Good evening. and welcome to this March 19th meeting of the Bloomington Planning Commission. The planning commission advises the city council on development proposals, development standards, long range planning, and transportation issues. Some items that come before the planning commission are study items where we will not take formal action. Other items that come before the planning commission are public hearings where we will take action and do encourage public testimony. You can do that here at city hall in the commission chambers. You can also do so from home by testifying online. We do not have any public hearings on this evening agenda. On some items, the planning commission has final decision-making authority, while on other items, the city council will make the final decision, and the planning commission acts in an advisory committee 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 six commissioners present here at city hall. So, we do have a quorum. We will begin the meeting this evening with the pledge of allegiance. All rise. >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We're going to get started this evening. Item number one is a corner lot standard study. Miss Emily Hespek is here with the staff report. >> Good evening, commissioners. Yes. So, tonight um I'm here to talk about um a study about the corner lot standards in Bloomington. So, just for some context, uh, Bloomington's current zoning rules treat all streetf facing yards as lowdensity residential corner lot, sorry, on lowdensity residential corner lots as front yards. This results in larger lot size requirements, increased setbacks, and stricter regulations compared to interior lots. These standards may hinder the city's goals of encouraging infeld development and improving housing affordability while also creating inequities for corner lot owners by limiting their ability to expand their homes or add accessory structures. This project reviews these regulations against peer cities to assess whether updates are warranted. I'm going to go through the standards and then ask a guiding question related to that standard. Um, so we'll kind of go through one by one and we can have a discussion. So, uh, starting with research findings, staff analyzed corner lot zoning standards in 15 comparable cities in the metro area and across the state shown as the highlighted cities on the screen. The analysis found that most peer cities do not impose separate minimum lot width or area requirements for corner lots. Instead, they typically regulate these properties by applying a defined sideyard setback along the street, commonly between 15 and 25 feet, rather than treating both street facing yards as front yards. Nearly all reviewed cities also prohibit accessory structures between the principal building and the street, consistent with Bloomington's current approach. So, as far as setback goes, the current code requires a 30foot setback along all yards facing a street. This requires a larger lot and stricter location requirements for structures. Based on research findings, staff is proposing reducing the setback requirement for the side yard facing a street to 20 ft. 20T aligns with other standards in the code, such as the 20ft landscaping yard requirement. So, the first guiding question is related to the sideyard setback adjacent to a street. Um, and just an FYI on all the guiding questions, the options marked with an asterct are the staff recommendations. Um, so I'll just read through all the options. So option one is a 20 foot setback for a sideyard adjacent to a street and regulate lot area and lot width the same as interior lots. Um I'm going to give a side note on that one. So a potential disadvantage for this option um which would be to only regulate the setback and not the site size and width is that it could create unrealistic development expectations for property owners or buyers. Um, a lot may meet the minimum lot area and width requirements but still have a limited or constrained building pad due to setback requirements. One possible result of this situation could be increased requests for zoning variances. And then on the flip side, the advantage of this approach is that it would create a simpler code structure. Um, option two, which is staff recommended, is to have a 20 foot setback for sideyard adjacent to a street and to still regulate lot area and lot width differently than interior lots. And then option three is to not change current standards. Um, so to still have a 30-foot setback and to still regulate corner um lot area and width differently than interior lots. Um, so let me know if you have questions. Otherwise, we are looking for feedbacks on your thoughts on these options. >> Thoughts on sideyard setback? Commissioner Cunningham. >> Thank you, Chair and Miss Hesp. I'm sorry this is kind of a stump the planner question. Um, are there any areas of the city where city rightway extends beyond 20 feet into a property? Um, Chair, Commissioner Cunningham, that's a good question. >> The reason I ask, apologies for interrupting you, the reason I ask is just wondering if we're allowing folks to build a principal structure within a 20 foot setback. And I guess right ofway would still govern over that, correct? Like we wouldn't be able to issue a building permit for that because they're building in a right of way. >> Correct. You can't build in the rightway. Um, so the property line starts after the right ofway. Um, I'm not sure if rightaway within the city is ever 20 ft. That seems wide to me. Planning Manager Johnson, do you? >> Mr. Johnson. >> Sure. Uh, Chair, Commissioner Cunningham, thanks for the question. So, it's pretty atypical to have a boulevard. I assume you're talking about a boulevard effectively being 20 ft wide. That would be fairly rare. I wouldn't say that there are no situations like that um in the city. Uh, but the largest I typically see would be 16 feet and that's uh pretty significant or even that's atypical. I'd say 10 feet to 12 feet is the most common um width of the boulevard. But Emily's correct. Uh regardless of where the right of way line exists, that property line is where the setback is measured from. So um just to confirm that regardless of where that's located, the 20 foot applies from behind that line wherever it exists. >> Thank you. >> Um Commissioner Monster. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh just as a question on on sort of this guiding question. um we're really just looking at in reference to the staff report sort of just that first line um in the table that's in there. So just talking about the 30 versus 20 ft. We're not talking about the lot widths that may go with it. Right. >> Right. We'll get to that. Yeah. >> Okay. Perfect. Um and in in that case, I would support the staff's recommendation of option two. >> Uh Miss Espec, I'm not sure I understood the answer to the question. There isn't option one regarding the lot with Um, chair. Yes. So, option one is stating that you would have a 20 foot setback. Um, but then you would just regulate the lot area and lot width the same as interior lots. So, you would have the same standards for lot width as an interior lot. Uh, which for single family homes, for example, is 60 ft. Um, even if you all chose option one, um, we would still want to go through and see your thoughts on lot within lot area just in case council has a different opinion. Um, and I'd like to hear from you all as well. >> So, Miss Hesp, uh, the 60 ft would be a minimum. A corner lot could still be larger than that. >> Correct. Correct. >> Okay. Commissioner White, >> just a question. And apologies if this is in the chart that that you showed us earlier. Um what is the current lot area and lot width requirement for a corner lot versus an interior lot? >> Um Chair Commissioner White, thank you. Um so the lot width requirement for a corner lot is 100 ft. Um for an interior lot it's 60 ft. And then the lot area for a corner lot is 11,50 ft². And then the interior lot area is 7,800 ft². >> Commissioner Isa. >> Uh thank you, chair. Uh is what was there a debate within city staff between one and two? And if there was, what was kind of the debate? >> Uh, chair, commissioner, Issa, thank you for that question. Um, a little bit. I think that the um the reason for the staff recommendation being option two is kind of what I stated about um option one potentially being unrealistic. So, or not unrealistic, but could get people's hopes up. um based on like the typical size of a house even if you are like oh a corner lot only needs to be 60 ft wide. Um are they still going to be able to meet the required setbacks and have a like building pad that makes sense is kind of the reason that we went with option two. Commissioner White. >> Um, thank you, Chair. I I don't have any particular objection to the 20 foot setback change. I think my brain is struggling with the math of the the difference in lot sizes. Um I'm curious uh not being a planner um of this nature anyway uh I'm wondering why the difference existed in the first place of 100 versus the 60 um for corner versus interior and maybe I'm the only one that doesn't know but I'd appreciate more information about that chair commissioner white um I think it is partially probably like the greater setback is for aesthetics so that um it's like uniform across all yards facing a street. Um and then also again what I just said probably trying to be realistic with the required setbacks and the size of a house. Um planning manager Johnson, I'm not sure if there was something you wanted to add to that. >> Mr. Johnson, >> I I think you'd have to dig more into some of the old record of when those standards were established, which we have done some of that. Um, but it's not always clear where uh the minutes are always a little bit uh more modest uh than they are today. We try and keep a little bit sharper record on some of the things we retain as part of today's policy discussions, but um in effect it was just to maintain those uh wide and open yards along both sides of the street. They established a more significant width on both sides to basically effectuate that outcome and have larger lots occupy the corners. Um, you know, I don't know the extent to which they were using the same math or methods uh that we are um in terms of providing you these site width and area options um that Emily's going to talk about on subsequent slides. >> Miss Huspect, what is the sideyard setback for an interior lot? >> Um, Chair Cookton, it's 10 ft. >> Now I'm understanding. Um, so rest having a corner lot have the same minimum lot width as an interior lot restricts the development on it because you can't put your house pad as close to the side of your yard as you could on an interior lot. So you're restricting the development of the size of the home that could go on a corner lot. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> Chair, if I can add one thing to that. Sometimes uh lots are subdivided uh not by the eventual home builder or the consumer of the house. So um that's where those consumer expectations can run into some challenges um in terms of the width of the building pad that they would be allowed. So that would be one of the arguments to still retain some minimum expectation for corner uh lot size if you are going to have a larger setback than an interior lot line. I don't know if I explained that well, but >> so understanding better now. I I prefer option two. I think option one is unduly restrictive to owners of a corner lot that their house has to be effectively smaller than a interior lot would be. So I prefer option two. Commissioner Len. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, I think I was thinking about this as I was walking around my neighborhood today and I can see in particular um one certain scenario also where it's particularly disadvantageous which is in area in neighborhoods where people have these appearingly seemingly very large lots but based on the current restrictions can't for example add a thirdcar garage extension on whereas their neighbors with two in an interior lot do have enough space to go wider. Um, I know that in my neighborhood that has been a contentious issue with a particular house. And so I could see how um that very specific issue in um could be for particularly for corner lots particularly frustrating. >> Commissioner Summers. >> Thank you, Chair. I a lot of good stuff has already been said. Um, I'm in favor of option two. I think that, um, the staff report on this made really clear. Um, that what we currently have will grow, um, pretty quickly out of alignment with what we're looking for in missing middle housing development. Um, so for me, I don't necessarily know if we need to be less restrictive than option two, but for me that I feel really comfortable with that one. >> Any other thoughts? >> Seeing none. >> Okay, thank you all. Um, so next we'll talk about corner lot width. Um, so site width for corner lots at both of the minimum required front setback lines must be at least 100 ft. Minimum sight width for single family interior lots is 60 ft while minimum sight width for two family interior lots is 80 ft. The example on the right side of the screen shows the requirement of a 100 ft lot width at both front yard setbacks. Um this site this site width requirement requirement makes it very difficult to split a corner lot. And the figure on the left shows how sight width is measured in Bloomington. Single and two family residential sites uh must meet minimum sight width requirements at the front setback line and over the first 50 ft of the site beyond the required front setback line. Um so the next guiding question I split into single family and two family. So, we'll talk about site width for both. Um, and then I'll just read all the options. So, option one would be to um have the same requirements as for interior lots, which would be a 60 ft lot width. Option two would be a 70ft lot width. Option three, an 80 foot um lot width. And then option four would be to not change the current standards, which would be 100 ft. And then um a note about calculations. I will summarize how we got to these numbers. Um, let me know if you have questions. So, we calculated proposed lot widths by assuming the average single family home building pad is about 30 to 40 ft in length and the average two family building pad would be 65 to 75 ft in length. Staff added the house length, the existing sideyard setback requirement of 10 ft and the proposed sideyard adjacent to a street setback of 20 ft. And then for calculating lot area, staff multiplied potential lot widths by the typical lot typical length of a lot which is about 130 feet. Um so I know that can be confusing to listen to verbally. So let me know if you have questions. >> Miss Hesp for those of us uh who don't have an education in planning perhaps you could help. Why, and I think I know the answer to this, but why do we even regulate lot width instead of just relying on the setbacks to do the job? >> Um, Chair Kton, that is a good question. Um, I think it has to do kind of with this um the visual on the left side of the screen. Um, so I think lots can be shaped pretty funky. Um, so I think the site width kind of helps to standardize the lots and make sure that they are wide or like the width that we want most of the way through the lot. Um whereas a setback if the house was at the front of the lot and not the rear, it could be way less wide than we want it to be at the at the back. >> Mr. Johnson, anything to add? >> Yeah, if I can add to that. The um one of the challenges of irregular shape lots is that they present issues for assessment policies. So when you're rebuilding streets or you're improving sanary sewer water, the city assesses on a um per lineal foot basis. we have some mechanisms in our policies to kind of deal with flag lots and kind of do an averaging of the lots on a particular block. So there is ways to uh address that. But in addition to kind of the uniformity and ensuring that there's adequate minimum building pads for kind of modern expectations. Um uh one of the issues in terms of uh creating this uniformity is it helps pay for and address other public infrastructure uh considerations. Um, that being said, I mean, you know, modern building pads have changed uh quite a bit uh too. There's a lot of different house designs that are narrower uh than maybe there was in 1960s, '7s, 80s. So, I see more variety uh in terms of the building pad. And that's kind of what why raising this question of should it be addressed through setbacks only uh versus establishing these uh uh minimum width and area requirements. That's like kind of the heart of the discussion. Um, thanks. Yes. So, if I could follow up, um, just on an even more basic level, let's say it's not an irregular shaped lot, it's just a square lot, whatever. And a person wanted to split their lot in half, and they would build two just very narrow but long houses like houses kind of used to be where they're just very sort of narrow, but they're long in the back, and you have the setback on either side of it. And so you just have two very narrow lots, but it meets the same setbacks we have today. Why wouldn't we want to allow that? Is it a nar is it a neighborhood character thing? Is it a over densification type thing? Is it not building the type of housing stock we want? Or why wouldn't we allow that? >> Planning manager Johnson, do you want to give that a shot? >> Yeah. Um, I think that there's valid reasons to uh allow that scenario. you have to take into account other um performance standards like impervious surface and some of those things. But as long as you're meeting theoretically the same lot area um but it's just a narrower lot then it does account for some of that uh meeting those other standards like imperous surface and setbacks and those things. Um so I think uh it certainly is a valid um consideration. And the one thing I'd say is going kind of tying this project back to the lowdensity zoning reforms we did in 2022 um which established the 60 foot wide lot. That's a kind of the sweet spot right now for nonali loaded um lots that meet our imperous uh surface limitations that has storm water management cadotations um environmental connotations those things. And so I don't think you'd want to stray below um that 60 foot width because that um does fit well with Bloomington's uh kind of infrastructure program. But um that being said, I mean that's why one of the fundamental questions is should this should corner lots uh just have to deal with a different setback on that side street corner. Um that's one way to deal with it. And Emily's research yielded that that is a way that a lot of our peer cities are handling this. Um, again, the only downside of that is that um, uh, kind of meeting that consumer-based expectation of an adequate building pad. Um, so that's the trade-off. >> I I promise this is last time I'll I'll follow up on this, but I think you hit it. I think you said from an infrastructure standpoint. So, if you really took a lot, split it in half, and made some real narrow houses that meet our setbacks, but you've put two houses, two families there. Now, instead of one, you have twice as much tax. You're taxing our utilities twice as much as you were if we had only had one house on that lot. Is that a fair reason not to split lots too narrow? >> I think that's fair. And what I would add to that is that not having alleys um drives a a wider lot requirement in Bloomington and its other suburban peers than a narrower, more urban lot. Those can be uh 30 or 40 feet wide because they're alley loaded. I mean, that's just a critical component. um to be considering when evaluating this. Um now on a corner lot, you can have a side loaded garage that um goes out to a different street um than uh the um front of the home. Uh theoretically, we do see that in some instances. Um but yeah, just a key consideration is that most uh Bloomington lots are uh front loaded, not alley loaded, which drives more width. >> Thank you both. The reason I keep asking the question is like I guess for me even with all the answers I've been given here I don't even I don't quite understand why we have a lot with minimum if if we meet the setbacks. Let people do what they want. Um we have to densify our city. We're going to get more urban. We've got to find ways to get more people in here. If you've got a lot that's deep enough and that you think you can split your lot in half and build a house that you're happy with and a house that you can still get market value for and sell to somebody else, why not? Like I it seems like we're putting too like we're I don't know. I think what really matters here is the setbacks, not the minimum lot width. Maybe it changes the character of that neighborhood a little bit, but well, we're we're densifying. Our neighborhoods are going to change over time. It's gonna take a long time to do that. I don't think in in practical terms we would see a rash of every homeowner in Bloomington selling their house and tearing it down and building two. I think it's a very minor thing that we would see, but I think if you had a a lot that's a little wider than normal and kind of deep and had the opportunity to do this, I think we should allow it to do it. So, and I understand that puts a little bit more tax on our our utilities, but again, I don't see this actually occurring very much. I think it's a very minor consideration in I don't think we're going to start overt taxing our sewer systems or anything. So if like for me I would I would strike a lot with from the city code and I know that's a big statement for me to make as someone who doesn't have expertise in planning and I'm sure if if I gave these more guys more time to think about it and give me a more eloquent answer than me just asking you know 30 seconds ago they would give me some good reasons we shouldn't do that. But I don't know I I wouldn't put a lot with minimum in our code. I'd take it out. >> Commissioner Isa. Uh thank you, chair. I based off all the information that was uh given uh I wholeheartedly agree with exactly what you just said. Um and really letting uh the residents or market, I guess, uh decide and uh if if they do, you know, great. But at least having that ability to to uh to be able to do that, I think is is a good opportunity for um homeowners, for uh the city goals and missions of more density and uh yeah, so that's my take. Thank you, >> Commissioner Summers. >> Thank you, Chair. Did any of your research into um the partner cities that you reviewed have um no lot with requirements? >> Uh Chair, Commissioner Summers, none that I looked at. Um the corner lots all just had the same lot width and lot area as the interior lots. >> Commissioner Monster. um without going too far down, excuse me, the road of abolishing lot widths entirely, which I feel would just lead to a race to the bottom is how much you can squeeze on a piece of land. Um I would go with option two of of what is uh presented before us because that essentially gives the same buildable lot width as a single family house under our current regulations. >> Commissioner Isa. Uh thank you chair. If from my understanding most pure cities uh have the same requirements as interior lots right. So my follow-up question would be if uh is what is the reason to that uh this uh staff decided on 70 or 10 foot extra versus other pier cities. Uh, Chair, Commissioner Issa, um, kind of for the reasons that Commissioner Monster just gave, it's basically just taking the interior lot with and adding 10 ft for the extra 10 foot setback that would be required on the sideyard facing a street. Yeah, just to to reiterate that math, if a a typical building pad is 30 to 40 feet in width from what we see for homes built in Bloomington, you add a 10-ft sideyard setback plus 40 feet is the larger on the larger side of a building pad. Uh, plus 20 feet that gets you to 70. Just to be clear about that, >> Commissioner Cunningham. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, I agree with Commissioner Monster. I think that staff's recommendation for 70 ft is the kind of more modest uh prudent slow approach and if there is a large demand for more density in the future for homeowners that want more options for their lot, I think, you know, a privately initiated code amendment might be a good avenue there. Um, I don't want to cut everything too fast and then not have an opportunity to put something back if we're overloading on sewer. I mean, we have a new sack credit system in our city if we're talking about utilities. And, you know, we just changed kind of our our street parking ordinances as well. And so, I just density is awesome. It's our it's our plan for the city. It's it's going to happen whether we want it to or not. Um, but I think a measured approach is is the right move here. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, Miss Hesp, what is the minimum lot width for an interior lot? >> Chair, it is 60 feet. 60. So, I'm having a hard time getting my head wrapped around 70. So, if the sideyard setbacks for an interior lot are 10 feet, that means you have 20 feet worth of sideyard. If we just agreed we were going to put 20 feet for corner lots, although I guess that would be 20 plus 10. Sorry. So, that's a plus 15. So for me, I would have I would have gone at 75. Um because we are asking or we our last conversation said we're going to have 15 feet more sideyard. No, 10. It is 10 feet more. Sorry. This is what happens when I'm, you know, trying to change the code and and do all this other stuff all at the same time. 70T seems reasonable because it's 10 feet more than um the math works out for me. So if I were going to do it, I guess it would be option two. But I still stand by I I question the validity or necess necessity of ladwitz. >> Anybody else? Commissioner L. >> Thank you, Chair. Um I think I'd definitely be open to a conversation on the lot width. Um, my concern would be having seen, particularly in southwest Minneapolis, some choices that people made to split their lots and then discovered how hard it was to build on the lot and the lots have sat vacant in an area where property does not sit vacant for long if it's buildable. Um, and there's several notable properties that have had for sale signs for years. Um, and they've become drainage pits and things like that. I just I think that I would want a lot more research on what it would look like in practice before we considered that. Um especially given the fact that meeting setback, particularly front setback, you can have a lot that you can meet the side setback and meet the front setback, divide the lot, and still meet all those setback requirements, but it could still be a piece of land that wasn't built on for a reason, whether for um sewage, access to piping, and things like that. So, I would want to see a lot more researched before we moved forward on that. So I'd say I'm definitely supportive of option two but would be open to a longer conver longer term conversation on reconsidering lot widths altogether. >> Commissioner >> uh based on the simple fact that other well thank you first chair but uh based on the simple fact that most from my understanding most pure cities are doing option one already I would go with option one. Um secondly, uh I think Commissioner Cunningham mentioned uh something about overburdening sewage uh the sewage system. And uh I know it's a little bit off topic, but my opinion on that is if regardless the intention is to have high density, that will be something that will have to be addressed I believe. Right. And so I don't I don't think it's a it should be a measure to not have high density if our intention is to have high density long term. And so I just wanted to throw it out there and maybe get your further thoughts on that. But yeah, thank you. >> Thank you. >> For what it's worth, I would agree with you, Commissioner. So let's not hold oursel back from our long-term goals. Any other thoughts on this? I'm hearing a lot of support for option two. Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh so this next one is just like the first one except for it's talking about two family lots. Um so option one would be to have the same requirements as for interior lots which is 80 ft. Option two would be 85 ft. Option three 95 ft. And then option four would be um to keep the current standards in the code which um is 100 feet. And same math that went into the single family um calculations just assuming a different size of building pad. >> M I help me with the math on that. So the single fam I'm sorry the two family lot width for interior is 80 feet. >> Yes. >> And the staff uh recommendation here is 85 ft but we're requiring 10 more feet on the setback for corner lots. >> Ye uh chair. Yeah. So, um that was based off the building pad size that um I found for via research, which um is maybe just different than the building pad size that was used for the interior lots when those changes were made a few years ago. >> Understood. But wouldn't we have 10 more feet of sideyard for a corner lot? So, we would be at 90 feet. >> Yes. based on what was on the last slide. >> Okay, Commissioner Cunningham, >> thanks. And I'm probably going to mess up this math, but Miss Hespach, uh, it, if I'm doing my math right, 55 ft is the width that we're using today, and I think you alluded to that in the past they might have used a different width of a home, say 60 feet. >> And so that could be where the the disconnect is. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Muster, >> I'm gonna be a little bit excuse me inconsistent with myself here and thank you, Chair. Um, but I mean I in my opinion it should probably just stay at 80 feet or move up to 90. Either let's be consistent on that math or let's just make it 80 and the house has to be five feet shorter. Um, so that that's where I am on that. I I I would be at 90 to just sort of make the math consistent with the last one. Commissioner Cunningham. Uh >> I was at the start of this I was going to say option two looks great, but um I think having consistency in code for folks that are approaching the city for the first time as a builder might be a good thing. So I'm in agreement that I think 90 would be a good way. So it's the same methodology all the way through and the same gaps between interior and corner lots for whatever type of home. So 90 would be option 2.5, please. Yeah, for me it's just providing equal opportunity. If we're assuming the houses are the same or like if you have a corner lot or or an interior lot, you're basically allowed to build the same size house. Um you're not rewarding one or the other with a the ability to build a larger house if you have an interior lot versus a corner lot. That makes me uncomfortable. Commissioner. >> Yeah, I also agree uh with the consistency on that part, but for option one, get the math >> perfect there. So, yeah, thank you, >> Commissioner Muster. >> Thank you. Uh, this is just a question. I mean, if we're talking about a change of 10 feet, is it worth even changing the code? Chair, Commissioner Monster. Um, so it would be from what our existing standards are, it would be I guess well, yeah, 10 ft for this one. I was going to say it's more for the other one, but only 10 for this. Um, yeah, I mean, I think that would incrementally help. Uh, but I also think it's it's kind of up to you all and what you think about that. Commissioner or sorry, Mr. Johnson. >> Yeah, Chair, Commissioner Monster, thanks for that very valid and uh important question. Um it's very anecdotal, but there's a number of scenarios that I've encountered over my career where a very a few feet uh make make the difference between a project going forward or not. Um and again, I'm underline anecdotal. Um but I think we're trying to just rightsize our standards um for uh what we feel is reasonable. Um, I think some of the standards that cities adopted over these years had were influenced to a greater extent by maintaining neighborhood character or having some desired um uh um market outcome versus uh just right sizing the standards for health, safety, welfare considerations uh alone, if that makes sense. So, um, we think that this, uh, standard would meet Bloomington's, uh, would fit well in our zoning code and would be well suited and situated with the infrastructure that we have. So, if that helps kind of move it along. Thanks. >> Uh, Mr. Johnson or Miss Espec to follow up on that. What's the real world application of this? We aren't making any more lots. We're not Lakeville or any of these, you know, D-ring suburbs that have open land. All our lots are already made. So, what's the real world implications of us making these adjustments? >> Chair, uh, good question. This is mostly used um for lot splits where 100 ft having to have a 100 foot lot width on two different lots. So having to have a 200 ft lot width in order to be able to split a lot um is just extremely wide and uh like planning manager Johnson said sometimes it can just be like a little bit less than that and you're like wow this is looks like a really big lot like there could definitely be two homes on here but according to our standards no. Um so it really just to be able to create more infill development is a big plus. >> Mr. Johnson. Yeah, Cher, if I can add to that too is it's also about conversions and additions. So, um we have had not many, but there's been a few inquiries over the years about wanting to make a single family home a two family home and they're just not allowed to do that because they didn't meet our uh corner site with requirements or I mean previously interior site with requirements too. Um so I think that there are ways to create two family dwellings um and more infill development. If you ease some of these standards, uh, in effect, it makes more lots candidates for that investment and that conversion in some cases. >> Commissioner White, I do see you, but I'd like to follow up on this. Is it okay if I keep going here? Thank you. Um, so, uh, thank you for the question, Commissioner Mer, and I don't know if this is where you were going with it, but I'm going to go there. Um, I brought this up a couple years ago. We've been doing this, uh, missing middle missing middle type housing stuff, literally for years now. And I'm a bit torn on on it because I'm a believer in the missing middle. Um we have a huge portion of housing ownership that we don't provide in the city. We've got single family homes, a few town homes, and then apartments. And there's a huge missing middle of home ownership opportunities. And I want to see that in our city. Where I get a little hung up on just the incredible amount of staff time we've put into this is about once a year we see the numbers of how many applications this has actually impacted or like how many lot splits