Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to this June 18th meeting of the Bloomington Planning Commission. The Planning Commission advises the City Council on development proposals, development standards, long-range planning, and transportation issues. Some items before the Planning Commission are study items where we will not take formal action, while other items before the Planning Commission are public hearings where we will take formal action. We have one of those items this evening as item number one. During those public hearings, we do encourage the public to testify if they so choose. You can do so here at City Hall in the Commission Chambers, and 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. 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 BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSIONER HAS BEEN APPOINTED TO SERVE A THREE-YEAR TERM WITH A TWO-TERM LIMIT. WE HAVE FIVE COMMISSIONERS PRESENT AT CITY HALL THIS EVENING, SO WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS THIS EVENING IS THE PLEDGE OF I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We will begin with item number one, which is our only public hearing this evening. For a campus expansion to the Seagate facility at 7850 Nord Avenue and 7801 Computer Avenue, Mr. Nick Johnson is here with the staff report.

Thank you, Chair Cookton. The Seagate campus is located in the northwest part of the city, just east of Trunk Highway 100 and north of 494, around some other office and industrial properties in that area. It's a unique property in that it straddles the boundary of Edina. So a portion of the campus is technically in the city of Edina, and a portion is in the city of Bloomington. The green portion is the portion we're talking about tonight. is in the city of Bloomington, but it does share parking supply amongst the whole campus and there's access amongst the buildings throughout across the boundary. What Seagate is proposing to do is to construct a two-story, approximately 65,000 square foot addition to add manufacturing space to their facility. They manufacture chips and other technology uses inside this campus. So it's a very large campus. It's got a significant parking supply, various buildings throughout the campus mostly connected. The area outlined in red is where they would propose to expand the building. And in 2021, they got approval for a similar addition. And it's outlined there just to the east of the proposed addition area. And so this is a very similar project to what was constructed before. In order to build this project, they would have to remove some surface parking and landscaping areas, but it would effectively mirror what you're seeing there in the 2021 edition. Very similar. The top story has manufacturing spaces. The bottom story has a lot of mechanical and electrical equipment that's needed to create a clean environment for the manufacturing process. So this is the preliminary development plans that was in the packet. I outlined most of the scope of work. There is a proposed nitrogen plant area in the southeast portion of the campus. These are effectively above ground tanks that help support their operations. So I do want to point that out. Again, there's the municipal boundary. These are the two areas with a little bit more zoomed in scale. So they would have to remove some of those parking areas. As I mentioned, they'd shift some parking islands to the west to accommodate this addition, remove some landscaping, et cetera. There's some other miscellaneous improvements to the site. They're adding landscaping, expanding stormwater management on the campus as well. And there's that nitrogen plant area to the east. So the primary area of review with this application has to do with its parking counts. So to accommodate the new addition, they'd have to remove 148 parking stalls on this very large campus. The total parking supply post-construction would be 1,118 stalls, whereas code would require 1,625 parking spaces. That represents a deviation of 31.2%. So when we get in this range, typically in the past, historically speaking, That's when we would look to seek analysis from a third-party traffic consultant. The city did that through Alliant Engineering. They performed a study on this project. The findings of the study were thoroughly documented in the staff report for you. So just a couple highlights about the study. So Seagate operates a multiple shift schedule. The maximum observed parking demand during their study was 670, I'm sorry, 765 stalls in use. So as I mentioned before, there's large portions of the campus that have, that are effectively vacant or not intended for human occupancy because they're just mostly mechanical and electrical spaces that support their manufacturing. The environment is very sensitive. with this use, so in effect there's a lot of dead space. And so that's a unique feature of this campus. Via the parking study, the anticipated peak parking demand was 818 stalls post-construction of the new addition. And so that represents an over 300 parking stall surplus from the new parking supplier, the proposed parking supply. In addition to that, another characteristic is that they lease a portion of public right-of-way on the south side of the campus where there's 81 additional parking stalls. These stalls aren't included in the formal supply because they're within public right-of-way, but that just adds additional buffer area. So based on all these findings, staff has a lot of confidence that there's adequate parking supply. Through the plan development overlay district the test that they have to meet for flexibility is public benefit staff finds a significant amount of public benefit with this proposed expansion just in terms of Being a leader of this industry in the region as well as increased employment and value here on this site So it's good to see them wanting to continue to grow here. So staff does support the requested parking flexibility Regarding landscaping, they have to add trees on the basis of what's being removed as well as the amount of disturbance area that they're proposing. They showed a plan with 43 trees, so they're short by an additional 43 trees. They need to find space on the campus to add this additional plant material. We're confident that there is room to do so. So that is a condition of approval. This just gets a little bit more detail, some of that stormwater management area that I mentioned on the west side. Here's a rendering of the proposed two-story expansion. So it's very similar to the first phase A wafer building that was just completed recently. It was approved in 2021. So effectively, they're just kind of doubling the size there. The building is proposed to be constructed out of precast concrete panels, integral in color, so pretty typical for a technology campus or large industrial building and matches what was approved in the last phase. As far as correspondence goes, we did reach out to City of Edina very early in this process, given that the parking supply is shared amongst both jurisdictions. They did not have any concerns or comment on the application, and one email of support was included in your packet that staff received. That's the only correspondence item we received on this. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions. Staff does recommend approval.

