Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to this May 21st meeting of the Bloomington Planning Commission. The Planning Commission advises the City Council on development proposals, development standards, long-range planning and transportation issues. Some items that come before the Planning Commission are study items where we will not take formal action. BEFORE US ARE PUBLIC HEARINGS WHERE WE WILL TAKE FINAL ACTION. WHEN WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING WE DO ENCOURAGE THE PUBLIC TO TESTIFY. YOU CAN DO SO HERE AT CITY HALL BY JOINING US IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS. YOU CAN ALSO DO SO ONLINE BY FOLLOWING THE INSTRUCTIONS THAT ARE ON YOUR SCREEN. ON SOME ITEMS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS FINAL DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY, WHILE ON OTHER ITEMS, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL MAKE THE FINAL DECISION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTS IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS MADE UP OF SEVEN VOLUNTEER RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON. EACH PLANNING COMMISSIONER HAS BEEN APPOINTED TO SERVE A THREE-YEAR TERM WITH A TWO-TERM LIMIT. WE HAVE FIVE COMMISSIONERS HERE THIS EVENING, SO WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS THIS EVENING IS THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. ALL RISE.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Item number one this evening is in regards to the Telegraph Hill Office Park rezoning on Telegraph Road. Mr. Dylan Palmer is here with a staff report.

All right, good evening commissioners. I'm here to present item number one on tonight's agenda. So this is a rezoning for the Telegraph Hill Office Park which is located in the far northwestern quarter of Bloomington. This is located off of Bush Lake Road and 494. This is a four building office park. There are four buildings that are each on their own parcel and then a fifth parcel which is composed of the parking lots and the common areas. As you can see in this map, one of those buildings, 7805 Telegraph Road, is excluded from this rezoning, and I'll explain that a little bit more later. All right, so the proposals, the applicant is proposing to rezone the site from R1 PD to B1 PD, supply and development. The site is currently zoned for single family residential uses. Offices, including medical office, are a permitted use in the R1 district. The site was initially proposed to be a multi-family condo complex. This was built as part of the single family neighborhoods just to the south at rhode island circle and telegraph road initially there were residential garages and residential units that were going to be built here in 1984 the developer decided to change their mind and instead convert these into office buildings and that was approved by the city council at that time the rezoning to be one would allow for more prospective tenants to lease this space and then bring any non-conforming uses at the site into compliance we don't think there are any non-conforming uses but it's just kind of a cover any legal basis is there? The reason that 7805 Telegraph Road, so one of those four office buildings, is excluded from this rezoning is because both the city and the applicant have tried to get into contact with the owner of that building, and unfortunately we have been unsuccessful. I believe there was recently a change in ownership to that building, so maybe something to do with that. The 7805 property was included in the public notice, and if the owner does come forward between now and the noticing for the potential city council meeting, the owner can sign on and 7805 can also be rezoned to be one. But again, that's only if the owner of that property signs on this application prior to the notices going out. So this is the existing zoning and the guide plan on the left is the zoning there. It's zoned R1 PD. Pretty much everything around it is also zoned R1 PD. It's guided office. Again, this was re-guided back in 1984 when the developers changed this from residential over to office and guided low density residential to the south and conservation to the east. And then this is just a graphic showing the rezoning. So again on the left there is the current state where it's zoned R1 PD and then the right where the proposal to rezone this to B1 PD and then the kind of donut hole in the middle there of 7805 telegraph remaining as R1 PD. So the office land use category, it allows for professional and business offices as well as some limited accessory retail and restaurant uses intended to serve the building tenants. So think like a small coffee shop or something inside of the office building. The proposed B1 zoning is more compatible with office guidance than the existing R1 zoning. It's consistent with surrounding sites and land uses. So B1 zoning district official title is neighborhood office. The entire point of the B1 zoning district is to allow for office uses to be located near residential communities. And I do have a whole list of B1 uses if you do wanna see those at the end. This is not anticipated to create an excessive burden on the city. It's already served by a collector road off of West Bush Lake. There's adequate utility capacity, and they are compliant with their parking counts. So staff recommends approval of the rezoning, and if you have any questions for me, I'm available for you.

