[music] Do you Good evening and welcome to this May 21st meeting of the Bloomington Planning Commission. The planning commission advises the city council on development proposals, development standards, long-range planning and transportation issues. Some items that come before the planning commission are study items where we will not take formal action, while other items before us are public hearings where we will take final action. Uh when we have a public hearing, we do encourage the public to testify. You can do so here at city hall by joining us in the commission chambers. You can also do so online by following the instructions that are on your screen. On some items, the planning commission has final decision-making authority, while in other items, the city council will make the final decision, and the planning commission acts in an advisory capacity. The planning commission is made up of seven volunteer residents of the city of Bloomington. Each planning commissioner has been appointed to serve a three-year term with a two-term limit. We have five commissioners here this evening, so we do have a quorum. Our first order of business this evening is the pledge of allegiance. All rise. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Item number one this evening is in regards to the Telegraph Hill Office Park reszoning on Telegraph Road. Mr. Dylan Palmer is here with a staff report. >> All right. Good evening, commissioners. I'm here to present item number one on tonight's agenda. So, this is a uh oh, there it goes. All right. This is a resoning for the Telegraph Hill Office Park, which is located in the uh far northwestern quarter of Bloomington. This is located off of Bush Lake Road and 494. Uh this is a four building office park. There are four buildings that are each on their own parcel and then a fifth parcel which is composed of the parking lots and the common areas. As you can see in this map, one of those buildings, 7805 Telegraph Road, is excluded from this resoning and I'll explain that a little bit more later. All right, so the proposal is the applicant is proposing to reszone this site from R1 PD to B1 PD plan development. Uh the site is currently zoned for single family residential uses. offices including medical office are a permitted use in the R1 district. Uh the site was initially proposed to be a multifamily condo complex. This was built as part of the uh single family neighborhoods just to the south at Rhode Island Circle and Telegraph Road. Initially, there were residential garages and residential units that were going to be built here. In 1984, the developer decided to change their mind and uh instead convert these into office buildings. And that was approved by the city council at that time. Uh the reasonzoning to B1 would allow for more prospective tenants to lease this space and then bring any non-conforming uses at the site into compliance. We don't think there are any non-conforming uses, but it's just a kind of a cover any legal basis is there. The reason that 7805 Telegraph Road, so one of those four office buildings is excluded from this resoning is because uh both the city and the applicant have tried to get into contact with the owner of that building and unfortunately we have been unsuccessful. Uh believe there was recently a change in ownership to that building. So uh maybe something to do with that. Uh the 7805 property was included in the public notice and if the owner does come forward between now and the noticing for the potential city council meeting. Uh the owner can sign on and 7805 can also be reszoned to be one. But again that's only if the owner of that property signs on this application prior to the notices going out. So this is the existing zoning and the guide plan on the left is the zoning there. It's zoned R1 PD. uh pretty much everything around it is also zoned R1 PD. It's guided office. Again, this was reguided back in 1984 when the developers uh changed this from residential over to office and guided lowdensity residential to the south and conservation to the east. And then this is just a graphic showing the resoning. So again on the left there is the current state where it's zoned R1 PD and then the right where the proposal to reszone this to B1 PD and then the uh kind of donut hole in the middle there of 7805 telegraph remaining as R1 PD. So the office land use category it allows for professional and business offices as well as some limit limited accessory retail and restaurant uses intended to serve the building tenants. So, think like a small coffee shop or something inside of the office building. Uh, the proposed B1 zoning is more compatible with office guidance than the existing R1 zoning. Uh, it's consistent with surrounding sites and land uses. So, B1 zoning district official title is neighborhood office. Uh, the entire point of the B1 zoning district is to allow for office uses to be located near residential uh, communities. And I do have a whole list of B1 uses if you do want to see those at the end. Uh this is not anticipated to create an excessive burden on the city. It's already served by a collector road off of West Bush Lake. Uh there's adequate utility capacity and they are compliant with their parking counts. So staff uh recommends approval of the resoning and if you have any questions for me, I'm available for you. >> Thank you, Mr. Palmer. Um I do have a question. It was referenced in the staff report and I remember years ago hearing about the the concept of spot zoning, but as someone who didn't go to school for planning, I don't know much about it. Can you just give us an overview on what is spot zoning and whether that's something is that is encouraged or discouraged? >> Uh, Chair Cook, spot zoning is the practice of kind of singling out a parcel. Let's say we have a residential large residential community and somebody wants to reszone their house to C4, let's say, and it's only one parcel. There's no C4 within miles around, that would really be considered spot zoning. So, it's a specific one parcel action where they're changing the zoning to something that's not compatible with any of the land uses around it. >> Thank you very much. Questions for staff? Seeing none. Thank you, Mr. Palmer. I believe the applicant is here. If they wish to step forward, they're welcome to do so and tell us about their proposal. Not necessary if >> Yeah. I don't You summarized it really well. >> Very well. Thank you very much. Um this is a public hearing which I will open now and ask if there's anyone in the chambers to who wishes to testify on item number one. I see no one stepping forward. Miss Brown, is there anyone online who wishes to testify? All participants online are staff. >> Very well. I will look then for a motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. That motion passes 5-0. And we'll move on to discussion. Commissioner Cunningham. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, seems pretty straightforward to me. Uh, very Mr. Palmer, thank you so much for a very thorough staff report. Hope that the uh owner of uh 7805 comes forward. Um but uh I don't believe that this would be uh injurious to surrounding land use to have a different zoned parcel in the middle of this park. So I'm in favor. Thanks. >> Thank you, Commissioner Cunningham. I too am in favor of this. Seems pretty straightforward forward. B1 seems like a good fit for uh some local neighborhood businesses that aren't going to be disruptive to the neighborhood but rather complimentary. So I too will be supporting this. If there's no other thoughts, I would entertain a motion. Commissioner Cunningham. In planning case PL2026-26, I move to recommend the city council adopt an ordinance reszoning the properties at 7815, 7825, 7835, and 7845 Telegraph Road from R1 PD single family residential plan development to B1PD neighborhood office plan development. >> Is there a second? >> Second. I have a motion and a second for recommending approval of the motion as stated. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. That motion passes 5. This will go before the city council as a public hearing on June 15th. Thank you very much. We're going to move to item number two, which I will be recusing myself for. I will also be recusing myself uh for item number three. In my absence, acting chair will be Commissioner Cunningham. >> Thank you, Chair. Item number two this evening is a reguiding, reszoning, and conditional use permit for a uh parking facility at 3700 and 3750 American Boulevard. Uh, and Mr. Centinar, you have the staff report. >> Yes. Thank you, uh, commissioners. Um, [clears throat] to preface preface the next two items, uh, just wanted to make a couple notes that both of these items have there's [clears throat] a lot of overlap between them. As you probably saw in the staff report, a lot of the same issues, a lot of the same um, considerations apply to both uh, applications. Therefore, there there is a lot of overlap. So, I'll try to be succinct. um not trying to repeat uh too much of the material. Um but first on the uh or item two on the agenda is for uh Rosa Development Company. Uh we know the site as uh Park and Fly. Um and we have three items on uh that we're asking you to take action on. One is uh comprehensive plan land use uh guide plan amendment to change two parcels 3700 and 3750 from South Loop mixeduse to highintensity mixed use. Both of these land use designations are unique to the South Loop district. Uh they uh there are a lot of similarities between the two of them. Uh but there are some distinctions that uh uh really make sense in this context. Along with that uh designation change, we are asking you to consider reszoning these two parcels from HXRPD to CX2PD. These zoning districts uh are very much aligned with the land use designations that kind they go hand in hand. And then third, uh a conditional use permit for an existing uh remote airport parking facility uh at 3700 and 3750 American Boulevard East. And so you've seen a lot of these slides before. Uh so again uh for the commissioners a lot of the content and uh things that we're we'll be talking about is something that we've uh we spent quite a bit of time talking about the last couple years. Uh but Park and Fly uh it's been around for quite some time uh since 1988. Uh it's a remote airport parking facility. Uh it includes both a significant parking structure but then also over a thousand uh surface parking stalls. uh an office building was uh envisioned uh to be built on top of the parking structure, but obviously that didn't materialize. And uh there is an existing interim use permit uh that expires August of next year. And what I'll summarize some of the code amendments that have been completed by uh the city council a couple months ago. Uh and you know just to preface that you know there there is no more intermuse permit allowance within the HXR district uh that was removed from the code. Uh so um you know if the planning commission city council uh takes action to kind of