[music] [music] [music] Good evening and welcome to this December 18th meeting of the Bloomington Planning Commission. The planning commission advises the city council on development proposals, development standards, long-range planning and transportation issues. Some items before the planning commission are study items where we will not take formal action. While other items before the planning commission are public hearings where we will take formal action and we encourage public testimony. You can do so here at city hall in the commission chambers or you can also do so online by following the instructions on your screen. On some items, the planning commission has final decision-making authority while on other items the city council will make the final decision and the planning commission acts in an advisory capacity. The planning commission is made up of seven volunteer residents of the city of Bloomington. We have four of those residents here this evening. So, we do have a quorum. As we begin this evening, I'll ask everyone in the chambers to please rise for the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge 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. >> [clears throat] >> We will begin with item number one, which is a conditional use permit for a new daycare facility. Ms. Liz OD, you're here with the staff report. >> I am. Thank you. Chair and commissioners. Item one is for a conditional use permit for a daycare. Subject property location is at 400 American Boulevard East, just located um west of Portland and American Boulevard. Surrounding land uses include uh office warehouse type uses to the north of American Boulevard and then uh single family residential to the south. Uh the building size is approximately 3 13,000 square ft. The daycare would um take up the western half of the building. Um they're proposing to have 60 children and eight eight caregivers. [snorts] Uh they're um proposing to have um just a typical mix of um areas within the daycare itself. Um preschool toddler and infant rooms as well as a uh commercial kitchen um and then kind of an indoor play area as well. Uh they're required through the state to have an outdoor play area. So, they're proposing to have that um located west of the building. There's about 10 ft of space there. Uh they're planning on installing a fence with some uh play equipment that would be under 7 ft tall. And then as far as parking goes, uh 29 parking stalls are required for the entire building and they're showing 31 uh stalls on site. And then with any kind of change of use, they are required to u bring some items up into compliance. So the first one is uh parking lot lighting, which is especially important for um a daycare provider. Uh so the applicant has um provided lighting plans and they are uh compliant. They just need to apply for an electrical permit for that installation. And then landscaping. Uh they're required to install seven uh trees and a handful of shrubs. um they have to get a landscape shy um and supply a uh landscape plan prior to building permit issuance. And then lastly um due to increase in ped traffic, they're required to install a sidewalk that links from the primary uh building entrance to the uh public sidewalk along American Boulevard. Uh and with that, we are recommending approval. This is a final decision by the planning commission subject to an appeal. Thank you, Miss Odite. We will begin with questions for staff. Commissioner Cunningham. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, on the outdoor uh facility requirement, is there a square footage that's stated in code >> code? >> Uh, chair, commissioner, it's not actually in our city code. Is that me? Sorry, I don't know if that feedback um is that me. Sorry, I don't know what's going on with that. Um it's not in code. It's actually in their state license. They're required to have 1500 square feet of outdoor play space. >> Excellent. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Other questions for staff. Commissioner White. >> Thank you, Chair. I just want to clarify, are they using the entire building or just half of the building? I wasn't quite clear on that. >> Uh, chair, commissioner, they're just using the half west side. >> And sorry, m Mr. Chair. Uh, and what's in the other half? >> Uh, it's a um a mix of office, warehouse, and then the owner of the building has a pickle ball court that they use for just kind of their private use only, not open for the general public. >> Okay. Thank you. Yep. >> Any other questions for staff? Thank you, Miss OD. >> Thank you. I will invite the applicant up now if they'd like to speak on this item. >> Not necessary. Okay, great. Thank you. This is a public hearing, so I will open that public hearing now and ask if there's anyone in the chambers who wishes to testify on this item. Seeing no one stepping forward, do we have anybody online? >> All participants online are staff. >> Thank you, Miss Brown. Last call for anyone in the chambers to testify on this item. [snorts] Seeing no one stepping forward, I will look for a motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. That motion passes 4 and we will move to discussion. >> Commissioner Cunningham. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, seems like a very straightforward uh uh recommendation in front of us. Uh, I'm in favor of of going with staff's recommendation. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner Len. >> Uh, I concur. I think that it is a great use of the space and um good opportunity to get more child care in the community. >> I agree with that. I it's nice to see new businesses coming into the city and I think it's a great adaptive reuse of some you know look I a lot a lot of people are working from home some of these older stocks of commercial buildings are not being used for their original use and I'm happy to see an adaptive reuse in this way and I think it's a great amenity to our residents any other thoughts if not I will look for a motion commissioner Cunningham >> having been able to make the required findings I move to adopt a resolution approving a conditional use permit for a daycare within the existing office warehouse building located at 400 American Boulevard East subject to the conditions and code requirements listed in the resolution. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second to approve this conditional use permit. Any other discussion? >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed? That motion passes 40. This is a final decision of the planning commission unless an appeal is received by the city council at 4:30 p.m. on December 23rd. Thank you very much. We will move then to item number two, which is the uh public hearing by the city of Bloomington as the applicant regarding commercial vehicles in residential districts. Miss Navaro is here with a staff report. >> Good evening, chair and commissioners. Um my name is Dalina Navaro and we will be focusing on commercial vehicles in residential districts. Um on the agenda today we we have the pro the project overview, the project timeline, study sessions feedback and the code the current code and proposed changes. Um the zoning code limits what type of motor vehicles and trailers may be parked or stored in residential areas. Over the past several year years, staff have seen an increase in enforcement cases as the vehicle size and designs have changed. Uh many residents rely now on work vehicles for small businesses, trade work or deliveries. Um, however, the current code, sorry, the current code um can be difficult to understand and doesn't always match the type of motor vehicles that residents commonly are using today. Um, so this project is about finding a balance between flexibility for residents and protection of the residential neighborhoods. For this project, um, staff conducted both in person and online community outreach, including tableabling at Bloomington Pride Pride event and as well as the Lesto Bloomington page. Um, staff also met internally with environmental health, public works, police planning and legal to understand enforcement challenges and concerns. And then staff presented the project as a stud study item to both the planning commission and the city council. And based on the study sessions feedback, staff drafted an ordinance and held two staff meetings uh with the same group of people to review the proposed changes and tested. Um, in addition, I participated in a field trip with an environmental health program coordinator to look at commercial vehicles and trailers that are currently being used by residents in Bloomington. And today we're here at a public hearing and the planning commission will be making a recommendation to the city council. And this project will go to city council for public hearing on January 26. And this is a tentative date depending on their agenda and schedule. Um through community engagement planning commission and city council sess sessions several themes came up um such as support for great greater flexibility for work related vehicles maintaining neighborhood character