Thank you, Mr. Johnson. We'll start with questions for staff, and I'll get us started here. A couple questions. So I believe the number was around 300 surplus parking spaces they found in the parking study. If Seagate comes back with another addition that would require less than 300 parking spots, do they need to do another study, or are we just good with them if the addition is small enough?

Yeah, thank you, Chair Cookton. It would depend on the timing and just, you know, if it was 15 years down the road, then some characteristics or things have changed in the area that would warrant us to look at it again. But the study does provide us a good guide post in terms of kind of what the current supply is, what they would expect. know they're looking at future potential expansion so it's good to understand what the gap is between what we anticipate for the peak demand versus what the supply is so yeah it would just kind of depend on the timing I would also note as you know the city is looking at a project kind of right size our parking requirements and so that's another factor that likely would reduce the size of that deviation in the future should warehouse office these types of uses the parking requirement go down for those

Thank you very much. I have another question, Mr. Johnson. The trees that are being replanted, will those be replanted on the Bloomington side?

Yes, for Chair Cookton, they do need to be planted on the Bloomington side. It is our zoning requirement. So they would, to fulfill the requirement, they would need to be planted on the Bloomington side. Great. Other questions for staff?

Commissioner White.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a question about the nitrogen storage pad. I know that's not really the biggest part of what we're talking about tonight, but if we approve this, we would essentially be approving their ability to place nitrogen storage in that particular spot, correct?

That's right, Chair Cookton and Commissioner White, that's correct. It has been reviewed by our fire marshal and other staff with more expertise about that. If you're wanting to learn more about how they use those materials, I'd encourage the applicant to speak to that. But, yeah, it is part of their manufacturing process is my understanding.

Okay.

Thank you, Chair. Just to follow up, so I just want to make sure, I mean, I will certainly ask the applicant to talk a little bit about it, but were there any safety concerns identified by the fire marshal or anyone about having nitrogen tanks so close to a street?

Thank you. That concern was not raised by the fire marshal through the review process. I'm sure that they have to go through some final checks as they develop and build those. Some of that is reviewed at the building permit level. Yep.

Other questions for staff? Seeing none, I would invite the applicant to come up and speak if they so choose. Come on up. If you could speak into a microphone for us, it is appreciated. And when you're done, we also have a sign-in sheet for you. But come on up, introduce yourself, and let us know what you have to say.

First off, I just want to say thank you so much. We appreciate your time. I'm Stephanie Peters, and I'm a civil environmental engineer with Seagate.

My name is Austin Shaw. I'm the facilities engineering manager at Seagate.