complete this process uh will be two fewer IUPs uh existing in the city of Bloomington and there's fewer and fewer of them. These might be the last two actually. Uh so to uh refresh folks's memory on uh city code amendments, you know, we we started an uh airport parking study of a while back that was in 2024 [snorts] and that study led to city code amendments uh ultimately and uh the city council ultimately adopted some uh staff's recommended amendments, but then they essentially directed staff to continue working with the existing remote airport parking operators, Park and Go and Park and Fly. uh because it wasn't quite there yet. And so that's what we did. Um and subsequent to that action, uh the property owner Rosa Development uh Park and Fly uh they initiated a city code amendment, a privately initiated city code amendment and initially we weren't supportive of what they were proposing uh but we were able to agree uh to some modifications and that's what was adopted a couple months ago. And so to summarize uh those amendments included eliminating uh remote or existing remote airport parking facilities as an interim use. So there are no more intermuses for remote airport parking anywhere. Uh but along with that it created uh a conditional use allowance for remote airport parking facilities in the CX2 district. [snorts] While these parcels are zoned HXR uh and to create a conditional use in the CX2, that essentially means you have to reszone to the CX2 district. And that's what the applicants are are are doing tonight. Uh but with that, there are some performance standards that for staff to support uh the changes uh we felt needed to be part of the code. One is to establish a future uh development site, a 2.75 acre future development site. Uh future development on that future development site has to be at least 120,000 square feet of floor area and um uh one thing that we heard from the operators is that they need certainty uh uh a permanent zoning rights. But then this is going to happen over time and so uh surface parking which is mostly uh in the case of park and fly is surface parking that can continue. Future expansion could be done in parking structures. Um you know vertical expansion not horizontal expansion. Uh and it can be integrated within future development. And so if there's an office building for example uh some remote airport parking could be uh incorporated within that office development. You know the some of structure parking could be for remote airport parking. Some parking would be to serve the office development. [snorts] And so that's just a long-winded summary of what has already happened. Uh but for uh the current application uh they're looking to regguide uh to highintensity mixed use. And so here's just a graphic showing uh what that map would look like. Uh high-intensity mixed use uh is often associated with the Mall of America and some parcels uh surrounding the Mall of America. Uh it is intended to support uh intense urban development and uh that's something that we think is really important. Uh the South Loop mixeduse district or not district but designation also is intended support to support highintensity uh mixeduse development transit supporting development. But there are some very important distinctions between those two. One is the South Loop mixed use designation uh requires or dictate dictates there has to be residential compon residential component um which is very which is very prescriptive especially on a site that's immediately adjacent to the interstate um and within an airport overlay. Also uh even in the comprehensive plan uh it dictates a very high minimum floor area ratio 1.5 uh and then a maximum of two. So that that's very prescriptive um and it doesn't necessarily lead itself to a lot of flexibility uh to respond to certain marketing conditions. So we are supportive of this uh redesation. uh we want to remove barriers to development not uh can keep barriers uh that have been uh burdensome uh and but along with that it naturally the re the zoning designation would be to shift it to CX2 because again they go hand in hand um and so the base zoning uh is currently HXR again it requires a residential component uh it requires a minimum 1.5 F whereas a CX2 district allows residential uh development It allows a very high high floor air ratio uh but doesn't have the same level of uh prescriptiveness and it also allows a more a larger variety of uses. So again reducing barriers to development which is what we want to see on these uh remote airport parking facilities. Another slide that you've seen before is um [clears throat] when we're going through the code amendment we were discussing how this future development site could be implemented. again 2.75 acres. Uh there would be a screening requirement between uh the remote airport parking and the uh permanent development or the future development. Uh and then there's a compliance deadline and so this is over this is about 10 and a half years from now. So there should these applications be approved there is a long period of time for the applicants to establish this future development site and hopefully find a development to move forward uh in the near term. And as a zoning exercise, again, the the plans that I'm showing you are very conceptual. Uh they're not proposing this particular development. This is again a zoning exercise. They're showing a four-story office building uh along American Boulevard East because that is a code requirement to be oriented towards the street uh with a surface parking lot. Um so, hypothetically, something like this could materialize in the future. Uh or it could be completely different. uh we're not sure, but we wanted uh the applicant to at least think about how this uh these code uh requirements could be met in the future. Again, here's just a closer view. Uh we felt it it is extremely important to orient the building closer to American Boulevard East uh as opposed to the interstate. Uh that's where we want to frame the street for more urban character. And you know, not to mention the uh light rail is very close. So having more activity of for workers um visitors uh residents we want them to be as close as possible to the light rail uh so they could hypothetically use that transit more often. Now that's all very future oriented. Uh but uh one thing that we would see uh in the near term uh should these applications be approved is a substantial improvement uh to landscaping on the site. Uh the sites do have landscaping. Uh they're not uh void of any uh landscaping, but I mean it's hard to it's hard not to see the acres of unencumbered asphalt. And uh normally when you have a very large parking lot, you have to incorporate landscape parking islands like in the within the parking lot with trees. Uh well that was exempted and so the applicant does not have to do that. So really it forces all this landscaping to be established along the perimeter and that's what you see on the plan here. And so historically remote airport parking has always been treated as a temporary use. And so as a temporary use it wasn't required to meet all of our current development standards. Well, the code changed that uh with a conditional use permit. It is a permanent use. And so with that, uh you have to meet the city code. And so that's why uh landscape improvements are important uh now and into the future. So I just wanted to give you a zoomed in version of all the additional landscape plantings uh that would uh happen in the near term. Uh we're already into May. uh this process isn't done yet. It would have to go to city council and then if approved by city council affirmed by the metropolitan uh metropolitan [laughter] council. So we have a little bit of process to go yet. Um and in discussing with the applicant, you know, ideally they would have these plantings done uh by the end of the 2026 growing season, but you know, not sure if they could get their hands on all the plant material because it was quite a bit. So, as a condition of approval, um we uh included that it would have to be completed by uh mid mid year next year. Uh just really so there's no no reason not to get it done uh within the next year. And again, as a zoning exercise, uh how could landscaping be incorporated into that future development site? Um the remote airport parking facility is exempted from landscaped parking islands. future development is not. And so you can see here what a norm what a quoteunquote normal uh parking lot would look like uh with landscape parking lots and trees. And you can see we require a fair a fair amount of landscaping within these spaces. And so really what we're looking towards down the road by that 2036 compliance deadline is that the site is completely compliant uh in terms of landscape uh requirements. And so with that, uh, we are recommending approval of the three, uh, applications tonight. And I do have the, uh, motions for you, and I am happy to answer any questions in the meantime. >> Thank you, Mr. Centinario. Uh, any questions for staff? Commissioner White. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I have two questions. I just want to make sure that I understand um, a couple of things. one is this uh resoning and these changes would not preclude future development being residential. It just doesn't require it. Is that my is that correct in my understanding? >> Yeah, commissioner, that's exactly right. And so again, the HC district and I said in the staff report, very well-intentioned. Uh but if you read through it from start to finish, >> there's a whole lot of rules. Um and uh I I think those are reasonable rules, but uh they are cumbersome and uh they do limit uh the creativity and the ability to respond to what the market could foresee on a given site. And so if uh the applicant finds a develop a residential entity uh that wants to build a residential building uh on their site, then that's great. You know, we we fully support that. this applicant actually had an entitled apartment building u more or less on the site that they're showing as future development and so um we were very supportive of that development and I would I would imagine we would be in the future if they wanted to do that uh but it's not a requirement and so what what we are prioritizing is uh like urban form uh land use intensity along American Boulevard East but we wanted to be more flexible on the uses of that development >> thank Can I ask an additional question? >> Of course. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. And then, um, what happens if there is no development come 2036? >> Uh, commissioners, it's a great question. And, uh, provided that the future development site is established, you would have a 2.75 acre vacant site with a lot of perimeter landscaping. Not not ideal. That's not something we want to see. Uh but removing the remote airport parking from that site uh is critical uh to make the you know to make it viable for future development. Any other questions for staff? Seeing none, I believe I see the applicant in chambers if they'd like to step forward and uh tell us about this application. