would be for the Polly's Pond one as well as down along Bloomington Ferry where just around the outlet structure where um where we're going to be doing the work. Um as far as in lake related restoration activity, Polly's Pond does have a uh healthy population of lily pads, which are a native species. Um so, treatment or anything to uh to to I guess to manage the lily pads on Polly's Pond would require a would require further DNR permitting, would require a full lake vegetation management plan, and things that are just a little bit beyond the scope of what we're doing right now. Um so, the I guess further complications are some you know for doing like upland vegetation restoration work is a lot of especially Polly's Pond in particular, a lot of it is private property all around it, and so that is you know that is up to the private property owners to manage their own property around the pond. Thank you, Mr. Greedle. Council, any questions on that? All right. Any other questions or comments, Council? Hearing none, I would look for action on item 4.2 this evening. Council member Lomen. Mayor, I'll move to authorize a temporary drawdown of Woodbridge Marsh Polly Pond to allow for the replacement of the existing outlet control structures, and to direct city staff to coordinate with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to complete and submit the required permit application. Second. Motion by Council member Lomen, second by Council member Robertson to accept item 4.2 as stated this evening. No further Council discussion on this? Ms. Rayton. Carter. I Nelson. I. Tullisandro? I. Rivas? I. Loman? >> I. Robertson? I. Merbasi? I. Motion carries 7-0. Thank you, Mr. Greedal. Appreciate it. Item 4.3 on our agenda is our second and final public hearing of the evening. This is a public hearing regarding a moratorium on certain government facilities. Uh Mr. Johnson. Good evening and welcome. Good evening, Mayor, and thanks for having me, members of the council. Uh here to present on an interim ordinance for certain government facilities uh following up from your request on February the 23rd. So, a little bit of background. Um you all are highly aware of the impacts of Operation Metro Surge um both on its residents and stakeholders and businesses, uh but also to city governments in a variety of different ways. So, uh the operation has impacted uh municipal services and infrastructure and and those things. So, that was that's what brings us before you this evening. Um the topic of detention centers has something that's come up in the Twin Cities as a result of uh the operation as well. Um the city of Woodbury uh was under some discussion about potentially uh being a candidate site for a detention facility. So, this uh discussion of this topic has come to the Twin Cities as a result of uh both the impacts of the operation and uh some of that news as well. Um there's a couple factors about uh Bloomington that um uh that we want to look into further as it relates to a detention centers. One being that the city's proximity to the airport um could be a factor in terms of um uh candidacy. And then also uh the city does have uh a jail or a holding facility as part of the police station here at Civic Plaza. Uh so, we want to make sure that we're being uh considered of those two things as we look at this. Um potential impacts of a detention center could include impacts on utilities, transportation, public safety, economic development, uh even parks and recreation, other city services and programs. Um so, it's not uncommon for cities to adopt a moratorium to study these things. Um the city of Bloomington has adopted three moratoriums in the 10 last 10 plus years. One for uh airport parking facilities, one for self-storage facilities, and then in 2015 for medical marijuana um facilities at that time. So, that's kind of the more recent uh snapshot, I guess. Um as far as the city's zoning code currently, uh we do not uh separate out our many different uh government or municipal facilities. There's a use in the zoning code, which is just government facility general, so covers a wide spectrum of different facilities that uh the city or county or um state partners have, um and I believe would include federal partners as well. So, um it's really a catchall uh type use, and it's allowed in all of our zoning districts uh currently. There are some miscellaneous performance standards in the code that might complicate where uh you could cite a government facility, but in general, uh the zoning code uh is fairly uh open um to government facilities. Um there's no specific use standards uh for detention uh facilities, I want to note. Um so, that is why uh we want to study these things. In terms of moratorium, so you are authorized under state law to effectively create a 1-year pause on the acceptance, processing, or approval of a building permit to development application, any type of formal uh government action uh in it on an application. The key is that you're performing a land use or a planning study on that use um to study its impacts with the intent of evaluating whether you want to uh adopt any amendments to official controls. So, that's really the key. Um the uh public hearing notice, and as we're representing it here in the materials in the staff report, is the moratorium would apply to certain government facilities. The ordinance itself does define that term as a secure detention facilities that are publicly or privately operated and provide secure residential housing or temporary holding for 25 or more individuals under court or government custody. I just want to say that out loud just to make sure everyone's um understanding of what the parameters of what we're talking about. Uh should you proceed with the moratorium um if it's adopted this evening, it would expire on April the 2nd, 2027, which is 1 year after the effective date of the ordinance. Uh the study would be led by the city's planning division uh but supported by other city divisions and departments, legal, police, public works, uh others um as needed. And then uh I would note uh that planning staff working on this, there is a potential for some modest uh delay in lower priority items on the planning commission work plan. Um so just sharing that for your awareness. And I think we identified what those projects potentially could be in the staff report. So with that, I'll try and keep it brief. I do have recommended motions. Happy to stand for any questions. Uh city attorney manager shed was uh helpful in preparing this item as well, so she can assist if needed. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Council questions, Mr. Johnson? Councilmember Lohman. Uh just so I understand, and I know you you read it out quite plainly to make it really straightforward, but I just want to just be sure that I understand with this particular moratorium, uh uh there isn't any uh restriction on this of a quasi-government uh usage or a private use. Uh obviously, they wouldn't be able to utilize a residential zoning, to my understanding, right? You wouldn't, as a private entity doing business uh for a government entity, be able to utilize R1 zoning in our in our Yeah, Mayor Councilmember Lohman, that's something we would study uh effectively if they're providing a government service. Um uh I think we would need to study it in more detail in terms of whether they would meet the definition of a government facility or not. But But order to be clear about that in the moratorium uh language within the ordinance, we did clarify that it's publicly or privately operated. >> Okay. So I do know there are private entities who are contracted to do some of that work on behalf of the federal government. >> And the quasi two fits in that because it's either or. Okay. All right, thank you for clarifying that. I don't know how I missed the private part of it. It's okay. And Mayor, I forgot to mention one thing is that the staff did receive two emails of public correspondence on this item and I believe they should be before you up on the dais. Thank you. Yep. Other questions, Council? All right. Thank you. Don't go far, Mr. Johnson. This is a public hearing. Item 4.3, a public hearing on the moratorium on certain government facilities. I will open the public hearing now. And as I mentioned earlier, same same standards and and restrictions apply here. We'll 5 minutes from each individual. We'll answer questions at the end. And as you start, if you could please mention your name and then be sure to sign in. I think I forgot to mention that the last time through, but if you be sure to sign in so we have you officially for the record. So if anyone wishing to speak, please come forward now. Should I sign in after? Want you to sign in after. Keep things moving. Great. Mr. Code, good evening. Thank you, Mayor, Council members, City Manager, City Attorney. I was very happy to see that there's some action happening. And a study is better than no action at all. I think that in light of how quickly things have been moving, my initial feelings upon reading this was it's not enough. It's not fast enough. But I think that, you know, as we're doing these kinds of things, nothing ever is. But I think as you're considering this tonight and as you're considering why this tonight, I just would really encourage all of you to um remember and keep at the front of your mind that um our mission is Bloomington being a place where people want to be, not certain people, people. And um it by having this study and by having this moratorium, at the very least, it is uh giving a statement to the city of Bloomington that um people are afraid and people are seeing human rights abuses at the national level at various detention facilities, federal detention facilities. Um and I think about the kinds of things that this council does um around the city and um in in in service to people, in helping people. Um we're seeing around the country that there are those who want to hurt people and that makes it a lot harder and a lot more expensive to turn around and help people. Um and so what I am reminded of when I look at these efforts here in this moratorium here is I'm reminded of things that have nothing to do with this, but that do speak to the council's commitment to helping people. Um I think about the fact that you have this brand new bathroom down the hall that I know some people think is a million-dollar vanity project, but it's got adult changing tables and it's got privacy and it really speaks to the inherent dignity of human beings and um quite frankly, every time I walk by it, I think of my um best friend who suffered a very debilitating stroke a few years ago and if he comes and visits me and we happen to be here, he's going to need that facility. I think of um the fact that uh even though there are those who want to live under the shade of our dying ash trees, this city is making very concerted efforts, based on the vote of the people, to do the necessary surgery to um take care of our canopy in our city parks so that the future can have them and feel safe and feel good and and have nature. Um, I think as well of the fact that we want to be a city that focuses on and invests in a health and wellness center, not a detention center. Those two things are very different statements of values. And so, um, I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate, uh, the fact that you're willing to put forth this moratorium. Um, I'm going to continue to say I don't think it's enough. I don't think it's fast enough, but I also do recognize that, you know, there's what can happen legally, there's what people feel, and all of that, and we have to find the balance between the two. But, I would just encourage you as you're thinking about this to keep front of mind our responsibility to help people and not hurt people, and that what has happened has hurt people greatly. So, anything we can do, anything, is going to help. And this is something, so. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cole. Others? Hi, Mayor, City Council. Uh, my name is Anita Smith, and I'm a Bloomington resident, and I'm speaking in support of this ordinance to establish a moratorium on the establishment of certain government facilities as defined in the proposed ordinance. So, during Operation Metro Surge, I was witness to several ICE abductions. One experience that I've shared with you previously is forever ingrained in my heart and on my mind. Um, the story of a 39-year-old neighbor named Manuel. He was brutally detained by ICE here in Bloomington on a sub-zero day while myself and other neighbors documented and witnessed. ICE agents surrounded his car with their vehicles, broke his car window, dragged him out of the vehicle on January 19th, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, in, um, freezing cold weather. Manuel had his immigration paperwork in his car showing he was documented to be in the United States, and he was at work delivering packages when he was detained. Our federal government violated Manuel's rights that day by taking him unjustly into custody. Our federal government has violated the rights of thousands of Minnesotans, and we can't rely on them to do the right thing. But I am asking all of you who hold a position of power in this community, power that the voters entrusted you with, to do the right thing and do everything you can to protect our community. So, like the speaker before me, I think this is a great first step. Um a temporary moratorium is something, it's not everything, but I appreciate that you're considering it. And I ask you to vote um to pass this today. No immigration detention centers in Minnesota. ICE out of Minnesota and ICE out of everywhere. Justice for our communities is the only thing that our community deserves. And so, please, please, please use the power that the voters have given you to protect our neighbors and vote yes to pass this moratorium on government facilities such as ICE detention facilities today. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Mison. Others? Uh my name is Will Clark. I'm a long-time Bloomington resident. Um I am just going to give two pieces here. Uh factually, we know that detention centers are associated with a decrease in property values. Uh perceptually, we also expect that any detention center would create additional tension between the city and concerned citizens. While the city may not currently play an active official role in the acquisition of property by the federal government with the potential intention of conversion to a detention center, it will create the perception of coordination. Um there are many types of businesses and organizations that citizens have a moral or principled reason leading to municipalities not allowing. And I just ask that the council adopt this moratorium in the hopes that the study will find this type of facility to be one Bloomington does not allow for. But again, like I said earlier tonight, right? We're being creative and looking for solutions. And I applaud you for bringing this up. And I hope you vote to adopt it tonight. So, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Anyone else? Is ready we have anyone on the phone? Mayor, we do have a caller online. Could you see if they're looking to speak on this issue? Caller with phone number 952-956, are you wishing to speak on item 4.3? Uh yes, I am. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Good evening. Welcome. Please go ahead. Identify yourself and go ahead. Sure. My name is Jolene Bergersen. If you hear a little clicking, that's my four-way flashers. I'm off 35E in Monticello, Minnesota right now, traveling back from Grand Marais for my service, so my mom's service. Not really that prepared to speak. I just learned about this. But I am going to ask you to vote against it because, and I want you to consider a little-known US code, which is US code 18 para 5, which is misprision of a felony, and that is if you knowingly harbor felon, you're guilty of this, and it's three-year prison sentence and fines. That means that every felon illegal that's been in Bloomington and hidden all over the state, and our city officials and our state officials know about it, they're guilty of this, and I'm right. I passed it by a a staff attorney at Hennepin County and she said, "You're absolutely right." I said, "What do we do?" She said, "Pursue it like a dog and a bone." So, yeah, you need to table this and look at this. I also have informed AG Ellison. I spoke with him on Thursday night face-to-face. Uh you got bigger problems. You got a you got a bigger problem called fraud with Artistry. I warned you about it. On December 16th of 2024, I told you I had details about it. You said you would get back to me. You did not. They have been unregistered from 2019 to March 4th of 2024. They got a PPP loan during that time, which is federal fraud. It is being investigated. And you you have voted to give our money to them to an unregistered nonprofit. And um you got bigger fish to fry. You got much bigger fish to fry. And you need to table this and it's coming at you. And it's not going to be stopped because I gave you a chance. And by the way, it is a felony to cross the border without permission. I confirmed it today with US Customs and Border in Grand Portage. And if a US citizen does it, he said, "I can jail you." It's annoying. I've done it 20 times. I hate it. I think it's stupid that as a US citizen I have to prove coming back into the country that I belong here, but it is the law, okay? People crossing the border without permission, they're committing a felony. Not depends on doesn't depend on what another administration decided. It's not a misdemeanor. And even if it were a misdemeanor, and those are not being adjudicated and you are and our police departments are adjudicating misdemeanors and so when it's for you as citizens, that is unequal protection of the law. And I write there also. I am correct. So you need to table this tonight and you need to deal with what you need to deal with. You've spent our money. If you've spent our money fraudulently, and Shawn Nelson, twice now you have said, "We're going to give you the money even though we don't have your financials in front of us." This the Attorney General document >> Miss Bergerson, this this public hearing Miss Bergerson, this public hearing is on whether or not we should establish a moratorium on certain government facilities. I am not going to stop speaking. This has to do with a moratorium. No, it it really does not, Jolene. It it does not. This moratorium You are going to listen. Jolene, do you have any other comments regarding the moratorium on the establishment of certain government facilities and land use actions within the city of Bloomington? >> vote against it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Do I have Have I had my 5 minutes, sir? No, you haven't. You've got 1 minute left to speak specifically on this issue. I am. Table it and I'll keep saying it until I have my 5 minutes. Table it. Table it. Table it. Vote against it. And if it's silence, it's silence for 5 minutes. I get my 5 minutes. You let me know when my 5 minutes is up. Oh, I will. Table this. Thank you very much for your comments, Ms. Bergerson. Have a good evening and drive safely, please. Mr. Hallett. Well, isn't driving and being on the phone crime? Okay. Let's focus on on on on the proposed ordinance in front of us. Very well. To me, the disappearance, the fear, the murder, the kidnapping, the trafficking of our neighbors, seems like a much bigger deal. I don't know about you, but to me, uh I like to come to these speeches a little a little bit more prepared, but that obviously got me fired up a little bit. So, I'm going to try to work through it a little bit. Please pass this motion. Whatever her beef is, whatever anyone else's beef is, doesn't matter. You represent 90,000 people, and I can tell you with certainty that the support of the work that I personally do, not to mention the network of people that do this, are supporting thousands of people. So, whatever she's doing or anyone else is doing, blowing hot air up your ass, ignore it. Pass this. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hallett. Good evening. Welcome. Good evening. I wasn't planning to speak either, but that also fired me up a little bit. My name is Matthew Bay, I'm a resident of Bloomington. I'm sorry, Matthew, your last name was? Dubay. Dubay, thank you. The presence of detention centers, even beyond moral injury and the lack of trust that I think that we've all seen that we have in our current federal government, uh in their ability to treat our neighbors with respect, even to respect the law. Uh for those of us who do care about the law and due process. Detention centers are bad for communities where they're located. They're associated with boom and bust economic cycles because detention centers go out of fashion. Apparently, they're very in fashion right now, uh but that won't always be the case. They're associated with lower property values as ha- as has been mentioned and social disruption in the area where they're constructed because no one wants to live near them. Who wants to live close to a building where people are being treated that way? It's horrifying. They're associated with increased serious mental health and physical health conditions among the people who work there, which I can imagine. Prison guards and detention center guards have the highest rates of PTSD, depression, anxiety, and cardiac conditions of almost any profession. They're associated with an increased crime crime rate, not a decrease in crime, because of many of these other factors. Because of these reasons, I would ask that you study. I agree with others, there could be more done. This moratorium could be permanent. This moratorium could be 5 years. This moratorium could be 10 years. I don't think we need a study to realize the seriousness of the effects that this would have, but I do appreciate that and I ask that you pass this this evening. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Debay. Others? Ms. Wright, do we have anyone else on the phone? Mayor, we do not have anyone online. Last call for anyone in the council chambers? Council, no one in the chambers coming forward, no one on the phone wishing to speak. I look for a motion to close the public hearing on item 4.3 this evening. So moved. Second. Motion by council member Loman, second by council member D'Alessandro to close the public hearing on item 4.3. No further council discussion on this. Ms. Wright. Carter. Aye. Nelson. Aye. D'Alessandro. Aye. Rivas. No. Loman. Aye. Robertson. Aye. Mayor Busse. Aye. Motion carries 6-1 with council member Rivas in opposition. Uh we didn't have a lot of questions. We had more comments on it. I I do want to uh clarify for Mr. Debay, I mean, the length of the the length of this. I think the one-year length is what is allowed. A moratorium can only be one year under state law. And so, we couldn't do five, couldn't do 10 years, couldn't do longer than that. And I heard a couple people talk about, you know, we we want to study this. What we're trying to do is study this in such a way uh because right now we have we have no parameters around this at all. We It just isn't spoken to in our city code. So, the notion of this study uh is to determine uh you know, the the zoning districts, the use standards, uh the the details around this type of thing because right now we're flying blind. So, if somebody came in, we would literally be flying blind. So, the notion around a study would be that, to to try and figure out uh how best to control them or how to control them completely. And to not allow them under Bloomington zoning code, but right now because it's not spoken to in Bloomington zoning code, we've got to study this and we've got to take these steps that are necessary. So, that is when we talk about a um a zoning a study and all this, that's what we're studying right now. So. Uh were there any other questions, Council, that I missed or any other I don't think so. Okay. Uh so, Council, uh time for our discussion on this. Uh Councilmember Lonie said you had questions? Yeah, I did have a just a couple more questions. Uh maybe it's I addressed over the the city attorney and I trust you would answer it, Mayor, but uh one of my questions