and safety. Clarify how attachments are measured. um address safety near driveways and intersections and reflecting community input. Um so this feedback help us shape the proposed ordinance. So, as I mentioned earlier, I went on a field trip with environmental health to look at the motor vehicles and trailers that are currently used by residents in Bloomington. I am not able to share those photos for private reasons, but I was able to find similar vehicles here at Civic Plaza and our fleet department. Um and we measured those vehicles and most used commercial vehicles do not exceed 12 feet in height and 22 feet in length. And so this confirms the vehicle size research that is staff conduct conducted during the study sessions. So um under the current code vehicles are divided into different type based on the size and the use. So we have type one, type two and type three. Type uh one vehicles are up to eight feet in height and 22 feet in length. Type two vehicles include taxes, limousines, and is no plow equipped vehicles that that meet the same size as as type one vehicles. And then we have type three vehicles, which are those vehicles that exceed those sizes um and are classified as non residential and are prohibited. um a staff is proposing to remove the type the vehicle type categories and just replace it with one clear size standard. Um the proposed change increases the height limit to 12 feet um in height and we're keeping the existing 22 feet in length. Based on community engagement results, residents supported support supported allowing vehicles such as taxes, cargo bands, food trucks, vehicles with attached equipment, limousines, and buses. Um, by using just one size standard and increasing the height limit to 12 feet, the ordinance can accommodate most of the commercial vehicles currently used by our residents and it will better reflect the community feedback that we got um during the outreach. Um, for BELS with attach equipment, staff proposes measuring only the BE equal itself. Um during the staff review, we found that regulating attachments will be very difficult to enforce and could create in unnecessary um challenges for trace people and who you know who rely for work equipment. I don't know what's going on. There we go. [laughter] Uh rely for work on work equipment vehicles. So um as I mentioned earlier the current code prohibits type three vehicles which are vehicles that exceed 8 feet in height and 22 feet in length. Um the code also includes a long list of motor vehicles and heavy equipment that are qualified as nonresidential. Um a staff is proposing to prohibit motor vehicles over 12 feet in height and 22 feet in length. um and keeping a list of commercial machinery and equipment as prohibited unless the equipment equipment is actively used in residential properties. Um the photos on the right side of the screen represent the bay equal types that uh will remain prohibited under the proposed changes. I think my computer is weird today. There we go. So, um, in 2024, environmental health had approximately 280 enforment enforcement cases related to oversight motor vehicles and trailers. Um, of those cases, 141 cases were related to oversized trailers alone. Under the current code, trailers are limited to 6 feet in height and eight uh feet and 6 in in length. Um during our field trip, staff was able to identify most common trailers used by residents which are shown in the pictures and these trailers are approximately 6 to 8 feet in height and 20 feet in length. So this shows that current trailer size limits do not reflect common use or and helps explains why we have an increase in enforcement cases over the past few years. Um so to address this issue, staff is proposing to increase um the trailer size to 12 feet in height and 22 feet in length and this will be consistent with the proposed commercial vehicle um sizes standards. So recreational vehicles are not part of this project but it is important to understand why or what is currently allowed under the recreational vehicle ordinance. Um there are two type of recreational vehicles class one and class two depending on the size and general recreational vehicles up to 40 ft in length are allowed to be parked in residential districts and this also applies to trailers for recreational vehicles. Um, a common theme from community engagement and staff review meetings was the frustration from residents who cannot park a much smaller commercial vehicle or trailer, but then larger recreational vehicles are allowed. Um, many of the complaints received by environmental health were not about the presence of the vehicle or trailer itself, but more about the current code not reflecting the standards um the standard vehicle size and trailer that are current currently used by the residents. for the maximum uh quantity. The current code allows four motor vehicles, one trailer and two trailers for recreational vehicles. That could be either one class one or class two or um they are allowed to have three motor vehicles, one type two vehicle, one trailer and two trailers for res for recreational vehicles. So this means that they could have up to three trailers. We are proposing um to keep the four motor vehicles and um allowed only two trailers of any type or we are allowing three motor vehicles, one commercial vehicle up to 12 ft in height and 22 feet in length and two trailers of any type. It could be commercial or recreational. So, um this is just a decrease from the current code from three trailers to two trailers of any type including commercial commercial and recreational. So, for parking and location um under the current code, location requirements only apply to trailers. These requirements include parking at least 8 feet behind the dwelling unit unless the trailer is parked on a legal driveway or off dry parking area and maintaining at least 5 ft from any lot line based on safety feedback that we got from the planning commission, the city council and residents. um staff is proposing to prohibit commercial vehicles and trailers um from parking on public streets uh within the rightway sidewalks or in clear view triangles. So this means that commercial vehicles and trailers must be parked on a legal driveway or approved um of dry parking area. And in addition, staff is maintaining the requirement of at least 5 feet from any lot line not aborting a street and a minimum of 30 feet from any rare rare load line abuing a street. Um so this slide shows how staff is aligning related section of the city code to ensure consistency recreational vehicles allowances are not being broadly changed. Um instead measurements standard and trailer quantity limits are being aligned with the commercial vehicle and trailer ordinance. And for exterior storage, the proposed um change removes the confusion by allowing heavy heavy equipment storage to be um outside a garage only when it is actively being used. And the goal is to create consistent standards so residents and environmental health inspectors are not trying to navigate conflicting rules across different sections of the code. And uh finally, staff is proposing to add clear definitions for commercial motor vehicles and trailers um which are currently missing from the code. And with that, um I welcome any feedback or answer any questions. And once we're ready, um there is the motion in the screen. >> Thank you, Miss Naro. This is a public hearing, so we will begin with questions for staff. Commissioner White. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, Miss Navaro, I'm curious, could you just talk for a minute, and I apologize if you did and I missed this, about the reduction in length from 25 to 22. Um, and a little bit more about what the reasoning behind that is. >> Yeah. Um, so since we are currently proposing that commercial motor vehicles including commercial vehicles and trailers are allowed to be 12 feet in height and 22 in length. it doesn't make sense that we have in the RB section um an allowance of 25 uh feet in in in length. So what we're trying to accomplish here is just to have a um more clear standards um between these codes. So we're proposing to make that change to reflect the same size as the commercial vehicle and trailers. >> You may. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so just out of curiosity again, sorry if you said this already, the 22 feet for commercial vehicles, why why not just make that 25? Um, chair, commissioner, so that is a great question. Um, since we measure most of the the common vehicles that are currently used, they do not exceed more than 22 feet in length. So we went with 22. um it made more sense to just um update the RB section from 25 ft in length instead of the commercial vehicle to 25 if that makes sense. Um >> clarification. >> Mr. Johnson, anything to add? >> Yeah, thank you. Uh uh Chair Cookton and Commissioner White, just to make one clarification, too. The limitation on the trailer length, and durely correct me if I'm wrong, um of the 22 feet is when it's parked, uh in the front yard only. So there are opportunities for other uh sized recreational vehicle trailers. This is because because environmental half health staff just sees it in the front yard. A trailer is a trailer kind of thing. That's why they have to be aligned, but just wanted to make that clarification. That's front yard only. Forgive me if that was already understood. Seems like maybe it was. >> Commissioner Len. >> Uh thank you chair. Um, Miss Nvaro, can you go back to the slide, the pictogram that had sort of the three car, four cars plus one trailer, that one? >> Yeah. Give me one second. I don't know. My computer is frozen. >> There you go, Nick. You're a motan. You can't blame me. [laughter] Um, okay. So looking at the current code to the proposed change, do we have any sense of how many residents, this is a two-part question. How many people currently have situation on the left side who will now be confined to the right side? Number one. And number two, what happens if they already have those vehicles? Um are they grandfathered in? um or do they have to suddenly get rid of their vehicles overnight or start facing fines? >> Thanks, >> Chair Commissioner. So, we don't have um a list of like how many vehicles or trailers uh residents have, currently have. Um when we went on a a field trip with Environmental Health, we uh we noticed that most of the residents only have one or two trailers and um but Nick, I don't know if you want to add anything to that, >> Mr. Johnson. >> Thank you, Chair and Commissioner Len. I'll I'll invite uh Kevin attorney Kevin Tasky to add something to the legally non-conforming part of the question, the grandfathered, but um it's not a long list. It does come up in enforcement cases now and again. One of the challenges that environmental health is having right now as it relates to trailers is that people will have uh multiple trailers, many trailers, and they'll say some of them are for recreational vehicles and some of them are for work. And so there what happens is there kind of is a little bit of a gaming of the system, not by many people, but people who have studied our ordinances uh in kind of greater detail. And so the goal really is just to align or create an allowance of trailers that kind of fulfills both needs. And so whether it be two or three, um we want a trailer to be a trailer and not be considered one's a commercial trailer and one's a wreck trailer because basically people kind of um uh play some games with that. So with respect to legally non-conforming, um Kevin, correct me if I'm wrong. I don't believe that this is something because this is just kind of a operational characteristic of a site. It's not something that's eligible for uh legal non-conforming status. Um, so no, a site would not be grandfathered in, but in our experience, it's not a long list of properties in town that have uh had more than two trailers. Um, typically. >> Anything to add, Mr. Tosski? >> Um, yeah, just a little bit. Uh, chair, commissioners. Um, we recognize non-conforming uses, non-conforming uh lots and non-conforming site characteristics uh in our code. Um, I don't think the vehicle uh numerical limits or trailer limits would be one of those things. So, you won't have legally non-conforming rights. Um, echoing what uh planning manager said, like like endurely said, um most of the enforcement cases are just the trailers. So, increasing that height by just a few feet will eliminate a lot of enforcement cases and kind of reflect current practices. We haven't had, you know, when we get to the fine stage and enforcement, I'm usually in review those for environmental health and we haven't had much with trailer quantity. It's always size, it seems like to me. So, um, this is like the one thing that I kind of agreed with staff on is like this would just eliminate tons of work for us. So, yeah. Thanks. >> Other questions for staff? Commissioner White, >> Mr. Chair, and actually maybe this is a question for Mr. Tosski as well. Sorry to go back to the the uh recreational vehicle versus commercial vehicle length, but I'm curious on the recreational vehicles, do you have any sense of how many that are currently being parked are in between that 22 to 25 foot? I'm my impression is that recreational vehicles are often >> longer, right? So, I just want to make sure we're not creating an enforcement problem on that end. >> Um, yeah, chair and commissioners, I I don't think so on that front. Um the uh size of RVs I think you can go up to 40 feet. Is it right? Um maximum as long as it's stored a proper way. So most people put those on the side of their house. So it's not been a problem that I've seen. I don't can't recall a um single fine or anything enforcement action on location of an RV. So >> I agree with that. >> Any other questions for staff? Commissioner Lay. >> Uh thank you chair. This is just kind of a general question on some of the particularly like construction vehicles. What's the definition of inuse? Like so Bobcat, somebody's doing their own home rena and they've got the Bobcat and it's out there for seven months. Is that I mean how is that defined? >> Terry commissioner commissioner. So we actually had that happen before and that's why we are kind of we were trying to clarify that part of the code. Um where yeah people can't really store um a commercial machinery for more you know for seven months six months. Um so it's only when it's actively being used uh on a project that they're currently working on the property. >> If I may add to that Mr. actively in use doesn't mean that it's actually physically driving around the lot. It can be parked temporarily, especially while they have an active building permit. Um, for say, you know, larger landscape projects, retaining walls, those often require permits or a grading permit of some kind. So, active permits help differentiate some of those things. Um, so it doesn't act mean actively moving around on the site. It can be parked and be stationary overnight. It's just the again game back to that theory point about gaming the system can't be sitting there forever because I'm meaning to get to it at some point. And cherry, if I may clarify uh commissioners white question. So um it will be the 22 feet long. It will be only on the front yards. Um they uh recreational vehicles longer than 22 will be able to still park on um the rear of the dwelling on the sides. Um so that's not changing. It's just the front yard. >> Any other questions for staff? Thank you, Miss Navaro. This is a public hearing which I will open now and ask if there's anyone in the chambers who wishes to testify on this item. And I don't see anybody coming forward. I will ask if there's anybody online. >> All participants online are staffed. >> Thank you, Miss Brown. I will look for a motion then to close the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. That motion passes 40. We'll move into discussion. >> Commissioner Len. >> Uh, thank you, Chair. Uh, I'm generally supportive of this. My only concern is for the handful of people that perhaps will not comply with whose situation does not comply with the changes to the code, but I think I can get over that. >> Commissioner Cunningham. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, I just want to say thanks to staff. I'm in favor of the recommended um kind of motion before us. Uh, I know that this was something that I I don't think any of us thought would um be as in-depth as it is, and I appreciate the the level of detail that staff dove into on this and the the level of care that they put forth for this. Thank you. >> It's because you weren't around for the RV standards. [laughter] Um, speaking for myself, um, I said this during the study item when we saw this and I'll just say it again. This is just too much for me. Um, I I'm not in favor of it just because I don't like vehicles of that size uh in in the in the public eye. Um, I had a negative experience uh here in Bloomington with a commercial vehicle in our neighborhood and it was it was being a nuisance and taking I live on a busy street and it was taking up spots where uh customer cars and other things really wanted to be and it felt like it was a sort of an abuse of a commercial vehicle using it as free parking. And so that's I guess just one personal negative experience for me which has soured me on this. But uh yeah, for me I'm I prefer to keep things the same. I recognize I'm in the minority on that and that uh the public in general feels different, but I'll just uh speak for myself. Any other thoughts? If not, I would entertain a motion. Commissioner White. In case number PL2025-163, I move to recommend the city council adopt an ordinance creating definitions for commercial motor vehicle and trailer, updating the allowed type of commercial motor vehicles and trailers on residential property, updating height and length standards for commercial motor vehicles and trailers, and clarifying the number of motor vehicles and trailers permitted as a resident at a residential property, thereby amending chapter 21 of the city code. >> Is there a second? >> Second. We have a motion and a second to approve this application. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed? No. >> This motion passes 31. This will move to the city council as a public hearing on January 26th. Thank you, Miss Navaro. [snorts] We'll move then to item number three, which again is a public hearing. The city of Bloomington is the applicants and it's to discuss the art incentive code amendments. Miss Emily Hespek is here with a staff report. >> Good evening, commissioners. I feel tall having to move the micro microphone. Um, so yeah, I'm here tonight to talk again about incentives um for public art on private development. Um, so a little bit of background of where this came from. The Creative Placemaking Commission adopted um the citywide plan in March of 2025. And one of the recommendations that came out of that was to explore um how updating the zoning code could potentially encourage um the building of public art on private property. Um, so I went to planning commission and we talked about this at a study item and then I went to the creative placemaking commission to get feedback and city council. Um, this timeline uh just kind of summarizes what I just said and that there's a tent tentative public hearing scheduled at city council in January. So there are six proposed code changes. Um I'm going to go through them one by one. So the first proposed code change is to create a definition for art structure. Um because there's currently no definition for art in the zoning code other than mural. Um this proposed code change would create the foundation for the rest of the changes um and to be able to add incentives for art. The second proposed code change is to allow art structures to encroach into required setbacks in residential and non-residential districts. So in residential districts, staff is proposing requiring a minimum of 10 ft a 10-ft setback in the from the front property line and 5T from side and rear property lines for structures that are 15 ft or less in height. And then for non-residential zoning districts, staff is proposing again a minimum front setback of 10 feet and a minimum rear and side setbacks of five feet for art structures that are less than 30 ft in height. And just for reference, um the goldfinch, which is shown on the screen, is around 30 ft in height and the con uh convergence structure which was on the previous slide is 18 ft. The third proposed code change um is to substitute window requirements in mixeduse districts for murals. Um so this would allow murals to act as a substitute for the requirements that buildings must consist of windows on the ground level of the facade between 2 and 10 ft in mixeduse districts. There are several exceptions for this already, including embellishment of the facade or installation of display boxes. And then [snorts] staff is proposing allowing the mural subject to review by size and scale requirements. The fourth proposed code change is to allow for art structures to act as a substitution for up to 25% of shrub requirements. So, originally staff was proposing to have a reduction >> [snorts] >> um for up to 25% of trees and shrubs um but removed that after getting commissioner and council member feedback. Um so existing exceptions for landscaping include fee and lou planting and certain reductions for mixed use districts and staff is proposing adding art structures to the list of exceptions again just for shrubs. um with review and approval of the issuing authority. The fifth proposed uh code change um kind of again came out of a recommendation from commissioners and and council members. Um we heard that you didn't want a reduction of trees and maybe parking could be an incentive instead. >> [snorts] >> Um so we are proposing a parking reduction of up to 10% or 10 parking spaces whichever is less um of off- streetet parking spaces when an art structure of sufficient scale and orientation is installed which will be determined by the planning manager. Um, additionally, the art structures as kind of throughout all this code must meet safety and maintenance requirements and if it's over 7 ft, it requires building permit. The sixth and last propode proposed code change is to allow art structures in landscaping yards. So, in addition to permitted encroachments, which is kind of similar to this, um staff is proposing to clarify the art structures would be allowed in the required 20ft landscaping yard that most zony districts have. Um existing allowances for that um include rain garden, sidewalks, and bus shelters. And with that, the recommendation is on the screen, and I'm available for questions. Thank you, Miss Hespach. Again, we have a public hearing, so we will start with questions for staff. Commissioner White. >> Yes, I'm just going to be first. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, tonight, can you talk to me just a little bit on the mural? Murals is a replacement for the window requirement. Uh, do murals have the same upkeep requirements as other art? My my concern is murals are often painted, paint deteriorates. Um, so I'm just curious if you can talk a little bit more about that. >> Yeah. Um, Chair, Commissioner White, so murals do require, um, like a maintenance plan, I believe, that has to be submitted. And so, um, when the sign code was updated and murals were added to that, um, they were very aware also of exactly what you're talking about, of like paint chipping and not wanting to look bad. Um, so there are maintenance requirements already in code about murals specifically. >> Uh, along the lines of this proposed code change number three, Miss Hespek, how much of the building facade on that ground level can be replaced with nonwinds? Is it uh and I'm sorry I didn't prep you for that question, but do you know are we do we allow the entire thing if if the building owner says, "Well, the entire thing is back of house." Do we allow 100% replacement or is there a limit? >> Um chair, good question. Give me one second. Okay, I'll let >> Mr. Johnson maybe a friend here. >> Yeah, Chair Cookton, I was uh anticipating this question. So, the current code does allow full replacement. And so, uh, as Emily mentioned, it's related to wall design, embellishment, display boxes, and permanent art, um, with, uh, graphic design elements. This is something I know that came up at the study session. I recall the planning commission suggesting that only say 50% of the window replacement requirement maybe be eligible for that. Just a note that that is not how the current uh, code is structured. If that's something that you feel like is too generous or uh not in alignment with the city's uh structure design um uh goals, we certainly could look at that uh going forward. Uh that being said, I will say we have encountered a lot of development that have a lot of these back of house operations where windows does not ideally function. Um an example if I may, I don't know if I can share my well just everyone's familiar with fresh time. There's um art that's installed on the northeast uh corner as well as north on the eastern wall and that is a replacement uh if you're just thinking about an example of where this has been applied in the city. >> So, Miss Hespic, what's before us this evening is not a question of how much or how little. It's just adding murals into an existing piece of the code. Is that a fair statement? >> Uh chair, that's correct. >> Thank you. Okay. Other questions for staff? Seeing none, thank you, Miss Huspect. We'll move then to a public hearing, which I will open now. There is nobody here in the chambers on this rather snowy Bloomington evening. I'll ask if there's anyone online. >> All participants online or staff. >> Thank you, Miss Brown. I'll look then for a motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Motion passes 40. We'll move then to your discussion. Commissioner White, >> generally I I think this is great. I appreciate the change in landscaping um not including tree replacement. Uh I think that's incredibly important. In fact, I probably would have voted against this if that was in here. Um I'm still not convinced on the shrubs, but I'll I I can probably live with that. Um, and you know, I do share some concerns about, you know, how the murals will be used in used and maintained because I think there are a lot of reasons for for windows to be required, but it sounds like the code more broadly deals with that. So, um, so generally I think it's a it's a good move. I'm excited to see more art in Bloomington. Thank you, Commissioner White. I too am happy the that we've swapped out, uh, tree replacement for parking replacement. I think the planning commission was heard loud and clear on that and I appreciate staff reacting to our feedback. I'm not a big fan of replacing the entire ground level facade with even if it is a mural regardless of how beautiful is the intent of that is to activate the street and I although I like a mural I certainly think transparency and seeing people activates the street more and creates a greater feel of safety but as we were told that's not a part of this application tonight. Um, I would be interested in that possibly coming back before us as a um, miscellaneous issues ordinance if if others feel that that's something we maybe want to look at. I'm not sure I'm not sure we're in the right place on that part of the code. But again, as we were told this evening, that's not what we're talking about. We're just talking about enhancing that part of the code by allowing murals, which I can support. So, with that, I would be in favor of this application this evening. Any other thoughts? Any other thoughts? I guess I would ask on the transparency requirement if that would be a something if that would be of interest as a miscellaneous issue in the future. Doesn't have to be. Commissioner Cunningham. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, I agree. I think it's something that we should put in the 26 or maybe 27 work plan as we're reviewing next year's work plan tonight and it's it's full slate. But miscellaneous issues I think would be a good thing to to put some time some staff time into it on that. I do want to say that, you know, I feel like some of our our higher density zoning areas, you know, require um certain uses at grade that would require windows. So potentially that could alleviate that problem. And then there's also the the free market of someone who's developing wants a beautiful building. But I definitely get where you're coming from and I think that putting something into code would be time well spent. Thank you, >> Commissioner. >> Yeah, just building on Commissioner Cunningham. Um, I think that I would want to understand if this really is a potential risk, like what kind of facilities would there be a real risk for them choosing to do all mural versus windows. Um, because I don't want to overregulate something that isn't even potentially a risk if the market or whatnot could take care of it. So, I guess that's where I would come at if it is a real risk. that um developers would opt for murals versus windows, then I think it is something we should look at. But if it's sort of a fear that is unlikely to come to pass, then it may not be worth the effort and time for staff. >> Well put, Commissioner Len. And I think that's where I would say I'm not proposing that we do it. I'm proposing that staff takes a look at it and comes back to us and maybe it's not a good idea at all and we we don't think about it any further. [sighs] If there's no further comments on this application, I would entertain a motion. Commissioner L. >> In case PL 2025159, I move to recommend the city council adopt an ordinance establishing a definition for art structure allowing art structures to encroach into setbacks in residential and non-residential zoning districts, allowing for a landscape requirement reduction for installation of art structures, providing a parking requirement incentive for installation of art structures, and adding murals as an exception to the window requirement in mixeduse districts. thereby amending chapter 21 of the city code. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second to approve or recommend rather the approval of this ordinance before us. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. That motion passes 40. This item will go before the city council on January 26th. Thank you, Miss Huspect. We'll move then to item number four, which is a public hearing. The city of Bloomington again is the applicant to discuss the revised official height limits map of the city. Thomas Ramler Olsson is here with a staff report. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Um like the chair said, this is public hearing considering amendments to the official height limits map and chapter 21 height st or height standards found in chapter 21. One second. So, simply put, we're going to be proposing a whole host of changes to uh chapter 21. That includes changes to the user uh unit of measurement for height, how we measure height. You'll probably recall that from the study session. Um we're proposing to exempt roof mounted equipment and stair and elevator cores uh that track um project above the roof line from height measurements. Um of course, uh those will still be subject to shadow standards. So, um that's yeah, it's good to keep in mind. And then we're um uh recommending a bunch of changes to the official height limits map. And we'll discuss that in just a little bit. Uh brief background, this is all you've seen this before, but just briefly recapping um the current height standards that the the city uses to um uh when reviewing developments, new developments, that was established back in 2010. um that set up the uh shadow casting limits for new builds. Um and they're um uh casting uh shadows onto protected residential properties. Um it um established building setbacks for the upper stories of buildings to reduce shading of pedestrian streets and also u protected residential properties at the at their property line. And um it also um created or adopted a map-based height regulation framework. So regulating heights based on their geographic location uh for the most part. Um we had a study session in front of you all on October 23rd. At that time um or a conclusion from that meeting was that there were recommended changes to the building measurement as um I mentioned on the previous slide. consideration of rooftop roof mounted equipment and uh staring elevator cores and uh a re-examination of height limits around 86 in Lindale um after review of what staff had initially proposed for high limit changes um um in that area. The city council met on November 17th and affirmed those recommendations. So we consulted a variety of resources obviously looking at the um current um height limits map uh shown on screen here and you can see the ge geographic distribution of the various height limits throughout the city. The height uh categories are in the lower right hand corner and um you know we're going to the vision expressed in the 2040 comprehensive plan through the land use guidance in that document and um from that uh staff were keenly interested in those parcels that were guided medium density residential and high density residential and you can see those isolated here on the slide. Um our our read of the definitions of those uh land use categories in the comprehensive plans um meant that those should be um looked at more closely and uh through our our own understanding of those definitions. We came up with a framework that would allow all medium-density residential parcels to have a high limit up to uh I believe is 50 ft. Um so a lot of the medium-density residential parcels um that are that currently exist right now or that are guided right now um medium density residential they don't have uh or they're not within a high limit category which means they're subject to a 40 foot limit uh similar to single family and two family structures for highdensity residential. We proposed a minimum or a uh a height limit of uh 60 feet um at a minimum. And so therefore based on geography or land use context it they may actually be taller than that. Same the same goes for medium density residential. We also looked at all the area uh plan um area specific plans that have been adopted since 2010 and and also consulted uh the well here just briefly touch on um what's what's being um what's highlighted in this uh in this uh slide is the Normandale Lake District along the northwest side, Pan-Amean District toward the north along uh 494, the Lindale Avenue suburban retrofit plan, the 98th Street station area, and the South Loop District, [cough] excuse [clears throat] me, it's dry in here. [snorts] So then we also um recognized the neighborhood commercial areas that were identified in a 2017 study by the housing redevelopment authority and that was also incorporated into the 2040 comprehensive plan. You can see the distribution of those commercial nodes throughout the city and um you know for each one we looked uh specifically at their land use and obviously current uh height limits within each area. So that's been highlighted on this slide. Um, getting back to that feedback that uh you all provided on October 23rd, we took a a deeper look at 86th in Lindale. Um, what was brought up at the time is that this intersection was not given the same treatment as 98th in Lindale. These those two nodes were highlighted in the Lindale Avenue suburban retrofit plan. um based on staff's analysis, we treated them diff differently based on the context. However, we did look at 86 and Lindale a little bit more closely and um with the land use um guidance in that at that intersection, we felt it appropriate then to uh give the uh parcel to the north on the northeast corner uh a higher height limit of no height limit. So um uh still maintaining the the uh current height limit on the southwest corner um because that is guided industrial and so we felt it appropriate to keep that at a 50ft height limit or I'm sorry at a 60 foot height limit. My apologies. So that's being maintained but nonetheless we are proposing to change the uh the height limit on the northeast corner. And then um as um as was um I yeah this was mentioned also at