Thank you, Mr. Polner. I do have a question. It was referenced in the staff report, and I remember years ago hearing about the concept of spot zoning, but as someone who didn't go to school for planning, I don't know much about it. Can you just give us an overview on what is spot zoning and whether that's something that is encouraged or discouraged?

Chair Cookton, spot zoning is the practice of kind of singling out a parcel let's say we have a large residential community and somebody wants to rezone their house to C4, let's say, and it's only one parcel, there's no C4 within miles around, that would really be considered spot zoning. So it's a specific one parcel action where they're changing the zoning to something that's not compatible with any of the land uses around it.

Thank you very much. Questions for staff? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Palmer. I believe the applicant is here. If they wish to step forward, they're welcome to do so and tell us about their proposal, not necessary if. Yeah, I mean, I don't, you summarized it really well. Very well, thank you very much. This is a public hearing, which I will open now and ask if there's anyone in the chambers who wishes to testify on item number one. I see no one stepping forward. Ms. Brown, is there anyone online who wishes to testify?

All participants online are staff.

Very well. I will look then for a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved.

Second.

I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion passes 5-0. And we'll move on to discussion. Commissioner Cunningham.

Thank you, Chair. It seems pretty straightforward to me. Very straightforward. Mr. Palmer, thank you so much for a very thorough staff report. Hope that the owner of 7805 comes forward. But I don't believe that this would be injurious to surrounding land use to have a different zone parcel in the middle of this park. So I'm in favor. Thanks.

Thank you, Commissioner Cunningham. I, too, am in favor of this. Seems pretty straightforward forward. B1 seems like a good fit for some local neighborhood businesses that aren't going to be disruptive to the neighborhood, but rather complimentary. So I, too, will be supporting this. If there's no other thoughts, I would entertain a motion. Commissioner Cunningham.

In planning case PL2026-26, I move to recommend the city council adopt an ordinance rezoning the properties at 7815, 7825, 7835, and 7845 Telegraph Road from R1PD, single family residential plan development, to B1PD, neighborhood office plan development.

Is there a second? I have a motion and a second for recommending approval of the motion as stated. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion passes 5-0. This will go before the City Council as a public hearing on June 15th. Thank you very much. We're going to move to item number two, which I will be recusing myself for. I will also be recusing myself for item number three. In my absence, acting chair will be Commissioner Cunningham.

Thank you, Chair. Item number two this evening is a reguiding, rezoning, and conditional use permit for a parking facility at 3700 and 3750 American Boulevard. And Mr. Centenaro, you have the staff report.

Yes, thank you, commissioners. To preface the next two items, I just wanted to make a couple notes that both of these items, there's a lot of overlap between them. As you probably saw in the staff report, a lot of the same issues from HXR PD to CX2 PD. These zoning districts are very much aligned with the land use designations. They go hand in hand. Not to mention the light rail is very close. So having more activity for workers, visitors.

Always going to be in tension with the aspiration of the South Loop District Plan is the impacts of the airport.

What we're seeing here is a site that meets the minimum size, the area, 2.75 acres, can accommodate at least 120,000 square feet. And if they choose to, could have remote airport parking incorporated within the development. For our commissioners, this may be a graphic you recognize from past applications or past interim use permit applications. You notice that the building footprint is not consistent with the last graphic, but one benefit to this property is there's a little more flexibility on how to accommodate that future development site. This site's unique in that it's surrounded on all four sides by right-of-way. and a good amount of frontage along American Boulevard. And so along with just having more frontage along American Boulevard, it also offers an opportunity to have some access changes. So you can see on this graphic, again, all conceptual, a potential new access along 34th Avenue, and there may be some benefits to that to try and change the traffic patterns for shuttles, for example. Similar to your last item on the agenda, so what's a little different between this site and the Park and Fly site is there's more existing landscaping on the Park and Go property. And so that property has less to add, if you will. But you can see here the applicant did provide a landscape plan that, you know, the way we would describe it is kind of like a phase one landscaping plan. This is landscaping that would be installed within the next year. And then future landscaping, if you recall from a previous graphic, there would be dense landscaping associated with that future development site. And so we'll continue to work with the applicant on landscaping. Obviously, this is much, much more landscaping that's on site today. And our expectation, if these applications are approved, is that ideally they would complete it this year. But we understand that we want to show some flexibility and are recommending condition that it be completed by mid-year of 2027. And so shorter, less verbose presentation, but I have the recommendations for you here for the Park and Go site, for the land use designation, the zoning, rezoning, and the conditional use permit.