is whether or not this is all encompassing. One of my concerns is is that uh we pass this today and then uh we find out that there's something we missed that uh would allow for a loophole. So, I'm just concerned. I know we rushed this to get this to uh this meeting because we saw the import of it, but I I know in our haste, I just want to be careful that we're not missing that. And then the other other question I have is uh um you know, if we we pass this moratorium, is there is there you know, is that is that preclude any of these government entities uh these things from being you know, somehow built? I don't want to leave people with a with a a different impression. I just want to make sure I'm clearly understanding what we're attempting to do tonight. Ms. Maderson? May remember is the the moratorium option is in state law and and allows for a local government to pause and create a status quo environment where there are no additional uh permits that are can be approved during our land use approvals that can occur during the moratorium. It's a pause to allow the local government to study the issue and uh you see a version of this moratorium somewhat before you tonight in the next item, which is airport um parking uh conclusion um of that year-long moratorium and then you all took some action and you asked us to do some additional action, which is before you tonight after this item. Um so, that is the functionality of a of a moratorium. Um law law The law allows us to have a 1-year um status quo uh and that's how this particular interim ordinance was drafted. The law requires us to do it through an interim ordinance. With regard to the um scope of the moratorium, um we have although it feels perhaps as though it um was quick in coming, it certainly that's something that's been in discussion for a long time um in the planning worlds and in the um city attorney worlds and we have certainly been paying attention and following the topic um for months now. Um and so um although the actual procedural elements of it came together quickly, um it was something that we had been um tracking uh among all the other things that we have been tracking in the news. So um the definition that you have here before you is the result of us looking at our code and looking at what we have currently on the books and with the eye towards looking at the planning um the land use planning element of it, where where do we need clarity? Where do we need scoping? Uh and so that's that's the effort that you see here before you tonight. The definition we worked very hard on, um multiple meetings to talk through um a scope that was broad enough to uh include all of the scenarios that we had um been hearing contemplated um and you see do in the various parts of this definition. Um similarly to our own situation here in Bloomington in that we that we also operate um a jail. Um so wanting to be mindful of that. There aren't very many Minnesota cities or metro cities that operate a jail. So, we have a unique situation here. Also, our proximity to the airport um and a variety of other factors. So, um it was a very thoughtful uh drafting uh here and um happy to defer to um Planner Johnson if he Planning Manager Johnson if he wants to add anything more to it. Thank you, Ms. Manderscheid. Uh Co- Council member Meribah, yes. Yeah. I I just want to clarify why I voted no to the people that might be curious in the in in the meeting. Um the only reason is because I do understand that there's a risk for the city potentially. Co- Council member Meribah, you voted no to closing the public hearing. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought that it was uh No, you voted no to closing the public hearing. Sorry. I apologize for that. Thank you. Yeah. We we'll get around to the overall vote and we we can talk about that in just a minute. I think Council member Loman had a couple additional questions then I'll call on you next, okay? Okay. I will refrain from answering the Yeah, I was answering your question. Is that a teacher? I don't Yeah. Thank you. I apologize for that. That's really embarrassing. Council member Loman. That's right. Um Mayor, uh one of the things I um and I I appreciate you uh during the during our our conversation or during the public hearing uh the conversation about uh another entity that we do work with and I know it's not germane to talk about that now, but I'm hoping at the end of the meeting that we can address that cuz I just I'm concerned that we uh um uh because it was brought up during this uh uh this deliberation. I just want to be sure that we can clarify that in terms of that other entity that uh uh and some of the statements that were made about fraud related to that. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah, yes. That uh has nothing to do with what we're talking about here and now, but we can have that conversation once we get to policy and issues out there. I just want to be sure that we we do uh uh I'll rely on you to to do that. You won't you forget that. Um uh so um yeah, so I guess I think I'm I'm all set. I appreciate the staff has has looked into this. Uh are we also doing comments now or are we Yes, now please please. Since I got the floor, I'll go ahead and do that. Um you know, I I I got to I got to admit I'm a little bit nervous uh about about doing this and and moving this forward. I I think you always should be uh whenever you're talking about a moratorium uh and moving uh certain items forward uh and uh uh for uh uh Justine, I I appreciate your uh your comments. I think I overheard um and maybe I'm wrong that uh that uh that maybe your mom had passed away and if that's that's the case, I um I'm really sorry to uh to hear that. Um uh Julie, sorry. Julie, thank you. Uh sorry, I'm a little uh a little a little struck about about about that uh that experience if that if that happened to her. So, um want to just be sure that that uh uh and thank you for that uh that uh you know that uh our our my at least my hearts uh and prayers are with you if that indeed is what happened and that's what you're heading back to uh the cities uh for trying to trying to do that. And I and I do understand uh the idea of wanting to to to try to table this. Uh there's certainly those folks that are out in the community uh that that share that uh that sentiment. Um uh that that they want to kind of hold off and wait on this, but I think it makes more sense really mayor to to really delve deep into this uh if we're looking at this mayor and to really look at this today and uh study this and figure out what is the best path away forward. Uh delaying it or putting it aside doesn't really make a whole lot of sense if that's what we're we're intending to do. Uh mayor, I I I I think that the the the next step forward as we have done with so many other things and we'll see that uh later on tonight. I think it is an opportunity for us to study it in great depth and detail, and really make sure that everybody's perspective, I think I heard somebody out there talking about making sure that the city is welcome to different points of view, that we're able to do that. So, I will be reluctantly uh supporting this uh tonight cuz I think this is the right step to move forward. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Rivas. I I'm I'm going to try to make it short that um the only reason I don't support this is because I I think uh we have better options. And the better options, in my opinion, are that we should be trying to convince the federal government or our representatives in Washington to actually come with practical laws that will remedy this issue. Not continue to just pass ordinances that, in reality, the federal government can supersede. A, you know, uh it it bothers me that the city is putting itself in a spot that we could come to regret. Perhaps not. There have been things planned that to to prevent that, but at the same time, I I'm I would support totally something that is brought to Washington and that can actually changes the situation. This is not going to change anything. Let's be real. This doesn't remedy anything. It just makes it last longer as it has lasted for the last 50 years or so, as far as I can remember. Um so, if we actually put something out there and try to persuade our representatives in Washington to make changes and actually change the law to benefit these people and to benefit us because we do need a lot of uh immigrants, then I would be all for it, but for this, it doesn't really do anything. It really doesn't do anything at all. The feds are going to continue to do what they do. That's all I got. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Others, Council Member? Council Member Robertson? Um thank you, Mayor. Um and just to um kind of echo what Council Member Rivas is saying, I certainly understand that this isn't um an end-all, and it's not necessarily the step that everyone would love to see us take, right? Um I think there's a lot of people in this room who may know me personally and know that certainly I would also like a different step to be taken. However, um I I just to be very clear, I'm strongly in support of um voting in favor of the moratorium uh cuz not only do I believe it could certainly address some of what we're seeing with um the federal occupation and Operation Metro Surge, um but also to some of the points of what folks are saying, it can help us understand and hopefully um prohibit detention facilities of other natures, right? It's not just ICE, it's not just um immigration enforcement. Um it could certainly be others, and so I'm strongly in favor of this moratorium. I think folks tonight have given a lot of good reasons as to why um detention facilities are not something we would want in our community anyway. Um so I just want to be very clear. Uh again, I think folks hopefully at this point know my personal feelings on the federal occupation that um our community members have been suffering under. Uh but I do I am in support of this because it's not just ICE as an agency, but other federal agencies or other um government agencies that could try and put a detention facility here in Bloomington, which I would be very much against. So, thanks. Thank you, Council Member. Well, I will say I uh Council Member Council Member Carter, please. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Uh took me a second to find the little hand button, so Um, so I guess I just want to start by thanking staff for all of the research and the work that they've done on this. I know there have been several of us on council who have been bringing this issue up for a while now, and so I am grateful that we are moving forward with the first step in the process, and and I also want to thank community members for sharing their opinions tonight. Um, for those who want to see us doing more, I totally get it and agree, and my understanding is this is the first step in the process legally. Um, uh, for, you know, for us to start moving forward with these kind of preventing these kind of facilities from being in our our community. And so, um, I'm very supportive of this, and I also, you know, to my colleagues on council who have suggested we should be doing some other things, talking to our federal representatives, um, Councilmember Robertson, if you have other ideas, I am totally open to hearing those. Um, so I don't think this has to be the only thing we do. Uh, I think that there if there are multiple paths that we can be going down to make sure that um, we continue to have good policies in place that um, create the community that we want Bloomington to be and to continue to be, then then let's do it. So, um, I don't have anything else to add other than, again, thanks to staff, thanks to the community, and I look forward to kind of seeing what we can do and what we can put in place in terms of our zone zoning code and all of that, uh, to make sure that these facilities don't come to Bloomington. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember D'Alessandro. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I um, I'm happy that this is here. Thank you very much for pulling it together so quickly to staff. You guys are always great in reaction to things that we ask you for even when it's not on the agenda. So, very much appreciate the timeliness of of the turnaround here. Um, thank you for that. One of the biggest reasons that I am for this is because somebody came up to me, you know, as part of the conversation and you know, I they were asking about all the different things that we could potentially do and and somebody said to me you know, if they if if if the federal government came and asked would we even have the space for it? And and I said to myself, you know, I don't know the answer to that question. Like I don't know if a facility of the size that they would potentially want or whatever is even available in the city of Bloomington. And when I went to the code and realized there was nothing in the code one way or the other to help me get to that answer, it seemed right that we at least study it and understand what can and can't be done, which is what this is for. This isn't deciding that nothing's going to happen. This isn't deciding that boatload of things are going to happen. This is deciding that we don't know enough and we don't know how to either You could look at it either way. Some of you could say, we don't know how to protect our community from this. Other people could say, we don't know how to facilitate making sure they can do it. We don't know either way and that's the reason why this is an important first step. I originally asked for a five-year moratorium because of the length and and facility here, but the state statute prohibits us from doing that. So, we are where we are and I think whatever we get out of this will be much more information that we can use to make a like an actual informed and data-driven decision for the community, which is what I'm always a proponent of. I'm glad that this is here and that we're making this step. Thanks. Thank you, council member. Any other comments, council? I mean, I I'll say I agree with a lot of what has been said. Council member Council member Lowman, I yes, I don't take moratoriums lately. It's just it doesn't seem right that there's just it's a pretty dramatic and drastic step, but I understand the need in this case, especially with as Council member D'Alessandro said, we don't know what we don't know. And so to to learn more about it, I think is an important part. Uh Councilmember Rivas, I don't disagree with you either. There there needs to be federal reform. There needs to be federal a solution to this. It can't be piecemeal. And uh I don't disagree that um we could put this moratorium on and we could still be facing uh a legal fight on this if uh if the the federal government decides they want to do this, we're we we're going to be in for a fight on this. And so, it will be interesting to see. Um but I also agree completely that this is something that we need to do. This is an important step. It's a way for us to to learn more and as Councilmember D'Alessandro said, our knowledge is power on this type of thing. And it's a it's a good first step and we will we will see where it leads us. And I I and we'll we'll see where what it what all comes of it and where where where we end up after a year of this. And frankly, for as quickly as the world is changing, we'll see where we all are in a year from now. Goodness only knows. And so, I'm I'm in favor of this. I think it's it's a good step and unless there are additional comments, uh Council, I'd look for action. Councilmember Robertson. Uh thank you. I almost called you your honor. Thank you, Mayor. Um I uh move to accept an interim ordinance establishing a moratorium on the establishment of certain government facilities and land use actions related thereto within the city of Bloomington pending completion of a planning study assessing the need for an amendment to the city's official controls, thereby amending chapter 21 of the city code. Second. Motion by Councilmember Robertson, second by Councilmember Carter to adopt an interim ordinance establishing a moratorium on the establishment of certain government facilities and land use actions related thereto. No further Council discussion on this? Hearing none. It's Wright. Carter. I. Nelson. I. D'Alessandro. I. Rivas. No. Lohman. I. Robertson. I. Mayor Busse. I. Motion carries 6-1 with Council Member Rivas in opposition. Council Member Robertson, summary publication, please. Thank you, Mayor. I move to adopt resolution authorizing summary publication of the adopted interim ordinance. Second. Motion by Council Member Robertson, second by Council Member Carter for summary publication on item 4.3. No further Council discussion. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. Oh, I'm sorry. We got to do the roll call. My bad. All right. Here I was on a roll. Uh Ms. Wright. Carter. I. Nelson. I. D'Alessandro. I. Rivas. I. Lohman. I. Robertson. I. Mayor Busse. I. Motion carries 7-0. Uh I'd like to extend my thanks as well to the legal staff for pulling this together on short notice and and using the vagaries within the city of Bloomington to uh to really make this something that fits Bloomington very well. So, thank you to our city staff uh and and planning staff. Well done with all of this. So, thank you so much. We will move on to item 4.4, a privately initiated city code amendment. The remote airport parking saga continues. Mr. Centenario, good evening and welcome. Thank you, Ms. Mayor. Council Members, all those took a moment to allow the shuffling to >> don't take it personally, Michael. Oh, I don't. Well, thank you, Ms. Mayor. Council Members, uh I think most of you, except for Council Member Robertson, are pretty familiar with this process that we've been going through. Uh The moratorium that was adopted by the Council was established in September of 2024. but the debate about what to do about airport parking and remote airport parking has been going on for about 40 years. Um, so there have been dozens of public meetings where this this land use concern has been brought up and uh tonight we're asking to take action on something that concludes at least a portion of the questions we've had. And so just as a real brief refresher on uh what we're focusing on tonight, and that's the two existing remote airport parking facilities that we have in the city of Bloomington. We have the Parking Spot by Park and Fly. Uh you'll hear staff just generally refer to it as Park and Fly. Uh a little over 12 acres, about between 2,000-2,100 stalls, and that's made up of surface and an existing parking structure. That parking structure was intended to have an office tower on top of it, but that never materialized. Uh and it's been in operation since the late '80s. And so in 2019, and this goes for both Park and Fly and Park and Go, in 2019 there was interim use permits that were established subject to development milestones. The idea there that development would happen incrementally through the throughout the facility. Then the pandemic happened and you know obviously we haven't seen that development materialize. Uh but again, with the other facility, the current interim use permit expires August 8th of next year. And that date was very intentional uh as the when the council adopted that uh ordinance last fall. So Park and Go, a little bit larger of a site, about 1,500 stalls, uh operation since about 1992. Uh again in 2019 there was an interim use permit that was approved subject to these incremental development milestones. And again, the interim use permit expires August of 2027. And so, to touch on the existing conditions, both of these sites are outlined in red. And these are really important sites for the future growth of the city of Bloomington. It's immediately adjacent to airport land along 494. And it's along the blue line. And so, that our comprehensive plan, our South Loop District Plan, envisions there to be permanent development on these sites. And so, that's something that we wanted to help facilitate with the remote airport park airport parking study, and then the ultimately the ordinance that's before you tonight. And so, there is a lot of background. And we could spend a tremendous amount of time going through that background. Um but just a full a few bullets here. The council adopted an ordinance back in September of last year that addressed some components of remote airport parking, but asked staff to keep working on standards for the existing facilities. Subsequent to that council action, the Rose Development, the applicant, submitted a privately privately initiated city code amendment, which is permitted by our city code, in October. Staff was not supportive of that version of the ordinance, and the Planning Commission recommended City Council denial last November. Following that recommendation of the Planning Commission, they subsequently revised the ordinance. We've obviously been discussing the content of that ordinance for months. But that the ordinance that was recommended for denial did not make its way to the City Council. And then uh subsequently in January uh following discussions, the applicant uh submitted an amended uh proposal that's before you tonight. And so I'll get to the the meat of what this ordinance would do. Uh and firstly, it would remove remote airport parking as an interim use. And so this is uh a use that's been in the code for a long time as a temporary use. Uh we used to have something called a temporary conditional use permit. Uh that was amended to an interim use permit, and that's what they've been these facilities have been operating under for some time. This ordinance would remove that as a temporary use altogether. It would create uh a the remote airport parking uh for existing facilities as a conditionally permitted use in the CX2 district. Uh if you remember a couple slides ago, the existing zoning is HXR. And so this would be establishing a new use for a different zoning district. And uh that would necessitate uh these property owners to seek a rezoning. And so you council uh would see uh subsequent applications uh if you were to adopt this ordinance tonight. And the ordinance is only a couple pages, but the the what it does is pretty impactful. Um so it would allow the contin- continued surface remote airport parking for these facilities. Most of the parking is surface. Uh it would allow that to continue. Uh it would allow for remote airport parking expansion beyond the existing supply. And so really what that amounts to is if these operators wanted more supply, they'd have to build structure parking uh to accommodate that. But it it would allow for that. Um but again, to facilitate uh future opportunities for development in a very prominent uh neighborhood in Bloomington, uh it does require uh future development site. And that would be uh 2.75 acres uh for future development along American Boulevard East. Something that was an issue in past iterations was what to do about uh some of the code standards that we have related to like parking islands. If you look at parking lots throughout the city, you notice that at the end of the rows or intermittently throughout a uh large parking lot, there's trees. And uh this ordinance uh doesn't eliminate landscaping for the site, uh but it does allow the surface lots uh essentially the surface lots do not have to retrofit uh parking islands uh with them uh uh because they don't have any today. Uh but in terms of future development, this future develop- development site along American Boulevard East, uh that would have to meet all relevant standards that are pertaining to new development. Uh and so that would entail lighting, landscaping, materials, uh and we do have some uh minimum performance standards that we can uh that I can uh get into if you like. But one question you may have is why the different zoning district. Why go from HXR, uh which is the district that these facilities are zoned today, uh to CX2, uh which is the district the Mall of America is zoned. Um one and and there's several reasons for that. The HSR district is a very prescriptive district. So it has uh very stringent standards. Uh and one of those standards is it requires residential development uh as part of its overall uh even if it's multi-phased, it requires residential. And at a pretty significant density, 30 units per acre, uh which is which is significant. Um in the CX2 district, residential uses are permitted, but they're not required. And so it's just that inherently inherent uh flexibility uh offered to uh future development. Um it is it is very much less prescriptive in terms of uses, or I should say more permissive in terms of uses. You can There's more things you can do uh in the CX2 district. Um, and the floor area or the the amount of building uh that would have to happen is reduced. So, in HXR, the minimum floor area ratio or FAR is 1.5. Uh, but in the CX2 district, it's just a a baseline 120,000 sq ft. Which is substantial in its own right, uh but uh floor area ratio of 1.5 is fairly intense development. And so, going on to the little few more details on the future development site, uh again, the ordinance that uh the applicant submitted and staff is supportive of is a 2.75 acre uh development site along American Boulevard East. Uh, what's what's shown before you is just an aerial image of Park and Fly with a 2. 