And I'm Peter Leahy. I'm a project manager with BWBR Architects in St. Paul.

Nitrate plant first? Yeah, sure. Okay. Just one point of clarification on the nitrogen plant. It is existing today, so it's a relocation of the tanks just to better serve our manufacturing facility. Anything else you want to add about that?

No, the current nitrogen plant is just around the corner from it. The new one will be larger to increase for our production usage. We're currently taxing it beyond what our current plant can do. And there is plans to have a fence around it, a chain link fence to protect and keep anyone outside.

To your point, both for public safety, but also obviously for our own security of our tanks. And we have something similar in our existing setup today, which is along a driveway as well.

We might have some questions for you, but is there anything you want to tell us before we get into questions?

Maybe the point of clarification would be trees. We do... We still have an outstanding item with the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and their approval. So I think there is still a little bit of uncertainty with that plan. So the tree and the footprint exactly is still a little bit to be determined. So I don't know how the process works, if there's an opportunity then for a second review when it comes to the landscaping requirements.

Mr. Johnson, why don't I come back to you in just a second on that.

I don't think that's too atypical for us.

I'll get your feedback in a minute here. I'd like to see if there's any commissioners who have questions for the applicant. Seeing none, I think that's very good. If you could sign in for us so we have that for the minutes, it's appreciated. Mr. Johnson, could we have you follow up on the tree planting?

Yeah, Chair Cookton, it is an iterative process. So you certainly get, we reviewed the latest, greatest version of the plans. Of course, the plans have to be approved by Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. So we understand that there's going to be some modest changes along the way. It's very typical.

That's as I expected.

With that, you know, there are some underground storage requirements with that. So that might impede some tree plantings, depending how that shakes out. So that's kind of the, like you said, the iterative part of this.

Well, you know where the municipal boundary is, so as long as we get them on the Bloomington side.

I was going to ask if we could put a few on that side.

Thank you very much. As they're signing in here, I'll get everyone in the chambers here prepared for public testimony as I'll open the public hearing now. This is an opportunity for the public to speak on this item if you would like. We won't put a shot clock on anyone this evening. I think we're good on time. But I'll ask if there's anyone who wishes to testify on this item. If so, please join us up here at the desk. Ms. Brown, is there anyone online who wishes to testify?

All participants online are staff.

Okay.

Is there a final comment?

I just wanted to say thank you very much to the city. They've been extremely helpful in terms of planning and helping us understand the requirements. I would especially like to note Laura McCarthy with the fire department has been integral in terms of understanding all the building requirements, especially for something that has a lot of chemicals. So I just really appreciate the staff.

Great. Thank you. Is there anyone in the chambers who would wish to testify? Final call. Seeing no one coming forward, I will look for a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved. Second.

We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? That motion passes 5-0 and we'll move into discussion. I would like to ask one more question of staff. Mr. Johnson, terms of this application um we are replacing the trees that are removed but we are not requesting or requiring them to move closer towards full code compliance because they are short uh from full code compliance what is the city's position on that do do we ask applicants to nudge forward as they uh as they grow towards full compliance or is it just a one-for-one replacement

That's correct, Chair Cookton. They are required to provide additional landscaping on the basis of the amount of site disturbance. So we apply kind of the same ratios that we would towards a full site, just based on the amount of site disturbance. According to those ratios, one tree per 2,500 square feet, one shrub per 1,000. So it's not just replacement. The requirement they have to meet is also reflective of that amount of site disturbance.

Great. I'm glad to hear that.

Discussion? Discussion?