the October 23rd study session. Um we were contacted by the owners of uh or Minnesota and Mason Minnesota Masonic Homes um owners of uh 114 11431 and 11451 Normanddale Boulevard. Um they had come before DRC with a proposal to expand uh their campus buildings and they were showing a height limit of 65 feet. Um uh staff considered this request and um we're proposing then to give them a height limit of uh 60 feet where they're currently allowed only uh 50 feet. So there there's a five foot gap that they'll have to make up for and they can do uh do so through the uh opportunity housing ordinance. U but nonetheless this is another change for you all to consider and all of that uh taken into consideration. This is the height limit map that uh staff are proposing. Um again you can see the uh you can compare this to what's our current height limit map. uh we've identified all the medium density residential areas and highdensity residential areas and appro um uh given them the the height limit that I discussed earlier uh um 50 ft for medium density residential and 60 ft for highdensity residential depending on context for highdensity residential it could be taller but nonetheless uh that was the base that we were working from um after the city council Uh after the city council cell session on November 17th, uh staff um were uh I uh we were prompted to uh take a another look at our height standards in chapter 21 and um to reexamine the stepback standards as it relates to protected residential properties. Um right now um curb uh step uh stepback standards um prohibit structure height exceeding the horizontal distance or separation between the structure and the protected residential property line. So for example and that example this is example is in the staff report. Imagine a structure that's 40t from a protected residential property line. It cannot exceed 40 feet in height then. So what we're proposing um is to uh remove re references to protected residential property and to replace that with uh low density residential. So that's the question before you all tonight is um should sites guided medium density residential and highdensity residential trigger stepback requirements because they would be um they would be implicated if we have this prohibition of um heights not exceeding the horizontal distance from pres uh protected residential property lines. So um because the definition of a protected residential property in city code mentions sites zoned residential and guided residential. So um through uh from staff's analysis and point of view, we think this would u maintaining the standards as they are or the stepback standards as they're currently spelled out in code could negatively impact development. We're proposing to increase the heights of a lot of parcels that are medium density residential or guided medium density and high density. And so to head that off, we're proposing to change the language so that it's no longer uh protected residential property, but low density residential. So that won't that'll um allow those sites guided medium density residential to not uh affect um uh taller buildings um um on adj on on adjacent properties. So this is new and um this is new before you all. We've um um with I mean with that being so new um we've developed two alternative ordinances uh that'll be considered at the January 26 city council meeting. But um certainly want a recommendation from you all that uh so recommendation uh the alternative one uh ordinance to consider is um is uh without the amendments to the residential stepback requirements and then the uh second alternative is with those amendments to residential stepback requirements. So um I'll just leave that at that and answer any questions you may have. Sorry for hitting the mic. >> Thank you Mr. for Olson. Um, I do want to ask one question off the jump here. Your two proposed motions, one references exhibit N and one references exhibit M. I want to confirm that's not a spelling error. Uh, chair, no, that's correct. There's uh, two exhibits with um, uh, attached the staff report that have the, uh, draft ordinances for you to consider that are labeled appropriately. Thank you. Questions for staff. Commissioner Cunningham. >> Thank you, Chair. Uh, Mr. Ramler Olsson, I just want to make sure I'm crystal clear um in the ordinance on how we're measuring the height of a building. So, if the building's on a topographically, uh, you know, variable lot, it's the lowest point to the highest point of structure. So in the if it's like a flat roof, it would be the parapit wall because we're now excluding rooftop equipment, lightning rods, and elevator overruns. Uh chair, commissioner, yes, that is correct. So um essentially how it's measured um right now would just be excluding those elements that you identified and that staff have. >> Excellent. Uh thank you. >> Can I make one clarification, >> Mr. Johnson? >> Yeah, thank you uh Chair Cookton, Commissioner Conning. If I can just make one clarification, Tom, invite you to if um you have any more feedback on this, but in terms of you know, it is the height of the structure at that point. So you could there the structure could be taller where the grade is higher and so we are measuring it from that point of the grade to that point of the building. And this isn't good for the record because I'm pointing here in uh the air, but uh from the low point to the highest point at that point. So, in other words, it wouldn't be measuring the very lowest point of the building and the very tallest point of the building if they are at different sections of the building. Does that make sense? >> Yes. Thank you for the clarification. >> I made a meal at that one, but hopefully that was clear. >> Mr. Randler Olson, uh, can you go back to the height limit map at 86th and Lindale, please? What were the thoughts on the southeast corner of that intersection and not not going to a no height limit there but keeping it at 60 ft? Uh, chair, the main consideration was that we're those as you'll see in that that middle graphic, that's the land use guidance, and that guidance is for industrial and staff felt it was just most appropriately to keep the height limit as it currently is at 60 ft instead of a no height limit industrial area. I'm not sure what that would manifest in the uh in the landscape, but um not really or staff felt it was just appropriate to keep it at 60 ft um and felt that that could accommodate most industrial uses. >> And Mr. Ramler Olsen, if at some point in time we wanted to reguide the southeast corner of 86th in Lindale, we could in uh we could modify the height limit map at that time. >> Chair, that is correct. So, we have the the uh update to the comp plan coming up and we'll be reviewing all all this land use data and if we feel it's appropriate and it's um approved by the city to consider that a different land use, we would also um commensurate with that, you know, put it before you all and consider a new height um that uh that is um congruent with that land use guidance. >> Thank you. Other questions for staff? Commissioner Lenn. >> Yeah. Uh, thank you, Chair. Um, and this is going back to, uh, Commissioner Cunningham's question. So, understanding the height, [clears throat] excuse me, I'm not sure I understand how it works. So, I'm looking particularly at exhibit L um, on the proposed height limits map by city area and which I don't know if that was in your slide or not, but it's the area around like Heritage Hills Park. So like south of 102nd north of old shakipi between Normandale and >> whatever >> chair commissioner you'll have to >> okay >> you'll have to let me know if like stop me when I >> I'll stop you if when you get to it. Um >> I don't know if you actually need the picture for me to ask >> question. Certainly. Yes sir. >> Yeah. So what the question is is if you're measuring the height in that particular neighborhood. I know that on the lower, it's a very hilly part of the city. And by my looking at the map, it looks like many of the houses that are on the back side that will remain load without the height limits, they may be at a lower level. So, are they backing up against a house? Like could someone build an apartment building where because of the lot level and I know again this is not great if you can't see but if this is where the house is is down here and the lot behind them is already at a you know elevation because of the hill and now they're going to be able to go even higher. I mean the risk of them dwarfing that house and providing a tremendous amount of shade. How does that factor in if there's also dramatic elevation from lot to lot? I don't I don't know if that's an answerable question because I'm assuming the house that would be on the higher end the ground is leveled at their ground not the ground of the other side. >> Uh chair commissioner regarding the details of how height measurement is is conducted. Um I will have to defer to planning manager uh Nick Johnson but we would account for those differences in uh shadow studies. >> Okay. So again, there are prohibitions on uh casting shadows on what we're proposing or in that second motion or the alternative motion um uh casting shadows on low density residential. Right now I mean if we went with the or if you all uh supported the the first motion, it would be just protected residential property which would include a single family home. So shadow studies would still have to be conducted. um uh there I think they're they need to be uh representative of shadows at certain times of the year um where shadows are longest. So that's where we would account for that. So if you if there was a massive uh grade change between a new development and something at the lower part of a hill that would be captured in a shadow study and have to be reconciled. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> I think I think that answers my question. Thanks >> Sheriff. I may add to that too is just that um the base height uh limits absent the step back requirements setting that aside for a second they are what they are buildings are allowed to go to that height again in compliance with these shadow requirements but where uh the situation that you're talking about could come into play say if you had a development application that was seeking some type of flexibility >> uh to their structure height in some way or seeking a variance of that kind that local context absolutely would be a factor in staff's evaluation of the merits of that request. request if that makes sense. >> It Yes, it does. >> Other questions for staff. >> Thank you, Mr. Ramler Olson. This is a public hearing which I will open now. And we again do not have anybody in the chambers this evening. So, I will ask if there's anyone online. >> All participants online are staff. >> Thank you, Miss Brown. I will look for a motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved. Second. >> We have a motion and a second to close this public hearing. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Motion passes 40. Let's move to discussion. I'll get us started here. And I would like to just thank staff again. Uh I think the planning commission was heard loud and clear on this application. We had a lot of feedback during the study and I think it's a credit to my fellow commissioners. Uh, and if you ever wonder whether your voice is truly heard in this city, I think you can look at the last two applications and say that the work you're doing is really making a difference in what makes it into city code and what doesn't and that uh this commission has a tangible impact uh on the city. So, credit to my fellow commissioners on that. Uh, thanks also to staff for their attention to detail on 86th and in Lindale. I was ready to jump all over you for that southeast corner, but I think that's uh quite quite savvy to keep that as a lower height limit while it's still guided industrial. I would not want to see some very tall industrial development there while it's still guided industrial. So, I think that was um I think that was a fine decision there. So, with that, um, I am in support of this application and I'm also in support of the more aggressive version of what's being proposed to us, uh, which I believe modifies exhibit N thoughts. Commissioner Cunningham. Uh, thank you, Chair. Um I and this might need to be have some staff uh feedback on but I I believe the more aggressive as far as pushing for more density floor area ratio and height of buildings is exhibit M. Is that right Mr. Emil Olsen? >> Uh chair commissioner actually that would be exhibit N. Um because we're again we're changing what um where those uh stepback standards apply if it's with respect to protected residential properties which could include both medium density and residential guided properties. [snorts] What we're saying uh or what staff is proposing is to instead have it only impact lowdensity residential guided properties. So single family, two family, whatever is guided low density. So, it will allow uh or it'll be less of an impediment for um erecting taller buildings. >> Excellent. [snorts] >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. >> Thank you for clarifying. I will admit that I totally misunderstood the setback and uh slopes. Um I am in agreement with you, chair. I'm I agree with exhibit N as the path forward. >> Other thoughts? If not, I would entertain a motion. >> Yeah. Can we go back here? >> Commissioner Cunningham. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, I move to recommend the city council adopt an ordinance amending the city's official height limits map, amending other heights standards, and amending residential stepback standard there. uh thereby amending chapter 21 of the city code as shown in exhibit N attached to the staff report. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second to approve the uh motion that was stated by Commissioner Cunningham. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I opposed. >> No. >> That motion passes 31. This will move to the city council for action on the 26th of January. Thank you, Mr. Roman Olson. Our next item is item number five, a study item for the planning commission. Once again, the city of Bloomington will be presenting to us, and that's the adoption of our 2026 planning commission work plan. Mr. Dakota Cassand is here with a staff report. Good evening. >> All right. Good evening, commission. Um, thanks for sticking out to the end. Um let me just get my slides up. And so you all had seen a draft um version already just to kind of get some initial feedback on our work plan. So now we're we're here kind of with our our final draft. Um so just wanted to cover um a couple of accomplishments from this year that we didn't um cover the first time and then just um really quickly summarize um a few changes that um we made from um just a couple weeks ago. So, just wanted to start off and um you know acknowledge um 2025 has been a busy year and so just wanted to highlight a few of the um code amendments and development review and in other projects that have come before the planning commission. So, I won't read every single one here but just want to you know highlight we've gone through uh small business um we've made changes to our RS1 zoning district. Um co-living was another big code amendment this year. Um, we had discussion around an office conversion study and and kind of detailing what that could look like in Bloomington. Um, we've made our update to the South Loop District plan. Uh, for development uh the Kennedy and Jefferson High School stadiums um are complete and hosting games. Um, we've seen applications um for city uh projects for the fleet maintenance garage, health and wellness center, our Bloomington Ice Garden renovations. Um you all approved a comp plan amendment um for the St. Mark's subdivision. Um and then as you see uh we're we're still going um and you've uh went through three uh study or public hearings today for some additional ordinances on our work plan for commercial vehicles, our incentives and in the height map. Um and then attached into the uh packet was also just a summary of our um we track our application types that have come through this year. So this just kind of summarizes both applications that have gone to either the planning commission or city council um as well as our administrative permits that go through planning staff and building and inspections and and other departments. So just providing a summary there. Uh and then for the 2026 work plan itself again there's 23 projects. This time we're um estimating about 4,65 staff hours to carry out those projects. They include 17 projects that are being led um by our planning division staff. Um a couple of carryover projects and then we always include um some potential projects for for future years or in the odd chance that we get through all of our projects and and need more, we can pull from that list. Um and then as I mentioned last time, um we'll be starting the 2050 comprehensive plan. Um, and so you'll uh be seeing more of me to to talk through that and and what your role will be in the 2050 comp plan um over the next few years as well. U so again here are the proposed new projects for 2026. I just want to highlight um some of the changes since the last time the draft was before you. Um we had swapped out um number six here um was temporary structures and like small accessory structure standards. After talking to some environmental health staff, uh we felt like we could address some of the things they were thinking about through our miscellaneous issues ordinance just to um again they were felt like pretty minor changes and just to be a little bit more efficient with um our our process to bring those for you. And so because of that, we removed that one and I swapped it in with the aligning indoor recreation, sports training and health clubs definitions and standards. Um given it was about we estimate about um a similar work scope and and amount of staff time for that. Um and then one new project that was added that we did not talk about at the last meeting um is number nine here, the city-owned land disposition policy. And so that that's