Thank you, Mr. Centenario. Any questions for staff? Commissioner White.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So you'd mentioned that this was different than the other application. So it doesn't appear to have the same 10-year development timeline. Am I reading that correctly? And could you talk a little bit about why?

Commissioner, it does. It does have the same. So the December 31st, 2036 timeline, that's established in city code. Okay. And so that's already in city code. And so should these entitlements be approved, they would have to follow the same timeline. Now, The benefit of having a 10-year timeline is that 10 years is a long period of time. But, you know, with any luck, we would see development activity much sooner. And so, again, we felt there has to be a deadline, but the hope is that with permanent zoning, that provides the incentive to try and develop sooner.

Okay.

Of course, Commissioner White.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm looking at the plans submitted, which is similar to the drawing that you have here. So I'm curious. I see the minimum 2.75 acres, and then there's just it's very small type. So bear with me. There's a whole bunch of other stuff around it. Is that this is to represent sort of the minimum requirement for development, and then the rest could stay the same or could be developed? Is that accurate?

Sure, Commissioner White.

Yeah, so this graphic here is really just a depiction of the minimum requirement and again conceptual zoning exercise. What actually is proposed for development is going to have to be much more detailed with architectural plans, engineering, civil engineering, landscape architecture and so this is the applicant's preliminary vision of how that minimum requirement could be met. But when the time comes, it's gonna, that future development's gonna be treated like any other development. They're gonna have to hire a design team and they're gonna have to design a substantial site.

But in terms of, sorry, Mr. Chair, I hope.

Please.

In terms of sort of worst case scenarios, this little block at the bottom could be developed and then the rest could continue to be surface parking.

Commissioners, that's correct.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Centenario. I believe the applicant, Mr. Williamson, is here. excuse me, if the applicant could come forward and tell us about their project and please introduce yourself.

Ian Williamson, good evening, Planning Commission. Mike, could you put that one picture with all the different stuff on it? Right there. One of the questions that came up, and I'm a little puzzled by this, is the goal still is to have a mixed-use development on the property. That hasn't changed, right? Right, Mike? No, that has not changed. So that is still the long-term plan here on this property. And there's a reason why in Tokyo you don't have pasture cattle walking around, right? The land is too valuable, so it develops over time. That's just economics. It's no different here. When we go to that drawing that shows that little corner blocked out, there's about $1.5 million per year reasons why we would want to develop that little piece of property. So I don't think that's going to be much of a problem in terms of that we do something in 10 years. We are already looking at that right now. And we are also talking to our landscape suppliers trying to secure plant material because there is quite a few trees that have to be put in. And Mike was a little shocked when I said that I usually shovel them in myself. But that's how we do it. We're kind of a hands-on group. So I just wanted you to know that we still have this type of a concept. And you'll notice that we really look at that whole piece of American Boulevard as being developed. Also, we build, because I'm also the developer for Park & Go, we build properties all over the country. And I can tell you one thing that we do more or differently than everybody else. We tend to build big grassy areas that actually can sustain trees and bushes, then put little tiny islands out in the middle of parking lots. So you'll see that plan right there. Those are all green spaces that would, of course, be used for landscaping. We do this all over the country, and most cities are very conducive to that, because they like the idea that the trees will actually live, whereas in little tiny islands, you know how it is, the plow goes through and tree's gone. So I'm also here to ask questions. We're very supportive of this. We think it's been a very good negotiated solution by both sides. If you have any questions, I'm here to answer them.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

I ACTUALLY HAVE ONE, MR. WILLIAMSON, IF NO ONE ELSE DOES. THIS MAY COME UP IN THE PUBLIC HEARING LATER, BUT BACK IN AUGUST OF, END OF AUGUST OF 24 WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EXTENDING AN IUP FOR THIS SITE, ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS, I DON'T THINK IT WAS ME, ASKED, YOU KNOW, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE IUP RECOMMENDATION WAS DENIED? AND I BELIEVE YOU SAID YOU WERE STILL GOING TO PARK CARS. One thing I'm worried about with the term of this is if market conditions are not conducive or the land value is not indicative of redevelopment, would Park & Go or your plan still be to park cars on the parcel that would need to be set aside for the additional use permit?