I'll get us started. Seems like a good application. We've seen Seagate here many times in the past, and it seems to me they've been a fine resident and neighbor of us here, and I'm in support of this application. It seems straightforward. They're not asking for major deviations. um in terms of the parking i am comfortable with although that's a significant deviation from our required parking by code i think it makes a lot of sense and i'm i'm comforted also in that it's a single tenant uh it's a single tenant here and so it's not like it's a office building owner who's maybe squeezing their tenants or a shopping mall who's squeezing their customers Seagate's going to, in my opinion, going to supply the amount of parking their staff needs. Otherwise they're going to hear about it and have their own problems. And so I don't suspect they would under park themselves. And so I'm plenty comfortable with the parking deviation. Commissioner Munster.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would echo that in that this is very straightforward. And as you noted, the parking is sort of above the threshold where we usually give it a much closer look. And in fact, we did. There was a study performed on it. But again, the numbers work out that this is not going to pose a problem. This is going to provide the parking that's necessary for the proposed use and for the use generally. So with that, I also support this.

Thank you. Any further comments? If not, I would look for a motion. Commissioner Munster.

Thank you. In case PL2026-90, having been able to make the required findings, I move to recommend approval of preliminary and final development plans for a two-story approximately 64,500 square foot building addition and nitrogen storage tank pad at an existing technology campus located at 7801 Computer Avenue South and 7850 Nord Avenue South, subject to the conditions and code requirements attached to the staff report. I'll second that.

We have a motion and a second to recommend approval of this application. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion passes 5-0. This will go to the City Council on their consent agenda on June 29th. Thank you very much. We will move then to item number two. Item number two, the City of Bloomington is the applicant. This is a study item for the Planning Commission. It's a review of multifamily performance standards. And Mr. Tom Ramler Olson is here with a staff report.

Okay. Good evening. As mentioned, this is a study item looking at staff's review of multifamily performance standards in our city code. This is a work plan project on the 2026 planning commission work plan. And just to, I guess, kind of spoil the ending, the standards were we're recommending some revisions to our street side setbacks, storage units and usable open space. And that's just for multifamily districts that includes RM24, RM50 and RM100. Although there's some nuance to that and I'll get into that in just a moment. So a little bit of background to this is some of the standards that'll be discussed, they've existed since like the 60s, but there's been no comprehensive evaluation of multifamily standards since 2015. So it's been a while, it's been over 10 years. And so this is, probably a good thing to do on a regular basis to make sure our multifamily standards are meeting the market or what the needs are for the market. And this also complements other studies that staff are currently undertaking. That includes the minimum off-street parking requirements. Pretty soon there's gonna be a study looking into permitted setbacks and encroachments. And this was a while ago, but I think it falls in the same vein of the streamlining development ordinance that was passed back in, I think, 2024. Okay, here we go. So what how staff approached this project was it was very engagement heavy. We spoke with multiple internal partners to the city including planning but getting a survey from folks who

Okay, I guess that's it.