2.75 acre box uh along American Boulevard East. Uh, for the folks that have been on the council for a while, you may recall that uh Park and Fly did have a development that was approved uh that is very similar in scale uh to what's shown on the screen, but that obvious that that development didn't happen. Uh, there would need to be some screening uh between these uses. Uh, naturally, I I don't think folks, if there is a residential use, you probably wouldn't want to live immediately adjacent to remote airport parking, so it it makes sense that there is some separation, some landscaping, some screening. Um, and uh compliance date uh at the end of 2036. Similarly, the same standard would apply to Park and Go. Uh, Park and Go is not the applicant, but obviously they're heavily impacted by uh what this ordinance would do. Uh, same standards would apply 2.75 acre future development site, uh some screening, uh and uh compliance the same date. And so in past throughout the years really on the left you have the preliminary development plan from Park and Fly that showed of 100% residential building. And then on the right you have some conceptual drawings from Park and Go. And so these folks have been thinking about how they could accomplish compliance with their proposed organs. And it's something that we would we would love to work with them on on seeing how they can re-envision those properties for future development. You know that thought isn't shared by universally. I know you did get some feedback from a resident that did not did not appreciate the approach that the applicant is taking. And I can certainly respect those thoughts but ultimately we tried as staff we tried to work with the applicant to find something that they were agreeable to and something that the city could accept and still pave the way for future development in a very prominent and important intersection. And so with that we are recommending approval. Do have two motions one for the ordinance itself and then one for a summary publication. Thank you Mr. Centenario. Appreciate it and appreciate your comments earlier and about how this is a literally a decades long journey that we've been on here with the city of Bloomington. And and council if you recall we we imposed a moratorium as we just did we imposed a moratorium we asked staff to come back with recommendations and and to do a study and to come back with recommendations and they they work closely with the applicants and with the owners and the affected businesses and so on came back with recommendations. We've chewed through recommendations a few times now with back and forth a couple of times different ideas different possible ways that we could possibly accomplish what we wanted to accomplish what the developers wanted to accomplish. We've We've been back and forth on this a number of times. What we have in front of us now are recommendations that meet the city's approval and the approval of the of the landowners as well. Is it perfect? No. It is not. But, I think what it is is it's a position that we can we can take It's a spot that we've made our way to that we can all agree to and can move forward on this. And I think that's important to note. It's a It is a an agreement between the affected parties here, and the city being one of those parties. An agreement that we can work with and can live with, and that ultimately um we're we're at a point where it's it's what we have and it's, you know, it's government basically. Not everyone No one is happy, so apparently it might it must be good. So, it's it's a step that we I think it's a step that we need to take. It's I think it's a step that we need to kind of release the the limbo at least everybody from limbo on this issue in particular, and to just move forward on this. To move forward on it and and trust the process that we've laid out and agreed to, and that both staff and the developers and all the lawyers have worked very hard with, and um it it it is uh it's just something that we need to to deal with. And I was just handed a note saying this item requires a public hearing. With a frowny face. As I sit here and and opinionate and it's uh it's uh That wasn't part of the the agenda, but uh there we go. We uh we have a public hearing on uh the the uh remote airport parking. So, why don't we, and I apologize then, had I known there was a public hearing, I would not have gone off like that without hearing the public in in ahead of this. Uh I'm going to open the public hearing on item four 4.5, our privately initiated city code amendments for airport parking. Thanks so much for catching that, gang. It's a This is good. I'll open the public hearing and invite Mr. Griffith to come forward. Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. I appreciate your comments. Uh and thank you for uh for indulging us, um really indulging us uh for 2 and 1/2 years. Uh that's when this all started. We talked about the moratorium, but it really started a year before that when we were uh working with the city attorney's office, the city planning office trying to come up with possible solutions. And and uh uh in in doing so, in in coming back, um it was immediately after the moratorium concluded in September in which you provided permanent parking rights to hotels. You provided permanent parking rights to some new structure uh existing structures, but new operators. And you said, you know, we're not quite there yet with the two existing operators, and kind of go huddle with staff and come up with something. And so we filed our um uh amendment really almost like the day after. I mean, we we had it ready and cooked and and uh it wasn't perfect then. And even this compromise, as you said, Mayor, is not perfect, but it's really important um to solve this 40-year question so that we can move on and do what the city wants done, but also main make sure that these businesses are viable and continue because they provide a service to the airport community. And they were even in studies uh by by MAC um counting those spaces as available to serve that uh demand. So that's really important. Uh the other thing that's really important is that um when we got to November and um we didn't have it quite done yet. Um really your city attorney said uh let's let's put three dates on the calendar. And Mr. Johnson, Mr. Centenario, others, uh Mr. Tasky rolled up their sleeves and said, "Okay, what can we do to kind of find this middle ground?" You will Those of you who were here in September will recall that Christian Muir, who's with me, um was very very concerned about having another deadline because it did enforce development. So, what's different? Well, first of all, uh two things are different. We have 10 years, okay? So, we have a reasonable cycle in which to bring forth a a development proposal. The second thing that's really really important, and this was part of the brainstorming with your staff, is the CX2 district was designed to basically be flexible and provide a number of uses and a mix of uses and in a way that HXR doesn't do. And And perhaps there'll be amendments of HXR uh if we get rezoned, we won't care. But uh you know, so suffice to say two things are really really important, the additional time to get through a whole development cycle, which is almost, you know, can be 10 years, um and and to have the the um the amendments uh go into the CX2 district. Uh so, with that, uh my client is delighted to be here this evening. She may also have a few comments since she spent a lot of time in these chambers, but we really encourage you to support it as written because if it's if it's tweaked, I'm I'm afraid we go back to the table and once you reopen a deal, anything can happen. So, So, anyway, I'm I'm all done, Mr. Mayor, and uh I even have left time on the clock. Although, as the applicant, technically I think I'm not on the shot clock. Thank you, Mr. Griffith. Appreciate it. Others would like to speak at this public hearing. >> Good evening, Ms. Meersman. >> Good evening. Hi. Um, Kristen Meersman, as you know me from Rosa Development, and um, I will be relatively brief because I feel like this has been exhausted. I've met with all of you, um, over the past year, and I was actually very excited, um, to hopefully get this done. So, I was a little disappointed when the moratorium ended, and I felt like that two of the three, um, I guess types of users were addressed, and that we were set back. But, I understand it may be a little bit more complicated because it just wasn't quite as simple. Um, I personally did try to bring forth a development, um, you know, over before the pandemic, and to the HXR rules, and I think that part of the biggest problem, um, this whole time with actually getting everybody what we want is that it's very difficult to do a big-scale, dense development without permanent rights. Banks do not not want to finance you on shifting sands with temporary rights. And so, without getting permanent rights, it's kind of like we're always going to be at at odds. And so, I think that that is actually a huge step in getting what you want. And I've said this before is I don't think that this may be the best housing site in the world, mostly because of the noise and the proximity to 494. That doesn't mean it's not a good site for retail, food, entertainment, a variety of other uses that, um, also neighborhoods need as it grows. So, I do It's not that I think that the CX2, um, you know, that versus HXR is a is a huge is a huge, you know, bonus here for getting to where we both want to be. So, I wanted also thank staff cuz we worked through all the holidays, and, um, and everybody who's listened to this issue. Um you know, Melissa and um Mr. Walker, we I've met with everybody. So, thank you to everybody that has helped to bring this together. Thanks. Thank you. Good evening and welcome. Hello, my name is Dan Williamson. I represent Park and Go. I manage and run the operation here in Bloomington and I also work alongside the private owners to develop these properties all around the United States. I see two new faces. Welcome, new city manager, Mr. Walker, and Council Member Robertson. I've been coming here for 20 years in these meetings and Mike and I I sat in his office a thousand times and Nick is he's new, but still. Um we had two things we always wanted. Number one, some type of permanent zoning so we could finance our projects. And number two, be able to build our parking inside of whatever development we would put together because of the efficiency of developing the property and also we're a volume business. Those two things we have in this um particular proposal that's before you and then it's just icing on the cake that it's CX2 so we have more options. And we've been looking at these options for years. I grew up with a simple principle. What's the best day to plant an oak tree? A hundred years ago. What's the next best tree? Today. So, you know what I'm recommending, let's get this tree planted so that 10 years from now, which goes by like this, if you've raised kids, it's just a rocket time, isn't it? We can have some development on that property. So, thank you very much and I thank you for everybody's efforts on this. Staff, you guys done a great job. I'll be disappointed to meet with Mike all the time since we get this done. Maybe it'll be building a building real soon. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Mr. Williamson. Others? Is there anyone on the phone who wishes to speak to this public hearing? Is there anyone on the phone who wishes to speak to this public hearing? Mayor, we do not have anyone online. Last call for anyone in the council chambers? Council, no one coming forward in the chambers, no one online wishing to speak. I look for a motion to close the public hearing on item 4.4. So moved. Second. Motion by Council Member Lowman, second by Council Member Rivas to close the public hearing on item 4.4. No further council discussion on this? Is great. Carter. I. Nelson. I. D'Alessandro. I. Rivas. I. Lowman. >> I. Robertson. >> I. Mayor Basi. I. Motion carries 7-0 closing the public hearing. Now Council, all that I said earlier, I would like to apply again to to the to this part where I it's more appropriate to uh offer opinions and and ideas and thoughts on the on the proposed ordinance in front of us, which uh as I said, I think is a is a good workable place to be in and I'm I'm in support of this and strongly in support of getting this done and moving to the next the next phase in all of our lives and and hopefully we can see this develop before 2036. Council Member Lowman. Uh thank you, Mayor. Just had one quick question and then a comment. Uh on the uh uh so if I'm on this council on 2037, which I hope that isn't the case. I'll be an old man. Uh what should I see happen with respect to this this particular uh as opposed to 2036? I just want to completely and entirely understand the protection around density or in the long-term vision of the council. Uh sure, Mr. Mayor, Council Members, exactly what you're going to see is so incredibly variable um in terms of real estate development, but uh should this ordinance be adopted and followed, there there there some things that you definitely would see at a minimum. Uh you would see at least a shovel-ready site for future development. Some uh buffer or landscape feature between that site and existing remote airport parking. Uh the I'm presuming that the remote the demand for remote airport parking is not going to go away anytime soon. It's probably going to be as it is or even greater for decades to come. Uh so those facilities will likely still be operating at mostly full capacity. Uh what our what our hope is is that we have a substantial uh development at each of these sites. And with any luck that development will facilitate additional development that is not required to be completed. Thank you. I think that's a great way to kind of focus this conversation. My understanding that will staff and planning commission both support this moving forward. You know, and I I read this thing through and I have to say mayor, you know, absolutely hate it except for all of the other options that are out there. And mayor, I want to personally thank you for taking this on. This really shows great leadership on your part. I thought you were crazy when you decided you wanted to take this out and take this on. I'm like, "Wow, I mean this is eating up a lot of councils trying to get this done and get this uh uh to where it is today. And I just want to want to just congratulate you on on this hard fought work that we're doing here. And I mean I don't want to presume what what's going to happen here, but mayor, I'm definitely going to be supporting this because I do believe that what the vision that we all believe in really through this process is really going to get us there. You know, we may not see it right now, but this is a heck of a lot better of a process than what we had before, which was just kind of hoping that something would take place. And I I would just have to say in conclusion here that I wish I had my camera out to take a picture of you finishing without using up all your time. I've never seen that. Wow. Thank you, Council member. Thank you for your kind words. Council member Nelson. Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Um I'm struggling to support this um for the simple reason that 40 years ago this was a temporary holding use. For the entirety of that 40 years, it's been a temporary use. There's been no point at which any council has ever said, "We want surface parking here as a permanent right." And to go back on that and to change it now is is difficult for me. It doesn't make sense in my mind that we're now going to be the one that says, "We want surface parking in the South Loop permanently." I think one of the big factors in this not being developed is the fact that it's a very lucrative business and it was given as a temporary use until development came, but it became more important than development. And we can look at the difference between how much effort Triple Five puts into developing their property, whether you like what they're trying to do or not or how they're doing it or not, versus the effort to go into this surface parking here. I just don't think we should be approving as a permanent use surface parking. I I'm completely fine with this these businesses continue to operate if they roll it up into parking structures and it becomes I know this isn't a zoning term, but like a secondary use. It becomes a smaller use. But in both cases, this will be the larger use of the property. And I don't think that was the vision 40 years ago. It has never been the vision throughout that history. And and so I I frankly don't support it. And I'm actually okay with we we have an agreement as it is today. There's an interim use and it expires. And every other business has their land and their holding costs and they have incentive then to get it developed. Um I mean, we already have an agreement. We've had agreements for 40 years. The city has followed through on all of those agreements. But still development has not happened during that 40 years. So to give it another 10 years, I I just don't see the point. Um to be honest with you. So that's where I'm at. Thank you, Councilmember Nelson. Others, Council? Councilmember D'Alessandro. Uh thanks, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I'm of mixed minds. I I fully support where Councilmember Nelson's head is um because I I mean, I think I think the the city has been more than kind, in my opinion. Uh we could have shut the doors and put locks on this thing multiple times and we've chosen not to in good faith. And if at the same time, the people who over the last 10 years might have done that are now the people here coming saying this is something that the staff can live with. And so I'm sitting in two different places here. One saying I agree with Councilmember Nelson and his and his theory on this and the other being that if staff is okay with this and um they're the ones that, you know, largely for the most part have been here before me and likely will be here after me. We'll have to manage through this, then I can concede that. Um, so, um, I guess where I'm my head's at at the moment is on principle I would like to vote no on it, but practically speaking I will likely support it. Um, I I do believe that it's a good lesson for us to learn as a city. That, um, temporary uses need to have strict and enforceable end dates. And that we don't compromise our way into a box. Um, because no resident, no individual resident would get away with this. This has everything to do with the size and power of a commercial entity. And and that and the and and no individual person could get away with this at a residential level. And so, you know, like let's just think about it from an equity perspective for a second and understand how how could be discom- discomforting. Um, at the same time I really do want to see something good happen over there and that the the the business owners who have who own these properties being on board with this as opposed to fighting it tooth and nail will get us there faster. So, that's where my head's at and appreciate the opportunity to speak on it. Thank you, Council member D'Alessandro. Others, Council? Hearing none, Council, I would look for action on item 4.4. Council member Loman. Mayor, I'll go ahead and uh move this here. I'll move an ordinance approving the privately initiated city code amendment to allow existing remote parking facilities as a conditional use in the district to create create standards for existing facilities. Motion by Councilmember Lomax, second by Councilmember D'Alessandro to approve the ordinance adopt the ordinance approving the privately initiated city code amendment to allow existing remote airport parking facilities as a conditional use in the CX-2 zoning district and to create performance standards for existing facilities. Any further council discussion on this? Hearing none, Ms. Wright. Carter I, Nelson No. D'Alessandro I. Rivas I. Lomax I. Robertson I. Mirabassi I. Motion carries 6-1 with Councilmember Nelson in opposition. Councilmember Lomax Mayor, I'll move a resolution to um direct a summary publication of an ordinance amending city code to allow existing remote airport parking facilities as a conditional use in the CX-2 zoning district and to create performance standards for existing facilities. Second. Motion by Councilmember Lomax, second by Councilmember D'Alessandro for summary publication on item 4.4. No further council discussion on this? Ms. Wright. Carter I, Nelson I. D'Alessandro I. Rivas I. Lomax >> I. Robertson I. Mirabassi I. Motion carries 7-0. Mr. Centenario, thank you and thanks to all of those who came before you. Uh thanks to uh everyone on our partners on both sides who have worked on this. It is appreciated. I'm glad we've got to this point after all this work and look forward to what is next. So, thank you so very much. Thank you. Council, next on our agenda is item 4.5, a city code amendment regarding fence standards ordinance. Uh I'm going to ask a question here. So, this apparently is a public hearing as well. Now, um we knew that our friends from uh remote airport parking were going to be in attendance tonight. I wonder if folks were not aware that this city code amendment was going to be a public hearing and if uh because of that some folks did not come this evening. I see there are some folks here who are for this discussion. What I don't want to do is leave folks out. So, I would turn to I don't know if uh the council for ideas and the the city manager or the city attorney for legality here. Can we have this public hearing on kind of a moment's notice when it's not part of the packet? Uh Mayor and members, um I would defer to the planning um presenter here today about the specifics of what has occurred. Um but we just so everyone knows it was published as required by law. Um it was also listed on our website um along with the copy of the ordinance. Um there may have been other things that occurred as well with the planning staff. So, it it was published as a as a public hearing? Mhm. Okay. All right, that answers the question for me then. Okay. Yep. That being the case, Council, I'm going to make a motion uh before we get into it, I'm going to make a motion that we extend no later than 10:15 to finish our business this evening or excuse me, 9:15. God forbid, yes. 9:15 to finish our business. Second. Uh we got a motion and a second to extend no later than 9:15 to finish our business as necessary. No further discussion on this, Ms. Reid? Carter? Aye. Nelson? Aye. D'Alessandro? Aye. Lowman? Aye. Robertson? Aye. Mayor Basi? Aye. Motion carries 6-0 uh noting that Councilmember Rebasa stepped away for a moment. With that, let us dive into item 4.5 or city code amendment for fence standards ordinance. Uh Mr. Palmer's here. Good evening, welcome. All right, good evening, Mayor and Council. Uh Dylan Palmer with Planning Division here to present the fence standards code update this evening. So, just a little bit of background on this. We're uh coming in front of you today to update our fence code to