No, it is the owner's intent to set that aside. We're going to do what it says.

Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you, Mr. Williamson. Have a nice evening. This item is a public hearing, and I would encourage anyone in chambers who wishes to speak on this item to please come forward at this time.

Commissioners, Chair, I'm back again. Aubrey Albrecht, citizen of Bloomington. I understand the need to find a compromise here, and I do agree that the landscaping improvements are substantial. Landscaping is not the same, though, as achieving the long-term vision for South Loop. So I'm racking my brain about what has been done in the past, and... prior to this tenure extension, there were development milestones that were required. There was sort of a check-in on the conditional use permit, the interim use permit over a period of time where certain milestones had to be met. And I'm curious to know why that's not happening for these sites. Because I honestly think that the city maybe is not serious about taking a step forward and really what redevelopment will look like here. And I think it's going to obviously take some level of pressure. And it is difficult. I get it. I understand it. So if this is not the long-term vision for the city and we're not going to put in development milestones and or figure out a way to really make this happen, whether that is funding, partnership, whatever it has to be. I think there needs to be some level of push and pull from the city to a developer or the owner to really make this something. Is it an arts district? Is it public space? Is it something? Because this 10-year timeline where... We're gonna put on all this landscaping and then it's gonna continue as a parking lot unless it doesn't and then we hit 10 years and then what are we gonna do, just not park cars there? I don't think that's gonna happen. What happens then? Nothing, we're at the same place again. I'm not saying that airport parking is bad. In fact, I think it is helpful to our city. It is an asset. But it is regional people coming in, parking their cars, not spending money in Bloomington, not contributing to our local economy. And are we good with that? And if we are, that's fine. But if we aren't, then we have to have some levers to pull in some places. And I think we set that up really well the last time. COVID and supply chain issues really put a wrench in it. I think we were there. We were so close. And I would like to see that replicated again. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Albrecht. Seeing no one else in chamber. please step forward and state your name.

Yes, Mr. Chair, Bill Griffith. I wasn't going to speak on my friend Daniel Williamson's applications but since they're so related I'm going to take this opportunity and I'll be brief. But a little bit of history. One is these uses did predate the South Loop Plan. They predated light rail. Now we can argue whether they're permanent or temporary. The City Council has made that decision. The Planning Commission recommended those ordinance amendments when they came to them, when they came to you. So that's the recent history. The not so recent history is many property owners in South Loop District got up and spoke against the changes that resulted in the HXR amendments because they were too prescriptive. And now we have, this many years later, a recognition that maybe they were. and they didn't work for development. The promise of this set of applications is you've got something that creates flexibility and a true incentive. As Mr. Williamson said, you're not going to leave three acres sitting there with no revenue-producing uses. This is consistent with your comprehensive plan. This is going from a bare site with parked cars on it to a development opportunity. In my almost 40 years of working with developers, they don't leave stuff on the table. When the market comes around and there's an opportunity to develop, they will build. The other thing is a little bit, and you understand this because you're all indoctrinated in planning principles, the comprehensive plan is guidance. It is forward-looking. It is policy. What really prescribes and controls the land use is what happens with zoning. And that's what the city is getting right, in my humble opinion, this time around with CX2 being a flexible tool. You've seen what it's done at Mall of America. And let's talk about some of the development in South Loop. Your two biggest developments in South Loop have changed. Those plans have changed 20, 30 times over the years to respond to the market. And so you've got two things. You've got guiding and zoning, and you've got a market. And I believe this time around, and it'll remain to be seen, but this time around, they're in alignment. And that's what we spent so many hours with your staff and your city attorney's office talking about and negotiating to get to a set of principles and legal controls that can work. And so again I appreciate not letting the perfect get in the way of the good. That's what we have here. We have an opportunity. Thank you Mr. Griffith.