Getting a survey from folks who regularly review multifamily projects to understand what are some of the obstacles that these applications are experiencing relatively frequently. We also spoke with port authorities since they're highly involved in multifamily developments in a number of capacities. And then environmental health, fire prevention, and in engineering as well. And then there were some interviews done with experienced multifamily developers that have multiple projects in the city just to get their take. and then part of this comprehensive analysis was just looking at the backlog or not backlog the the catalog of multi-family developments that have come across the city and been approved or just been discussed and um for some of those projects uh we were going to have to examine the opportunity housing ordinance and the associated incentives since those are related to some of the standards that will be discussed tonight and just a word of caution the RM 15 district was not considered because that was just recently evaluated with the missing middle housing study so that's it'll be depicted on the screen but it's not part of the analysis since it's already been dealt with So that first standard, street-side setbacks, it's kind of clear what this does. It ensures there's enough area for utilities, other infrastructure, drainage. So it performs a pretty valuable service with multifamily development. And it also contributes to the pedestrian experience. the closer that buildings are to the sidewalk the more intimate the experience is for the pedestrian and yeah it just it speaks to the urban design that's trying to be established in the in the proximity of those buildings that abide by those setbacks and it goes to show that the larger the setback the more development is constrained because there's less area to be developed And it's also worth noting that crime prevention through environmental design is an area of study looking at certain aspects of the built environment and how they contribute to preventing crime or lowering the incidents. And from that area, smaller setbacks have been identified. have been recognized as increasing safety because it allows more eyes on the street by bringing people closer to where the folks are on the sidewalk or in the street. The current street side setbacks for multifamily districts right now, RM24 and 50 are at 40 feet and RM100 is at 10 feet. RM100 is not being considered. We only have two parcels right now that are zoned RM100, so that's too small a sample size to really gather any observations to see if any adjustments are needed for that. And 10 feet seems to be adequate considering the needs that are required for multifamily development. Here's a sample of developments that have been approved and constructed and that have been granted some flexibility with their street side setbacks. So it gives you an idea of where staff's recommendation is coming from and the type of flexibility that they've been granted to have a construction commence. THE SECOND PERFORMANCE STANDARD UNDER ANALYSIS IS STORAGE UNITS. THOSE ARE JUST INDIVIDUAL LOCKERS FOR THE DWELLING UNITS WITHIN MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS. Currently, right now, our code requires, or current code, sorry, that should be singular, requires one storage unit per dwelling unit. So it's a one-to-one ratio right now. And there's two volume options for multifamily development or multifamily within commercial districts. And that's 96 cubic feet if there's bike parking provided outside of that storage space, or 175 cubic feet if the storage unit is meant to contribute to bike storage on site. But, which clarifying this is that, storage outside of these storage units is already required. We're already requiring it. So the 175 cubic feet is to the discretion, really, of the developer if they want to do that. But it does speak to historical development and why there might be bigger storage units. At the bottom of that, this slide is a sample of multifamily projects where we've granted a lower amount of storage spaces using the incentives through the OHO. So, there's a good sample of the developments for you to look at and we can go back to the slide if you need to refer back to it. And staff's view of on-site storage is that it's they are an affordable option for tenants that need that easy access, they're unable to drive, and so if there's something on site, oh my Lord, there we go. Okay, good. If they need to go off-site, it's going to be more inconvenient, and it just may not be feasible on their part, so it's nice to have that on-site. And it should be noted that in our discussions with the Fire Department and Environmental Health, they expressed some support for storage units for fire. It was a way to reduce incidents. I mean, they've observed incidents of people storing their belongings in parking spaces and sometimes that storage can include flammable items and so that naturally you know raises the suspicion of the fire department and or the you know the the caution on their part and then environmental health also just thought it was a quality of life issue that if you don't have on-site storage you're gonna have cluttered cluttered dwelling units and so that just really lowers the you know, in their view, lower the quality of life of tenants in these multifamily buildings if they don't have easy access to storage units. Planning's view is we don't discount any of that, but that is probably best managed through code enforcement. That is a private matter that's on those properties, and code enforcement can rectify those. those uh those issues and um it just seems to be an outdated standard actually because it was added to our code sometime between 62 and 1975. um so it's just a vestige that's kind of carried through all the iterations of city code up until today and um you know looking at our peers in the in the region it's unable to identify any other communities that have a storage unit requirement you know, we looked at six. Maybe we should have looked at more, but nonetheless, through that six, there were no requirements for storage units. So we're fairly unique in that regard. And, you know, with that, the one-to-one requirement, it just might be too excessive for what the market demands. And if that's the case, if they're providing a one-to-one If they're meeting that one-to-one standard, they're taking up space that could be put to more productive use, amenity space, more units, or just something leasable that makes the development more affordable and minimizes those financing gaps to get a project over the finish line. And it should be noted that back in 2015 when these multifamily standards were being reviewed and storage units were part of that review, developers did express concern about the size that was being required. So that was the 175 units. cubic feet and and they still expressed that that reservation about how how big it was and they were at that time staff was supporting a volume of 54 cubic feet but ultimately the city council approved the the two-tier system that there is right now So going on to the third performance standard under scrutiny, usable open space. This includes like landscaped or developed areas that are intended for active or passive recreation, leisure, and it can be easily accessible from all the dwelling units. It also needs to meet a minimum dimension of 15 by 15 feet. So landscaped or development, that means it can include balconies or patios, but there's a, There's a formula for figuring out how those