something staff um within community development have been talking about for a while. um and and ultimately felt like we could make some progress on it in 2026. So the the city um as well as the port authority and the housing and redevelopment authority own a number of um parcels here in the city. Um and so while some of them, you know, obviously host things like civic plaza or parks and and those kinds of things, there's also a number of parcels that um are maybe uh underutilized or vacant. And so, um, this is just a chance for, um, staff to kind of think through, um, we don't really have a a policy or procedures to think about how we could, um, either sell or or think about how we could reuse land, um, to just be of a better and more public use. Um, and so this is an opportunity for um, staff to kind of um, do some research um, present some options, and then work with the planning commission, city council for for feedback on that. And I guess I would just note if u you know city council has to approve um any kind of disposition of of land as well. So we're not proposing um necessarily any specific sites or anything. More think about what is that that that process or what are the criteria we want to think about um on underutilized land that's owned by the city. Um and then [snorts] in the work plan we we try to align now with our um Bloomington tomorrow together or BTT um strategic plan. That's a city strategic plan. That plan calls for kind of three um core goals. So a connected, welcoming community, a healthy community, and a community with equitable economic growth. And so we always try to just um show um how some of our projects on the work plan align with those goals of the strategic plan. Um so this is just kind of a summary here of the projects um aligning with our city strategic plan. Um and then we also not every project um has community engagement but certainly on uh more in-depth projects we always try to have some component of community engagement. The city utilizes um this kind of P2 level of engagement from the International Association of Public Participation. Um and so there's kind of this um kind of spectrum or range of engagement opportunities. So staff, we always try to do an initial um estimation of kind of what level of engagement um projects may uh may need and and that can change over time as um the scope evolves or um staff capacity as well. Uh but with the 2050 comp plan, there's going to be a number of community engagement um opportunities for folks. Um this is just the um also included in the work plan, we do a a um kind of prioritization and and draft schedule. I would just say at a at a high level, we're kind of aiming quarter 1 and quarter two to wrap up those carryover projects from this year um to and then in quarter two kind of start to launch um some of these new projects and then likely you'd see study sessions and public hearings for some of these newer projects um later in the year kind of quarter 3, quarter 4. Um, again, this is just our our best estimate and there's things out of our control that, um, kind of change the schedule, but just to give you an idea of, um, what we're hoping to to do for timing on some of these projects. Um, so with that, um, I'm happy to address any questions you have or or changes you want to make, but if, um, you all are comfortable with the work plan that's presented here in the packet, there is a recommended motion there. Um, and this goes to city council for, uh, final adoption. approve all uh boards and commission work plans. So, >> thank you, Mr. Cassidy. This is a study item, so I will open it up now and ask if there's any questions or comments for staff. Um, I did have just sort of uh one thought here um and that's to my fellow commissioners. One item that this commission asked for specifically uh late in the year was that review of the South Loop Regidings and uh that is uh the last item on the uh on the list here for 2026. So I would encourage you as you're on this commission to stay on stay on top of your city staff members and uh remind them it's important to you if if that is so indeed. So uh but staff does a great job of making sure that things come before us and stay committed to what they they say they will. I don't at all mean to suggest that they that that they're that they're not. Um the other thing I will say just for my fellow commissioners, I'm a bit jealous that you all get to work on the 2050 comprehensive plan. Um that is not something I on my six years on the commission had the opportunity to do because we had just adopted the 2040 plan when I got on this commission and uh it's an experience that I missed out on, but I think it's a very important role for the city and the planning commission has a big role in that. And so I I encourage you to put lots of thought into that and and uh I hope you can appreciate that experience because not everybody gets uh their hands able to shape the future of the city like you'll be able to as you work on that 2050 comprehensive plan. So I wish you all luck um as you go through that for the next few years. Other thoughts? If not, I would look for a motion. I saw three hands go up. I'm I'm gonna choose Commissioner Len. >> I move to recommend the city council approve the 2026 planning commission work plan as attached to the planning commission packet. >> Second. >> Motion and a second to approve this to recommend approval of this planning commission work plan. Any final discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. Opposed. Motion passes 40. This will go before the city council for final action on January 5th. Thank you, Mr. Cassand. >> All right. Thank you. >> Items number six is next, which is the approval of the draft planning commission meeting minutes from November 20th and December 4th. We will start with November 20th. Commissioner White, >> I move a Do we have official? >> I move we approve the meeting synopsis from November 20th, 2025 as printed. >> Second. motion and a second to approve the minutes from November 20th. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Abstain. >> Abstain. >> That motion passes 30 with one abstination. We'll move then to December 4th. >> Uh I move that we Oh, no. I wasn't there. I can't >> I would not recommend that. I move approval of the minutes of the December 4th, 2025 s commission. Wow, sorry it's been a long week. Commission [laughter] as printed in the packet. >> Second >> motion and a second to approve the minutes from December 4th. All those in favor say I. >> I. Opposed. Abstain. >> Abstain. >> That motion passes 30 with one abstination. Our final item this evening is item number seven which is the planning commission policy and issues update. Mr. Johnson. >> Uh thank you Chair Cookton. Uh uh before I one last thought for the year I'll just share a preview of the upcoming meetings. So January 15, 2026. You have two meetings in January. Uh both are shaping up to be uh busy development application meetings. The first one, January 15th, uh there'll be a public hearing for a conditional use permit, final site and building plans for a new convenience facility with fuel sales, Quick Trip at 1050 and 1,000 West 94 Street. That's at approximately 35W and uh 94th Street uh east of 35W. Uh the second item is a public hearing uh for a cannabis manufacturing facility at an existing industrial building at 8200 Grand Avenue South. Uh the third item is another public hearing for uh involving a reggguiding a reszoning preliminary and final development plans, preliminary and final plat uh for a four-story 180 unit multi- uh family residential building at 9955 uh and additional properties to the south Lindale Avenue. Uh there's a number of properties there involved. Um but 9955 is the the main uh property there. Uh it's the Wixen Jeweler site. Um the January 22nd meeting uh for public hearings um uh tracking to the January 22nd meeting a conditional use permit for remote airport parking facility at Mall of America the existing on top of the existing east parking ramp. Uh a public hearing for a vehicle repair facility um at 9200 Lindale Avenue South. A final development plan major revision uh for parking flexibility for a retail use at 8101 uh 34th Avenue South in the South Loop. uh and a public hearing for a city initiated application of city code amendment for the missing middle housing uh phase 2 uh ordinance. So that's a preview of the two upcoming meetings in January. And uh just final thought, thank you for a wonderful year. It's a pleasure to work with you all. Um we onboarded three new planning commissioners this year. Um and it's been very smooth and appreciated in terms of the collaboration with staff. So again, happy holidays and thank you all for all your hard work this year. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. This is an opportunity for planning commissioners to address anything that was not on this evening's agenda. Are there any miscellaneous items that a commissioner would like to address? Seeing none, I will close this meeting of the Bloomington Planning Commission for December 18th. Good night.