Anyone else wishing to speak on this item? Ms. Brown do we have anyone online?

All participants online are staff.

Thank you. Hearing that I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

I motion to close the public hearing. Second.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. DISCUSSION, ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THIS? COMMISSIONER WHITE.

I GUESS JUST FOR THE SAKE OF CONSISTENCY, I HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS THAT I HAD WITH THE LAST DISCUSSION, THE LAST PROPOSAL BEFORE US. I think 10 years is a long time and I don't think we're now where I thought we'd be 10 years ago. So I know that things change, but I'm voting yes because I'm trusting Future Planning Commission and staff to make sure that that is, that we're holding to that 10 years or less.

Thank you, Commissioner White. Any other discussion? Commissioner Summers.

Thank you, Chair. I think to bring forth one of the questions from the public hearing, one thing I heard about was development milestones. Could staff talk a little bit about why that's not really in this version of the plan?

Mr. Centenario? Yeah, Mr. Chair, Commissioners.

Yeah, I'll try to be brief. There's almost 40 years of history with this use on these sites, but before the pandemic one mechanism that we tried to establish was extending interim use permits with conditions and those conditions related to certain development milestones. And what we mean by development milestones was a series of deadlines that would lead to development. So by X date there needed to be a concept plan and by X date they needed to apply for development applications and by X date ultimately they would have to start construction. And so that was the approach that in basic terms was we will support an IUP extension for remote airport parking. But with that extension, there will be a phase of development. And so each of these sites were envisioned to be multi-phased, to be converted from remote airport parking to quote-unquote permanent development over a series of phases. And again, very well-intentioned idea. And in fact, the property owner of Park and Fly went through that process. They got approval for a very attractive apartment building and ended up getting really close to getting building permits. And so it was very close to materializing. And then things changed and it didn't happen. And so it was an approach that the city tried and ultimately was not successful.

Thank you, Mr. Centenario. Did that answer your question, Commissioner Summers? Any other discussion? I'll just add my two cents that I am cognizant that these items two and three are very similar. And I just want to say I commend staff for working through this. I believe it was Mr. Griffith on item two that made a small quip about SENTENARIO HAVING MORE FREE TIME AFTER THIS IS DONE. SO THANK YOU FOR THE HARD WORK ON THIS, AND I AM IN FAVOR OF THIS RECOMMENDATION. IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION OR FURTHER DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER SUMMERS.

I think, thanks, Chair. I am in favor of this, and for many of the reasons that I listed in the last discussion, but also to keep these two in line with each other makes a lot of sense to me. The two airport parking facilities.

Thank you. If there's no further discussion, I would entertain a motion. Commissioner Summers.

Thank you, Chair. In case number PL2026-66, I move to recommend the City Council adopt a resolution amending the comprehensive plan future land use designation at 7901 International Drive from South Loop Mixed Use to High Intensity Mixed Use. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstain?

Abstain.

That motion passes with three yeses, zero nos, and one abstination. Commissioner Summers?

In case number PL2026-66, I move to recommend the City Council adopt an ordinance rezoning 7901 International Drive from HXR to CX2. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstain?

Abstain.

That motion passes with three yeses, zero noes, and one abstination. Commissioner Summers.

In case number PL2026-66, I move to recommend the City Council adopt a resolution approving a conditional use permit for a remote airport parking facility at 7901 International Drive, subject to the conditions and code requirements attached to the staff report. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstain?

Abstain.

That motion passes with three yeses, zero nos, and one abstination. That is a recommendation of the Planning Commission that will appear before the City Council on June 15th, 2026 at 6.30 p.m. in these chambers. Moving on, or excuse me, I believe my temporary chairship is over and Ms. Chair Cookton can return to chambers.

We will move to item number four. It's a public hearing. The city of Bloomington is the applicant for corner lot standards. Ms. Emily Hespec is online with the staff report.