be more concise and to allow for residents to have more flexible options for fencing in their yards. Uh main reasons that we did this were to address concerns about fence materials and fence height, as well as the specific location of fencing in yards. Part of this is also to make minor code changes to update some language and provide more clarity for residents, businesses, and contractors. Uh this process is part of our 2025 Planning Commission work plan. Uh we held study sessions back in December at both Planning Commission and here at Council, and received a lot of feedback uh from both bodies. And Planning Commission recommended approval on February 19th uh with a 3-to-1 vote. So, start with the uh first portion of this, and that's to update fence height standards in the corner side yard. So, just some clarification, the corner side yard, it's not a defined uh term in our zoning code, but it's the area we're looking at here in this graphic, that red circle on the left. So, it's uh the side of a house that's on a corner lot. So, that can be kind of subjective, depending on where the house is located, but for the purposes of the ordinance, we're looking at a house that's oriented 90° there. Uh current standards only allow for a 4-ft tall fence in that corner side yard area with a 50% opacity requirement. Uh we have in the past received uh communications from residents and concerns from residents that they're not able to fully utilize that corner side yard. So, they have a very large area of their property that has to be either open with no fence or a fence where, you know, they can't keep their dogs in, their kids can't play there safely. So, we were working to address that. And staff's proposal is to allow for a 6-ft tall fence in the rear or behind the rear plane of the home in that corner side yard. So, in this graphic here, you can see that orange arrow on the left there, it's pointing to the dividing line, the rear plane of the house, that's just the back wall of the house. You'd be allowed to go up to 6 ft behind that point, and you'd still have to maintain 4 ft directly to the side of the house, and then in the front of the house as well. Uh we're not proposing to change any clear view triangles, so those are those black triangles on there. You're not allowed to have a fence in that area, it's 15 ft from the corner of the street and 15 ft from the driveway. Uh that's to allow for a pedestrian and traffic safety, and again, no changes proposed there. Our next uh update as part of this uh initiative is to uh get rid of our opacity requirement to eliminate that. So, right now we have language in the code that requires 50% opacity in the front yard. So, that's think of your classic white picket fence, just a beam, an empty spot, another uh board, whatever. Uh we're proposing to remove that language because we're one of if not the only municipality that has language like that. Uh both Edina and Richfield do not have any language pertaining to opacity. It also allows for people to have a little bit more privacy in their front yards if they choose to do so. Again, we're not changing the 4-ft height requirement, there's still uh 4-ft height limit in the front yard, just allowing people to build fully opaque fences. And then these two photos on here are uh photos of fences, the one on the left in Edina, and the one on the right in Richfield, of some fully opaque fences that look pretty nice. Our next uh initiative as part of this was to update fence material standards, so that's to clarify that plastic slats, those are those the image on the left there, do not count towards screening requirements. Uh we have a lot of issues, I know our environmental health uh division goes out and sees a lot of fences where they're damaged, they get, you know, beat up by snow coming off of snow plows, just over the years the slats fall out and break, and it doesn't provide the full screening for commercial and industrial property. So, we're removing or adding language that would say those are no longer counting towards screening. We're also proposing language to restrict fence coverings to a commercially built product manufactured specifically for use on fencing. So, that's an image on the right there. A lot of times we have seen complaints about people just using tarps and things like that on their fences. It can be kind of unsightly for the neighborhood. So, just allowing for a commercially built, a professionally built product on the fence rather than something that's just kind of slapped up there. And then, our uh last big initiative here is some code language cleanup, and that is uh first is to remove standards for arbors and trellises from the fence code section, which is section 21-301.08. Uh we already have standards in place for arbors and trellises in a separate section of the code, and uh just removing those redundancies is part of this. We're also removing language that states that fences may be constructed on the property line. So, this was uh could open the city up to legal challenges. The city has uh we don't involve ourselves in fence disputes. That's a civil matter. We have no We're not a party if somebody built a fence on another property. Uh and this language just removes any confusion that people could refer to if they wanted to pull the city in on a lawsuit or something like that. And then, another note on legal nonconformity. So, fences built prior to the adoption of the fence code that was adopted in 2008 are considered legally nonconforming. So, you may drive around and see fences and say, "Hey, that's that's way taller than 4 ft in the front yard." If it was there prior to 2008, it's a legally nonconforming fence. So, the code update is also aiming to bring some of those into conformity to make sure that people aren't, you know, the tent have the potential for a violation, and our code changes would not create any additional nonconformity. So, nobody would be additionally harmed if we were to uh if this were to be approved. And the Planning Commission, they recommended approval of the proposed ordinance. They voted 3 to 1 with one abstention. Uh they did recommend removing a proposed language to allow 8-ft tall fences at the front building setback. So initially, staff had proposed language that would allow for 8-ft tall fences at building setbacks. So uh for an R1 property, that would allow an 8-ft tall fence 30 ft back from the front property line. Uh Planning Commission recommended to remove that requirement, and staff did remove that requirement. So that is not a part of this proposed uh ordinance change. And with that, I have the recommendations on the screen. I have any questions and then public hearing. Thank you, Mr. Palmer. Council any questions? Council member D'Alessandro. Yeah, thanks. Hi. Uh just a couple quick uh um clarifying questions, Mr. Mayor. So can you would you mind going back to the slide that has the graphic on it for me? There you go. Thank you. So um the in in you you there's some language in the in the code around the notion of a front lot line, and that it's somewhat discretionary uh to the property owner. Uh can you describe for me as it relates to this picture and the on the left there what uh the corner lot specifically? What would be What would be discretionary about it? Like if if if this is the principal dwelling and the the front of the house is where the where the street number is, if you will. So in this case um facing north, if you will. Um the front lot line is where? Like how how do I as a property owner have discretion around that? Uh Mayor Council member D'Alessandro, it would really come down to the direction the house faces. So like in in this case in the graphic, the front of the house is presumably where that driveway is coming in. >> Okay. >> That's your front lot line. Okay. >> A lot of times on corner lots we have houses that are they're oriented more at like a 45° angle and that's when it would come down to just a case-by-case basis where we would recommend that that property owner comes in and speaks with us about where exactly they can put the fence. And again, that's there are a lot of residences like that across the city and that's just, you know, how they were built at the time and we just deal with it case-by-case as they come in. >> Sure. Okay. So for but for the most part the assumption unless it's in a a bit of an awkward angle or some kind of not, you know, 90° would be that the principal dwelling uh the the front-facing door with the street number on it potentially would be considered the front of the house and therefore the front lot line would be across the plane of the front of the house. Uh Mayor Councilmember Dallas Andrew, yes, that's correct. >> Okay. Very good. And then uh related to that then I think if I'm looking at this correctly even if there is a if if I were to look at this picture and assume that the principal dwelling is actually pointed to the to the left, meaning the front of the house is not the driveway is actually on the side of the house. So in a corner lot maybe that's, you know, 86th Street and Emerson Avenue. You can tell I'm thinking about my own neighborhood, right? This is not my house, by the way. It's just my own neighborhood. The the even if it's on the side of the house, the triangles are for driveways apply. It's not just the front-facing portion of it. It's anytime the driveway and the road are connected in some way that 15-ft clear view triangle is required, correct? Uh Mayor Councilmember Dallas Andrew, yes, that's correct. So even if the driveway were like if we're looking at this, if it were to come in from the west side, like where that orange arrow is pointing and let's say there was a garage back there, that clear view triangle would still apply. Okay. >> Wherever there's a driveway or wherever there's a street intersection, that clear view triangle requirement applies. And the 15 ft is across the the widest angle, correct? Like it's it's across the the um Forgive me, I forgot the geometric term for the widest part of a triangle. Not the right side triangle, but the longest part of the uh Anyway, you get my point. That's the 15-ft you're talking about, right? Uh Mayor Councilmember D'Alessandro, yes, it's >> Okay, very good. Thank you. Thanks, appreciate the clarifications. Thank you, Councilmember. It's a squared plus b squared equals c squared if you're Oh, that's right. I'm sorry, I got those mixed up and my apologies. It's uh Council, any additional questions for Mr. Palmer? All right. Thank you, Mr. Palmer. We'll go far. We're Thank you. That's the word I was looking for. We are going to open the public hearing and now on item 4.5. It's public hearing on our city code amendment for offense standards ordinance. Anyone in the council chambers wishing to speak on item 4.5 this evening? No? Ms. Reid, we have anyone on the phone? Mayor, we do not have anyone online. Nobody? We've waited all this time and No? Okay. Council, no one coming forward in the chambers, no one on the phone wishing to speak. I'm going to look for a uh a motion to close the public hearing on item 4.5. >> So moved. Second. Motion by Councilmember Rivas, second by Councilmember D'Alessandro to close the public hearing on item 4.5. No further council discussion on this? Ms. Reid? Carter. What? Aye. I did Hold on one second. I I missed a late hand. Sorry, I was stuff in my mouth, so apologize, Mayor. Um so, I I just want to say how much I appreciate what uh staff has done to bring >> Councilmember Councilmember, this is to close the public hearing. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Here I am. I'm a senior moment. Wow. It's twice, guys. That's twice. Councilmember Ms. Reid? Carter. Aye. D'Alessandro. Aye. Rivas. Aye. Loman? Aye, I guess. Robertson? Aye. Mayor Bassi? Aye. Motion carries 6-0 closing the public hearing, noting that uh Council Member Nelson has uh stepped away and I think he's done for the evening. He is traveling. Uh so, now Council, questions, comments, uh anything regarding item 4.5 that we want to bring forward? Council Member Loman. I'll say it again. Now now that we're in the right right time of the meeting here, well Um I I'll briefly say, you know, I appreciate how much staff has put uh into this. Um I I've had my uh uh you know, my my my feelings about this. I mean, some of the the old ways of things, uh how it's operated in the past. Um uh some of the history of that there. Um I'm I'm going to reluctantly support this tonight, even though you know, every part of me wants to to vote no on this thing. But, we do need to evolve and to change and to to see how a way in which that we can get to be closer to what our our neighbors kind of look like. I I do think some of this stuff will come full circle again. Um but, uh I'll I'll support this reluctantly tonight. Thank you, Council Member. Others? Nothing from anyone else? Then Council, I would look for action on item 4.5 this evening. Happy to do that, Mr. Mayor, if you like. >> D'Alessandro. I move to adopt an ordinance clarifying fence height exemptions, removing fence opacity standards, and adding fence covering material standards, thereby amending chapter 21 of the city code. Second. Motion by Council Member D'Alessandro, second by Council Member Rivas, to adopt the ordinance uh clarifying fence height exemptions, removing fence opacity standards, and adding fence covering material standards, thereby amending chapter 21 of the city code. No further Council discussion on this? Ms. Wright? Carter? Aye. D'Alessandro? Aye. Rivas? Aye. Loman? Aye. Robertson Aye. Mayor Busse Aye. Motion carries 6-0. And Council Member D'Alessandro, summary publication. >> Yes, sir. I move to adopt a resolution authorizing summary publication of the adopted ordinance thereby amending chapter 21 of the city code. Motion by Council Member D'Alessandro, second by Council Member Rivas for summary publication on item 4.5. No further Council discussion on this. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Oh. I'm sorry, I did it again. My bad. Ms. Ray, please. Carter Aye. D'Alessandro Aye. Rivas Aye. Loman Aye. Robertson Aye. Mayor Busse Aye. Motion carries 7 6-0. Thank you, Mr. Palmer. Was this your first time in front of us, Mr. Palmer? I presented the study session item back >> The study session item, well. >> This is my first real ordinance. Well done. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Thank you so very much. Council, our last item on the agenda tonight is item five, our city council policy and issue updates. I will kick us off as I do, recap of our listening session. Five, I think we had five or six speakers this evening. Jamie Anthony spoke regarding specifically about audible votes in council meetings where she couldn't hear specific votes and was asking that we all remember to make sure to turn on our microphone when we are voting. And so, we've got to remember that and remember what we're voting on. Ideally, we should do that as well. Claudia Beck spoke and talked about the impact of Metro Surge, especially the people on her block and gave some very specific examples for us to listen to and understand. Anita Smithson came forward and with concerns about the the young woman who died in custody at the Bloomington Police Department earlier, uh I think last week, and was informed that there were still a number of questions that needed to be resolved before any actions could be taken and we committed to the fact that those questions would be answered and we would make public all of the information that we had once there was the opportunity to do so. Kody Retzlaff touched on that subject. He also talked about law enforcement reform. He talked about face coverings of any law enforcement officers or officials in the city of Bloomington and a number of other issues that he brought forward. Will Clark talked to us about the impact of Metro Surge and and law enforcement and federal law enforcement in the city and Laura Peterson also spoke specifically about masks and and the city's opportunity and ability to do more and asked us that we look at other opportunities and other possibilities. And she also suggested we've got to update the website regarding the city's for safe and stable communities which I agree with completely. I didn't realize that hadn't been updated. So that was our council study session this evening. In addition, I just wanted to bring forward some public thanks. It's been a while since we've been together but I wanted to bring forward public thanks to our staff for the work that they did pulling together our state of the city address. We had an absolute full house. It was a great facility. Lunch was good I understand. It was I think good messaging. I thought Janine in our communications department did an outstanding job with that and then it was topped off by the dogs which was the best I thought ending to the to the possible best possible ending that we could have had for the event. All in all, I think I I know that Bloomington sets the standards in terms of state of the city events. The fact that we've had mayors from other cities come and watch ours just to get ideas like we had this year as well tells us that I think we're doing something right and I think it has a lot to do with the the the expectations and the level that has been set over the decades for our state of the city address and the work that the staff does in pulling this all together. And so kudos to them and and a lot of thanks. And thanks to everybody who attended and thanks to everyone on the council who had the opportunity to attend as well. So it was a good time I thought. Mr. Walker. I have nothing tonight, sir. Thank you. Council, Councilmember Loman, I know you wanted to bring something forward. Yeah, and what I'll do is I'm going to skip one of them because I want to keep to our time frame here, but during our public hearing earlier tonight and maybe we can't fully respond to this at all, but uh uh this this concept of fraud and artistry was was brought forward and I think the the public commissioner and city manager I I I I just really want to make sure we don't leave people confused with how that somehow related to that topic at all. Um and I'm not sure Mayor if you if you want to comment on it briefly now or we want to bring it back. >> Well, I I think we could bring it back certainly. I I think there's two points here. First of all, it had absolutely nothing to do with the topic that we were talking about. But secondly, I think the the issues that artistry had financially over the past few years, there was there was never any indication of fraud. There was indications of mismanagement by the former director of the organization, but there was no indication that there was any fraud going on. And I think fraud is a a a handy topic for some people to to attach to a lot of different ills or concerns that they might have about what's going on anywhere and I think that's just that's what we're seeing here. It was an opportunity to just to to bring it up and and to to point it up but with no no indication that there was any fraud attached or associated with any of the financial issues that artistry has had over recent the recent years. I thank you Mayor and I I know that your your background with this and your your you know on this you know that was one of your concerns when when when all this stuff had occurred. And so I appreciate your your comments on that. I'm going to leave the the policing one to to next time we can talk about that, but I just wanted to just be sure that for that 106th Street Bridge preservation that is being done, that we're making sure that the public is generally aware of that in my district and that that type of thing. And if that could that we put the publications and making sure I know we've done other stuff, but just wanted really make sure folks know about that and that work we're doing there. Absolutely. Thank you. So, with that Council, anything else? Council member Rivas? Yes, we got got it to you now. I just said um um as I mentioned earlier, I got approved to be part of the advocacy committee for public safety and um crime prevention. And I learned that the NLC has created a some kind of organization to provide assistance to local police departments uh with acquiring drones. Uh so there is a opportunity for us to if we don't have any, which I'm not aware that we do, but we probably do, right? Anyway, so there were a couple of them that they showed us in there that they carry supplies, you know, to emergency spots before EMTs arrive. Uh and so it's it's a lot more complicated than I can explain, but the the reality is that they have funds available and if it could benefit our police department or our fire department, uh that would be a good opportunity for us to make a move on. Um so, they do have the funds and they are available and I just need to learn a few things. They I asked me to spend some time watching um dispatch 911 emergency. Mhm. Uh so, I asked Chief about that. So, um just to learn how it operates and you know, talk about it. And if we have any needs to enumerate those needs and bring them over to the to the next meeting so that they can try to uh put a some kind of a list what the cities uh what cities need so that they can push that for the federal government to assist with that. You're good. That was pretty neat to learn about that stuff. >> Yes, absolutely. >> Thank you. That's all I got. Thank you. Anything else, Council? Is anybody going to say anything about NLC? I know we did have at least three council members at NLC along with our city manager. Council member Robertson. Yeah, apparently I'm going to discuss it. Um yes, so this past week um myself, Council member Rivas, and City Walker City Manager Walker, that guy over there, um uh and Lona, excuse me, Council member D'Alessandro, um all had the opportunity to go to Washington D.C. Um and meet with some of our federal representatives. It was fabulous. Um there was an interesting travel story uh because all the flights were canceled and so Rivas, Walker, and myself drove to Washington D.C., which was fabulous. Um and everyone did a great job uh meeting We got to meet with um Klobuchar, Morrison, and an aide to Senator Tina Smith, and it was great. So, yeah. Is that it? Do I am I supposed to say anything else? Put me on the spot. Thank you very much. >> Thank you for Thank you for representing Bloomington. Uh Council member D'Alessandro. >> Yes, just so the public understands what we actually talked about with those folks. Um as you all know, we go to Washington to lobby on behalf of the city for funding in um appropriations and things like that to try to get some of our projects um funded at the federal level. Uh there were three projects that we submitted um with the idea that uh they bring valuable infrastructure support to the city of Bloomington. One is a sewer project on 84th Street. The other one was work on the revision of the 98th Street corridor um where we have so many challenges on the old Shakopee 98th Street combo platter there with a with 35W and the third one was related to our our award-winning water infrastructure. And so, they are non-controversial, non-partisan style issues that are intended to make the city a a great place for us to live, work, and play. And so, very honored to be able to talk to our legislative officials about the importance of those projects. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you all. Thanks for as I said, thanks for representing Bloomington and thanks for making the long haul out there. To drive out there is that's above and beyond above and beyond. Very well done. Council, if there's nothing else, we have completed our agenda this evening. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Motion by Council Member D'Alessandro, second by Council Member Robertson to adjourn this evening. No further Council discussion on this? Ms. Wright. Carter. Aye. D'Alessandro. Aye. Rivas. Aye. Lomen. >> Aye. Robertson. >> Aye. Herbst. Aye. Motion carries 6-0 and we are adjourned. Thank you all for your input and your work tonight. Thank you, Council Member Carter, for uh coming right in and and jumping in online. We do appreciate it. Thanks to everybody who have stuck with us tonight and thanks to staff for your great work on this. Everybody have a good rest of your week. >> Mhm.