elements contribute to the open space standard. I didn't include that in the slide, but that is in the staff report for your review. And below at that little, the tiniest table at the bottom of this slide shows the open space standards for all the multifamily districts. So yeah, 600 square feet for 15 and 24, 300 square feet for arm 50 and arm 100. and um again like staff's view of this is that uh this is an important element it's it's good to provide easy access to areas outside the dwelling unit just to to provide a you know a what is essential part of just the quality of life of a development, but right-sizing these spaces is necessary, because it can impose costs similar to the setbacks, where you're constraining development, the area of development, you're limiting where you can place essential site elements on the property. And so it's good to think about how much of the requirement we're imposing on developers or on development, I should say. And with these area requirements, we may be precluding additional housing or a leasable area. SIMILAR TO THE OTHER TWO STANDARDS. AND AGAIN, BELOW IS THE SAMPLE OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN GRANTED LOWER USABLE OPEN SPACE AREA THROUGH THE RELEVANT OHO INCENTIVE. SO AGAIN, WE CAN COME BACK TO THE SLIDE IF YOU'D LIKE. BEFORE PROCEEDING TO THE DISCUSSION WHERE I'LL PRESENT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, IT'S PROBABLY GOOD TO TALK ABOUT THE IMPACTS TO THE O.H.O. OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT STAFF HAS PREPARED. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO STORAGE UNITS AND OPEN SPACE STANDARDS, THIS DOESN'T INCLUDE THE STREETSIDE SETBACKS, SO IT'S ONLY THOSE TWO STANDARDS. those already reflect OHO incentives. And so with that being the case, if there was support ultimately for amending the standards for storage units and usable open space, we would have to do a similar type of amendment to the OHO, to the Opportunity Housing Ordinance, just so that there wasn't duplicative reductions in code. So an example or a conceptualization of how this change would maybe take place is in the table at the bottom of this slide. Again, this is only conceptual. It's just an idea of how this might look should we get direction to prepare this amendment. YOU'LL SEE THE EXISTING OPEN SPACE REDUCTION AND ALL OF THE REDUCTIONS BY A LEVEL OF AFFORDABILITY. AND BELOW THAT IS THE PROPOSED, AGAIN, LIKE FICTIONALLY THE HYPOTHETICAL PROPOSAL OF ELIMINATING THE INCENTIVE FOR THE FIRST, THE TOP TWO AFFORDABILITY BUCKETS, BUT STILL LEAVING DEEPLY AFFORDABLE the the deeply affordable column still uh giving them the uh the opportunity to to reduce their open space requirements by another 25 so that's conceptually how it would look and you know i would appreciate direction from from you all and how or guidance how how that should go if uh that is the direction So on to the discussion items. I'll just talk through all three if that's easier and then we can revisit them if that's okay and then we can have that conversation. But I'll just get through all three. Street side setbacks, staff is recommending that we reduce street side setbacks to 20 feet from 40 feet in the RM24 and RM50 district. 20 feet would provide enough room for utilities, sidewalks, drainage, landscaping. So we think that's an adequate distance. It also exhibits a more urban character, which is in line with the district intent or the intent for those districts. So there's also that concurrence. And then it also reflects the fire department's preference for buildings that are closer to the street because that provides easier and safer access for them if they should perform emergency services at the building. So the question that comes with that is if the Planning Commission is supportive of this recommendation from staff. But I'll move on to the next one. Storage units. So we prepared three different options. Oh, I'm sorry, it should be noted that for all these options, for all of these recommendations, there is an option of just maintaining it. IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE CHANGED. SO MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED THAT CAVEAT AT THE BEGINNING IS THAT YOU COULD ALSO JUST NOT SEE A PROBLEM WITH IT AND IT SHOULD BE MAINTAINED. SO THAT'S FINE AS WELL. BUT THE THREE OPTIONS FOR STORAGE UNITS THAT STAFF PREPARED IS ELIMINATE THE STORAGE UNIT REQUIREMENT ALTOGETHER. So don't have it be a requirement for any multifamily development, whether in a residential district or in a commercial district. That's one option. And that would be in line with other communities within the region. The second option, establish a single minimum storage unit volume. Like I said, there's two tiers right now. There's the 96 cubic feet or the 175 cubic feet. Right now, we require bike storage, so the 96 cubic feet is fine. And if developers propose to go larger, that's to their professional discretion, and that's how staff use that. For the third option, it's similar to the last option, but lowering the... or yeah i'm sorry lowering that minimum storage unit volume even more to 54 cubic feet which was originally proposed back in 2015. so that would be if you can imagine it three feet by three feet by six or three by three feet by six feet so that would be that would be 54 cubic feet and yeah the question oh sorry the question is um also on the slide is just regarding options two and three is there a Oh yeah, I'm sorry. I should mention that the ratio would be lowered as well. We're recommending lowering it from one to one to 0.5 units per dwelling unit. So sorry, there's a lot to wrap your head around. I apologize. And the third standard under discussion is usable open space. We're recommending lowering or staff is recommending lowering the baseline. minimum area of required usable open space by 25% for the RM24, RM50 and RM100 districts. So how that would look compared to that table that I showed on that previous slide is that we would require 450 square feet of usable open space per dwelling unit for the RM24 district and that's down from 600 square feet. For RM50 and RM100, it would be 225 square feet per dwelling unit and that's down from 300. So the two questions that accompany this discussion item is do you support staff's recommendation? And just to put it out there that staff was also considering investigating an alternative way for developments to meet the usable open space standards by looking at the proximity of established recreational spaces near the building, so parks, any sort of green space, open space, even plazas, stuff where people can recreate or just be leisurely. So that's one way that, or that's something that staff is throwing out there to get your feedback on, if that's something we should investigate further to maybe grant some credit for buildings that are properly located near other recreational amenities. And with that, maybe we can start the discussion. I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Ramler-Olson. I think we'll start with any questions before we get into the formal questions. Is there anything that came up during the presentation you'd like clarification on? Commissioner Munster?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just a couple of questions. For outreach, was any effort made to speak to tenants of multifamily buildings? This is particularly with note to the storage question, not so much the development parameters, but if we're gonna be changing those types of things that are essentially amenities, was any effort made?