Good evening, commissioners. Sorry I couldn't be there in person tonight. I'm a little sick, but I'm here to talk about amendments to some corner lot regulations. Oops. Okay. So this item went to study sessions in March and April, and it's planned to go to a council public hearing in June after tonight. A little background, just a reminder about what this is about. Bloomington's current zoning rules treat all street-facing yards on low-density residential corner lots as front yards. This requires larger lot sizes, increased setbacks, and stricter regulations compared to interior lots. These standards may hinder the city's goals of encouraging infill development and housing affordability, while also creating inequities for corner lot owners by limiting their ability to expand their homes or add accessory structures. The ordinance proposal is seeking to increase flexibility and reduce these hindrances to corner lot owners. This screen is just showing a summary of the items proposed to change in the ordinance, and I'll go through each item individually. The proposed ordinance reduces the setback requirement for primary and accessory structures, including accessory growing units on corner lots from 30 feet to 20 feet along the side street lot line. This change would make better use of corner lot space by treating side street yards more like side yards instead of treating them like front yards. As far as site area goes, the ordinance is proposing lowering the minimum site area requirements for corner lots. So the ordinance would reduce the minimum site area for single family homes from 11,050 square feet to 9,100 square feet for corner lots. And for 2 family homes from 14,625 square feet. To 11,700 square feet. These changes respond to feedback from the planning commission and counsel. And are intended to align lot sizes with the proposed setback requirements and typical building pad size. As far as site width goes, the proposed ordinance would also reduce the minimum site width for corner lots. The new proposal would be 70 feet for single-family lots and 90 feet for two-family lots, compared to the current 100-foot site width requirement. These standards would still remain slightly larger than those for interior lots, and both the Planning Commission and Council generally supported these changes. As far as accessory building location goes, currently accessory buildings cannot be located between a primary structure and the street. So the Planning Commission and Council directed staff to allow accessory buildings in the side street yard, which is shown on the screen. It's the red area in between the house and the street side yard. This would allow corner lot owners to have more space to place accessory structures on their lot. And like I mentioned earlier with the proposed ordinance, there would still be a 20-foot setback requirement from the side street lot line. Several definitions were changed within the ordinance. This was to ensure consistency and improve clarity, mostly for staff. Then the new definitions establish a side street lot line and a side street yard, which I talk about more here. To support the reduced setback along streets, the ordinance is proposing to add a new definition for side street yard, which is what's shown in red on the screen. And this is to improve clarity and the zoning code, and this allows greater flexibility for corner lot owners to use the side street yard differently than a side or rear yard. With that, I have the recommendation on the screen, and I am available for questions.

Thank you start with questions for staff. SEEING NONE, THANK YOU. WE DO HAVE A QUESTION FROM COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM.

SORRY ABOUT THE LATE. I WAS FLIPPING BACK TO MY NOTES FROM MARCH. MS. HESPEK, WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION IN MARCH ABOUT ESSENTIALLY STANDARDIZING LOT WIDTHS FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX OR TWO FAMILY HOME DWELLINGS. DID OUR RECOMMENDATION FROM THE STUDY SESSION MAKE IT INTO THIS FINAL PRESENTATION?

Chair, Commissioner, yes, thank you for that question. They did. So yeah, if you recall, we were doing kind of a lot of math that study session. And we ended up taking using the same math for both single family and two family homes for the lot width so that you're adding the setbacks together, a typical building that had size. And that is how we calculated the lot width and kept it. A SIMILAR PEN BEATMORE FOR BOTH SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS.

THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER ISSA.

THANK YOU CHAIR. SO WITH THE NEW SIDE YARD I THINK IT WAS A SIDE STREET YARD DEFINITION BE ON THE SIDE OF WHERE THE I GUESS THE MAILING FRONT ENTRANCE IS MAILING ADDRESS OR LIKE HOW YEAH IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

how would it be like um yeah thank you yeah uh chair commissioner isa so i think you're asking like what the difference is between the front yard and the side street yard so um what you're saying about the mailing address um like whatever street is the mailing address would be considered the front yard in this instance, if that's what you're asking.

Okay, that makes sense. Yeah, I'll just, yeah, that makes sense. Thank you.

Any other questions for staff? Seeing none, thank you, Ms. Hesbeck. There's nobody in the chambers as I open this public hearing, but I will ask if there's anybody online who wishes to testify.