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, planning commissioners. My name is Bill Griffith representing Rosa Development and you've seen me many, many times on this issue in particular. I wonder what Mike's going to do with all his time after this is done, right? I'm sure there's some ideas. Um, thank you again uh to staff and to the city attorney's office for helping us to get to this point. Um, hopefully one meeting away from being concluded at least with this stage. I really want to address uh council member White's question because I think it's really really critical to the discussion and and how we ended up here. This is a balance of interest. This is a balance of existing and what can happen next. It's an opportunity um but it's also creates some permanence around uh remote airport parking and that's a good thing because that question has always been hanging over these sites and along with the question about what these sites can be. And so as Mr. Centinario said, um, one of the real lynchpin moments when we were in these discussions back and forth with staff is this flexibility that comes with reguiding and resoning to CX2. Very different districts. I said that in March. I don't I don't need to go long on that point, but it is really critical to uh what uh Commissioner White asked. The last thing anybody wants is a vacant parking site and it won't have cars on it because it's it's intended to be a development site. And so, uh, as we've talked about it over the many months, it essentially becomes an incentive to do something different. Uh, because you're not, you know, you're not going to be able to park cars there. It's not going to generate revenue. And then so it becomes a development site. And when you think about and imagine what what can happen next, um it's almost like by allowing it's not almost like it is like uh an incentive to build bigger and and and higher because you can now park cars within an underground ramp, you can park cars in a structured ramp, you can build on the front, you can have cars in the back. all of a sudden a whole range of things open up that create an incentive for property owners and developers to do something with that property and and also a deadline and I think that was the key for the city. The deadline was the key for the city. The flexibility was the key for the property owners at least that's how I'll represent it. uh there are others here who will speak um I'm sure later in the meeting but uh really we've reached that point now where the certainty is being created by these set of entitlements you know the the uh the March amendments made that opportunity real and legal and now these entitlements create that that platform of rights that that allow the owners to go into the marketplace and say what would you do with this site you know I don't hold me to it but I suspect it'll be more than 2.75 acres of development. I suspect it'll be a whole lot more than that because of the opportunities created by this basket of approvals. So thank you for the question. It it was a nice segue to what I wanted to talk about and I'm happy to take any other questions and also Kristen Mure is online um so she's also available. >> Thank you Mr. Griffith. Uh any questions for the applicant? >> Thank you so much. Thank you. >> This item is a public hearing, so I will go ahead and open that now. If there's anyone in chambers that wishes to testify on this item, please come forward. Miss Brown, is there anyone online? Oh, excuse me. I'll fill this out later. >> If you could please state your name. >> Absolutely. Uh, good evening, commissioners. Mr. Chair, my name is Aubrey Alrech. I, as many of you know, previously served on the Bloomington Planning Commission. Um, I saw this application many times. Um, and I'm here to really ask a question. And that question I know cannot be answered by any of you. However, um it's more of a question about where we are as a community and where we are as a city and what this what this means for this specific site. I understand the economic realities here. Um, I understand that we hit COVID that there were challenges in financing for this property and I think that the city council planning commission provided an incredible amount of flexibility um on redevelopment milestones and I think the grace there was very reasonable in my opinion at the Um, but we're now talking about a long game of a long game. And I think the question that I have um that I would just encourage commissioners and the city council and staff to really think about is not whether or not inter not whether or not the the parking should continue because obviously that's a bit of a baked scenario but whether or not Bloomington has a vision for the South Loop that is actually reflective of what we are physically doing and approving for the site. Because if this is the direction that we are going to go, which I disagree with, then we need to honestly look at the small area plan for the South Loop. We need to honestly look at our comprehensive plan and really ask ourselves the question as to what we want the South Loop to actually be. Um because if it isn't what we planned for, if it isn't in the vision of what we had hoped for, then we need to reflect that back to the community because for years and years and years, we have been telling community members that this is what the South Loop might look like. And that's really great, but it's a disservice to our community by saying that we're going to do one thing and it's going to be transit oriented. It's going to be have all these improvements. The city has done public improvements in this area and we've told developers, we've told property owners and most most of all we've told residents that this isn't going to be a collection of surface parking lots adjacent to light rail and it is and these this application just says we can now permanently do that. Um, we did a series of extensions, changes, etc. that that the developer was allowed to do and extended their timeline multiple times. And so I think Commissioner White's question about what is it going to be when this doesn't exist, there is no exist. There is an ex there is exist or not exist. And there's no way that the city is going to say, "Oh, you're you're just going to have an empty parking lot and there's not going to be any revenue there and we're not going to have any, you know, tax implication there. The the city is just going to say continue operating as usual. So, at what point are we going to talk about the vision of the South Loop and actually execute on it? Because if it's not going to happen, then that small area plan needs to change and the communication with the community needs to change because this isn't the vision for South Loop. It wasn't the vision 10 years ago. Wasn't the vision 20 years ago. Wasn't the vision 30 years ago. And we're now extending it another 10 10 and a half years. For what end? Um, I don't think this has to be an all or nothing conversation. I do think I just think that this is a moment in which Bloomington needs to decide whether or not we're still actively building towards the original South Loop plan or if that vision itself has changed. And if that is what it is, it needs to be clearly communicated. >> Thank you. Thank you, Miss Albert. Is there anyone else in chambers that would like to speak about this item? Miss Brown, is there anyone online? >> All participants online or staff. >> Thank you. I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second to close this public hearing. All or any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. The public hearing is now closed. Would anyone like to lead us off in some discussion? >> Commissioner White, >> I say please go ahead, Mr. Chair. Um, you know, I I I've quit counting how many times we've talked about airport parking and it is it is a complicated issue. Um there is a vision, there's a need to respect history, there's um economics at at work, there's the issues of the broader, you know, economy and and ability to find developers that are willing to build what we'd like to see in the South Loop. And and I'm I'm sympathetic to all of those challenges. Um, but I do struggle with the fact that um it's still the empty parking lot in a place where it shouldn't be. Um, so I'm I'm not not sure what I'm going to do. I need to think about it a little bit. I was hoping that I would hear things tonight that would make it an easier decision. Um, but I I do struggle with that fundamental premise of allowing that to continue. Um, I appreciate the hard work that the staff has put into this, the flexibility that the applicant has shown and the willingness to work with the city. Um, I understand their need for more certainty. Um, particularly as you you look around for a developer um or a buyer and it's just uh again I'm I will just be very open. I I I'm struggling a bit with um with it. So, >> thank you Commissioner White. Uh, anyone else? Commissioner Isa. >> Thank you, Chair. Uh, I initially was very much um when I did speak uh before on this item, I understood from the applicant's angle, especially that uh especially because they were established there for a long time. And so uh but as the public speaker uh Miss Albert uh spoke, I also 100% agree that um if if it's not in line with the small area plan or the South Loop plan that was adopted way before I was here probably um that it should it either should reflect it should reflect that and we should go off that or that should be uh re-examined. and um so residents do feel like there's consistency. So yeah, thank you. >> Thank you. Um I have a few thoughts unless Commissioner Summers, do you have anything? All right, perfect. Thank you. Um I uh I'm going to steal a quote from a former chair. Uh not to let perfect get in the way of good enough. Um, I think that the act of city governance, we're always trying to find a happy medium where, you know, a phrase I hear at work all the time is no one leaves a negotiating table happy. Uh, the applicant didn't get everything they wanted in this. The city didn't get everything they wanted in this. I think that the setting aside of certain locations on the property that are facing the inside of South Loop is meeting the intent but maybe not the letter of the South Loop small area plan. Um, and I think that I'm aware that there's been a lot of time there's it's this has been going on for a long long time. Um, but one thing that this site has never had that it would have if this motion were approved is concrete zoning to operate as a business and then improve upon their property. And in that might not sound like it matters, but it it does in capital markets. If you're trying to solicit debt for a project, if you don't have firm zoning, a lot of institutional lenders will not give money to a site, uh, because the building could be legally non-conforming or not able to be permitted to be built if