Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Good evening and welcome to this January 22nd 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. When we have a public hearing, the public is encouraged to testify. You can do so here at city hall in the commission chambers. You can also do so uh virtually by following the instructions on your screen. On some items, the planning commission has final decision-making authority. 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 at city hall. We also have one remotely for six total commissioners. So, we do have a quorum. As we begin this evening, I'll ask everyone to please rise for the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We have six items on our agenda this evening. We'll start with item number one, which is a public hearing uh for a conditional use permit for an existing vacant vehicle repair facility at 9200 Lindel Avenue South. Mr. Dylan Palmer is here with a staff report. >> All right. Good evening, chair and commissioners. Again, my name is Dylan Palmer with item number one. So, this is the location for uh this conditional use permit. It's at 9200 Lindale Avenue South. The application is for minor vehicle repairs. That's uh your typical I hate to throw a brand name out there, but like Jiffy Lube or Take Five or some kind of a, you know, quick service auto shop, not a body shop, anything like that. This is the location. It's just north of Taco Bell, if that helps you place it at all, at the corner of Lindale and 92nd. Uh this is the land use guidance map and zoning map on the lefth hand side there from the comprehensive plan. This is guided for general business. Uh and then it is zone B2 general commercial. This is the site plan. This is an existing building. They're not proposing to make any uh major changes to the building itself. All the exterior changes at this time are just restriping, repaving the parking lot and then either replanting or adding in new landscape uh landscaping on the north bulk of it on the north and the west sides. They're also proposing to do a uh either renovate the existing sign or replace the existing sign and that's located in the northeast corner right at uh Lindale 92nd. This is a floor plan. So again, uh, no major changes expected. Of course, this can change based on what tenant takes over this space. And just as I mentioned, there is no tenant currently selected. Uh, this is an application that's being pursued by the current owners. Uh, and their hope is that this conditional use permit will be able to attract businesses into this vacant building. Uh, the building has been vacant since, uh, prior to July of 2024. It used to be a big O tire and then I believe it was an NTB at one point before that. City code states that the conditional use permit expires one year after a use ceases operation at the site. Uh since this ceased prior to July of 2024, the older conditional use permits in 1984 and 1985 are now void. And both of those permits, one was for a muffler shop and one was for minor uh vehicle repair. The proposed use will be similar to prior uses at the property. So again, tire shops or minor minor auto repair, excuse me. This is located on Lindale Avenue, so that places it inside of the Lindale Avenue retrofit plan. Uh you'll notice this is not a use that is recommended with the Lindale Avenue retrofit plan. Uh planners, we prefer that there be redevelopment and uh construction of other more mixeduse kind of uh properties along Lindale Avenue. In this case, since this is an existing building, it's a vacant building. It staffs view that a opening a business in a vacant building is preferable to having a vacant shell sitting there for the time being. So, uh that is the main reasoning why we're not really pushing this with the retrofit plan. And then on the right hand side there, you'll see the map with the key nodes of the plans. As you can see, this site is located in between those key nodes. So, it's not a uh major major spot for redevelopment at this point in time. So, staff recommends approval through the following motion. And uh the planning commission is the final authority on this item. >> Thank you, Mr. Palmer. We'll start with questions for staff and I'd like to begin. Um the planning commission and city council have done some proactive resoning on Lindell as part of that Lindell Avenue retrofit plan. Has this particular parcel been reszoned as part of that plan or has this been consistent? >> Uh, Chair Cookton, this site has remained B2 zoning. >> Thank you. Other questions for staff? >> Seeing none, this is a public hearing, but we're going to start with a hearing from the applicant before we hear from the public. So, Mr. Palmer, is the applicant here? Please come up if you'd like to uh speak to your application. >> Hi there. I am Holly Burley. Um I am the architect on the application. I'm with Baker and Associates. Address 901 North 3rd Street. Um sweet 135 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401. And I am here to first of all thank you guys for hearing our application tonight. And thank you to Dylan and staff working with us to get this application put together. Um, as the building sits right now, there is a current lease on the property for another um, I believe it's about six years to 20 31. So, foreseeably that building could continue to receive rent as it stands from this larger corporation that currently has that lease. So, we are looking to get the new conditional permit uh conditional use permit in place so that we can either release that building or sell that building to a similar use and bring that building back into operation. So, as Dylan mentioned, it was previously uh used from 1984 all the way up until about 2024 as a minor vehicle repair. That is the use that we would be pursuing as well. Um, we would also like to mention that uh the phototric plan that was provided to staff um it is mentioned that we've got some deficiency at the Linddale entrance there. Um I did want to note that we have a city pole as well as a neighboring pole directly to that um directly adjacent to that entrance. Our plan currently only depicts sites uh or lights that are on our site particularly. So, if staff is amendable to that, we would like to send out our lighting team and get a reading with that spillover included to see if that would be um sufficient for that area. Um and then, uh we would like to just address or acknowledge all of the comments that were made there. We do intend to address all of those um once that business of use is defined and any changes intended to be made to the building can be reviewed and ensure that the um compliance is in fact um in alignment with their new business plan if a new tenant does take place. And if there's any questions, I would be happy to stand for them. >> Great. Thank you very much, Miss Brley. Any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, if you could do me a favor and sign in on the notepad there, we do appreciate that and thank you for enlightening us on your application. I will open the public hearing now and if anyone like would like to testify, they can do so do so. So if you would like to testify, please come forward. Miss Hesp, is there anybody online who wishes to testify? Chair Cookton, I believe everyone online is either city staff or an applicant. >> Thank you, Miss Hesp. >> Last call for anyone in the chambers who wishes to testify on this item. Seeing no one coming forward, I will ask Miss Huspect to call the role once there is a motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. Misspect. >> Cookton. >> I >> Cunningham. >> I >> Issa >> I >> White >> I. >> Monster >> I. >> Summers >> I. >> That motion passes 6 and we will move to discussion. >> Commissioner Cunningham. >> Thank you chair. Um I think this application is pretty straightforward. Uh it's outside of the key nodes of Lindo Avenue retrofit plan. It's zoned correctly. Um, conditional use permits can be kind of finicky and I understand why a building owner would want to re-up this to make it a more marketable space. Um, I'm in in favor of uh following staff's recommendation on this one. Thank >> Thank you, Commissioner Cunningham. I'm really sensitive to the Lindell Avenue retrofit plan. I'm the last of the commissioners who had a hand in writing that and um I think it's a great vision for this city. Um, as we as we all hear from our residents, Bloomington struggles with um, having its own identity. We're we're very good at national brands and and big attractions, but we're not good at at at local things. And that's sort of the vision for Lindale is to have local businesses and sort of a a main street for our city that we don't currently have. And the Lindell Avenue retrofit plan is really the cornerstone of that. And I think it's going well. And the vision of that plan is to get away from cars. I don't think it's to say we're not going to have cars anymore. I think that's that's unrealistic. But it does encourage the city and and and our commissions and council to move away from auto centered businesses and to uh mix our modes of transportation on Lindell. Um that said, we still have findings to make and one of the findings is not um available to me that would be able to preclude this business. I do think it makes sense. I don't like vacant buildings either. That's not a big problem we have in the city, but I think it's better to have a tenant in a building than not. And so although this doesn't exactly well, this doesn't meet what I believe the future of Lindale is, if it's if it's this usage for a while, I think I I can live with it. We have a long ways to go on Lindale. I think it's going to take 30 years to totally complete the vision for what we have there. And if some of those is with this usage, I can support it. Commissioner White. >> Thank you, Chair Cook. And I apologize. This is probably a question for staff, but it didn't occur to me until I was listening to you speak. Um I believe you said in one of the slides that conditional use permits expire if the business is inactive or the permit isn't active for a year. Um with no current tenant, does that mean that if we grant this and it's approved that in a year if the if the there is no tenant that is using the permit um that the permit would again expire? >> Uh Chair Cook and Commissioner White, that is my understanding of how it works. I can defer to city attorney Tusky if he has any details on it. >> Mr. Tuski. >> Sure. Commissioner, chair and commissioners. I was looking at that section right now. Um the use has to commence within one year or else the commission the conditional use permit kind of goes away. Someone can apply to the directory of community development for a extension of a year. So if that's granted, you'd have two years if not one to establish the use. And then like we said, if it discontinues for more than a year, it goes away as well. So, >> thank you. >> Other thoughts on this application? Commissioner Monster. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I had two questions. One of them was, excuse me, covered. The second is when would any of these site improvements be required? When a new tenant comes in and starts operating or upon approval, when does that get triggered? >> Uh, Chair Cook and Commissioner Monster, all of our conditions are either prior to permit or prior to a certificate of occupancy. So prior to the business opening, most of these conditions have to be satisfied. Okay. Thank you. Any other thoughts on this application? If not, I would entertain a motion. Commissioner Cunningham. Thank you, Chair. In case PL 202500204, having been able to make the required findings, I move to adopt a resolution approving a conditional use permit to allow for minor vehicle repair at 9200 Lindel Avenue South 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 further discussion? I will ask Miss Hesp to call the role. Cookton >> I >> Cunningham >> I >> Eay >> I >> White >> I >> Mster >> I >> Summers >> I >> that motion passes 6. This is a final decision of the planning commission and unless an appeal is submitted to the city by 4:30 p.m. on January 27th. Thank you very much. We'll move then to item number two, which also is a public hearing, and the application is for a conditional use permit for an approximately 5200 square foot indoor agriculture facility. Mr. Palmer, you're back for a second staff report. All right. Thank you, Chair Kton. Uh again, my name is Dylan Palmer here to present item number two, which is a conditional use permit for indoor agriculture. In this case, it is cannabis cultivation located at 333 West 86th Street. This is the location of the site. So, it's located just south of West 86. Uh this is just to the east of the Cub Foods entrance off of 86th Street. Uh this is located in the Lindale Avenue area uh industrial area. Uh this is a multi-tenant industrial building. So if you'll uh can kind of see on there, it's completely surrounded by industrial buildings, but the only access to this site is off of West 86 Street. It's just to the west of the building to the north, if that makes any sense. Uh this is the land use guidance map and zoning map. So it's guided industrial again surrounded by industrial guidance as well. It's zoned I3 general industry also surrounded by I3 zoning. This is the site plan. So in this case, north is to the left on this map. Uh the proposed tenant space is in suite J. So it's right in the center of that uh multi-tenant industrial building. And then this is a floor plan of the building. Again, suite J right in the middle of the uh in the building there. Uh the entrance and exit is on the south side of the building. And then I also believe they have a uh some kind of access into the north warehouse section of the building as well. And then this is the tenant floor plan. So on here you can see there's uh five flower rooms. So that's where the plants are actually grown at. And then they have all of the other additional rooms that are needed in order to cultivate cannabis plants. So cannabis cultivation uh city code does not have a definition for cannabis cultivation. It's classified under indoor agriculture. Uh the Office of Can Cannabis Management or OCM at the state level issues a cannabis cultivator license and under city code again that just falls back to indoor agriculture. So it's the growing of plants in a soil nutrient or water-based solution in including hydroponics and accessory aquaculture within an enclosed facility. So cannabis plants are grown on site. The products are then sold to wholesalers or to licensed dispensaries. Uh, irrigation is handled in a closed loop system and all of the waste is disposed of per OCM rules. No retail sales to the general public are proposed with this conditional use permit at this site. And then the applicant is proposing to install odor mitigation systems and other life safety equipment. And then I will add that uh OCM has additional rules for cannabis cultivation for odor mitigation as well as uh sales to the public. I believe that's a separate license that they would have to apply through for through OCM. And I I'll defer to the applicant. I don't know if they have that license or not. Uh so staff does recommend approval and uh if you have any questions, please let me know. And uh planning commission is the uh makes final action on this item. >> Thank you, Mr. Palmer. We will begin with questions for staff. >> Commissioner Cunningham. Thank you, chair. Um, this might be a question that the applicant can answer when they come up, if they choose to come up. Um, is there so cannabis flowers being grown here and is there any other processing uh proposed in the application? >> Uh, Chair Cookton, Commissioner Cunningham, I believe that there's some some kind of processing to make the plant into what they sell in dispensaries. I'm not well verssed in it, so I'll have to defer most of that to the applicant. Thank you. >> Any other questions for staff? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Palmer. I will ask if the applicant would like to come up and speak to this item. >> Good evening. Amen. >> If there's anything you'd like us to know about this application, you're welcome to inform us. >> What was the original question? >> No question. It's just your opportunity for if you um want to let us know about your business and then we'll see if we have any questions for you. >> Nothing. >> Nothing. Great. >> What about Kevin's question? >> Sure. Mr. Cunningham, what was your question? >> Excuse me. >> Thank you, Chair. um cannabis cultivation um growing indoor hydroponic or however you guys grow uh the flower. Is there any additional processing? Um I know that some of these um end dispensaries have other products uh like gummies or uh vaporizer cartridges, things like that. Um are you doing any of that processing here or is this purely essentially a greenhouse? >> It'll be strictly cultivation. >> Strictly cultivation. Sorry. Thank you. >> Any other questions for the applicant? If I could have you sign in since you spoke to it. Appreciate that. You're welcome to take a seat. The rest of you and we'll open the public hearing now. And ask if there's anyone in the chambers who wishes to step forward to testify on this item. Miss Espec, is there anybody online who wishes to testify? >> Chair Kton, there's only city staff and um applicants online. >> Thank you very much. I'll ask if there's a final call here for anyone who wishes to testify on this application. Seeing no one coming forward, I'll look for a motion to close the public hearing. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Miss Espec >> I. >> Cunningham. I >> Issa >> I >> White >> I >> Monster >> I >> Summers >> I >> a motion passes 6. We will move to discussion. >> Commissioner Cunningham. >> Thank you chair. Um again this one seems pretty straightforward. U good use of currently under or under underutilized space in an existing industrial building. Uh staff report was very thorough and uh thank you for coming up up to answer my questions. I'm in favor of this. Would anyone else like to testify to this item or speak to it rather? >> Commissioner Monster, >> I'll just um I'll second that. I think this is very straightforward. Um and I do want to thank staff over these last few agenda items we've had on this topic. I'm learning a lot about the the cannabis supply chain. >> If no one else would like to speak to this item, I would look for a motion. Commissioner Cunningham. In case PL202500205, having been able to make the required findings, I move to adopt a resolution approving a conditional use permit for an indoor agriculture cannabis cultivation facility in a multi-tenant industrial building located at 333 West 86th Street subject to the conditions and code requirements listed in the resolution. >> Second. We have a motion and a second to approve this conditional use permit for indoor agriculture facility. Any further discussion? I will look for a roll call vote. Miss Hesp. >> Cookton. >> I. >> Cunningham. >> I. >> Isa. >> I. >> White. >> I. >> Monster. >> I. >> Summers. >> I. >> That motion passes 6. This is a final decision of the planning commission unless an appeal is submitted to the city by 4:30m on January 27th. Thank you very much. We will move then to item number three. Again, a public hearing. On this item, I am going to recuse myself to avoid a conflict of interest. The acting chair for this application will be Commissioner Cunningham. Thank you. Item three is a public hearing for a conditional use permit for a remote airport parking facility in the Mall of America parking ramp. Mr. Centinario, you have the staff report. >> Thank you, acting chair and commissioners. Good evening. Uh Mike Centinario, applying supervisor with the city. Uh we have a conditional use permit for remote airport parking. And so this has been a conditional use permit that's been a while in the making. Um and this the location and I'll get into specifics is at uh at the Mall of America. So I wanted to start out by just uh refreshing our memory of when we talk about the Mall of America campus. You know what are we what are we referring to? And you know we're all familiar with the location. Uh we're at a pretty grand scale um of uh development. Uh but the Mall of America campus isn't just the mall proper. Uh it's also the uh the parking structures uh the surface parking lots uh as well as areas that are you know for example the east lot which is east of 24th Avenue. And so, um, it's important to remind ourselves that the campus just isn't the mall, which is, you know, obviously a major component of our community. Uh, but especially as it relates to parking, uh, and parking supply and parking demand, uh, we do have to think of it as a campus as a whole. Uh, and these other areas do provide a substantial amount of, uh, parking supply, which is really kind of the the main focus of our, uh, review tonight. And so, uh, if if the commission recalls, we went through a process to, uh, amend the city code. And one of those amendments was to allow remote airport parking, uh, within existing parking structures. And one of those uh, and that use was added to the CX2 district, which is what the mall is owned. And so uh the graphic here which was from the uh uh parking or I'm sorry the independent engineer their report identified the various kind of parking supply areas and uh you know uh colorcoded them uh between surface and structured parking. And so you can see the north lot of people we all have probably have our preference on what our first go-to is when we go to the mall. Uh but what the mall is proposing is to have a remote airport parking on the top level of the east ramp. Uh so if you see the east ramp, obviously to the east of the mall uh building uh and the proposal is for remote airport parking just on the top level. And I'll show you another image of that. And so this is the top level of the east ramp. Uh so on this particular day uh in April of last year when this image was taken uh P7 was closed and um the mall representatives could give you an idea of uh how often P7 P7 is available for parking but most of the time it's been unavailable uh to folks because it just hasn't been needed. Uh there are peak there are peak days uh where that supply uh has been available. Um but as the that you know we obviously had a lot of documentation and reporting um it really hasn't uh except for a few days a year it really hasn't been necessary in terms of the like the physical improvements uh on site or within the Mall of America campus. Very little would would actually physically change. Uh there would be access controls on the P6 level as you are in P6 and going up to P7. Uh some uh pay kiosks and gates, access control gates. Uh in terms of how folks would get from the east ramp to the airport, uh the mall is proposing that they would either use metransit uh because it is extremely convenient to get from the east ramp down to the transit station. Uh you take an elevator straight down. um or ride share programs. Um so as of right now, they're not proposing any sort of like robust shuttling. Um it's really using existing infrastructure to get people from the mall to the airport. In terms of the process, uh so we added this conditional use to the code. Uh but the code does require that a parking study is done uh to demonstrate that there's excess capacity. essentially a study to demonstrate that this works uh in term for the uh demand that we see on a given site. And so the Mall of America parking is probably the most reported and observed pool of parking in the city of Bloomington. And so the mall has really good data uh real-time data on what's being used. And so they can obviously do a lot of robust analysis. Uh that said, uh part of the process was for the city to reach out to uh independent thirdparty consultants to essentially review that data and make their own findings uh which is what which is what was included in your uh packet. Graph on the right is from the malls uh consultant. I'm not uh as educated in um traffic engineering or uh retail parking demand processes, but it's often uh the 20th highest hour of parking demand is usually the kind of the go-to in terms of what you're what you're striving for. You don't want to build parking for that absolute peak uh because then inevitably you're going to be overbuilding parking for the vast majority of the year. Uh so the so the preferred method is to look at the 20th highest hour uh which is what this chart uh identifies. So I wanted to to summarize um when we're talking about parking supply is there excess parking supply well what what are we referring to? And so there's it's easy to throw around a bunch of different numbers. Um, but there's really one total supply that at least in my view is what we we should be focusing on. So when we think of the mall campus and include the supply that's on the east lot, that large surface lot that's east of 24th Avenue, well that that is uh roughly 16,400 spaces. If we're looking at the M of American campus, we do and not include the E slot. And if we discount the 97 stalls that is being proposed for remote parking, then that supply goes down to 13,675. Uh when we add the e- slot back in uh in terms of supply, but we reduce the supply by 97 stalls, again, that P7 level number, we're at roughly 15,500 stalls. That's really what I think the number that we should be focusing on. uh if you were looking at the um charts that are within the reports uh and what the demand is in relationship to that 15,500 spaces. And so that that number uh that 15,500 spaces is the uh top dashed line on this graph and all of the points are the uh peak parking demand days uh or um by month and year. And you can see uh this was well documented in the uh reports but overall parking demand has gone down substantially since 2019. Obviously, a lot of it has to do with the pandemic. Um, and you can see that except for some an anomaly, uh, the peak demand has been below that parking supply uh, universally uh, that top dash line. So, if we want to make some very broad conclusions, it's it's clear that uh, there is the excess supply to accommodate the remote airport parking for the east ramp. That said, there's always going to be vacancies that have to we have to be mindful of of hopefully there will be less vacancies in the future as vacant spaces find new tenants. U but except for Black Friday, uh the studies found that there is sufficient parking supply to accommodate the proposed remote remote airport parking uh facility. Uh the only uh caveat to that is uh and a condition that staff is recommending is that uh the system has to account for that anticipated peak demand uh and reduce reservations in advance of that peak because you know if someone parks a car they go out of town you know it's becomes very difficult to manage that individual car. So they have to ant have some anticipation. the uh the mall representatives had a very sophisticated way to manage that. Uh we are proposing a more general uh condition. Uh namely because the mall has the ability to program their uh app system, the reservation system to accommodate for that anticipate anticipated peak. Some other things that we have to be mindful of uh when we're thinking about new uses is of course signage. And uh for folks that are accustomed to going to the mall, it's not that difficult to navigate. Uh but for people who are maybe stressed out getting to the airport, uh it can be a challenging endeavor. Uh so most of the signage that you saw in your packet uh doesn't even require permits. uh whether it's obviously if it's inside the mall or if it's along the ring road that's not visible from public rightway uh all of those uh all that signage is exempt from uh sign permit