One second. Oh, no. I think the mouse died. Oh, no. Give me a second. Oh, no. Technical difficulties.

Chair, I can confirm that all members on line are staff.

Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

Apologies for the delay here. Not a problem. Helping out.

I will then look for a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved.

Second.

Motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5-0. We'll move to discussion. Commissioner Cunningham.

Thank you, Chair. I think that this is a good way to allow folks to use the ADU standards that we've put in place and also potentially redevelop a few larger lots into two-family homes. So I'm in favor of this. I think it overall pushes for the city goals. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Cunningham. As I have attended conferences for many years across the nation for planning, this is a recurring theme and what where policy is really going across the United States and municipalities and I commend the city for really being on the front foot of it. You know I've had some skeptical comments over time of how much time we're spending on it but aside from that I do think we're doing the right thing I think we're ahead of the game and whether this makes an actual difference in the city of Bloomington I realistically it's not um we're already built out maybe a time or two a year this comes into play but we have done the right thing and over time it'll continue to have its impact having done the right thing in the year 2026 so I'm in favor of it there's no further comments I would look for a motion commissioner white

In case PL2026-64, I move to recommend the City Council adopt an ordinance updating corner lot setbacks, width, and area requirements, and editing definitions related to corner lots, thereby amending Chapter 21 of the City Code.

Is there a second? Second. Motion and a second to recommend the City Council adopts this ordinance. Any final discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion passes 5-0. This will go before the City Council as a public hearing on June 15th. We'll move then to our last item this evening, item number five, which is the Planning Commission Policies and Issues Update. Mr. Johnson.

Thank you, Chair Cookton. There's two public hearings scheduled for the June 4th meeting. The first is a conditional use permit for a Type 2 home business, a dance school at 8924 Mount Curve Road. The second public hearing is a conditional use permit for cannabis cultivation at 8200 Grand Avenue South. And then the third item on that agenda is a study item presenting information about the Urban Forest Master Plan. So this has been a priority project for our natural resource staff and ongoing for probably the last, I want to say, 10 months or longer. A lot of data collection, a lot of interesting work done. WITH A CONSULTANT AND OTHER CITY STAFF, SO THEY'RE GOING TO PRESENT FINDINGS AND ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR YOU ABOUT THAT. IT WAS A PLAN THAT DID HAVE DEDICATED CAPACITY FOR PLANNING STAFF RESERVE FOR ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN, SO THEY DO WANT TO PROVIDE REPORTING TO YOU ON THAT. Looking ahead to the June 18th meeting, the first public hearing is a preliminary and final development plan for an expansion at the Seagate Technology Campus. That's along the border of Edina. It's at 7850 Nord Avenue South and 7801 Computer Avenue South. And then two additional study items on the June 18th meeting, both of which are work plan projects, a review of the multifamily performance standards in the zoning code, and then finally a miscellaneous issues ordinance study session. So looking at the minor policy amendments that are coming forward this year as part of miscellaneous issues. Other updates I can share, the Bloomington 2050 launch event happened last night initially, and thanks to Commissioner Summers for attending that. I appreciate that. And we have a virtual event next Tuesday on May 26th. I believe it still has some capacity for anyone interested in registering for that virtual event. So May 26th, 6 to 7.30 p.m. on Microsoft Teams. Register on Let's Talk Bloomington. And then the Planning Commission appointments are scheduled to occur at the June 1st City Council meeting. So just a heads up about that. And then finally, to the point about impacts of zoning reform, I know the Planning Commission has requested staff report back on applications that have come through your body more recently. I just want to note that the 16 detached townhome project at the south end of Bloomington Ferry Road was approved last by the city council. So an increase of 13 units on that site as a result of those missing middle housing provisions. So just want to share those updates and thanks for the opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I have a question very briefly. What's the difference between the urban forest master plan and I believe we call it the park system master plan?