there have been and it it's per year it's like a couple and I know we're trying to do the right thing and I think we are doing the right thing but I do think for me and I'm not saying this is what Commissioner Muner was going after But for me, I do think it is fair to check ourselves or question whether our staff time is going to the right place. Like we're doing the right thing here, but it hasn't the market hasn't absorbed it. And if you look at Minneapolis, which is much more aggressive on this type of thing than we do from a like the I think this type of lot split going into really small lots, whatever, is much more common and much more likely to happen in Minneapolis who did this before we've done it. Even Minneapolis hasn't really taken this on the quadlexes and the triplexes that the market hasn't responded even in Minneapolis. And I think it's even less likely to respond here in Bloomington. And that's what we've kind of seen when you look at the data. There hasn't been much action on this since we've been doing this for the last few years. And I do think it's fair to question whether all the staff time we're putting into this could have gone towards something else that would have a greater realworld impact on the city. Like this is a good thing that staff is doing and I support it. But are there other good things we could have been doing with staff time that would have had a greater market absorption than all the time we've put on this? And it's just a little kind of heartbreaking for me that when I see like last year we did literally like two of this type of thing. It's like man, we've been working on this for years and the market just isn't taking it. And how much staff time did we spend on this when we could have been updating district plans and doing other things that also benefit the city? So, I don't know if that's where you're going with that. I I'm comfortable saying that. I've said it before and look, I'm supportive of this. I think we're doing the right thing, but I do question sometimes if the amount of staff time we've put into it and the sort of lack of market absorption with it is worth it. But I'll leave it there. >> Can I respond to that quick? >> You may, please. Thank you. >> Sorry to Commissioner White. I'm sorry to delay you. Um three quick points about all that is um one I think one of the challenges of infill development is there's a very limited subset of developers doing that work uh because the regulations have not allowed it for years and years and years and years. So uh just like kind of a uh staffing a baseball team in effect you have to create a bench of players who are able to play the game and this may be a strained analogy but there is a whole litany of uh programs by uli and other entities right now trying to support emerging developers and give people developer training because this is a big uh opportunity that's not being captured right now effectively because uh all the people in the development space are have been solely focused on single family subdivisions or multif family um uh development for a long period of time. Um and so that's that's one point I would make is that I would anticipate the roster or the um group of uh folks doing infill development to increase over time uh not decrease. Um, the second point I would make, um, is that some of these housing types, uh, are going to be are going to add variety to the housing stock that doesn't currently exist. And that's going to help seniors, that's going to help single person households, that's going to help, uh, people other than kind of the nuclear traditional four or five person family uh, that much of this housing was created to uh, support. Um but I take and the final point I would make is I very much take the chair's point and I would very much encourage uh you know this board and subsequent boards to as they're thinking about their work plans. It is a series of choices. Um there's not infinite staff time and capacity. That's why we present to you uh the number of projects that we do and we do try and estimate the amount of time they'll take is because there is not an infinite uh number of uh city uh planners and other community development staff working on these projects and engineering I should say. So um just to that point about being thoughtful about how you deploy the resource sources I I do want to underline that that is a very important point. >> Thank you Mr. Johnson. I'll make one more point for you as to why this is a good thing. Um, and what kind of gets me home at night with this is that the market's not ready today, but maybe the market will be ready. And when the market is ready, we're already we've done all the work already. And so I'd rather be ahead of the game than behind the game. And so maybe it's 10 years from now, maybe it's 40 years from now that uh accessory dwelling units and quadplexes and um micro units, whatever, take off. and we've already done the work and we're ready to support that development and we're not starting from the back foot. So, I feel good about that. >> Can I make one really last? The one point I forgot is that if the state legislature passes uh housing reform um that uh preempts cities on certain elements of local zoning, then the city of Bloomington is going to be far ahead than its peers because they have invested that time in that work. Commissioner White, >> sorry, Commissioner Isa. >> Thank you, Chair. Uh, just to kind of add on to that discussion, um, if anecdotally the amount of applications that come into the city for lots, for example, is very small, like five to 10, let's say, or five. Um, and we are uh, and I guess maybe it's because of the market interest rates past few years. Maybe it's because it's new. It's a new thing and it was highly regulated. So there's not people who are uh, up to bat for it yet. Um I feel like if again just to emphasize if our intention is to have missile missing middle housing to have higher density and we are a city that is uh uh landlocked for lack of better terminology. Um I I think it's best if we were to go with the more or less restrictive option. um because of that and also most peer cities peer cities from my understanding are doing that as well. And so I think uh if we I guess we always talk about missing middle housing, right? And we have an opportunity in front of us where we can directly uh impact that, right? And and so that's that's why I would vote option one versus option two. And I understand uh city staff uh advised on option two, but I think maybe even for example that 5 foot or 10 foot difference there would be maybe double the applicants from five to 10 and that would be worth uh city staff time, you know, and so uh well I think it's worth city staff time regardless because it's so important. But uh >> yeah, that's that's my take. Thank you. >> Thank you. I've been talking a lot so I'm sorry but can I make one last point that I think is important to the discussion is that when staff was de debating as you asked or discussing these alternatives I don't think it was a slam dunk one direction or the other there are merits to both sides of these different opt I'm sorry there are merits to both sides of these options and so it was more of like a 5149 kind of situation on the staff level there's merits both ways there could be pros and cons there could be unintended consequences but it wasn't like a we don't feel that the city would be poorly served by going with that option. So, I just want to make that point. >> Commissioner Lay, >> um just one comment and that is I think the other thing that comes from uh doing some of this work right now, particularly considering some of the these things specifically is when these rare opportunities and I go back to um what was before us a few months ago with the St. Mark's Church um where it was a big piece of land and deciding the number of houses or the number of lots that could fit on there. um making sure that we're in a position to have that resolved when an opportunity that maybe no one saw coming for a piece of land comes up um is a good idea as well. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other thoughts on two family lots? That was not the most clarity we've ever provided. >> Are you okay? >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. >> Uh so moving on to lot area. Uh this is similar. I'm going to split it into single family and two family. Um so current code requires single family corner lots to have a minimum lot area of 11,050 square ft while minimum single family interior lot area is only 7,800 square feet. And then for two family corner lots, um there's a minimum lot area of 14,625 square feet and the two family interior lots only require 11,700 square ft. Um and so on the screen are just two examples of corner lots that meet the minimum requirements. Uh but we'll go through the guiding questions by single family and two family. So option one is to have the same requirements as for interior lots, which would be 7,800 ft². Option two, which is the staff recommended, is 9,100 square feet. And I also just want to say the math for that one correlates with the 70 foot site width. And then option three, 10,400 ft² correlates with the 80 foot lot width. And then option four um would be to not change the current standards, which would mean that the lot area would be 11,50 ft. Commissioner Mister, >> thank you. Do we have a minimum lot depth requirement? >> No. >> So, as a followup, how does this correlate to the minimum lot width? >> What are we multiplying it by? >> Chair Commissioner Monster, good question. Uh, multiplying it by 130, which is a typical, I guess, um, lot depth depth. If I may follow up on that is that we we don't have a minimum lot depth, but we do require that the minimum site width be a minimum of 80 feet into the lot as a function of it uh meeting that along 50 ft beyond the front setback line. There's a graphic in code that explains that on the left side of your slide there. >> So you have to have the minimum sight width for the first um 50 feet beyond the front set back line. So maybe technically that doesn't establish a minimum depth, but it has to be so wide. >> Commissioner Monster, >> 50 ft beyond the >> I'm just I'm just trying to do them the math in my head. So from a functional perspective, we've got a 30- foot front yard, we've got a 30- foot rear yard, >> and we have to have some sort of building in between them. So about how deep would we think an average structure is? If >> I can Yeah, chair. And the part part of this uh conundrum that you're highlighting or identifying is that it's it builds upon the work that was done in 2022 wherein we uh buttressed or the foundation for a lot of the work we did was the most typical Bloomington platted lot and the most common lot we found in eastern and central Bloomington was a lot depth of 130 ft. So that informed some of the minimum lot area calculations that we developed for interior lots in R1 and adjustments we made to our two family dwelling standards, etc., etc. Um, so I know that seems a little bit odd. You don't need 130 ft in depth uh to have a a buildable lot. Um, but just thinking about uh from a logical standpoint how most subdivisions are going to occur. They're not going to be lpping off um depth. They could on a corner lot. Theoretically, you could combine two corner, you could create an interior lot. um uh in theory amongst two corner lots. Um but again that involves multiple parties. So a lot of the changes to our regulations were contemplating the most easy straightforward path to creating infill development. >> Commissioner Cunningham. >> Thank you, Chair. Um I did not have my wedies this morning, so apologies if my math is wrong. Um but I I tend to agree with staff on this with option two. If we're using 130 as a typical depth and we're adding 10 feet to the setback to go with a 20 foot setback on sideyard setback, then that's 1300 ft, which is 7,800 plus 1300 is 9100. So, in the name of keeping things consistent throughout the code and kind of as expected for a potential developer, builder or homeowner that wants to subdivide their lot, I feel like this is the most most logical path. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Cunningham. I would I would agree with you. I like the math of it. This still feels like lot width to me where I I don't know why we regulate this. I think if you have a tiny house and it fits on a on a tiny lot and you meet the setbacks, what's the difference? Like I don't think we should have minimum lot areas. I I think it's an overregulation. If somebody's got a small house and you meet the setbacks, what's the functional difference? So, if it were me, I would strike it. I understand that that's not what we're talking about tonight. So from a math standpoint, I agree option two is a logical choice. >> Commissioner Meer, >> thank you. Um, and yes, I I agree that again from a consistency perspective, option two flows with what we've been saying from a personal perspective, I think lot area should go away and be replaced by a combination of width and depth. That if you meet these two standards, there you go. Move on. Um, but that that's just me in a perfect world. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner Summers. >> Thank you, Chair. I tend to agree with Commissioner Monster and I recognize that we have plenty I'm wondering if we have um plenty of homes that don't have a width that is the same at the front of the lot as at the back. And that width and depth would not necessarily be an easy thorough way compared to this is the amount of square feet that are in this irregular shaped lot. Chair uh Commissioner Summers. Yes, I think that is um a good point and a good way to look at it. >> Please. >> Thank you. Um, that being said, I live on a corner lot in East Bloomington and when you say when staff put in the report um that there is an exceptionally large lot, I love my large yard, but I do I am like, "Wow, my the property that I'm on is much larger than my neighbors." And when I think about growing up um in the inner city in St. Paul, some of the neighborhood character there was being a little bit closer to neighbors. So, my current lot is really different than my very urban lot growing up. Um, and 1,000 square ft less would not necessarily put me too close um to the people surrounding me and um would potentially add to the neighborhood character of Bloomington but not remove too much of the green space that we love. Thank you, >> Commissioner Isa. Can I ask if you have thoughts on this? I've appreciated your perspective on the previous ones. >> Thank you, Chair. I would go with option one and I do think Commissioner Summer's perspective is probably a perspective that well a lot of people have um and so the character I guess part of it and and you know some people or how do I word this uh yeah I I I just think it wouldn't you know some people might think that you know more density might be a bad thing like your kitchen is right in front of someone's I don't know whatever like their their kitchen right and it's invasive or whatnot but I think uh what outweighs that is the opportunity for uh people to be able to have uh develop you know on their on their lot and and if the goal again is to have more missile missing middle housing I think this is a good opportunity and so I'm I'm consistently I think it's I would go with the less restrictive option one. Um yeah, so that's that. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Muser. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I can make one more comment on this and I'm I'm revising my my previous statement on um the options. I think option one would probably be fine. I mean, we're talking about less than 20 feet of lot depth difference in in a conceptual way. If we're looking at a minimum lot width of 70 ft, it would then be 111 ft and some change long. I don't see where that makes a difference. Um, and again, you know, as as the planning manager indicated, sometimes it's these small differences that can make a difference between something being able to proceed and not. Um, so this is one if we have a lot width in place that we're comfortable with, there's no reason not to reduce that lot depth. Um, we have setback requirements that are going to provide for those minimum separations. And if something is just slightly the house can be slightly less deep than otherwise, so be it. >> Thank you. Any other thoughts on lot area? Seeing none, >> thank you. Uh, so now we get into two family lot area. Um, and so I was just doing some quick math. Um, if we were going to use what, uh, most of you recommended for the two family lot width, which was 90 ft. Um, and multiply that by the same lot depth what that we were using for the last calculation, which is 130. I believe that would come out to this option one which is 11,700 square feet. Option two was correlating to a 95 ft um lot width and then option three is not changing current standards. I don't like lot area, so I'm not going to go first. Commissioner Cunningham, >> I'm gonna sound like a broken record. I'm not going to try to do 130* 95 in my head. Um, as long I would be in favor of anything as long as it kind of correlates with the typical 130 lot depth and the, you know, uh, what we would assume for our width, uh, to dictate a lot area. Thank you, >> Commissioner Mester. >> Thank you. Um, I would go with option one of those presented. Um, I think a lower number could probably be workable, but since option one is consistent with the single family or I mean, I'm sorry, the interior, dear lord, the two family regulations as they exist now, I think it would be fine to keep that consistency. >> Any other thoughts? Okay, >> excellent. Thank you. Okay, last topic. Um, so accessory structure placement. Um, so questions for accessory structures are kind of layered. Uh, there's multiple different regulations in question. Um, but essentially accessory structure placement is regulated through setbacks and placement within the yard. Um, so not only is there a minimum 30-foot setback from the street for accessory structures, uh, but they also cannot be located between the dwelling and the street, uh, which can often lead to a larger setback requirement. And the figures on the screen show an example of a lot that makes it difficult for the homeowner to add an accessory structure because of the placement of their house on the lot. Um, so you can see the red striped area is all the area that this homeowner would have to add an accessory structure. Um, so these guiding questions are not options. Uh, it's more question two. So the first question um is whether you all think that accessory structure should be allowed between the primary structure and the street within the sideyard adjacent to a street. Um staff would recommend at least a 20 foot setback if planning commission chooses to go this route. Um and kind of corresponding to the other peer cities that I reviewed. Um I think there's only one other city that actually allows accessory structures between the house and the street. Uh so staff wouldn't recommend this option. This yeah option I guess. >> Forgive me suspect. What is the staff recommendation? It is or is not to allow a accessory dwelling unit on the sideyard >> is not and sorry it's not an accessory dwelling unit just any accessory structure so that could be shed gazebo anything like that >> but if the planning commission had direction they wanted to offer it it does come up from time to time um in a side cornerard of a corner lot >> commissioner len >> thank you chair um I think I would be open to considering accessory units on corner lots between the side and the structure um I think last two years ago um for the arch AIA American in institute of architects um on their home tour that is actually one of the homes that they had had an accessory dwelling unit that was built on top of a garage basically they detached the garage had a detached garage with the accessory dwelling unit it was a really really impressive and extremely like attractive thing and I particularly looking at corner lots um where you could um have that space. I think it would be something that would be worth looking at. Um, and I think the limitations on I think in a neighborhood in particular, um, figuring out where to put an accessory dwelling, I know we're not just talking about accessory dwelling units, but any kind of attachment, um, sometimes can be more cosmetically attractive on corner lots in that type of a location than if they're completely, you know, in the backyard, which is getting closer to neighbors and things like other neighbors in a different way. So, I would be open to considering on corner lots. >> Commissioner, >> uh, could you go back to that slide four? >> Um, thank you, chair. Uh, so that's actually my house, um, believe it or not. And not intentional. >> And so, uh, I definitely agree with what Commissioner Len said. It's on a corner lot and that is a mini greenhouse that I built there >> and that's for the residents to have the ability in the spring and summer too. So I just that's a real world example of how it could positively affect >> residents. So >> yeah, >> is that a code compliance structure? >> I if it's not then >> Yes. >> Yes. Chair, if I may just respond really quickly just to what Commissioner Len was saying is that we did not contemplate initially ADUs being part of this uh discussion, but they ADUs are are not subject to the restriction on closer to the street than the principal dwelling currently, but they are subject to a 30-foot setback. So, sorry I have to cut you off now twice, Commissioner White. >> Commissioner White, >> thank you, Chair. So, I just want to clarify this is essentially, and apologies, I'm It's been a long week. Um, so this would only affect like you're on the corner lot. It's not allowing the shed to be in front of the house. It's allowing the shed to be between the house, the side of the house, and the the street. Or would this be put a shed in your front yard? Chair, Commissioner White, um, it would not be in your front yard. It would be in the sidey yard adjacent to a street. Yeah. >> Thank if I could follow up then. Um >> yeah, I think as long as there's not any issues with visibility and safety where they're blocking the view from the corner for cars that are trying to turn or something like that, which I think is part of the reason that some of that regulation exists. Um I don't see why that would be a bad thing. Um, and interest of full disclosure, I have a oddly shaped corner lot. So, since we're all kind of disclosing who lives on the corner and who doesn't, um, I'm I'm one of those irregular corner lots. So, I'm not even sure which is the side at this point. So, >> Commissioner Lay, >> thank you, Chair. This is just a technical question for does the city consider um in front of the house to mean fully in front of the house or if it's like off to the side and a portion of it is in front of the front of the house. >> Does that where does that >> uh >> just for technical reasons to be pedantic. >> Yeah. Chair, Commissioner Len. Uh, it cannot be in front of the house at all. Like, it has to be completely behind the plane of the house. >> Okay. Thanks, >> Commissioner