requirements they are showing some signage on that P7 level uh that would be visible and uh would require permits and that's what you're seeing on screen if you see the that graphic that shows um the ramp itself you know D and E uh would be visible uh from public rightway. So, a permit is needed there. As well as B uh not if you're close, but if you're far away looking two, three blocks away, uh you can see that sign, too. So, those are the those are the signs that are are required to have permits and uh should the CUP be approved, we would be reviewing those permits um prior to installation. Here's just a couple examples of signs that are very important to navigating the site and getting people to where they would want to be. Um, but if you look at the open space uh monuments, um, that's a very simple modification and that does not require sign permits. Nonetheless, it's very important for the successful operation of of this facility. Uh, there are of course improvements within the mall. Uh again, one of the ways to get people from the mall to the airport would be uh ride share. I learned this morning that Lyft is the official ride share for the Mall of America. Didn't know that. Um but then there's also improvements like uh within the elevators and it looks like they corrected an issue because if you look at the image on the left, it says that the transit station go to level one east. That's not correct. But on the right, you see what they're proposing. they act you actually want to go to the S level which takes you directly to this transit station. Very very convenient. Uh also lighting uh we want to ensure that there's adequate lighting for security help people uh know where they're where they need to go. Uh and currently unless something has changed the extra lighting at in the east ramp is compliant. Um so this is just an image on the left you see that's right where that ramp is going from level six up to level seven. Very well lit. And then on P7 itself uh there are extensive light poles um that are existing today uh in operation. So do not anticipate anything needed uh from there. So with that we are recommending approval. Uh we did have some conditions uh that are were included in the resolution for your consideration. Um and uh the planning commission should it wish to take action uh this is the final uh approval authority subject to appeal. Thank you, Mr. Centinario. Any questions for staff? Commissioner, planning Johnson. >> Thank you, uh, Vice Chair Cunningham. I would just note also that, uh, Julie Long and Kirk Roberts are here from the city's engineering division should you have any questions for them, as well as the consultant who performed the parking and traffic study, uh, Phil Kolis with SRF, is also online should they, uh, be needed. >> Thank you. Any questions for staff? Commissioner White. Uh, thank you, chair. And this is a question for staff. Um, and apologies. I meant to look this up before the meeting, but uh, the day got away from me. Um, just out of curiosity, I know we just went through a how many signs can you have at the top of your multi-story building, and I can't remember what number of stories was required, but I see two signs here for a seventh level. And I just want to make sure that we're it's the same requirements as for a building of that type. So >> yeah, acting chair Cunningham and Commissioner White. So um some of these uh signs actually physically will be attached to the mall structure, some of it to the parking structure itself. And I should note that the uh mall is in a sign district classification of its own. And so it has more robust allowances for signage than a typical uh commercial or even mixeduse property. >> Thank you. Commissioner, I would I would add uh so that's obviously something we have to look at uh in order to issue a sign permit. There are some limitations uh for the area allowances, but it to Mr. Johnson's point, it is a more robust uh permissive district just because of the nature of them all. Um but it, you know, depending on what happens with future tenant spaces, they might run into that cap. We'll we'll have to wait and see. Uh but I don't think they've done that yet with this proposal. Any other questions for staff? Commissioner Isa. >> Uh thank you, acting chair. Um this may be a question for the operator, but uh just want to throw it out there. Is there data on the average length of uh stay or for the cars that stay overnight? >> Sure. >> Roughly compared to nearby parking businesses, similar businesses. >> Yeah, Commissioner say that. Great question. I don't I don't have the answer to that. Uh that might be something the applicant can answer given uh you know their preparation for this. >> Any other questions for staff? Uh seeing none um if the applicant would like to uh step forward and speak. Uh now is the time up here. Hi, good evening uh Mr. Chair, members of the planning commission. Oh, there we go. Uh, my name is Megan Rogers. I'm attorney with Lark and Hoffman and I represent Mall of America. Um, so first and foremost, I just want to thank your staff. Uh, this has been a significant process through the remote airport parking moratorum, uh, the ordinance amendment, and then getting to the application here today. It's, um, we're the first applicant to come in under your new ordinance. Uh, and so it's been a pleasure to work with him and to to work out uh, how the ordinance works in practice and how this will work for the mall. Um I think that uh planner Centinario did an excellent job of explaining uh the process that we've gone through here um and and outlining the findings that that have been made. Um I want to answer a couple of questions and just talk a little bit about our operations um from a general standpoint. Um first and foremost, the mall always seeks to provide a best-in-class service and that's the same thing that we hope to do here. Um, one of the restrictions of your ordinance is to ensure that there is sufficient parking for all uh other people who need to use uh the structured parking wherever that may be. And for the mall, we want to make sure that our guest experience is not impacted. Uh, on Black Friday of this year, we had 235,000, excuse me, 235,000 guests and there were 300 uh stalls used on P7E. So, we have really excellent data to be able to know um when people need to use that parking for non-airport parking services. Um and and we are a new operator in this field. Um so, uh Commissioner, to answer your question, we we don't have uh data on terms of how long people will park their cars uh at this facility. Um, but generally the average that we know from the uh data that's produced by by MAC and by the airport commission is that people tend to utilize long-term remote airport parking between 5 and 7 days and we have that built into our overall operations model um to ensure that uh we have sufficient capacity. Uh lastly, I'll say that uh the model that we're presenting here uh before you this evening um is all monitored very closely um with in terms of the same level of service and same level of monitoring that we have for the park assist system for the rest of the mall. So we know how many cars are coming in, how many spaces are available and how we can project out uh for future use and for to take future reservations. Um, I am happy to we have no objection to any of the conditions that have been proposed by staff and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have about our proposal this evening. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Rogers. Uh, any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Isa. >> Uh, thank you, acting chair. Uh, you Thank you for answering my question. >> Uh, and for all the information you provide as well. Quick question. How much do you know the average price compared to nearby parking facilities if if this uh per stall essentially if it would be competitive? >> So it will be competitive with the other facilities. Um, and then it will of course be demandbased. And you know, I'll take the opportunity to say that one of the great benefits of parking uh within our facility is that someone can go down, they can go shopping, get last minute trip items, uh have something to eat, come have their luggage stored. All of those things are now available at the mall. >> Commissioner White, >> thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the application. Um, I'm just curious. One of the things that appeals to me about this um proposal is the tie to public transit. And I know that um there's also a lift option, but I'm wondering um if if you have thought at all about promoting the use of public transit uh to the folks that are are parking in the facility. >> Absolutely. So, so that was really a core of this proposal and it's why we've proposed it for P7 East in particular um is that direct access to transit. um we see an excellent opportunity to be able to reinvigorate the connection point between the mall uh and the airport uh and through this particular programming. Um the other area that we see this as um a a really a value addition uh for our light rail system as well is that you know guests may choose to park at the mall uh and then take the light rail downtown for a game or something like that, stay overnight downtown and come back and be able to pick up their car. Um, so while this is classified as remote airport overnight parking, it has many other uses and and we consider accessibility to light rail to be one of the really significant benefits of locating at this site. >> Commissioner is >> uh thank you chair, acting chair uh Cunningham. So you mentioned the kiosk, the pay kiosk from my understanding would be at P6 right below >> uh at the entrance to the P7 level. Correct. >> The entrance of the P6. So that so I guess my question then would be uh do you anticipate that to impact shoppers at the parking at the P6 level if there's a somewhat of somewhat of a demand of airport parkers at the P7 level. >> Yeah, absolutely. So we do have queuing for up to three cars in each one of the lanes. Um so that there is capacity there as well. Uh and the other factor is that uh people who are parking with this system, they do not need they can pay, you know, if there's availability, they can pay at that kiosk. They can also utilize their phone to pay online uh and simply scan in. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions for the applicant? >> Commissioner Monster. >> So, I'm gonna Excuse me. I'm going to start by saying that I I think this is actually a very good proposal. My question is, how does the mall police people doing this now? Like if if I just went and parked there and took the train to the airport, >> I'll let the experts I'll let the experts speak to that. Um, but historically and you know, since the mall's uh construction, uh, overnight parking has not been permitted on site in in any way. So, there's been no long-term parking except for um within those hotel areas. But Rich, >> good evening. I'm Rich Hogi. I'm the chief operating officer for the mall. So, to answer your question, uh the the way that we prevent this today is that we look at the cars and the parking ramps on a nightly basis. Our security, you know, takes a peek at them and then we look at them again. If if they're there the next day, then we're going to be addressing that. So, >> Commissioner Isa, >> uh quick question. Um, let's say I don't know is the Rison Blue on the east side or west side? >> Rison Blue is on the south side of the mall. >> Southside. Okay. Let's say someone hypothetically speaking, right? Someone is staying at the Rison Blue, but it's cheaper to park not at the Rison Blue and at this parking ramp. Um, how would you manage that? And they're they're parked there overnight, but they're not out of state or whatnot. Yeah, I mean any guest whether they're staying at the Rison Blue, they're staying at the JW Marriott, they're being a mall guest, they're using this as parking ride, they have multiple choices on where they're parking, it's up to the guest to make those decisions. So, we're not going to prevent them from parking there if they're staying at the Rison Blue. Any further questions for the applicant? Thank you both. Um, I will now open the public hearing on this item. Anyone who wishes to testify on this item, please come forward. Miss Hesp, do we have anyone online? >> Acting Chair Cunningham, there is no one online. >> Thank you. Uh, seeing none, I would entertain a motion to close public hearing. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Uh, there's been a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All right. Uh, Miss Hesp, the role, please. >> Cunningham. >> I. >> E. >> I. >> White. I >> Monster. >> Hi, >> Summers. >> Hi. >> All right. Uh, discussion, >> Commissioner White. >> I was just say I think it's pretty straightforward. I think this is, you know, what folks had in mind when we changed the ordinance in the first place was this kind of use of overflow or extra parking capacity um as opposed to building new capacity. Um, I appreciate the the work that's gone in, clear work that's gone into um thinking through all of the the information. Um, as I said before, I'm particularly um excited to see a facility that would perhaps be a closer tie to using light rail to get to the airport as opposed to single trip vehicles or shuttles. >> Any other discussion? I I'll take say something really quick. I eventually want to find out what happened on Labor Day of 2019 from that scatter plot. Um Oh, I'm so sorry. Uh Commissioner Summers, you have your hand up. >> Thank you, acting chair. Um I was laughing because I also was thinking, yeah, I want to know what happened there. Um for me I am in a retail environment day-to-day and I really have a lot of faith that retailbased companies have a lot of data. So when I looked at this application, I felt like um the data made clear the Mall of America's plans to manage um there's a little bit of an inkling for me about the um having the price of the service be something that's on retail demand when one of the conditions of this um permit It deals with a high peak demand day that also lines up with holiday travel. Um, but that feels a little bit outside of the line of planning commission. I agree with um my fellow commissioners in that the um information provided by staff is really comprehensive and lines up with the findings that I need to make to be in support of this. Thank you. Um, any other discussion? Otherwise, I would entertain a motion, Commissioner White. >> In case number PL202500202, having been able to make the required findings, I move to adopt a resolution approving a conditional use permit for remote airport parking within the Mall of American American America. Is that right? um east parking ramp located at 8100 24th Avenue South subject to the conditions and code requirements listed in the resolution. >> Second. We have a motion and a second. Um before we progress, I just want to check with city attorney Tasky that that was read properly. >> The Mall of America Mall of American back and forth >> intent. >> All right. Legislative intent. >> Yeah, it's fine. I think everyone knows what you're I think everyone knows what you were mentioning there. So, >> perfect. Um, all right. Uh, motion to second. Any further discussion? >> Miss Hesp, could you call the role, please? >> Cunningham, >> I. >> Issa >> I. >> White. >> I. >> Monster. >> I. >> Summers. >> I. >> That motion carries 50. Um, that is a final decision by the planning commission unless an appeal is submitted to the city council by 4:30 p.m. on January 27th. Uh, we will now uh move on to item four and call back our fearless chair. Thank you, Commissioner Cunningham. We will move then to item number four. uh which is a major revision to final development plans for parking flexibility for retail use at 8101 34th Avenue South. Mr. Centinario is back with another staff report. >> Thank you, Chair Kton and commissioners. We will continue our focus on parking um at 8101 34th Avenue South. Uh the the focus of this application again is parking demand and how that demand relates to parking supply. Uh the context uh is very different. Uh and I hopefully I'll do a decent job kind of explaining the uh explaining that context and uh the reasons why we are recommending approval. And so here we are at 8101 34th Avenue South. And so again, we're still in the Southwood district. Uh just east of 34th Avenue. Um and uh this location is outlined in yellow. Uh light rail is that blue line. The blue line is the blue line. Um and 8101 is an approximately 48,000 foot office building. Um and it shares access uh from 34th Avenue um with the Riser multifamily development to the south. Uh and then you can see a shared private street, American Square, uh to the north. And that and that parking supply that we'll be talking about is a mix of supply. Uh there are surface stalls, which you can see in this aerial image. Um there are some covered stalls that are on below the second level of the building itself. And then there's also structured parking uh that this site has access to within the riser parking structure. And so what we're what the commission is being asked to do is to consider uh development flexibility to allow a retail tenant to occupy space within AD101. And uh you know the intent is to excuse me is for that retail tenant to be a cannabis dispensary. However, I I want to stress that from a land use perspective, the land use is retail. Uh so we don't have a separate category for cannabis or we don't have certain it's it does not require a conditional use permit. Uh it is a it is what's called a permitted limited use. Uh, and that's a fancy way of describing a use that is limited to no more than 25% of the building floor area. Uh, so the a retail use here is a permitted limited use, but because of the characteristics of the parking, uh, it would require some additional flexibility from the city. And so I have a few images of existing conditions. Uh so in this case uh north is to the right and uh we have you can see it's a in total it's a four-level office building. The main entrances are on the east side of the building. Um and the access from uh from the the neighborhood uh is from 34th Avenue South. And again uh there's a mix of parking supply here. There's a surface parking that you can see in the image. Uh there are a number of stalls below uh the second level of the building. And then there's 37 or I believe it's uh 37 stalls within the riser uh development. And you might ask yourself, well that's really interesting. How did they get access to 37 stalls within a multif family apartment building? And before uh the riser development happened, uh the applicant or the owner of this building owned parking where the riser now sits. And so that was a negotiation between uh the developer and uh the applicant property owner uh tonight. So here's a graphic that was included in the parking study of that was included in the packet. And again, 37 stalls are within the riser parking structure. There's some shared uh component uh which is in green. And then there's some parking that's intended solely for uh the apartment building and that's in yellow. And as you can imagine, when people are coming going uh guests to the apartments, uh deliveries, you know, they need a place to they need a place to park. And so they do have a small amount of uh designated parking. And so what's on screen now is a uh floor plan for the proposed retail tenant. And in total um the floor area is about 7,600 square feet. that that area is misleading. Um, I want to focus your attention to the the the green elements on this graphic. So, you have your customer entry, there's a security area, retail, packaging, and then a storage area. I'm not sure how the this space was um utilized before, uh, but at least a portion of it was a bank. And so if you go in that uh covered building, you can see the the bank drive-thru. Uh and there's, you know, the teller window and all that. Obviously, the bank is not operating anymore. Um but if we if we take a step back and think, well, what is the actual retail use uh within this space? It's pro it's much closer to about 2500 square feet. If we add up the retail security, customer entry, packaging, and then a component of the storage, this whole space is 7,600 square feet. And that's what was used to study parking demand. Um, but the the actual retail use is a much smaller component. And the reason for that is the applicant can provide more detail. Uh, was because I I don't think they wanted to uh retrofit this space within the building. uh they wanted to kind of keep it intact as it is which then led to a much larger space than what was frankly necessary for this user. We always when we're reviewing these proposals we always go we we start with the code uh the baseline code requirements and uh what we have here is the office uh which is about 40,000 square feet. Then we have again in in actuality it's not 7,600 feet but that's that's the proposal. Uh and we have a total parking requirement of 184. Uh the parking provided is 138. And if you're were reading the study very carefully you would say wait a second that's not the number that was included in the parking supply in the study. And I'll I'll get to that in a moment. Um but that's a 25% deviation or reduction um from city code requirements to accommodate this retail space and uh you know throughout the city we don't see deviations that high. If there were to be a location where we would see a deviation that high it would be in South Loop where we have that uh access to transit. Um, but going back to that five stalls, you know, there was some striping that was done on site uh that doesn't meet uh city dimensional requirements. And so there's that drive-through lane from when there was a bank. And at some point there were 10 stalls that were striped uh within that space, but they're not sized appropriately. Um they're not near wide enough for a stall. And if cars are parked on both sides of that lane, I think a lot of vehicles will find it difficult to get through. So in terms of the actual supply we removed five spaces because we feel like to meet the dimensional requirements uh you can only have it on one side. So going to the study itself and you know this this really ups the ante in terms of complexity. Um but the study looked at uh peak demand for uh area cannabis dispensaries. Uh measured what that uh demand was per 1,000 square feet of uh floor area and then essentially extrapolated that to the proposed use. uh using that calculations at a when you apply that number to a 7600 square foot retail dispensary you have an average demand of 42 spaces which is really high. Uh and then if you go to the 85th percentile uh 90 spaces. So when we have that sort of demand uh that would create an issue uh like a a real uh legitimate issue for parking within this uh within the site. However, when we look at the context uh and realize that the dispensary would really only occupy about 2500 square ft of of space for retail, you know, the reality is uh we do feel like there is sub significant uh supply here and there would be uh adequate adequate supply. So, I'll touch on those other considerations. Uh, first off, we're obviously right along the blue line, and so presumably some customers or employees uh would be able to utilize light rail transit as opposed to uh needing to put a vehicle in a stall. That would presumably reduce the parking demand to some degree, although it's hard to apply a particular quantity or percentage reduction. When we look at the South Hoop district plan, uh there are uh this general policy to support uh mixeduse development having retail on uh within office buildings. Uh certainly having a retail tenant within an existing office building where it's currently vacant. Uh there is a benefit to that. Uh third, the city city staff and it's on the 2026 work plan is analyzing what our parking requirements are and uh we felt and I think the planning commission agreed that the actual ratios that are required for different land uses are overly conservative and I think there's a good chance that uh we'll be recommending some modest reductions to those ratios which brings down the requirement for various land uses. What we don't want to have happened and what has historically happened is overbuilding parking lots uh because we have this ratio that's adopted in city code when in reality we see mostly vacant parking lots most of the time. And so that's something that's on the 2026 work plan to to consider. Uh another consideration is building reuse parking flexibility. Uh there there is an allowance in city code today uh for building reuse to actually reduce the parking requirement uh up to 25% for a particular tenant. Unfortunately uh the city council is the only entity that can approve shared use parking arrangements uh and so it automatically kicked the uh review authority to city council. Another element is office conversion study where we've probably all heard of difficulty in filling office space between work from home just the new reality and generally speaking the city has wanted to be flexible in allowing other uses within uh office spaces that are underutilized and lastly as I've mentioned uh the tenant space floor area the math that was done in the study is correct they use 7600 ft because that's what was submitted to the city. Uh but we do think the reality is that the the the parking demand uh that we would see here if the cop is approved uh is substantially less than what's identified. Some other considerations to uh for the commission is when we have changes of use we have certain things that have to be brought into play or conformance triggers. One of those are sidewalk connections. currently uh or when this building was developed, pedestrian uh accessibility and sidewalks uh really wasn't something that was top of mind. Uh that is something that we want to consider. And the code does require that because this is a retail use, we can again presume that pedestrian traffic will increase. Uh but there's no sidewalk connection between the public sidewalk and the building entrance. And so with this conditional use permit, uh before the dispensary could open, there would have to be a sidewalk connection. Um and this is just very basic what I thought might be the most efficient way to accommodate a sidewalk. Um because there is a curb ramp on the on the well, it's actually north. You see my cursor? There's a curb ramp here. There's actually two pedestrian light pedestrian oriented light poles. Um, and it's a it's a just a good connection, sidewalk connection due to, if you are familiar with the site, there's actually a fair amount of grade between the building and that drive lane to the north. And I think that was intentional to direct drainage and accommodating a sidewalk there would be very difficult. And then on the other side of the building to the south of the building, it becomes very tricky uh to make that connection. Plus, you're having to cross a lot more parking areas. So, this is just an idea. Nonetheless, it would be a requirement to to install a sidewalk connection. Also, uh there's been some references to lighting. Uh we're always looking at lighting and a change of use does uh bring in lighting compliance. This is probably a little easier. Uh there are lighting poles on site. Uh but uh should this conditional use permit be approved, there probably have to be some retrofits. Uh there's one light pole you can if you can make it out right in front of the entrance. Uh but it doesn't illuminate uh as much parking as would it would need to. Uh so there would have to be some work done uh on improving the light lighting levels of that of those parking stalls. And then also we'd want to make sure that uh whatever lighting if there is lighting uh underneath that canopy that that meets the minimum uh lighting at entrances. Obviously security was a concern. We did get some feedback about security. Uh and one of the ways to mitigate those concerns is to ensure that the these spaces are well lit. And so with that, uh we are recommending an approval uh subject to uh several conditions. Um and uh those are attached to the staff report. Uh this is a a recommendation uh and uh that recommendation would be forwarded on to the city council. >> Thank you, Mr. Cinerio. We'll begin with questions for staff. Commissioner White. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so just a quick question to clarify. The proposal that was the request that was submitted was for 7600 ft square feet of retail. And as you said at the beginning of your presentation, this is the the client there, the the tenant that they expect to go in there currently would only be using a portion of it for retail. But if we do approve a conditional use permit for retail, we are approving it for all 7600 space. So square feet. So later a different tenant or a change in circumstances, it would be allowable for them to expand beyond the current configuration. Is that correct? >> Uh Commissioner, I very much understand why you would draw that conclusion. Um but that's not the case. And so, uh, and that's a very, very good point to make is that when we have proposals that are seeking flexibility in some way, um, we want to ensure that what is being approved is representative of the proposal. And so, while this tenant space is for 7,600 ft, the retail components are are what's identified on this plan. Um, and so if the dispensary fell through, um, but they have a conditional use permit to operate retail, a different retailer could hypothetically occupy that space. It could be a convenience store or a salon or some other retail service and they would be limited to the retail spaces that are on this floor plan. It's a very, very good question. very really getting into the zoning weeds on on some of this. >> Mr. Centiner, just to clarify, uh the application before us this evening is is it related to the conditional use permit or is it just for the parking flexibility? >> Sure. Uh great question, Commissioner. Uh so in this for this particular case, uh a conditional use permit is not required. So, uh, if you go back to one of the earlier slides, retail, uh, as a use is permitted limited in the HXR zoning district. And so, a conditional use permit and the standards associated with a conditional use permit, uh, are not do not apply in this case. So, really, the focus is parking. That's that's the that's the key. Thank you. Other questions for staff? Commissioner Monster. So I I understand the answer that you gave to Commissioner White on essentially what is being approved would lock them into this floor plan. But we are should this be approved nonetheless accounting for 7600 ft of retail. Correct. >> Uh commissioners. Yeah. I I can understand why that's very confusing. And I think the the confusion is from the fact that this entire tenant space is 7,600 ft² and the uh license to sell cannabis probably would apply to the floor area that's uh provided to the OCM. in terms of how we approach land use approvals. Uh, and the recommended condition that's included in the resolution tonight is that the retail the retail use is limited to the retail use that's identified in the application. And that's what's on screen today. So if I could ask that a slightly different way then if three years from now somebody else comes in and says I want to gut this place make it a 7600 foot truly retail convenience store whatever what has to be done >> commissioners if that happens and it is 100% retail we'll be having a very similar discussion uh that we're having with you tonight uh is is Is there enough parking? Because the from the land use from strictly a zoning perspective, the same the same rules apply. Uh but we think the uh the actual demand for a true 7,600 foot retail space probably going to create a parking problem. And uh that's something that we would want to evaluate very closely because there's there's just only so much supply in this little corner of Bloomington. And last one, I promise. So, just to make sure that we're understanding, make sure the public is understanding who's watching us. It would come back. It this is not some sort of cart blanch approval that we would be granting tonight. It would have to come back through some process. >> Commissioners, it would it would have to come back. Uh, however, there's always there's always uh um it depends. Uh there could be a scenario where the parking standards change so dramatically that um it no longer needs a deviation. I and it's hard I don't know if that's what the reality would be. Um but under the current parking ratios that we have in code it would have to come back. >> Other questions for staff. >> Chair commissioners if I might. I was just kind of looking up some of the cannabis rules and stuff. And for retail cannabis, you part of their lure is to establish the retail area that's open to people that are 21 and older. Restricted access in all the other areas where the public can't go. So, they have to have that on their license when they get the license. The the areas that are open and areas that aren't, they have to have a security area. Then there's a host of all of these, you know, plans for security, lighting, all these different things they have to do to get a license through the state. They'd also have to register with the city. So there's kind of a couple touch points with regulation um just to say that all those things the whole area is not going to be open to the public for retail kind of what Mr. Centinario was saying here. So just to add some color to what we're saying >> uh Mr. Centinario as it relates to parking is the applicant or the subject property allowed to store snow uh in their parking stalls or is that precluded? Yeah, commissioners, you know, generally the parking supply that's on a site needs to remain parking supply. Uh the day-to-day reality is that oftent times in the winter, some of that those stalls are lost to snow piles. Um when we have more urban areas like this or where we have more higher intensity of development, uh it's harder it's harder to uh find those areas for snow. Um, and it might take a little bit of extra work uh to locate the snow piles in areas that are not parking stalls. Uh, but to answer your question directly, those the city code does not have an allowance uh for a certain amount of stalls to be removed for snow piles. >> So, it would be the expectation of the city that uh they cannot be storing snow in the parking lot. >> That's correct, Commissioner. >> Thank you. >> And ultimately, if there's there are heavy snowfalls, it is incumbent upon the property owner to maybe haul that snow. No one wants to do that because that's costly. >> Uh but ultimately it might be something that has to happen. >> Thank you. Any other questions for staff? >> Seeing none for now. Thank you, Mr. Censorio. I will ask if the applicant is here and would like to come forward. >> Good evening. >> Hi, good evening. Um my name is Say Barangian. I've been a owner of the building since 2013 and uh I do agree with uh all the finding of the staff and and no objection to that at all. Uh and I do accept all the proposed condition that I have to uh you know obligate to a couple of things that I want to mention regards to what Mike actually uh talked about. One of the thing is that um we do move haul snows like last year I do uh do that anyways because of my tenants I do haul this snow and right now actually if you look at the parking right now the the snow is hauled under the building right under if you you don't see it here and there's no parking there. So that's one of the things and the other thing is that um you asked the question if there's a three years what's going to happen? Well, the leases for OCM is 10 years only. They cannot move. If they move, they have to get a license again from OCM. So, that's another thing that hopefully they won't move. And then the other thing I want to talk about is that initially we uh submitted 7,600 square foot, but the floor plan for the retail is really 1,400, not even 2500 based on what we have. And we actually drew the building. We drew the the floor plan for the tenant. Uh and tenant is actually here, Cody. And uh and the other thing I want to say at on the east side of the building, you guys noticed the two parkings that we was not exactly the size of a parking stall should be. Well, those are not part of the 138. I just drew those for myself, for my staff. My I my office used to be. And the other question, somebody said, "Who was on the first floor?" That was my office uh for my employees. We had 65 people there on the first floor. And then I sold the portion of the uh my my uh my business and I moved the second portion to the third floor. So that's why you see that. Uh so that was the office. Um and it's a 10-year lease. Um and the parking was not included. Those are all my and I want to thank all the members and Mike especially um you know thank you so much for working with me who last for my five months to to get to this point and I do have my also my attorney here if you have questions that I cannot answer hopefully I can and also the tenant is here. >> Great. Thank you Mr. Brenian. Any questions for the applicant? >> Commissioner Isa. Uh thank you. Uh and thank you chair. Uh so when you submit to the OCM, uh did you uh is it the 1400 that was submitted as as a square footage or the higher amount? >> So the OCM doesn't have any restrictions on technically your retail floor space. I wish it was smaller, but we have agreement on renting the whole building. So pretty much um how it works is we have to get the building remodeled and then we submit our plans to the OCM for final approval. So you have to have all the security um your SOPs for your employees, your training. It's a really intensive application to go through and to get submitted. >> Thank you. >> So it actually has to be remodeled first. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. And also they would not get the final license until the floor plan is inspected. Y >> by OC. >> Yep. Fully fully inspected. Yep. >> Fully inspected. >> Other questions for the applicant. >> Uh can we get your name for the record, gentlemen? >> Sure. >> Uh my name is Michael Clem with the Homeouth and Johnson Law Firm. >> Thank you. And you as well? >> Uh Cody Jerzac with Northern Dispensary. >> Thank you very much. And if you three could sign in on the sheet there for us, we would appreciate that. >> We may have a late question here from Commissioner Summers. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, I am wondering if the applicant, if you know, um, if there are any restrictions on how many people can be in your retail space. My understanding is that the OCM does not dictate like a number of people who could be in the space at one time. >> Uh, no, there isn't. It's more of a safety thing based on the occupancy load from the size of the retail space that we'll allow. And I I don't know exactly that number is right off hand. I apologize, but um usually get about 10 10 to 15 people an hour. That's usually on busy times. and that those busy times are usually between 3 and 7 o'clock PM on the weekends that that's different, but um it shouldn't be a most retail areas for cannabis are under 700 square ft. This is just a big large building, so we don't expect there to be any issues with space. Any other questions for the applicant? If none, I would entertain a motion. >> Move to close the public hearing. >> Actually, uh, that's my mistake, Mr. Cunningham. We We had better do the public hearing before we close it. >> Thank you to the applicant. You can take a seat, gentlemen. >> Appreciate it. Appreciate the time. >> Uh, again, my mistake. Uh, we will open the public hearing now and ask if there's anyone in the chambers who wishes to testify on this item. I have a question that that's unrelated to this. Is this a right? Is it all right to to say something? It's about parking. >> If it's related to the application, yes, you are welcome to testify. >> Oh, it's not. Sorry. It's just parking in general. So, if it's not, that's that's all right. Let me know what you've got in all this issue. >> Well, I was just going to make a comment about the 2026 um parking. They're going to redo or re re-evaluate the parking ratios. Okay. >> So, I was just going to make a couple points about that. >> Uh we can get you in contact with the city staff member and I'll take that offline. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Uh is there anyone online who wishes to testify to this item? Chair Kton, there is no one online. >> Thank you very much, Miss Hesp. I'll ask for again if there's anyone in the chambers who wishes to testify on this item. >> See no one coming forward. I will now look for a motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second to close this public hearing. Miss Huspect, the role. >> Cooked. >> I. >> Cunningham. >> I. >> Isa. >> I. >> White. >> I. >> Monster. >> I. >> Summers. >> I. Motion passes 6 and we will move to discussion. I think I'll get us started here. I read this entire staff report twice uh this week because it's a lot to get your head around and there's also it's not it's not a particularly black and white thing. Uh we're asking for a roughly 25% reduction in the parking and there's a lot of factors that go into whether that's appropriate for the city for the neighborhood uh for this application or not. There certainly are some things that work in favor of allowing a parking reduction. Uh excellent um access to transit in this location. You really couldn't ask for any better. So that's not only for uh customers of the business but also um employees who we hope use public transit. Um the tenant floor plan thing which was discussed at length I think that's real. Um you know look other businesses also have back of house areas. So I don't know if I would quite agree with the assessment that well it's only 1,400. Well other cannabis shops also need a staff lounge and some other things. So, I'm not sure I quite buy the fact that we're going all the way down, but I do think it's a real thing that this is not a 76 square 7600 square foot business. I I buy into that. And also, I think the South Loop District plan guidance is meaningful here. This is intended to be Bloomington's most urban neighborhood. And the South Loop District plan calls for us to be creative and really assess uh parking before we we encourage the the construction of additional parking. And I think that's real here. We we want this to be an urban neighborhood. I don't want to see us overbuilding parking here. And so I think it is uh worthy of us taking a closer look at whether it's appropriate uh to be creative or not. Um the other thing with this is I think there's a real public benefit to adding retail to this neighborhood. I think this neighborhood is starving for retail. I people ask me about this neighborhood all the time and when I talk about it and I've said this up here a million times that the thing working against the South Loop is that it's not a drive-through neighborhood. It um you only intend to go to this neighborhood if you meant to. How often are people in South Loop unless they they meant to go there? And I think that will always hurt that neighborhood. It's not like 98th and Lindale where I find myself driving through there twice a week at least. I will drive through there on my way home tonight. Um, people are always in that neighborhood, but this neighborhood doesn't have drive-through traffic. And so, I think the city needs retail in here. And I think it needs I think we need destination retail, something that's going to get people into this neighborhood. And then they see, geez, this is a nice neighborhood. There's a great coffee shop here. There's a new grocery store I could stop by on my way home, too. And so the more retail we can get in this neighborhood, I think is an enormous benefit to the South Loop and uh to this neighborhood. And so I think there's a public benefit to this. And so um I also don't think we can just turn a blind eye to um oh just just do it. Just do it. We we we we can't just do it. There has to be something within reason that we can support as far as parking reductions go. I think with all the factors that have been laid out before us, I can get there at 25%. That's really I think the highest end of something I would go for, but I do think um I can get comfortable with it again with the with the public benefit of having retail in the neighborhood with access to public transit with the South Loop District plan encouraging us to find ways to be creative with parking. I think they all work in favor of saying, "All right, this is a pretty big reduction. We we can't just do whatever we want, but I think I can get there at 25%." So with all of that, um I will be supporting this application, >> Commissioner Muster. >> And I would just add to that, Mr. chairman. Um that with it being on the work plan for this year to look at parking ratios and in recognition of the fact that as a as a general statement, a lot of the existing parking ratios are meant for an autoor oriented environment and that does not necessarily reflect this area um because we're trying to get it to be a more urban and walkable community. um that again 25% I I would agree is probably about the highest that I'd be comfortable approving but somewhere in my mind I'm also thinking that it's not a 25% reduction if we look at the same math at the end of this year. >> Commissioner Cunningham. >> Thank you. Uh one thing I want to add, you know, we talk a lot about auto oriented development versus transit oriented development, yada yada yada. I mean, I I think one thing we haven't discussed and that I I'm in agreement with you both. I'll I'll start by saying that um a retail shop of this size and selling this type of product is probably most akin to the amount of time a person spends on say a smaller liquor store. Um it's not a target. You're not in there for an hour walking the aisles. It's a a faster service retail. And so that's why I can get comfortable with the reduction in this case. and not all retail is the same. Um, and so I think that the parking problem and and I agree with you, Chair Cook, that 25% is probably as much down as I'd want to go, especially in a tighter parked neighborhood. Um, but I I think that this retail application or this this specific type of retailer is a good fit for a parking reduction. Thanks. >> Thank you, Commissioner Isa. >> Uh, thank you, Chair. Yeah, I just want to say I agree with uh your main points, Commissioner Cookton, and the point you add as well, uh, Commissioner Cunningham, and I will be voting in support of this. So, welcome to the tenant to city of Bloomington if it passes. And, um, yeah, thank you. >> Thank you. Any other comments on this application? If not, I would entertain a motion. Commissioner Cunningham. >> In case PL202500203, having been able to make the required findings, I move to recommend city council recommend city council approval of a major revision to the final development plan to reduce parking requirements at 8101 34th Avenue South to allow for a retail tenant subject to the conditions and code requirements attached to the staff report. Is there a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second to recommend the city council approve a major revision to final development plants at the subject property. Is there any further discussion? I actually would like to say one more thing before we we call the role here. Um we got uh more than a couple pieces of public correspondence on this in our inboxes and I think sometimes people wonder if they email their city representatives and it goes into thin air and I can tell those people it did not go into thin air. I read all of them. I trust my fellow planning commissioners also read all of them and they were under consideration as part of this application. So I think it's important people know that they are heard by their commissions and council. And as far as this body goes, you can feel confident that you were heard on this application. We are ready to call the role. Commissioner Hes or Miss Hespek >> Cookton >> I. >> Cunningham >> I. Issa >> I >> White >> I >> Monster >> I >> Summers >> I >> That motion passes 6. This is a recommendation to the city council and it will be on their agenda for final approval on February 2nd, 2026. We will move then to item number five, another public hearing. City of Bloomington is the applicant. This application regards city code amendment for the missing middle housing ordinance phase 2. Mr. Dakota Cassand is here with the staff report. All right. Uh good evening planning commission. Um you know it's been a longer agenda and this is a little bit of a longer ordinance. I appreciate your um patience as we get through this last item and public hearing here. Um so I'll just walk through um the missing middle housing ordinance. So, when we're talking about missing middle, um, if you think about the scale and form of housing kind of in this spectrum that's laid out here on the screen, when we're talking about missing middle housing, we're talking about housing that's in the middle or in between a detached single family home and a larger apartment complex or mid-rise development. Um, it's often referred to as missing because there's just an under supply of this kind of housing, whether cities outright prohibiting these types of housing or um just lack of financing or or developers to kind of produce this this kind of housing. Um, why have we been focusing on missing middle housing for um a couple of years? Um, that's because staff and previous boards and commissions and city council members have identified this as a key priority to ensure that Bloomington continues to lead in housing for the region. Um, the Minneapolis Fed estimates that about 18,000 new housing units need to be produced each year through 2030 to meet the demand. And we see missing middle housing as one strategy to help increase the supply of housing um, in Bloomington. As mentioned, these housing types are compatible with single family homes in their form and scale. Um, and they provide some opportunities to support infill housing development. As you all are aware, Bloomington is is pretty much fully developed. So, any kind of new housing we're going to see is going to be some kind of redevelopment or infill. And Missing Middle is one way to to do that. Um hopefully if we meet our goal with this project to increase the variety of housing types for all people at different stages of life that we can positively impact housing availability and affordability in the city. Uh we also see missing middle housing um as a way to increase flexibility and choice for residents in the community. It provides additional homeownership opportunities as well as opportunities for residents to age in place. Uh looking at some of the data from the latest American Community Survey, about 33% of households in Bloomington live alone and an additional 34% are families without children. And so a lot of single family or um a lot of singleerson households um might only have the choice to live in either a single family home or a studio or one-bedroom apartment because that's all the choice that they have or what's available in the community. And not every one of those households wants to live in that type of housing. And so there's a way to try to think about different housing types and and providing more variety um in the city through through missing middle. Um I'm not going to go into detail here, but just wanted to acknowledge that we also know that there's been a number of state bills proposed around increasing the supply of housing um in the state of Minnesota. A lot of state legislators feel cities aren't doing enough to address um the housing supply issue. Uh and so we're not sure um where this is going to go um in this legislative cycle or future cycles. Um and so we wanted to continue to move forward um with a proposal here in Bloomington that maybe can serve as an example um here in the region. And so the proposed ordinance in front of you tonight um does a couple of things. It establishes definitions, use allowances for and zoning performance standards for a variety of new missing middle housing types that we'll talk about. Um, it renames the R3 zoning district from the townhouse residential district to the middle housing residential district. And then it updates the RM12 zoning district to RM15. Um, the housing types that we looked at um, and that are proposed in this ordinance are a three family dwelling or triplex, uh, forplex, detached town homes or villas, multiplex um, as well as cottage courts. And we'll go into a little bit of detail on each of those. um in the zoning code. This is a list of um all the things that we're kind of thinking about for each of these types, which is why you see an an ordinance that's about 30 pages long. There's just a lot of nuance and in detail with um thinking about how to propose a new housing type into um city code. And so we'll we'll touch on some of these, but again, you know, we're thinking about things like setbacks, site area, building height, parking, lighting, trash storage, and removal um and the actual approval process for the site plan. One of the things that we discussed at previous study sessions was where to allow missing middle housing types in the city. Um, and particularly asking the question to what extent some of these should be allowed in the R1 zoning district. Uh, there was pretty broad support to allow the detached townouses in R1. Um, and so that is in the ordinance. However, it was a little bit more mixed across the HA board, planning commission, and city council on some of these other types in R1. And so this ordinance takes the direction to really focus on the R3, R4, RM15 zoning districts to kind of ease into um allowing these types um and not focusing so much on the the R1 zoning district. And so this map shows where all of those existing um middle housing districts are located in the city. Um and like we mentioned in the study session to a majority of these sites are already developed. And so it's the case that um any kind of new missing middle um proposal will likely involve some kind of reszoning um that would come before the planning commission and city council to to move forward. Um so just wanted to jump in on the specific types. So we really kind of treated three family dwellings and forplexes as pretty much the same. Um just given their form and scale are pretty similar. So again, three family dwelling is um three units in a single structure. Forplex is four units in a single structure. Um I guess the the exception or difference between the two is that we um the ordinance does propose to make a triplex or a three family dwelling a conditional use in R1. So that would require a conditional use permit um from the planning commission before um it could be approved for a building permit. um where forplexes are just permitted in R3 and R4 and then we're not focusing on R1 there. Um setbacks and and some of those things relate to the zoning district that it's located in and so we'll kind of talk about some of those changes um on a couple of slides. Um we're proposing one um space per dwelling and then similar to how we treat single family homes in duplexes now um wanting to um provide if it's if it's permitted in R3 or an R4 uh that the site plan um would