Yeah, thank you. So the urban forest master plan more broadly is focused on canopy analysis of all of the city. So studying what areas of the city are really lacking in urban canopy. And so they're going to use this information to prioritize plantings in those areas that currently have lesser canopy or less tree cover. So really intended to try and improve environmental conditions in those areas. And then secondly, we get a lot of questions about trees in the public right-of-way. So they did a very robust data collection on all trees in Bloomington public right-of-way. They even have visualization models and have photographed every tree. So it's a lot of helpful data, and I think some of the policy recommendations coming out of that is for the city to be more aggressive or permissive of plantings in public right-of-way in order to try and build up canopy along roadways. So Dave Hanson and the consultant will be here on the 4th to dive more into that, but the policy document you're referring to is more about strategies on public land, city park properties, and conservation properties, Minnesota River, some of those things. So that's kind of the OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMISSIONERS TO DISCUSS ANYTHING THAT WAS NOT ON THIS EVENING'S AGENDA AND I WILL OPEN THAT OPPORTUNITY NOW. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK AN ITEM, MR. JOHNSON. AS A REGULAR READER OF THE BLOOMINGTON BRIEFING THAT SHOWS UP IN MY MAILBOX ONCE A MONTH, I WAS SURPRISED TO READ A THING ABOUT THE CLOCK TOWER AT 98TH AND LYNDALE AND THAT WE ARE PLANNING TO TEAR IT DOWN. TELL US MORE.

Yeah, thanks, Chair Cookton. So I know this is a sensitive issue and an important issue too, especially folks who helped invest in that kind of civic landmark. And so I know there's a lot of folks who are concerned about that. I completely understand that and respect their reasons why. This boils down to, effectively, of just a building safety issue due to some water intrusion that happened in a couple of the structural columns of the tower. At some point in the future, it's going to be structurally unsafe, and so the city is taking proactive action to... get ahead of some of those things. In addition to that, a lot of the components of the clock itself, the clock was built in the 1990s, I believe. And so they're no longer available to replace a lot of the components. And so to do the structural repairs of the clock was extremely expensive. They did get some pricing done in 2024, I believe. And so at that time, some decisions were made not to make that investment. But I know it's an issue that people have strong feelings on lots of different sides. So I probably can't win in whatever response I give you on this one here.

It's just seeking information. So just to dive a little deeper, who makes that decision? Is that a city staff decision or is that a council decision?

Yeah, that's a fair question. You know, directly who's involved is our maintenance staff. But obviously, you know, this being a sensitive issue, I'm sure it involves city leadership and city council members in terms of what to do from a capital investment standpoint. They review the CIP every year. So I can't name one person or one entity in terms of who is the responsible decision maker. I can certainly collect more information about that and get back to the public. What I will say is that whatever happens next is likely to follow a lot of public engagement. You know, should the clock tower be removed as is planned, whatever happens there next, the city will be very proactive in its tools of how to engage with the public about that. We have dedicated professionals in creative placemaking. AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS IN ADDITION PLANNING STAFF OF COURSE WOULD BE INVOLVED. SO THE CITY WOULD DO A LOT OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IN TERMS OF WHATEVER WOULD COME NEXT FOR THE SITE ABSENT THE CLOCK TOWER.

THANK YOU MR. JOHNSON. LOOK I'M NOT A STAN FOR THE CLOCK TOWER. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING I FEEL EMOTIONALLY ATTACHED TO BUT IT DOES I WAS SURPRISED TO READ ABOUT IT AND I think I would like to have seen this come before the Planning Commission in some capacity as a study item. I think this is why we have a Planning Commission is to look at our city and what's the long term and I'm not at all doubting our city staff and their expertise and I imagine it was reviewed by a licensed engineer, and I'm not doubting their expertise either. However, I think this is something that could have come before the Planning Commission. We could have gotten public input on it, and I think this is a role we can play because we have people on this body with expertise. That's why we have a Planning Commission, is to advise the City Council WE HAVE PEOPLE ON THIS COMMISSION WHO ARE IN THE DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY WHO UNDERSTAND FINANCING AND ALL OF THAT. I'M A LICENSED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. I CAN PROVIDE INPUT AS WELL. AND SO I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN THIS COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND I JUST WANT TO BE ON THE RECORD ABOUT THAT. ANY THOUGHTS ON THE CLOCK TOWER OR ANY OTHER ITEMS? see none that will conclude this may 21st meeting of the bloomington planning commission good night