Buster. >> I'm sort of at a at an in between point on this question. I feel like it should be consistent with the fence changes that we just made that if you can box it in in the back, then why can't you put a shed there? >> Okay. Can I seek clarification with that garages and sheds, all types of accessory structures? >> I think that that's where it gets a little bit weird is if we're talking about garages, um especially if we're trying to then encourage, as Commissioner Len was saying, putting an ADU above that garage, we're probably going to want to push it back further. But, you know, if it's a gazebo, if it's something sort of more, I guess, of a passive accessory use, then it it would probably actually be more attractive to push it up there than to try to cram in that back corner. >> Commissioner Silvers, >> thank you, Chair. I think I'm having a little bit of trouble thinking this through. Um, but one of the questions that's, so I'm a little bit conflicted about what my answer should be here. One of my questions is, um, does Bloomington have standards for how these structures are maintained? So, like a garage, I would imagine, is maintained differently than a shed. And when we were talking about fences, um, several commissioners noted being concerned about like nuisance, visual nuisances. And I think about, um, a shed as something that can contain things, but it can also be, um, a visual nuisance itself. So, um, do we have standards for that? If something is falling down or falling apart, is it just falling apart? >> Uh, Chair, Commissioner Summers, thank you for the question. Um, I think that would probably be regulated by the building code um or our environmental health division. Um, for your questions, I guess specifically about sheds, we don't actually require a building permit for sheds that are less than 200 square feet. Um, so, you know, there's a lot of sheds out there that are smaller than that. um that we aren't really regulating or at least the building code isn't. U planning manager Johnson, do you have something to add? >> Yeah, thank you. Um I'm very very talkative tonight. Sorry. Um the uh International Property Maintenance Code deals with kind of more aesthetic or peeling paint and those kinds of issues. If it's a life safety issue, then it would be a building code uh violation. So, it just kind of depends on the nature of the uh disrepair depending on which code is going to um uh be uh in play there. Yeah. Um Miss Hespek, the the type of shed you can buy from Menard's like the prefabricated plastic milk jug recycled type thing. Would that be allowed if we went with if we uh were in favor of this? um chair. So we have like planning specifically has certain requirements that accessory structures are supposed to match uh I can't remember what the exact wording is but like kind of the character of the primary structure. Um, and then I also think that the building code kind of regulates um, sheds and structures like that where I'm not sure if they allow all like manufactured um, things from like Menards or that you could buy online. >> So, just as a point of clarification, that would not be allowed if if we were to go with this. >> Likely not. >> The zoning code doesn't allow it. Um, people still buy them and deploy them in uh, their neighborhoods. It does happen and sometimes they're subject to orders. It just depends on kind of what material they are. Um if they are not a very rigid or durable material, uh they don't uh perform well to wind load or snow load at times. Um so that's kind of the reason for it. But Emily's correct. The like precise language in the code is that it must match or complement the prime the principal structure. And so um it doesn't specifically prohibit plastic. Um but staff the city interprets that to mean plastic sheds, very uh thin metals kind of you see some of those aluminum ones that are um not very well constructed. So uh when when residents call us, we advise them not to um utilize or purchase those uh those materials. >> But if you lived in a plastic house, it would speak to the speak to the character of your home. Um that makes me feel a lot better. Um I don't have a problem with this. Like the only thing that gave me pause was sort of the cruddy last a few years type sheds being uh adjacent to a side street. But if it has to match the character of your house, it's more, you know, intentional, structurally built, matches your home, I think a gazebo would look nicer than the side of a house. So, um, I'm in favor of this. >> Chair, may I seek clarification for garages or all accessory structures? That's kind of the next question. >> Yeah. Which might be a move point if you want to allow all of them. Sorry. >> Yeah. So, moving on to the next question. Um, should there be reduced setbacks specifically for detached garages? Uh, it sounds like uh well, I guess we were more talking about like gazeos and sheds, but are you all interested in that for detached garages as well? Commissioner, >> uh, echoing Matteline's, uh, experience growing up in the city. Growing up in Minneapolis, this was the neighborhood I grew up in. A lot of people shifted to, uh, detached garages that had little to no setback. And, uh, I didn't have an issue with it. And I actually think we saw more of our neighbors that way. Um, so I think I don't personally have an issue with it. As a point of clarification, Miss Husb reduced related to what the primary structure. >> Yes. So from 30 ft. So um >> yes. Oh. Oh. From the 20 ft. I see. Um yeah. So, uh, staff recommends a minimum of a a 10-ft setback so that the driveway is long enough to be able to park a car. >> Mr. Johnson, do you have a point of clarification? >> Yeah, sorry. For clarification, staff's recommending a 20 foot uh setback, right? It's been a long week for us, too. Or at least just for me. I'll just speak for myself. Commissioner Monster, >> thank you. If we went with this where there's a 20 foot setback, what would the required setback from the rear property line be? >> Uh, Chair Commissioner Monster, the required setback for garages from rear property lines is 5T. So, a reduced 20 foot setback would come into play for existing homes. If they're at a 30ft setback and then they want to build a detached garage, they could potentially build it at 20 ft. Just for clarification, >> Mr. White, >> or let's just say hypothetically there's a detached garage that is existing. You could theoretically add on to the front of the garage as opposed to the back of the garage with a shorter setback. >> Yeah. But it would reduce the length of your driveway. >> Yes. I guess for me I'm in favor of 20 ft. Um, I understand if you had the alley type setup, that's more common in Minneapolis. Like if your garage is next to somebody else's garage, probably not a big deal, but if your garage is next to somebody's house, I think they'd get annoyed by that. Commissioner Monster, >> I I agree with that entirely. Then that that's what I was sitting here trying to think of is if your neighbor to the rear essentially of of your corner only has that 10- foot required setback, this garage is 15 feet from their house. And if it's pushed sort of closer than that 20 feet, you're you're truly obstructing their their sort of view and really their ability to get out of their driveway possibly. Um so I think the 20 ft is probably the right number if it's a garage. Commissioner Teresa. >> Uh just going back to question number one just so it's clear. I think there's agreement that uh or you could clarify that it should be allowed or Yeah. Okay. >> That is um what I got that Yeah, it sounds like you all are okay with all accessory structures. So sheds, gazeos, garages being at a 20ft setback between the primary dwelling and the sideyard adjacent to the street property line. Can correct me if I'm wrong. >> I think you're right. >> Okay, >> thank you. >> Okay. And then the last question um uh might be a non-issue actually right now based on the feedback um you all just gave, but basically in the code there's a current section that says where garages were legally constructed with a setback of 20 ft or more from a side property line abuing a street. the garage may be expanded provided additional or expanded garage doors are not proposed to face the side property line abudding a street. Um so staff is would recommend getting rid of that statement discussing the garage door placement as it creates unnecessary difficulty and confusion. Um, and which would actually no longer be an issue if we moving forward do create an ordinance to allow a garage at a 20ft setback because then they could expand their garage door facing whatever way they wanted. So, more of an FYI, I guess. If anyone um strongly disagrees with that, you can let me know. >> Seeing none. >> Okay. Okay. Excellent. Thank you all for the feedback. Um, thanks for hanging in there. I know that is confusing and there was a lot of math involved. Um, the next steps are going to a study session at city council on April 13th. Um, after receiving council feedback, staff will be back at planning commission in May with a draft ordinance. Thank you all. >> Thank you, Miss Hespach. Um, I've got Mr. Johnson clarifying the date. Is it April 13th or April 14th? My sheet in front of me here says April 14th. Don't want anybody showing up at city hall on a Sunday. >> Oops. It's the 13th. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Hesp. We'll move then to item number two, which is uh a update on the Bloom uh plan commission's role in the 2050 comprehensive plan update. I believe Mr. Dakota Cassand is here and is going to give us a staff report. All right, I am just going to sit here. Uh, planning commission, I don't have a formal presentation. More just wanted to um create um another opportunity um from the concurrent meeting that happened last Tuesday um where we provided an overview of the comprehensive plan process kind of proposed engagement strategies and then some of the demographic data. Um, and just, you know, acknowledging having five bodies there can kind of make it awkward to ask a lot of questions. And it was kind of after a lengthy OO kind of technical discussion. So, just wanted to um be available in case there was any follow-up questions or clarifications that that folks wanted to talk through on the comp plan. >> Thank you, Mr. Cass. I'll start with a question. Um, does the planning commission uh will we be looking at potentially proactively reguiding any properties or do we do we look at the guide map as part of the comprehensive plan update? >> Yeah, Chair Cookton. Yep. Looking at our future land use map and that guide map is part of um the comprehensive plan process. So, that is one of those minimum requirements from the metropolitan council um as well. So, we would be looking at um that plan to see if we need to um yeah, do we keep the existing future land use guidances that we have? Are we adding different ones or changing the name? Um and then through that, do we need to kind of proactively reguide um properties and then potentially reszone properties after the comprehensive plan? >> Thank you, Mr. Cassy. If I could dive a little deeper on that because I've never been a part of this process. I mean, is it like we roll out a big map and then we all point to different things and say, "Oh, I like this over here and maybe this is what we should be thinking over here." Or is it more we've been seeing this in the market and developers have been approaching us about this or we've been seeing this type of activity over here and we kind of have an idea of what we're thinking about. >> Yeah, Chair Cookton, I'll just