be approved administratively like we do for a single family home or duplex and then goes right into the building permit. Now, if they wanted flexibility and couldn't meet all of the code requirements, then that does um come to the planning commission and city council through a preliminary development and final development plan. Um but as maybe a trade-off to having to go through the resoning um process, um the site plan itself um if it meets all of our code standards um could be approved administratively to help streamline um some of that process. um detached town homes. Um we define those as an arrangement of multiple detached single family dwellings in a single development. And with a detached townhouse um they could all be um located on a a common lot with all of the units in any public space or um uh kind of open space or out lots or each um home could be on its own individual lot. Um, and that could either be fronted along a public street or or private drive. And so the performance standards here, the the intent was to really allow flexibility in the location of structures and the size of the individual lots to promote efficient use of the land and more innovative site design. So really the key feature here is think of it as a single family home development, but each um single family home is on a lot that's smaller and narrower than what would otherwise be allowed um in the zoning code. Um so we are per proposing to have that permitted in R1, R3, R4, and RM15. Um we'll kind of walk through some of the the zoning district requirements. Um there are landscaping and lighting standards. Uh, one of the key things with parking, this ordinance would align um, detached town homes with attached town homes and change the parking standard to be the same between the two. Um, and that parking standard would be to allow two spaces per dwelling unit. Um, one of those must be enclosed and then providing um, additional guest spaces um, in the development as well. And we felt um, this kind of aligns more, I think, with the market. um what you see in a typical townhouse or detached townhouse is going to be a two-car garage with a driveway with additional parking for vehicles as well. Um so while the other types are more um kind of like parking lots or um not enclosed parking um we would require garages or enclosed parking here with um the detached town houses. And then in terms of approval, those would if it meets all of the code requirements would be a final site and building plan approval that just goes to the planning commission for final decision. Or if they're requesting any um flexibility, those would then go to a preliminary and final development plan that goes to planning commission and then city council for final approval. uh cottage courts. So those are the arrangement of multiple detached single family dwellings in a single development oriented around an on-site common open space or courtyard. And so really the the kind of two key features as I would think about um cottage courts is that one they're oriented towards some kind of open space or courtyard versus being oriented towards the street. And then the second key feature is that cottage the the dwellings in a cottage court are kind of intentionally smaller and meant to be kind of more of like that cottage cottage like type of of housing kind of more for um a single person household or oftentimes are used as like opportunities for older residents to age and place in their in their neighborhoods. And so we would just um the ordinance proposes to permit them in R3, R4, and RM15. Um so they would not be permitted in the R1 zoning district. Um again they'll have landscaping and lighting standards. Um the parking requirement would be one space per dwelling unit. Um which seemed to be kind of the general um consensus across the study sessions. However, there was an acknowledgement of wanting to ensure there was some additional guest parking in some of these larger developments. So we are proposing um 0.25 25 guest spaces per per dwelling unit with a cottage court. And that image just kind of gives you an idea of how um you might see an infill cottage court development in the future. Again, here the final site building plan if it meets all of the code requirements and doesn't need flexibility, it would come to you all in a final site and building plan approval. Otherwise, it um if there is flexibility needed um comes to you for recommendation and then goes to council for final approval. And then finally, multiplex um as a structure that would have five to 16 units um in a single structure. Um really the intent with the um performance standards here is to offer more flexibility in building design for a smaller multiple family or apartment building and again kind of encouraging more efficient use of land for infill development. Here multiplexes are would be proposed um permitted in R4 and RM15. Um some of the floor area things are similar to multifamily um developments already. Again, we'll have landscaping lighting standards. Most of that focuses around um screening the parking area from the street and from neighboring um properties or uses. Um the one probably key difference um for a multiplex versus a multifamily um complex is that related to trash. Um, a lot of in our multif family, um, trash is usually kind of in the underground garage or in some kind of trash room. Um, in these cases, given the scale is much smaller, it's probably just not financially feasible to have some kind of underground um, garage. And so, um, we're we're proposing some flexibility is that they could still do some kind of attached trash room if they'd like or, um, the flexibility of having a detached trash enclosure that would meet all of the standards that we, um, adopted through the, um, small business ordinance just a couple of weeks ago. Um, for parking, again, one space per unit, but then having, um, 0.5 guest spaces per dwelling unit. So, if you want to think about it, 1.5 per per unit. And then similarly um again if it met all of code requirements it would just go to a site plan approval um to the planning commission if it needed flexibility goes to you all for recommendation and then to to the council. So that kind of gets at the the uses and the structures themselves. And then the other big piece of this ordinance is focusing on the the zoning districts. And so, um, like I mentioned, it's renaming the R3 zoning district from townhouse, um, residential district to middle housing. Uh, this is a newer zoning district that was established in 2015 kind of specifically for town houses. And there is only one property currently in Bloomington that zoned R3. And so staff did, you know, consider, do we just eliminate this zoning district um, and kind of condense um, our residential zoning districts? And ultimately where we kind of landed was to keep it and just make it more broad for um other types of middle housing developments. And and part of the reason or thinking about it the other way as well maybe a lot of zoning districts gets complicated. The benefit is it gives us just a little bit more options to kind of meet the varying different contexts that we might see um kind of infill or redevelopment. So we would envision or kind of prioritize reszoning to R3 on a proposal that's more surrounded by R1 zoning district or is more u more or less guided low density residential and then if there was a site that was guided medium density residential um or surrounded by more um multifamily uses or non-residential uses encouraging that R4 RM15 zoning district. So, it gets a little bit in the the zoning weeds there, but happy to um clarify um anything. Um and then on the next slide, I'll show we're um aligning the density thresholds for these zoning districts to better align with our comprehensive plan guidance. And then there's some additional kind of miscellaneous um little updates around um accessory dwelling units and accessory buildings. Um, again, kind of going through and having to change every reference to RM12 to RM15 um, in the zoning district, that kind of adds to the the length of the ordinance as well. Um, so looking at the um, standards for the districts themselves first, starting with site area, we proposed to reduce that to 11,50 for R3. And the reason or rationale there was that at 11,50 if you had a three family dwelling at that size of lot you're you're maxed out at your 12 units an acre. And so that was kind of our starting point and then really just created a tiered system from what was 40,000 for some of these districts to go to 20,000 for R4 and then 30,000 for RM15 to just help better distinguish um these zoning districts to respond to different contexts. Um a similar approach was done with the site width. Um kind of thinking about on a three family dwelling 60 ft is likely um all the width you would need depending on the design. And then again just kind of creating a tiered system um up from what was 200 for everything to create 100 and 150 with the density thresholds. We had um increased the R3 density from 8 units an acre to 12 units an acre to match that low density um guidance um is currently 1 to 12 units an acre. Um, and then for R4 and RM15, and the reason why we needed to rename RM12 to RM15, uh, was to increase that from 12 units an acre to 15 units an acre. And that aligns with our medium density designations in the comp plan that guides these areas from 5 to 15 um, units an acre. So, sorry there's a lot of a lot of numbers and a lot of saying units per acre, but happy to answer any um questions you might have there. And then finally looking at the setbacks for these districts, we'd propose a 20 foot setback along the street and then 20 ft rear setback and a 10-ft sideyard setback. And this really was kind of looking at other comparison cities and what they allow for these kinds of housing types. Um as well as looking at some recent proposals where we've given different setback flexibilities. Um and it seemed like 20 um is kind of where we'd land and and that still gives us enough room like we require a 20ft um landscape buffer in many cases. You know, along other property lines, there's usually some kind of easement or or things too. So, this just felt like it um gives some flexibility on where you could locate on the site while still um kind of aligning with how we've treated other development to ensure there's adequate open space and landscape buffers on the site as well. And so, um, with that, I know it's a a longer ordinance and lots of, um, complexity, so happy to answer any questions you have. Otherwise, um, we do have a recommendation there, um, on the screen. >> Thank you for that report, Mr. Cassidy. We'll begin with questions for staff. Commissioner Muster, >> um, excuse me, just one question. For the detached down detached townhouse development type, is there a minimum number of detached town houses required for such a development? >> Yeah, Chair Cookton, Commissioner Mster, there is. So, for a detached townhouse, they would have to have a minimum of five um units in it in it to be considered um the detached townhouse development. And really the rationale there to have a minimum number was just to ensure again that it is more of a development kind of style. And you know if you don't put a minimum at that point why don't you just change all of your R1 standards. So we're not creating these kind of one-offs where um you're kind of splitting an already narrow lot into a narrower lot to get kind of two skinny buildings on there. We're trying to make it a little bit more of a development approach. So that's where it has to have at least five units. Other questions for staff? Seeing none. Thank you, Mr. Cassandike. >> Thanks. >> The city of Bloomington is the applicant here. So we will move then to the public hearing which I will open now and ask if there's anyone in the chambers who wishes to speak to this item. >> Good evening. Good evening. Uh my name is Rick Bulkasang. I'm a resident of Bloomington. I live in the Auto Club Road area there. Um I'm a home builder and we struggle constantly with a supply of uh housing lots. So opportunities like uh single infill lots which are scattered around the city and all the cities usually don't make sense because you're you're the expense of new construction is just disproportionate to the existing values. But when you come into across these cases where you have uh multiple lots or enough to subdivide into these cases really creates opportunities for growth and we're in a pretty substantial housing shortage at this point locally, nationally, all that. So my case in point would just be I strongly support all of this. I think it all makes good sense and there's minimum criteria in there that I listen to and all this and it all makes good sense and I'm I'm just in strong support of this concept. >> Thank you very much. If you could sign in for us there, please. Appreciate that. Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this item? Miss Hesp, is there anyone online who wishes to speak to this item? >> Chair Kton, there's no one online. >> Thank you very much. I'll ask you if there's anyone in the chambers who wishes to speak to this item. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. Good evening, commission. Thanks for having us here tonight. Uh my name is Scott Carlson and I'm al also uh involved with the projects over here that we're looking at. Um we my wife and I both grew up here since the early 60s. So we've been in Bloomington residents a long time. Um anyway, we're both Jefferson grads. But uh the what we're doing here is something that we feel is very very well needed. Um, I've been in that business since 1982 in the real estate in the development business and um, there this area that we couldn't figure out why there was not a lot of development going on and to really understand the fact that it's because we don't have the ordinance that fit it and that's why there was so much growth out west went Dean Prairie to Chanhass and onward and the villas and the smaller type units we really believe is what's going on today. Uh the villa project that we're going to be looking at doing to fit into this situation will include elevators in both the uh product types. And we think that can also let our folks stay in the units a couple years longer instead of getting to the home care. And that's really our goal. Our goal is to create a beautiful community, very high-end, very energetic, um, and you know, something that really fits and something very well needed uh, in here in the West Bloomington area. So, thank you for your time. Thank you. Last call for anyone here in the chambers who wishes to speak to this item. Seeing no one coming forward, I would look for a motion to close the public hearing. So move >> second. >> Have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Miss Hesp, please call the role. >> Kton, >> I. >> Cunningham, >> I. >> Issa >> I. >> White. >> I. >> Mster. >> I. >> Summers. >> I. >> That motion passes 6. The public hearing is closed. We'll move to discussion. Commissioner Cunningham. Thank you, Chair. Um, planning supervisor Cassidy, I just want to say thank you for all the effort that you and staff have put into this uh, ordinance. I know it's been a very long process for you and I appreciate everything you've done for it. Um, thanks to everyone who came out uh, for the public hearings on uh, testimony on this and and thank you also for picking up our few minor tweaks from the study session a couple months ago. Uh, really appreciate all that. Um, I'm in favor of this and uh that's all I have to say. Thank you. >> Thank you. I see Commissioner White and Commissioner Summers. I'll go to Commissioner White. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, I too am in favor of this. I think that anything we can do to help increase density and create opportunity for infill development is um is good. But I also just, you know, I guess want to state for the record that I do hope that this will also lead to more affordable housing in the city of Bloomington. I think that that is also a missing middle. Um so I hope that that uh as we look to the future of implementing this ordinance um we'll continue to keep that as a top consideration. >> Thank you, Commissioner White. Commissioner Summers. >> Thank you, Chair. I also want to um express gratitude for community members who shared. what I see reflected in those comments and um the changes here is really a balance of reducing risk and removing barriers so that um development can truly happen um and that there is a thorough path forward but it's incremental change. Um, so it will allow the city to work with developers to keep the character we know and love, but push us forward into the future. >> Thank you, Commissioner Summers. Commissioner Isa, >> thank you, Chair. Yeah, I I echo the same thoughts as my uh fellow commissioners. Thank you uh for the thorough presentation and all the work you and the rest of the staff has has done on this. Um I thank you guys also for coming. It's it's nice to hear from developers and you know uh and how that will uh positively impact your line of business which will have a trickle down effect on residents more uh lowincome housing senior housing market price tube doesn't matter more housing in general. Um and I'm glad to hear that the villas might be coming to Bloomington. I know there's close locations like two in St. Louis Park. Um but uh potentially so yeah uh overall really in support of this. So yeah, >> thank you Commissioner Isa. Um I too am in support of this. Um I've attended a a a fair amount of national conferences and what the pulse of national planning trends are. And this is very much on trend with what is happening nationally in our most urban environments is the creation of missing middle housing. And I I give staff here a lot of credit for being right on right on top of this that uh we are we're right where we should be in in terms of creating new housing for our urban city which is fully built out and we need to be creative uh to build more housing. Um I was happy to see the cottage courts being removed from R1. I know that was under consideration um in the study sessions. Um, that was my big hesitancy uh when we talked about this was the cottage courts in R1. I was happy to see that gone. Um, as for where it stands today, honestly, um, for me it's it's not quite aggressive enough. Um, I I would have I would have gone even further and I I understand and appreciate that we're taking a uh, you know, a moderate approach to this or it's not even really that moderate. We're being pretty aggressive, but I would have been even more aggressive. I think we could do more than this because I think that even though we're codifying it, that doesn't mean it's going to happen, right? So, Minneapolis is a few years ahead of us on a lot of this. And everything I've heard coming out of Minneapolis is that they haven't really realized um the impact of the the code changes that they've made that they haven't seen a lot of triplexes and quadplexes actually being built in their single family zoning districts and things even though they allow it. And I don't think we'd see that here either. If Minneapolis isn't seeing it, I think it's going to take even longer to reach here. And so if we had allowed quadplexes in R1, I don't think next year we would see a bunch of applications for quadplexes. I think it just sets us up well for the future. And those one or two cases where maybe there was a good opportunity, perhaps we're going to miss out on that because we weren't uh quite aggressive enough here. I'm really aggressive on densifying our housing and urbanizing our city because we don't have any land left and if we're going to grow, we're going to have to densify. And so, um, I hope this is step one and, uh, maybe we'll see phase three in a future year to be even more aggressive, but I think this is an excellent start. Um, I am in favor of it, even though it's not quite aggressive enough. I think it's certainly a big step in the right direction. I give staff a lot of credit. We've been working on this for a bunch of years and again we are right where we should be I think in terms of what is happening nationwide in the terms of creating affording affordable housing ownership and I think this is a great step in the right direction. Any further comments on this item? If not, I would entertain a motion. Commissioner Cunningham. Uh, in case PL2025-199, I move to recommend the city council adopt the missing middle housing phase 2 ordinance as attached to the staff report. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second to recommend the city council adopts this missing middle housing ordinance. Is there any final discussion? Miss Hesp, please call the role. >> Cton, >> I. >> Cunningham, >> I. >> Issa, >> I. >> White, >> I. Monster >> I, >> Summers, >> I. >> That motion passes 6. This will go before the city council for final decision on February 23rd. Thank you, Mr. Cassandic. All >> right. Thank you. >> Our final this item this evening is item number six, which is the planning commission policies and issues update. Mr. Johnson. >> Thank you, Chair Cookton. The only items I'll share tonight just are previewing upcoming meetings. uh February 12th uh meeting is going to be cancelled uh due to a lack of development items and long-range items coming to that uh meeting. The February 19th meeting uh includes a few items. A public hearing for final site and building plans and a variance for uh the city salt shed and brine building located at 9721 uh James Avenue South. Uh a variance for lot at 9211 Columbus Avenue South. That's also a public hearing. uh a public hearing on the Rosa Development privately initiated city code amendment related to airport parking that was uh presented to you one time before. They have since amended their application and so it's routing back to the planning commission based on uh those amendments for a subsequent public hearing. Uh a public hearing for a city code amendment related to the city's fence standards uh is also planned uh for that meeting. And then finally, a study item andformational update on the city's uh development application fees. We've been doing some uh work studying our fees uh and have some recommended amendments um related to some of our fees. Uh I should note that the February 26th meeting also is a uh potential candidate for cancellation uh at this point. Uh that could be subject to change here, but I'll certainly be in communication with planning commission members uh about that meeting. And then finally, uh I mentioned this at our last meeting, but uh some of the liaison to advisory boards and commissions are uh contemplating holding a joint meeting on March the 10th. So I'll follow up with you with some email correspondents uh on that. Um but if you are available, um perhaps hold that evening if you are able uh but I'll I'll connect with you all. Um and some of the topics would be uh related to updates of the city's opportunity housing ordinance. There's been an ongoing nexus and housing study uh being completed by a consultant uh as well as a kickoff or initial presentation around the city's uh effort and process for the 2050 uh comprehensive plan. Um so that's underway. It's hard to get a big group uh together all in one space at one time, but uh we're working to do that. we know it's uh at least we've received past feedback that that's appreciated or uh good opportunity to uh build alignment and uh share ideas amongst the city's decision makers. Um so that's all I'll share for my update. Thank you. >> I understand treats are a good way to get a large group of people together just throwing >> noted. Okay. Um this is an opportunity for planning commissioners to bring up anything that was not on this evening's agenda. And I'd like to start Mr. Johnson with an item. Um over our last I think three meetings or so we've seen I don't know roughly four applications for cannabis related items. Wanted to understand if um city staff has any thoughts on why that might be uh is there any concerns with are we starting to see oversaturation or just wanted to get staff's thoughts on um why we might be seeing such a rush of cannabis applications. >> Yeah, thank you Chair Cookton for that question. So yeah, you have had a few uh the last few meetings. Um uh we don't think we're at a point of oversaturation oversaturation. The reason you're seeing a lot of applications is that there was a bottleneck effectively at the state office of cannabis management in terms of releasing their licenses. So now that the preliminary licenses have been released, now you're seeing uh the downstream zoning and development applications uh come forward. Uh an important thing to note uh as it relates to Bloomington is that 5% of the city's land area is guided industrial. So, I know that seems low, but by comparison to some of our peer cities, that's actually a higher amount of industrial property than uh some of our surrounding communities. Um uh and so uh one thing to note with the state legislation is that all uh cannabis products that are sold legally uh for recreational use in Minnesota have to be created and produced in Minnesota. Um so right now I think what you're seeing is a uh uh some businesses trying to be established to catch up to the demand by creating more uh product or supply uh to to fulfill the retail uh operations. So I I'm not an expert in the industry by any means but my understanding is that it's difficult to keep uh the product or supply um up to the demand right now because of all the because of the fact that all the products have to be created in Minnesota. So I think that's what you're seeing right now is I think the applications you've seen are mostly on manufacturing and cultivation. Uh there is one for retail tonight of course um uh but I think it's just trying to catch up to that uh um uh demand and then related just to the licensing bottleneck at the state. So that those are really the dynamics. We wouldn't anticipate this pace to continue on uh for years and years and then certainly at that point then you would be looking at something along the lines of oversaturation. >> Thank you for that. Um just a follow-up question and it's somewhat rhetorical but I'll ask for your thoughts on it. Um is there any risk um in the state legislature changing their mind? Not that they would ever do such a thing but uh could the political climate change and cannabis again becomes a restricted substance and now we have businesses that are not legal. Is there a risk there? >> Uh Cher Kton that is a risk that these businesses do have to take. they navigate uh political and regulatory environments every day. Businesses do that. I think you saw that with some federal legislation that came out around hemp uh products. Um that there was a lot of existing businesses that were going to be impacted by that. And um I didn't follow it uh laser closely to know where all that ended up. I'm sure that those businesses are advocating on, you know, for themselves to kind of resolve some of those regulatory challenges. Um so that is a that is a possibility. I think the good thing is that a lot of these industrial spaces that are built out for this use certainly can be uh utilized for uh other uses. Um and that's kind of the nature of commercial and industrial real estate, right? It's just it's constantly reinventing itself uh to a degree. So I think there is a risk, but I'd say the risk falls more on the operators and investors of those businesses than it does uh on say the city. >> Thank you. Is there anything else uh commissioner would like to discuss this evening? Seeing none, that concludes this January 22nd meeting of the Bloomington Planning Commission. Good night.