there's a a zoning change. And I would lean to Mr. Johnson to correct me if I said something wrong there. That's at least my understanding of it. Um, so I do I like the 10 years? No, I don't. But no one has a crystal ball to know when uh loan markets will be right to put that much money into an investment here. And I think that setting aside a certain amount of acreage that would be non-revenue producing if the applicant was not to develop on it would be uh is is is a a happy enough middle ground to have me be in favor of this. But I'm very interested to hear everyone's thoughts. Thank you, Commissioner Summers. Thank you, acting chair Cunningham. I agree um with what our acting chair has to say. I think when I look at the um history of the the last few conversations, it feels like there's been um a lot of headway, especially when applicants um [clears throat] with airport parking continued to bring forth plans where that building was closer to 494. I really agree with the sentiment that um citizens of Bloomington are looking to the city to be clear about what plans are and those comprehensive plans and district plans are compilations of what the citizens of Bloomington feel is their voice in the plan. And I was at the launch for the comprehensive plan yesterday and what I heard from a lot of the residents was that um they feel like Bloomington is a place where they can participate and be heard. I think that what becomes complex about being on the planning commission is really being asked um and volunteering to get really into the nitty-gritty of where the staff are um as non-experts in planning. So, where I'm balancing that this feels um different than the South Loop District plan, it does I agree with the sentiment from Commissioner Cunningham that this does feel like a vast improvement from where this all started. Um and that I do think that one of the applicants um and I think it was um from Rosa Development mentioned that without these conditions that they were really struggling to have investors and get loans and do plans for anything on their property. So, um I think that this um is a good example of imperfection and I am um in favor of it. >> Thank you. Uh Commissioner White, >> uh I have a a question for staff. Um and it might be for our our fabulous city attorney staff. Um, I just want to make sure that if we reszone this area and allow airport parking in these spots that we are not in any way creating a loophole that would allow additional airport parking or or surface lot parking with no attendant buildings in any other areas. So, >> Mr. Centinario, go ahead. spent a lot of time thinking about that and uh we structured the code amendments to uh do a couple things. Well, actually there were three components uh of the airport parking study. One is to address uh airport parking at hotels which has been happening for decades uh and but quote unquote illegally. Uh it was never per it was never permitted uh by right. Uh so that was one component uh that we we felt we had to address and so we established some base very basic standards with that. Uh one is to uh allow some additional remote airport parking within existing parking structures. Um and the Mall of America did receive a conditional use permit to operate remote airport parking uh in the east ramp and that's that's been in operation for months for a couple months now. Uh and then third, you know, probably the most challenging uh component was how should we address uh the existing remote airport parking facilities, park and go and park and fly. Um but the way we structured the code amendments is that uh we really have uh these sites identified uh for any large scale remote airport parking. Uh the Mall of America had their cup because they were had the option of doing it. Uh we could see one more conditional use permit application for an existing ramp uh within the South Loop uh the Riverview uh parking ramp. Uh that's something we knew all along. Uh and then we have park and go and park and fly. That's that's it. Um and to open up any more sites, it would take it would take further code amendments to accomplish that. And I I mean we we won't support that. uh we we the conclusions of the parking study affirmed uh that our approach was an acceptable approach and I don't imagine us supporting further amendments to open this up further. >> Thank you, Mr. >> I just want to I just want to be on the record that I um echo Mike's statement 100% and um I appreciate the concern about honoring the aspirations of the south district plan. And I think Bloomington's planning division and our council and our planning commission um uh do a fun a phenomenal job trying to reach for the aspiration and the vision that our local area and district plans uh seek. Um for that reason that is why you know when we went through the study process we did not suggest opening this use up to any other sites where it didn't otherwise exist except for structured ramps that had excess capacity. One of the two fundamental issues that the district plan is uh I guess straining its aspiration is one the significant change in the office market. It's had a significant impact on what the South Loop District can be. Um the changes in that real estate market and the second thing that is always going to be in tension with the aspiration of the South Loop District plan is the impacts of the airport. Some of those impacts are positive. If you hear sik uh which recently just cut the ribbon on their headquarters, proximity to the airport was essential for why they located their development and their business there. But it also brings with it a lot of noise and a lot of other airport supporting uses that there's going to be a significantly high demand for in that area. And so that's a tension that we're fighting with every day. Um it doesn't mean that we're still uh suggesting to relax Bloomington zoning standards in ways that will fundamentally um uh alter the aspiration and vision of the South Loop plan. So um I just want to acknowledge those two challenges that um are you know we're still working through every day um and just reinforce Mike's statement that no uh a site another site in the South Loop cannot seek the same approval because they're not in existence today. period. So, I just want to be very clear about that. >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Mr. >> Card, I'll add it. You know, Nick and myself, we we talk with uh real estate professionals every day and we are confronted with their idea of what they want to do with a particular property. And uh additional remote airport parking facilities has been a topic. And uh you know uh maybe this will give you some level of comfort but uh we don't really give it much o oxygen uh well we don't uh for other sites and so we're very clearly communicating with other property owners and interested parties that uh we're not interested in supporting uh further remote airport parking. We went we went through the the airport parking study uh we evaluated the range of options. Uh we went to the planning commission, the city council. We talked to property owners. We talked to other interested parties, uh, other property owners, uh, tourism industry professionals. So, we we really tried to get a good scope of opinion and thoughts on how to balance this. And this is where we're ending up. And so if you know for me someone who has never parked their car in a remote airport parking lot I may never I may never I try to probably oversimplify I would say uh in my thoughts on this and I I think what's there today versus what uh could be implemented with these changes and I just I keep coming back to compared to what's there today we're talking about hundreds more trees than are there today and hundreds of thousands of square feet of development that's not there today. And so I know that's a very that's very simple simplistic uh but it is uh how I boil down the before and after. >> Thank you Mr. Centinario. Any other discussion? Commissioner Isa. >> Uh thank you acting chair Cunningham. Uh I after listening to everyone speak uh so far I I would feel more comfortable voting uh if or first I would want to ask staff if there's been outreach to residents in that area that live there or work there. Um and if there has been I would feel more comfortable voting after that uh having a solid vote in favor or not in favor after that. Um the way I see it is for the applicants they've at least I think it was one or maybe both they've been in business for quite a while since maybe before like the comprehensive plan was even established. At the same time, uh, residents in that area were sold a vision and I understand that it may not be exactly as it was sold potentially that. So, I personally would be more curious to hear of residents that live and uh, work in that area um, if if they have not been reached out to. Um and yeah, and then if possible, if that hasn't happened yet, I would probably lean more towards abstaining just to if possible. >> Yeah. Chair, Commissioner Eay, um just to clarify, uh the city did not perform any uh extra or additional public engagement beyond our typical uh public hearing notification process, which would include in inviting or alerting uh notifying them of the hearing for all property owners within 500 ft of the subject sites. So, that's our typical process and is consistent with state law for public notification. And just to be super clear for the record, that uh is sent out through the mail. >> Correct. The mail and uh hearing notice is published in the local newspaper, the Suncurrent, which is the official paper of record. >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Mr. E said, does that or commissioner said is that uh >> see one more time >> answer your question? >> I think so. One more time. I dozed off at the end. Sorry. Uh so you said uh that they were or they weren't reached out to the milling. >> Yeah. Chair, Commissioner, you say all property owners within 500 ft of the subject sites receive a mailed notice um uh to their residence or place of business depending on what kind of address it is. The property owner of record receives a notice. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh follow-up question. Am I able to abstain? I guess it's more of a legal question, but that >> Oh boy. Um I mean if you chair commissioners I mean if if you want you can that it's really not looked well upon to abstain if you don't have a a good reason for abstaining as far as you feel like you can't be impartial or there's a conflict of interest obviously but I mean you can abstain if you so desire. >> Thank you Commissioner Isa. would um add to that that you know what what has been done for outreach is standard for any uh application of this type pre-guiding reasoning condition use permit it's standard throughout um so there is there was no special my understanding is there was no special outreach done but um the standard outreach was still done >> yeah know I I understand thank you chair I understand that um I just feel like to to be fair right uh I understand from the business angle and I do understand they made concessions on their end as well um with on their end. So uh but then also the resident aspect is something that I would definitely want to hear more of. So that's that's why I would probably stay. >> Thank you. Any other thoughts, Commissioner White? So, [cough and clears throat] I share concerns about that have been expressed about the neighborhood and the nature of the neighborhood and and what we want for that. Um, I'm sympathetic. I also am concerned about what will happen in nine and a half years when there's no development happening on the site because I think that there's always great reasons that it's not happening. Um, and I want to just be very clear that this is the last 10 years. Um, and I'll help put up fence myself if that's necessary in 10 years if it's got to sit as a vacant lot because I think that's just um, as as much as I appreciate what good partners they have been, the business owners have been and the the operators have been, um, again, I think, uh, there is a point at which it's just too much. And I'm this close to this being the point, but I'm probably going to vote yes only because I think that it is a reasonable compromise for now. Um, but I hope we will not be having this conversation again. Well, I certainly won't be on this planning commission in nine years, I'm sure. Um, but I hope that uh whoever is on the commission at that point is able to uh hold the accountability on this. So, >> thank you, Commissioner White. Commissioner Isa, >> this is just more so of a question uh 500 ft from that area. How just looking at the maps, how many of the residential uh lots are within that 500 are mostly in it or mostly? >> Mr. Johnson, is the >> question? >> Sorry to talk over you, Commissioner Isa. Mr. Johnson, is the noticing map in the packet? I thought I saw it. >> Chair uh Chair Cunningham, it is in the packet. I don't believe we have it as an extra slide here today, but just uh I mean, maybe Mike could make a better guess. It's possible that the northeastmost um residential site uh or I'm sorry to the southwest of this property um would be notified as well as potentially uh Artor Mike. But >> yeah, uh commissioners, the um whether or not the property owner forwarded a notice to residents, uh we don't know. uh you know, we can confirm that a residential property like an apartment apartment building received a notice. Uh what the property owner does with that notice, we don't have the ability to police or look into. So, uh some some property owners will post notices and things in like a a shared board in the in the building. Um, but we do not uh send notices to each unit like a rental unit uh of an apartment building. >> Thank you, Mr. Centinario. Does that answer your question? >> I do have the and Chair Cunningham. Sorry, Commissioner. You say I do have the um notification map available if you want me to share it quickly. >> Please do. >> Just for the the many folks at home watching. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, there are some residential sites within this boundary, but to Mike's point, um they might not necessarily be the property owner. And so, if you're a renter, um typically, uh you might not receive a notice. So, want to be clear and explicit about that. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Any other discussion? If there's nothing else, I would entertain a motion if Mr. Centinar could put it back up on screen. Commissioner Summers. >> Mr. Centinario, can you put the motion back up on screen? Apologies. >> I think I've got it. difficult >> in case number PL202600000058. I move to recommend the city council adopt a resolution amending the comprehensive plan future land use designation at 3700 and 3750 American Boulevard East from South Loop mixed use to high intensity mixed use. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> All those opposed. >> Abstain. >> Abstain. >> That motion. That motion passes with an abst or with a vote of three uh yeses, zero nos, and one abstination. >> Commissioner Summers. In case number PL2026-58, I move to recommend the city council adopt an ordinance reszoning 3700 and 3750 American Boulevard East from HXRPD to CX2PD. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Opposed? >> Abstain. >> Abstain. >> That motion carries. uh with three uh three yeses, zero nos, and one abstination. Uh, Commissioner Summers, >> in case number PL202658, I move to recommend the city council adopt a resolution approving a conditional use permit for an existing remote airport parking facility at 3700 and 3750 American Boulevard East subject to the conditions and the code requirements attached to the staff report. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. >> Abstain. >> Abstain. >> That motion passes with three yeses, zero nos, and one abstination. Uh that is a recommendation of the planning comm those three uh recommend or three motions are recommendations of the planning commission to the city council. uh where this same item will be heard on June 15, 2026 at 6 PM in these chambers or 6:30 6:30, excuse me. Always forget about the listening session. Uh thank you, Mr. Centinario, but don't go anywhere. Moving on to Moving on to item three. [laughter] Uh item three is a public hearing for a reguiding reasonzoning and conditional use permit at 7901 International Drive. Mr. Centinario, I'm assuming this is going to be a very similar staff report. >> Mr. Chair, commissioners, it is a very similar staff report, albeit shorter. Um, I want to uh give each application its own due. Um, but again, a lot of the debates, a lot of the issues that we're we've been grappling with are very similar uh between these two prop between the two applications. Um, but item three on your agenda is for uh park and go. Um and the the entitlements they're seeking are very similar. Again, we're discussing uh comprehensive uh future land use designation amendment uh for 7901 international drive from south mixed use to highintensity mixed use. Similarly, uh one difference between park and go and park and fly park and go is does not have a plan development overlay. Uh so you will you don't see the PD at the end of the zoning designation. So the reasonzoning would be from HXR to CX2. And then the third uh element is a condition use permit for uh an existing remote airport parking facility uh at the park and go site. And uh so park and go, it's an existing remote airport parking uh facility. I have on here 1496 stalls, although the applicant tells me that's a little too high. So I think we we gifted a few stalls apparently. Um, but this one has been in operation since the early 90s. Uh, and you know, we could talk about the history for a very long time. Uh, but similar to Park and Fly, uh, there's also an intermuse permit uh, that would expire uh, August 8th of next year. And that was quite deliberate to bring both of these sites under the same timeline uh, to work through the remote airport or the airport parking study and then subsequent code amendments so they could apply uh, fairly between these two properties. And I [snorts] I won't go into as much detail uh but a couple months ago the si the city council did adopt uh city code amendments uh that made some very very important changes eliminated remote airport parking as interim use in HXR uh created it as a conditional use in CX2 uh which then necessitate which essentially necessitated uh the reguiding and reszoning uh that you're considering tonight. Uh but with that there were performance standards for uh to establish a future development site of at least 2.75 acres. Um the CX2 district has a minimum floor area of 120,000 square feet. Uh so again we're it does this district does require a substantial development. 120,000 square feet is is substantial development. Um uh but it is also uh more permissive in some ways. But it would it does allow for surface parking to remain uh as it is. Uh and it these facilities can expand uh within uh future development and within parking structures. [snorts] And so similar graphics to what you saw before uh reguiding uh the land uh on the northeast corner of 34th Avenue and American Boulevard East. So again both this is a very prominent site uh a gateway into the city uh would be regiduided to highintensity mixed use. Similarly, the reasonzoning would be from HXR uh which requires a residential component, requires a minimum 1.5 F uh to CX2 which uh allows residential, allows high F development uh but does not have uh the prescriptive nature uh of the HXR district. [snorts] And now uh the the plans that were submitted a little bit differently. Uh the applicant in this case, Park and Go, um got out the colored pencils and the watercolors and uh did some hand drawings for us. Um but you can see again, this is a this is a conceptual exercise on how a 2.75 acre site could be implemented on this property. Uh again, what you see here is a conceptual site for future development. uh there you know there's no building design on this particular graphic but in past applications uh the applicant has prepared uh multi-phase uh visions of what uh could happen at the park and go property. Uh but again what we're seeing here is uh a site that meets the minimum size the area 2.75 acres uh can accommodate of at at least 120,000 square feet uh and if they choose to could have remote airport parking incorporated within the development for commissioners. This this may be a graphic you recognize from past applications or past intermuse permit applications. You know, you notice that the the building footprint is not consistent with the last graphic. Uh but one benefit to this property is there's a little more flexibility on how to accommodate that future development site. Um this site's unique in that it's uh it's surrounded on all four sides by rightway. Um and a good uh amount of frontage along American Boulevard. Uh and so along with uh you know just having more frontage along American Boulevard uh it also offers an opportunity to have um some access changes. So you can see on this graphic again all conceptual uh a potential new access along uh 34th Avenue and there may be some benefits to that uh to try and change the traffic patterns for shuttles for example. Similar to your last item on the agenda. Uh so what's a little different between uh this site and the park and fly site is there's more existing landscaping on the park and go property. Um and so that property has less to add if you will. Um but you can see here the applicant did provide a landscape plan that you know the way we would describe it is kind of like a phase one landscaping plan. This is this is landscaping that would be installed within the next year. Um and then future landscaping, if you recall from a previous graphic, there would be uh dense landscaping associated with that future development site. And so, um we'll continue to work with the applicant on landscaping. Obviously, this is much much more landscaping that's on site than that's on site today. Um and, uh our expectation if that uh if these applications are approved, uh is that ideally they would complete it this year. Um but we understand that uh uh we want to show some flexibility and are recommending condition that it be completed by mid year of 2027. And so uh shorter uh less verbose uh presentation but I have the recommendations for you here uh for the park and go site uh for the uh redes land use designation the zoning resoning and the conditional use permit. >> Thank you Mr. Centinario. Any questions for staff? Commissioner White. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so you'd mentioned that this was different than the other application. Um, so it doesn't appear to have the same 10-year development timeline. Is that am I reading that correctly? And could you talk a little bit about why? >> Uh, Commissioner, it does. Uh, it does have the same. So the >> the December 31st, 2036 timeline, that's that's established in city code. >> Okay. And so um and that that's already in city code. Uh and so should these entitlements be approved uh they would have to follow the same uh timeline. Now the benefit of having a 10-year timeline is that 10 years is a long period of time. Uh uh but you know with any luck uh we would see development activity much sooner. And so again there has we we felt there has to be a deadline. Uh but the hope is that uh with permanent zoning uh that provides the incentive to uh try and develop sooner. >> Could I >> Of course, Commissioner White. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I'm looking at the the plans submitted um which is similar to the drawing that you have here. Um so I'm curious. I see the minimum 2.75 acres and then there's just it's very small type. So yeah, bear bear with me. There's a whole bunch of other stuff around it. Is that uh this is to represent sort of the minimum requirement for development and then the rest could stay the same or could be developed. Is that accurate? >> Yeah, sure. Commissioners, Commissioner White. Yeah. So, the so this graphic here is really just a a depiction of the minimum requirement. Okay. >> And again, conceptual zoning exercise. Um what actually [snorts] is proposed for development is going to have to be much more detailed uh with uh you know architectural plans uh engineering, civil engineering um and landscape architecture. And so this is this is the applicant's preliminary vision of how that minimum requirement could be met. Uh but when the when the time comes, it's going to uh that future development is going to be treated like any other development. uh they're gonna have to hire a design team and they're gonna have to design a a substantial uh site. >> But in terms of Sorry, Mr. Cherio. Um >> please. >> Uh in terms of sort of worst case scenarios, this little block at the bottom could be developed and then the rest could continue to be surface parking. >> Commissioners, that's correct. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh any other questions for staff? Seeing none, uh, thank you, Mr. Centinario. I believe the applicant, Mr. Williamson, is here or excuse me, uh, if the applicant could come forward and tell us about their, uh, project and please introduce yourself. >> Ian Williamson. Uh, good evening, uh, um, planning commission. Um, Mike, could you put that one picture with all the different stuff on it? >> There next to right there. Um, one of the questions that came up and I'm a little puzzled by this is the goal still is to have a mixeduse development on the property. That hasn't changed. Right. >> Right. >> Has not changed. >> No, that has not changed. So, that is still the long-term plan here on this property. And there's a reason why in Tokyo you don't have pasture cattle walking around, right? The land is too valuable, so it develops over time. That's just economics. It's no different here when we go to that drawing that shows that little corner blocked out. There's about $1.5 million per year reasons why we would want to develop that little piece of property. So, I don't think that's going to be much of a problem in terms of that we do something in 10 years. We are already looking at that right now. And we are also talking to our landscape suppliers trying to secure plant material because there is quite a few trees that have to be put in. And Mike was a little shocked when I said that I usually shovel them in myself. But that's how we do it. We're kind of a hands-on group. So, I just wanted you to to know that we still have this type of a concept. And you'll notice that we really look at that whole piece of American Boulevard as being developed. Um, also, we build because I'm also the developer for Parkand Go. We build properties all over the country. And I can tell you one thing that we do more um or differently than everybody else. We tend to build big grassy areas that actually can sustain trees and bushes, then put little tiny islands out in the middle of parking lots. So, you'll see that plan right there. Those are all green spaces that would um of course be used for landscaping. We do this all over the country and most cities are very conducive to that because they like the idea that the trees will actually live whereas in little tiny islands, you know how it is. The plow goes through and trees gone. So, I'm also here to ask questions. We're very supportive of this. We think it's been a very good uh negotiated solution by both sides. If you have any questions, I'm here to answer them. >> Any questions for the applicant? >> I actually have one, Mr. Williamson, if no one else does. Um >> this uh may come up in the public hearing later. Uh but back in August of end of August of 24, uh when we were talking about extending an IUP for this site, uh one of the commissioners, I don't think it was me, asked, you know, what would happen if the IUP recommendation was denied. And I believe you said you were still going to park cars. Uh, one thing I'm worried about with the term of this is if market conditions are not conducive or the land value is not indicative of um of redevelopment, would park and go or your plan still be to park cars on the parcel that would need to be set aside permit? >> No, it is the owner's intent to set that aside. We're going to do what it says. >> Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? >> Thank you, Mr. Williamson. >> Have a nice evening. >> This item is a public hearing. Um, and I would encourage anyone in chambers who wishes to speak on this item to please come forward at this time. Commissioners, chair, uh, I'm back again. Aubrey Alrech, citizen of Bloomington. Uh, I understand the need to find a compromise here and I do agree that the landscaping improvements are substantial. Um, landscaping is not the same though as achieving the long-term vision for South Loop. So, [snorts] I'm racking my brain about what has been done in the past. And prior to this 10-year extension, there were development milestones that were required. there was uh sort of a check-in on the conditional use permit, the interim use permanent per permit over a period of time um where certain milestones had to be met. And I'm curious to know why that's not happening for these sites. uh because I I honestly think that the city maybe is not serious about taking the step forward and really what redevelopment will look like here. And and I think it's going to take obviously take some level of pressure. Um and it is difficult. I get it. I understand it. Um, so if this is not the long-term vision for the city and we're not going to put in development milestones and or figure out a way to really make this happen, whether that is funding, partnership, whatever it has to be, um, I think there needs to be some level of push and pull from the city to a developer or the owner to really make this something? Is it an arts district? Is it public space? Is it something? Because this 10-year timeline where we're going to put on all this landscaping and then it's going to continue as a parking lot unless it doesn't and then we hit 10 years and then what are we going to do? Just not park cars there. I don't think that's going to happen. What is the what's what happens then? Nothing. We're at the same place again. Um, I'm not saying that airport parking is bad. In fact, I think it is helpful to our city. It's an it is an asset, but it is regional people coming in, parking their cars, not spending money in Bloomington, not contributing to our local economy. And do we are we good with that? Um, and if we are, that's fine. But if we aren't, then we have to have some levers to pull in some places. And I think we set that up really well the last time. COVID and supply chain issues really put a wrench in it. I think we were there. We were so close. And I would like to see that replicated again. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Albert. Uh seeing no one else in chamber. Please step forward and state your name. >> Yes, Mr. Chair. Um, Bill Griffith. I wasn't going to speak on on my friend Daniel Williamson's applications, but since they're so related, I'm going to take this opportunity and I'll be brief. Uh, but but a little bit of history. One is these uses did predate the South Loop Plan. They predated uh light rail. Now, we can argue whether they're permanent or temporary. The city council has made that decision. the planning commission recommended those ordinance amendments uh when they came to them when they came to you. So that's that's the recent history. The not so recent history is many property owners in South Loop District uh got up and spoke against the changes that resulted in the HXR amendments because they were too prescriptive and and and now we have this many years later a recognition that maybe they were and they they didn't work for development. The the promise of this set of applications is you've got something that creates flexibility and a true incentive. As Mr. Williamson said, "You're not going to leave three acres sitting there with no revenue producing uses. This is consistent with your comprehensive plan. This is going from a bare site uh with with parked cars on it to a development opportunity. I in in my almost 40 years of working with developers, they don't leave stuff on the table. When the market comes around and there's an opportunity to develop, they will build. The other thing is is a little bit and you understand this because you're all indoctrinated in planning principles. The comprehensive plan is guidance. It is forward-looking. It is policy. What what really prescribes and controls the land use is what happens with zoning. And that's what the city is getting right in my humble opinion this time around with CX2 being a flexible tool. uh you've seen what it's done at Mall of America and and let's talk about some of the development in South Loop. Both your two biggest developments in South Loop have changed. Those plans have changed 20 30 times over the years to respond to the market. And and so you've got two things. You've got guiding and zoning and you've got a market. And and I believe this time around and and and it'll remain to be seen, but this time around they're in alignment. And that's what we spent so many hours with your staff and your city attorney's office talking about and negotiating to get to a set of principles and legal controls that can work. And so again, I I appreciate not letting the, you know, the perfect get in the way of the good. That that's what we have here. We have an opportunity and I think it's a really good opportunity. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Griffith. Uh, anyone else wishing to speak on this item? Miss Brown, do we have anyone online? >> All participants online or staff. >> Thank you. Hearing that, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. >> I motion to close the public hearing. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Uh any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> The public hearing is now closed. Uh discussion. Any other thoughts on this, Commissioner White? >> I guess just for the sake of consistency, I you know, I have the same concerns that I had with the the last um discussion, the last proposal before us. Um you know, I think um I think 10 years is a long time and I'm don't think we're now where I thought we'd be 10 years ago. So, I know that things change. Um, but I um I'm voting yes because I'm trusting future planning commission and staff to make sure that that is um that we are we are holding to that 10 years or less. >> Thank you, Commissioner White. Any other discussion? Commissioner Summers. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, I think to bring forth one of the questions from the public hearing, um, one thing I heard about was development milestones. Could staff talk a little bit about why that's not really in this version of the plan. >> Mr. Censario. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair Commissioners. Yeah, I'll try I'll try to be brief. [laughter] There's obvious there's almost 40 years of history uh with this use on these sites. But um before the pandemic, one mechanism that we tried to establish was uh extending intermuse permits uh with conditions and those conditions related to certain development milestones. And what we mean by develop milestones was a series of deadlines that would lead to development. Um so by X date uh there needed to be a concept plan and by X date they needed to apply for uh development applications and by X date uh ultimately they would have to start construction. Um and so that that was a that was the approach that uh in basic terms was we will support uh an IUP extension for remote airport parking. Uh but with that extension there will be a phase of de development and so each of these sites were envisioned to be multi-phased to be uh converted from remote airport parking to quote unquote permanent development over a series of phases. Um and again very well-intentioned idea and in fact um the property owner at uh Park and Fly uh went through that process. They got approval for uh a very attractive apartment building and ended up getting really close to getting building permits and so it was very close uh to be to materializing. Uh and then things changed and it it didn't happen. And so uh it was an approach that the city tried and ultimately was not successful. Thank you, Mr. Centinario. Did that answer your question, Commissioner Summers? Any other discussion? Uh, I'll just add my two cents that I I am cognizant that these items two and three are are very similar. Um, and I uh just want to say I commend staff uh for working through this. Uh, I believe it was Mr. Griffith on item two that made a a small quip about Mr. Centinario having more free time after this is done. So, thank you for the hard work on this and I am in in favor of this recommendation. If there's no further discussion, I would entertain a motion or was further discussion. Uh, Commissioner Summers, >> I think. Um, thanks, Chair. I am um in favor of this and um for many of the reasons that I listed in the last discussion, but also to keep these two um in line with each other makes a lot of sense to me. The two airport parking facilities. >> Thank you. Uh if there's no further discussion, I would entertain a motion. Commissioner Summers. >> Thank you, Chair. In case number PL2026-66, I move to recommend the city council adopt a resolution amending the comprehensive plan future land use designation at 7901 International Drive from South Loop mixed use to high inensity mixed use. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. >> Abstain. >> Abstain. >> That motion passes with three yeses, zero nos, and one abstination. Commissioner Summers. In case number PL2026-66, I move to recommend the city council adopt an ordinance reszoning 7901 International Drive from HXR to CX2. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed? >> Abstain. >> Abstain. That motion passes with three yeses, zero nos, and one abstination. Commissioner Summers. >> In case number PL2026-66, I move to recommend the city council adopt a resolution approving a conditional use permit for a remote airport parking facility at 7901 International Drive. Subject to the conditions and code requirements attached to the staff report. >> Second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. >> Abstain. >> Abstain. >> That motion passes with three yeses, zero nos, and one abstination. That is a recommendation of the planning commission that will appear before the city council on June 15, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. in these chambers. Moving on or excuse me, I believe my uh temporary chairship is over and Miss Chair Kton can return to chambers. We will move to item number four. It's a public hearing. The city of Bloomington is the applicant for corner lot standards. Miss Emily Hespek is online with the staff report. Good evening, commissioners. Um, sorry I couldn't be there in person tonight. I'm a little sick, but I'm here to talk about um amendments to some corner lot regulations. Oops. Okay. Um, so this item went to study sessions in March and April and it's planned to go to a council public hearing um in June after tonight. A little background um just reminder about what this is about. Uh Bloomington's current zoning rules treat all street facing yards on lowdensity residential corner lots as front yards. This requires larger lot sizes. um increased setbacks and stricter regulations compared to interior lots. These standards may hinder the city's goals of encouraging infel development and housing affordability while also creating inequities for corner lot owners by limiting their ability to expand their homes or add accessory structures. The ordinance proposal um is seeking to increase flexibility and reduce these hindrances to corner lot owners. This screen is just showing a summary of um the items proposed to change in the ordinance and I'll go through each item individually. The proposed ordinance reduces the setback requirement for primary and accessory structures um including accessory dwelling units on corner lots from 30 feet to 20 feet along the side street lot line. This change would make better use of corner lot space by treating side street yards more like sideyards instead of treating them like front yards. As far as sight area goes, um the ordinance is proposing lowering the minimum site area requirements for corner lots. So, the ordinance would reduce the minimum site area for single family homes from 11,50 ft² to 9,100 square ft for corner lots and for two family homes from 14,625 ft to 11,700 square ft. These changes um respond to feedback from the planning commission and council and are intended to align lot sizes with the proposed setback requirements and typical building pad size. Uh as far as site width goes, the proposed ordinance would also reduce the minimum site width for corner lots. The new proposal would be 70 feet for single family lots and 90 feet for two family lots compared to the current 100 ft site with requirement. These standards would still remain slightly larger than those for interior lots. Um and both the planning commission and council generally supported these changes. As far as accessory building location goes, um currently accessory buildings cannot be located between a primary structure and the street. Um so the planning commission and council directed staff to allow accessory buildings in the side street yard um which is shown uh on the screen. It's the red area in between the house and the street side yard. Um, this would allow corner lot owners to have more space to place accessory structures on their lot. And like I mentioned earlier with the proposed ordinance, there would still be a 20ft setback requirement from the side street lot line. Um, several definitions were changed within the ordinance. This was to ensure consistency and improve clarity um, mostly for staff. Um, and then the new definitions establish a side street lot line and a side street yard, uh, which I talk about more here. So, to support the reduced setback along streets, um, the ordinance is proposing to add a new definition for side street yard, which is what's shown in red on the screen. Um, and this is to improve clarity in the zoning code. And this allows greater flexibility for corner lot owners to use the side street yard differently than a side or rear yard. Um, with that I have the recommendation on the screen and I am available for questions. >> Thank you, Miss Husbeck. Start with questions for staff. Seeing none. Thank you. We do have a question from Commissioner Cunningham. >> Sorry about the the late. I was flipping back to my notes from March. Uh Miss Hespach, uh we had some discussion in March about um essentially standardizing uh lot widths for single family and duplex or d two family home dwellings. Uh did our recommendation from the study session make it into this final uh this final presentation? chair commissioner. Yes, thank you for that question. Um they did so yeah if you recall we were doing kind of a lot of math that study session and um we ended up taking using the same math for both single family and two family homes for the lot width so that you're adding the setbacks together a typical building that had size. Um and that is how we calculated the lot width and kept it um a similar 10 ft more for both single family and two family dwellings. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? Commissioner Isa. >> Uh thank you chair. So would the new side yard, I think it was a side street yard definition be on the side of where the I guess the mailing front entrance is mailing address or like how Yeah, if that makes sense. Like how would it be like um Oh yeah, thank you. >> Yeah. Uh chair commissioner Issa. So, I think you're asking like what the difference is between the front yard and the side street yard. So, um what you're saying about the mailing address, um like whatever street is the mailing address would be considered the front yard in this instance if that's what you're asking. >> Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah, I'll just Yeah, that makes sense. Thank you. >> Any other questions for staff? Seeing none. Thank you, Miss Huspect. There's nobody in the chambers as I open this public hearing, but I will ask if there's anybody online who wishes to testify. One second. Oh no. I think the mouse died. Oh no. Give me a second. [snorts] What happened? Oh no. Technical difficulties. >> Uh, chair, I can confirm that all members online are staff. >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson. >> Apologies for the delay here. >> Not a problem. >> Helping out. >> I will then look for a motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Motion passes 5-0. We'll move to discussion. Commissioner Cunningham. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, I think that this is a uh a good way to allow folks to use the ADU uh standards that we've put in place and also uh potentially redevelop a few larger lots into two family or two family homes. So, I I'm in favor of this. I think it overall uh pushes for the city goals. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Cunningham. as I have attended conferences uh for many years across the the nation for planning. Uh this is a recurring theme and what where policy is really going across the United States and municipalities and I commend the city for really being on the front the front foot of it. Um, you know, I've had some skeptical comments over time of how much time we're spending on it, but aside from that, I do think we're doing the right thing. I think we're ahead of the game and whether this makes an actual difference in the city of Bloomington, I realistically it's not. Um, we're already built out. Maybe a time or two a year this comes into play, but we have done the right thing and over time it'll continue to have its impact having done the right thing in the year 2026. So, I'm in favor of it. There's no further comments. I would look for a motion. Commissioner White. >> In case PL2026-64, I move to recommend the city council adopt an ordinance updating corner lot setbacks, width, and area requirements and editing definitions related to corner lots, thereby amending chapter 21 of the city code. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Motion and a second to recommend the city council adopts this ordinance. Any final discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. That motion passes. 50. This will go before the city council as a public hearing on June 15th. We'll move then to our last item this evening, item number five, which is the planning commission policies and issues update. Mr. Johnson. >> Thank you, Chair Cookton. Uh there's two public hearings scheduled for the June 4th meeting. The first is a conditional use permit for a type 2 home business, a dance school at 8924 Mount Curve Road. Uh the second public hearing is a conditional use permit for cannabis cultivation at 8200 Grand Avenue South. And then the third item on that agenda is a study item uh presenting information about the urban forest master plan. So this has been a priority project for our natural resource staff um and ongoing for probably the last uh I want to say 10 months or longer. a lot of data collection, a lot of interesting work done um with a consultant and other city staff. So, they're going to present findings and additional recommendations uh for you about that. It was a plan that was did have dedicated capacity for planning staff reserve report on the planning commission work plan. So, they do want to provide reporting to you on that. Uh looking ahead to the June 18th meeting, the first public hearing is a preliminary and final development plan for a expansion at the Seagate Technology Campus. That's along the border of Edina. It's at 7850 Nord Avenue South and 7801 Computer Avenue South. And then two additional study items on the June 18th meeting. Uh um both of which are work plan projects, a review of the multifamily performance standards in the zoning code. And then finally, a miscellaneous issues ordinance study session. So looking at the minor policy amendments that are coming forward this year as part of miscellaneous issues. Uh other updates I can share. Um uh the Bloomington 2050 launch event uh happened last night initially and thanks to Commissioner Summers for attending that. I appreciate that. And uh we have a virtual event next Tuesday on May 26th. I believe it still has some capacity for anyone interested in registering for that virtual event. Uh so May 26 6 to 7:30 p.m. on Microsoft Teams. Register on Let's Talk Bloomington. And then uh the planning commission appointments are scheduled to occur at the June 1st city council meeting. So just a heads up about that. And then finally to the point about uh impacts of zoning reform. I know the planning commission has requested staff report back on uh applications that have come through your body uh more recently. I just want to note that the uh 16 detached town home project at the south end of Bloomington Ferry Road was approved uh by the city council. So, um, an increase of 13 units on that site as a result of those missing middle housing provisions. So, just want to share those updates and thanks for the opportunity. >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I have a question um, very briefly. What's the difference between the urban forest master plan and I believe we call it the park system master plan. >> Yeah, thank you. Uh, so the urban forest master plan uh, more broadly is focused on canopy analysis of all of the city. So studying what areas of the city are really lacking in uh urban canopy. Um and so they're going to use this information to prioritize plantings um in those areas that currently have lesser canopy or less tree cover. So really intended to try and improve environmental conditions in those areas. And then secondly uh we get a lot of questions about trees in the public rightway. So they did a very robust data collection on all trees in Bloomington public rightway. They even have visualization models and have photographed every tree. Um, so it's a lot of helpful data and I think some of the policy recommendations coming out of that is for the city to be more uh aggressive or permissive of plantings in public right away in order to try and build up uh canopy along uh roadways. Um, so uh Dave Hansen and the consultant will be here on the 4th to dive more into that. But the policy document you're referring to is more about strategies on public lands, city park properties and conservation properties, Minnesota River, uh, some of those things. So that's kind of the key difference I guess. >> Okay. Thank you very much. This is an opportunity for commissioner to discuss anything that was not on this evening's agenda and I will open that opportunity now. I would like to ask an item. Mr. Johnson, I uh as a regular reader of the Bloomington briefing that shows up in my mailbox once a month. I was surprised to read um a thing about the clock tower at 98th in Lindale and that we are planning to tear it down. Tell us more. >> Yeah, thanks Sher Cookton. So I know this is a a sensitive issue and an important issue to especially folks who uh helped invest in that uh kind of civic landmark and so um I know uh there's a lot of folks uh who are concerned about that. I completely understand that and respect their reasons why. Um, this boils down to effectively of just a building safety issue that uh due to some water intrusion that happened in a couple of the structural columns of the tower um uh at some point in the future uh it's going to be structurally unsafe and so the city is taking proactive action to uh get ahead of some of those things. In addition to that, um, a lot of the components of the clock itself, the the clock was built, uh, in the 1990s, I believe, and so they're no longer available, uh, to replace a lot of the components. And so, um, to do the structural repairs of the the clock, um, uh, was extremely expensive. They did get some pricing done in 2024, I believe. And so, at that time, um, some decisions were made not to, uh, make make that investment. But um I know it's an issue that people have strong feelings on lots of different sides. So uh I probably can't win in whatever response I give you on this one here. >> It's just seeking information. So just to dive a little deeper, who makes that decision? Is that a city staff decision or is that a council decision? >> Yeah, that's a fair question. I you know uh directly who's involved is our maintenance staff. Um but uh obviously uh you know this is a sensit this being a sensitive issue. I'm sure it involves city leadership and uh city council members in terms of what to do from a capital investment standpoint. They review the CIP every year. Um so I I can't name one person or one entity in terms of who is the responsible decision maker. I can certainly collect more information about that and get back to the public. What I will say is that whatever happens next is uh likely to follow a lot of uh public engagement. um you know should the clock tower be removed as is planned um uh whatever happens there next the city will be very proactive in its tools of how to engage with the public about that. Um we have dedicated professionals and creative placemaking and other professionals um in addition planning staff of course would be involved. Um so the the city would do a lot of public engagement in terms of whatever would come next uh for the site absent the clock tower. >> Thank you Mr. Johnson. Um, look, I'm not a stand for the the clock tower. Um, that's >> it's not something I feel emotionally attached to, but it it does I was surprised to read about it and I think I would like to have seen this come before the planning commission in some capacity as a as a study item. Um, I think this is why we have a planning commission is to look at our city and what's the long-term and I'm not at all doubting our city staff and their expertise and I imagine it was reviewed by uh a licensed engineer and I'm not doubting their expertise either. However, um I think this is this is a this is something that could have come before the planning commission. We could have gotten public input on it and I think this is a role we can play because we have people on this body with expertise. That's why we have a planning commission is to advise the city council on matters that uh fall within our area of expertise. We have people on this commission who are in the development industry who understand financing and and all of that. I'm a licensed structural engineer. I can provide input as well. And so, um, I would have liked to have seen this come before the planning commission, and I just want to be on the record about that. Any thoughts on the clock tower or any other items? Seeing none, that will conclude this May 21st meeting of the Bloomington Planning Commission. Good night.