Chair, Commissioner, no, we did not reach out to any tenants. We were primarily relying on the historical record for the flexibility that's been granted for multifamily developments and relying on that feedback from from folks internal to the city and then those developers that manage the buildings on an ongoing basis to see what's the level of use of those storage units and are they seeing any issues with the amount that the city is requiring. So not to that level of actually engaging tenants But, yeah, if you'd like, we're certainly happy to do that outreach, but it just seemed just appropriate for the level of this analysis to kind of just rely on staff's expertise and experience with multifamily developments with regard to that requirement.

Fair enough. And if I may, one more.

I actually think Mr. Johnston has a follow-up, if that's okay. Yeah, thank you, Chair and Commissioner Munster. Good question. It is anecdotal, but just from speaking with property managers at these sites, less so directly with tenants, but some property owners or developers do charge for these spaces, so they do have a fee to access some of these storage units, and that can be a barrier, we've heard from both property managers. and developers. So if they charge a fee, there's lower rates of utilization of those spaces. So I just wanted to add that one point.

Thank you.

And you have a follow-up question.

Just one second question. In the calculation of open space, do individual balconies that are only accessible through a single unit count toward open space or only community accessible things?

Chair, Commissioner, both are included in that calculation. So, yeah, individual balcony or balconies off of individual units and anything that's exterior, easily accessible and exterior to the dwelling units. Okay.