share some initial thoughts. This is also my first time kind of formally going through this process as well. So, um I would say it's probably more towards the latter option where I would say probably from comp plan cycle to comp plan cycle. There's not a drastic change where we're kind of redoing everything. Um and everything becomes new. Um but it' be more kind of looking at some of those priority areas. um looking at our district plans kind of for some guidance if anything needs to be reided in those kind of priority redevelopment um areas and and kind of incorporating community feedback kind of thinking about just our interactions with development applications kind of looking at those district plans working with you all and the council um to kind of come up with a proposed map for kind of feedback and in it iteration through that process. Is it fair to say we might be reacting to major changes in our city that have occurred over the last 10 years? So, I'm thinking about like the 494 uh construction that is changing some of the exit and entrance ramps and for instance Portland and 494 and American Boulevard. That's all much different than it was 10 years ago. Is that the type of thing where we would reflect upon that? There's been a big change here. Let's take a look at the guiding to see if we're still in the right place. Yeah, Chair Cookton, I think that that is a fair um assumption to make or would be part of that analysis is kind of thinking about yeah some of those transportation networks in addition to um where we've already kind of guided and kind of prioritized redevelopment in some of those districts or think about the um the Lindale A suburban retrofit plan too and just kind of thinking about how how that plan is called for some different kinds of development along the corridor. >> Yes. Thank you, >> Commissioner Cunningham. Thank you, Chair. Uh, Mr. Castende, I comprehensive plans are a big deal for any city. Um, we obviously want to get a ton of public input. Um, this is more addressed to the thousands watching at home. Um, uh, but I guess the planning commission will have ample public hearings related to this and there's a lot of community outreach programs happening. Can you speak a little bit to how residents can get involved in the comprehensive plan? Yeah, Commissioner Cunningham, um, Chair Cooked. Yeah, there will be, uh, ample opportunities for community engagement. So, the city uses that, um, kind of international public participation spectrum or we just call it P2 for short. Um, and so we're at that collaborate level of engagement, which leans kind of think about the spectrum of kind of, I guess, community decision-m authority. And the further right you are on that spectrum, there's more opportunity for community to have that decision-making authority. So in this case, collaborate falls on that kind of right side of the spectrum. So um yeah, there'll be we'll be out tableabling at city events. Um I'm hoping to have some information very soon to release for the public. Um looking at May for kind of a community launch series. So, kind of doing some like world cafe kind of facilitated conversation style um open houses throughout the city. Um different kind of facilitated conversations. Um yeah, there'll be public hearings at the planning commission and city council when we get kind of towards the end of the process with um the draft plan and then kind of making that recommendation to adopt the final plan. Um, and one of the things that we shared at the concurrent meeting, um, was the creation of a community advisory council. That'll be made up of, it's not fully decided yet what exactly that makeup would look like, but for the 2040 process, it was a mix of um, kind of appointed um, council members and folks on advisory committees like the planning commission or the parks board um, as well as just kind of general residents. Um and so they'll be um there'll be this kind of committee or group of people and community stakeholders that'll um play a larger role um in kind of prioritizing the goals and making the recommendation to planning commission and city council on what the goals of the comprehensive plan will be. So um yeah really is really this May is kind of the key kickoff for us. Um and then um you know we'll be at like Bloomington Pride, our Junaton celebration um at the farmers markets throughout the summer and in some different ways um particularly when the weather is nice to be outside and engaging residents on on this process. >> If I could follow up a little bit and we're getting a bit far a field here, but the community uh what did you call it? The community >> uh community advisory committee. >> Yeah. So, you mentioned there might be city council members or commissioners on that. I kind of don't like that idea to be honest with you. I I like like I I'm concerned about that having an outsized influence on that, you know, if the mayor's on it. Are residents really going to feel as comfortable? Are they feeling like they're taking ownership or are they just taking direction from council? And I like the idea of it having nobody from like city staff helping that group, but no no commissioners, no council members on it so that the public feels like this is our voice and we're not being influenced by commission and we're telling them what we want and maybe council doesn't go for it, but I like the independence of of that instead of, you know, just council having their tentacles everywhere and we having our tentacles everywhere. I don't want to influence the public on what they want. I want the public to tell me as a commissioner what they want and so that's just my opinion on it though. >> Sure. Yeah. Just chair cooked and I do appreciate that feedback because yeah, like I said, we haven't um totally figured out what the composition of that would be and um I think yeah, there's good pros and cons for either approach of it is more um kind of public residents or community stakeholders versus folks on appointed boards or some mix of the two. Um, so yeah, I appreciate that feedback and um could be a potential too. >> Any other thoughts about what our role is as the planning commission? What we might be doing? Um if not, if I could just make one more plug just for um the public too. Um >> so we'll have uh probably the best way to get information right now is um on our city website. If you go to blm.mn2050 um it'll take you to um kind of a general website that has some information around what is a comprehensive plan. That also links to our Let's Talk Bloomington page, which will really be the primary web page for sharing the community engagement pieces of the of the process. If we have online surveys and things, those will all be linked on that web page. Um, and then, uh, we should have an article going out in the April briefing. Um, as well, kind of highlighting that website and the Let's Talk page to kind of get people hopefully starting to kind of go to that website as a source of information. And then of course we'll do social media posts and other things too. But um I guess just for public watching um we have that web page available. >> Thank you Mr. Cassate. Mr. Johnson, can I ask you a question about this? So this is going to be a huge lift for city staff. Um as planning manager, do you have concerns about our staff? Are we going to get stretched too thin on the things we do otherwise? >> Uh thank you for the question, Chair Cooked. I'm not. Uh for two reasons. One is that we're able to draw upon colleagues and professionals across the organization to help support it. So, we definitely pull in a lot of subject matter experts from the public works department from parks. You know, Dakota's assembled a very uh wide spectrum of professionals on this internal staff team to help support this effort. So, while planning staff is very much the front-facing and does a lot of the authorship and creates a lot of the maps and does some of the technical work, it really is a collaboration across the full organization for sure. The second thing too is just that um I think a point that Dakota made in the 2026 work plan is we are pairing down some of our policy work to ensure that we're reserving enough adequate staff capacity to focus on the comp plan and that's going to continue for the 2027 uh as well as the 2028 uh work plan. There'll be, you know, subtle fluctuations uh between those years. You know, the lifts are probably most significant this year and next year um than 2028. uh but it does influence what are the other projects on the work plan to ensure there's adequate capacity. I'm not sure how to phrase this uh eloquently, but do you think the overall impact to the public we have is the same? Like do you feel do you find this to be a distraction for planning staff that gosh, there's this other good stuff we wish we could be doing, but we have to conform to the Met Council's requirement for the 2050 plan or do you see the 2050 plan as this is also providing benefit to our residents by being thoughtful and being prepared for the next, you know, phase of the city? Do you have thoughts there? >> Yeah, I do. who chair Cooked and I very much views it view it as the second as the former and the reason being is that uh a lot of the engagement we do with the community really informs a lot of the policy work we do like the farther we get away from the touch point of the last comprehensive plan which guides a lot of our updates to the zoning code in terms of defining what the future should look like the strategies actions um you know the the more disconnected we are from the current snapshot in time of its residents and businesses in terms of what their needs are so Um, I don't view it as a distraction. I think most planning professionals get pretty excited about comprehensive planning and um, so when you meet uh, various planners and planning communities, they talk about how many comp plan cycles they've been through or as kind of a badge of honor and um, at least that's what we're getting in some of our initial meetings. Um, I see Commissioner Monster nodding his head some of that stuff. So, um, no, it's not it's not a distraction and I think it's something that we relish the opportunity and I think that, uh, ideally you're connecting this, uh, engagement and broader planning effort to all the policy work that you're doing downstream. So, it's exciting. >> Yeah, thanks for the perspective on that, Mr. Johnson. And I have a lot of agreement with that. I mean, I think it could be viewed very cynically as, well, we're taking a reduction on the stuff we are normally doing and we're kind of distracted and this is just like a burden that Met Council puts on us. And look, I have my brothers with Met Council as much as anybody, but I think the long-term plan is important for us. And you don't have to look much further than this this body. And how often are we making a decision because that's what's in the comp plan. You know, whether it's how is the property guided or zoned or what is the comp plan telling us that has a real impact on the decisions that this body makes on real world applications. And I think it's a value that we are taking a look at this and being very uh intentional, thoughtful about um what updates we're making to the plan because there's going to be applications down the road and we're going to say well let's what does the comp plan say and this is our opportunity not only us but the public to shape what the comp plan says. So I do think there's a lot of value in this. So I just want to say uh congratulations Dakota. Thank you for undertaking this and it's going to be a fun journey ahead. Thank you. We're going to move then to item number three, which is the consideration of the February 19th, 2026 planning commission meeting minutes. Commissioners White, uh, Commissioner Cunningham and Commissioner Issa were um absent at least for part of the meeting. Uh, as a point of clarification, Mr. Cunningham, how does that uh Mr. Johnson, how does that work for Commissioner Cunningham, who was uh partially in attendance for the meeting? >> Uh, thanks, Sher Cook. and technically he should also abstain from uh voting on the minutes. >> Thank you very much for that clarification. I will look then for a motion of approval. >> I move uh I move that we approve the meeting minutes from planning commission meeting from >> February >> February >> 19th >> 19th 2026. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second to approve these minutes from February 19th 2026. All those in favor say I. I >> I opposed. >> Abstain. >> Abstain. >> That motion passes 4 Z with three abstinations. >> We'll move into item number four. Our final item this evening is the planning commission policies and issues updates. Mr. Johnson. >> Yeah, thank you, Chair Cookton. Preview of upcoming meetings on April the 2nd. There's two public hearings scheduled. One is a conditional use permit for cannabis manufacturing at uh 333 West 86th Street. The second public hearing is a privately initiated city code amendment uh to amend uh requirements related to towers at places of assembly. These are towers that host uh wireless communication antennas. Um uh on April the 16th, there was a study item planned for a long-range planning project, the off- streetet uh parking supply uh projects. Again, a project on the 2026 work plan carried over from 25. And then on April the 23rd, there was a public hearing uh scheduled um for a reszoning of 8030 Old Cedar Avenue South from FD2 to B1 uh to accommodate a retail tenant. Uh so that's a preview of the next three upcoming meetings. Um all of them have items currently slotted for them. Um if there's any adjustments to that, we'll uh certainly let you know. Um as far as other updates that I have, there is a board and commission connect uh meeting. if you participated in that before or have never been to one. It's an opportunity to engage and meet other advisory board members. Um sometimes council members uh stop by as well. Um April the 6th from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. The room is not yet determined, but I think normally they uh host that in HG. Um but I could be wrong. I'll send out details on that when I learn more. And then the second update is that the Minnesota um APA American Planning Association state conference uh has been released. In terms of the date and location. So if that's something you want to keep on your calendar uh for the fall, it would be October 21st through the 23rd in Mano uh Minnesota uh this year. So certainly we have uh training funds available if you wish to attend that conference. I think I I've really enjoyed attending state conferences and it's a really good opportunity to meet planning commissioners from other communities and professionals. Um a lot of good learning sessions on that. Um then final update is that the si uh cities across the country are uh working to update uh their documents to get in compliance with ADA requirements. So that's requiring a lot of updates to our website uh some of our handouts and those things. So, if you are a frequent flyer of the planning divisions or just the city's website in general, you're going to be noticing some changes uh in the coming months as we continue to make progress and headway on uh fully coming into compliance with ADA requirements. So, that is my update. >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I'd like to put in a plug for both of the miscellaneous items you mentioned there. First, the boards and commissions connect event on April 6. That's one I've attended a lot. Uh it's a really good opportunity for us and it's great when the planning commission has a good showing. So, uh you do have something in your inbox about that. Do look at that and consider going. Um they usually feed us and uh it's a it's a good evening. There's a lot of good things that can come out of it. So, it does have my recommendation. As does the state's APA conference. Um you know, the difference between the national conference and the state conference is it does seem like the state conference is really focused around, you know, just learning and it's very applicable to what we do here in Minnesota. So usually Mandot is presenting or uh other other entities that are close to home and you can learn a lot from that state conference. Uh so I do recommend even if you can't go all three days uh trying to get to a couple days of that conference is really beneficial. I've certainly sat through some presentations that have impacted me as a planning commissioner over time. Um did just want to bring up one other item as this is an opportunity for planning commissioners to bring up anything that's not on this evening's agenda. And I did want to just um have a quick chat about the joint meeting we had last week with um f was it five commissions or four commissions in the city council. Um interesting and I I think a new way for us to do things. Mr. Johnson, can I get your perspective on on how that meeting went? >> Yeah, Cher Kton, I think it was a good opportunity to meet uh other decision makers in the city, kind of make some of those connections. So that's positive. Um uh you know I think it maybe some more uh open or unstructured time would have been good just to bring up uh various policy issues that's on the top of commissioners or council members mind in that sitting uh would probably be one uh change or one opportunity I would make in the future with that. Um again just with the volume of people I think it's hard to uh ask a lot of questions. So if there's a downside to be had of that type of format, I would say it's just you know when you're one of 35 people in the audience, it might be more difficult to um you know have more in-depth discussions and that's why we brought this item with the comp plan back to you is just to make sure that you're get questions were getting answered. Um so yeah, I think there's pros and cons to it. Certainly it's never been done before at that scale. So definitely would take any feedback you have about it in terms of your experience whether you think something like that would be valuable for the future. It was not easy to put it together. I will say that just from a staff level in terms of coordinating all those schedules. >> I did feel like we needed a designated survivor in that room with all the highowered Bloomington residents in there. Um, do you see us having another one of those or was that uh >> I Yeah, I don't. But I I take the I take the feedback in terms of if that's something that um is beneficial to do on an annual basis. That's something that I can uh uh communicate that to the other liaison of those bodies. The council's always um uh you know a little bit different in that respect, but um it's something we definitely could do um on a more regular basis. I think what we've done in the past is more strategic uh concurrent meetings about specific topics um you know housing policy with HR for example economic development um meets zoning for uh planning and port so that's kind of the nature of the concurrent meetings that we've done in the past is that it was usually just with two bodies at most and on very strategic topics of mutual interest. Um but in this case uh I think it saved Dakota from probably giving the same presentation five times. So that was a positive thing and um OHO uh just with the way its development has occurred it kind of touches on uh all the different boards in commission. So that's why we thought those two topics would be a good fit in this case. >> Is there feedback on that meeting from any commissioners who were in attendance? Commissioner White. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I agree. I think it was it was great to be in the same room with folks. I think the presentations and topics were certainly interesting. Um, I think it would have felt more beneficial had there been even opportunities for table conversations um that could have then been reported out or something to that effect. Um, I appreciate I think we probably saved a lot of money on consultant time making presentations for each group, but uh which I appreciate uh very much. Um but yeah, I just felt like, you know, we were all sitting and listening and there really wasn't um an opportunity for conversation and um comparing notes and how is your how is your board handling this as opposed to how our board is handling this and um I think certainly the connect opportunities are great for building relationship between you know in a more informal way. something like this, I think we would have benefited from more structured conversations with each other um beyond the presentations. >> Thank you. >> But thank you to the staff. I know how hard it is to put those things together and I do really appreciate the staff's commitment to making it happen. >> Other thoughts? >> Yeah, I I agree with a lot of things you said, Commissioner White. Um, one thing I think this commission does very well is our conversations with each other and um, even I think just this evening, I mean, bouncing our different thoughts on whether it's a setback or whatever that we take the opportunity to learn from each other, re-evaluate how we, you know, the thoughts we had as we prepared for the meeting. And I've I've always been proud of the way that this commission is willing to accept different viewpoints, willing to reconsider their own viewpoint after hearing new information. And I hope that's something that this commission continues as I as I sunset on it. And you do lose that when you have 30, 40 people in here. There's really not the opportunity to learn from each other because it's just sort of the consultant talking to you and uh it's hard to have that sort of critical thinking time. So I do miss that. I've never been the biggest fan of the joint meetings. I like I think we are the perfect size. I think seven of us is is really good. Um you look at other planning commissions and they're huge. Like I think St. Paul is like 20 people or something and it's the same thing where they like barely have critical conversations where I think this group is the perfect size where we're all prepared to be here but we're we can have critical conversations with each other which is great. And so I've never been the biggest fan of the joint meetings. I I wouldn't be disappointed if there's not another um another one of that size, but I think it was a fine fine effort. Credit to staff for putting on a a very difficult event. Um this is that opportunity to present any or to uh discuss anything else that wasn't on the agenda. Any other discussion topics tonight? >> Commissioner Monster. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is just a question and I think the answer is no, but has the council taken up the um airport parking ordinance yet? Uh, Chair Cookton, Commissioner Monster, they have not. It's, uh, scheduled for this coming Monday, March the 23rd. Um, as well as missing middle housing uh, was continued uh, from February, their last February meeting to March 23rd. Um, and a couple other planning agenda items, fence ordinance, and um, yes, that's it. Thank you. Busy planning night. Anybody else? Seeing none, that concludes this March 19th meeting of the Bloomington Planning Commission. Good night.