Thank you. Mr. Randall, I'd like to dive deeper into the balcony thing and I was going to warn you, but I didn't. Could you go to the balcony slide again, please? This one, please. Thank you. I'd like to start with a 15 by 15 piece. I can't think of any balcony above the first floor that's 15 feet long. So does that disqualify all balconies above the first floor?

So apologies, Chair. Table 4 of the staff report talks about the size area or the area of balconies that contribute to the usable open space standard. So those don't have to be 15 by 15, but as long as they meet that minimum area requirement that that's presented in that table then um you know the various calculations of that of the area provided of that balcony is then contributing to the usable open space for that development or for said development So I didn't include that on slide because it's just a lot of, I didn't know if that was gonna muddy the conversation.

Yeah, that's my mistake for not asking you to include that. So just to clarify, so there's a few minimum sizes here. If I'm interpreting this correctly, So it says for the first 50 square feet of porches and balconies of at least 50 square feet. So if it's above 50 square feet, it counts towards the calculation, is that?

Chair, correct, unless Planning Manager Johnson wants to correct me.

No, and thank you, Chair and Tom. The table in the existing residential districts, it's a little bit wonky, I'll say, not a technical term. But basically, you get 150 feet. of credit towards the open space requirement for the first 50 square feet of a balcony. And so if you have a balcony that's 50 square feet, that's the minimum size threshold to get in the door. That gives you a credit of 150 square feet of open space. And then for each additional one square foot, you get a two and a half square foot above that. So really what we're measuring is what is the size of the balcony above that 50 square feet. So if you had a 40 square foot balcony, you would not get any credit towards open space, just to be clear. But if you have a 50 square foot balcony, you get 150 square feet. Currently, that's correct. Yep.

I hate it. I hate that. Mr. Commissioner Muster.

Just to make sure, you don't even get the 40 square feet that you do provide if it's not 50?

Sure, you do not.

Okay. Yes. And yes, I agree, Mr. Chairman, that that is not ideal.

I think the intent here is just was that, you know, these balconies are of some minimum size that they actually can provide some recreational value of just being outside, enjoying time with neighbors and friends and whatnot. So, yeah. Probably one of those intents gone wrong, maybe.

Forgive me for going a little out of order here, Mr. Randler-Olson, but I'm going to provide commentary on that. It seems to me if you have a 50-square-foot balcony, at most that should account for 50 square feet of open space. It seems like we're trying to say that a balcony is more premium, like it's a three-to-one premium over just whatever grass outside. And so that maybe was the intent of how that was done, that we – really want to encourage balcony development so we're going to give you a three to one bonus but to me that doesn't seem to fit the intent of green space. I don't really like the way that's set up. You know, when I saw this on the agenda And I knew we were gonna talk about balconies. I thought we were going the other way. Actually, I've said on this commission a few times over the years that I don't even like that balconies are counted into open space. It doesn't seem right to me that, okay, if the intent is to have open space, A balcony? I don't know. I maybe could get there. But that's going to lead me into some other questions I had about balconies. And I will apologize again for not warning you. I was going to come in with some fire and fury here. What if not every unit has a balcony? Do we still get to count them?

Chair, yes.

Hate it. Hate it again, right? Like if only a few units, like if some units don't have access to a balcony, like that's not green space for everybody. And I think it's antithetical to the language of intent here that says open usable space is defined as that part of a lot that is not covered by yada yada is conveniently located and I highlighted and accessible to all residential units on site. I MEAN, IF NOT EVERY UNIT HAS A BALCONY, THAT TO ME DOESN'T EVEN FIT THE INTENT OF WHAT OUR CODE IS TRYING TO SAY. SO THAT'S ANOTHER THING I THINK WE SHOULD RECONSIDER. I'M NOT A FAN OF THAT. AND I THINK IT ALSO CREATES CONCERNS IF SOME UNITS ARE OF DIFFERENT SIZES. LIKE IF I ONLY GET A TINY LITTLE BALCONY, THAT'S JUST AN EXCUSE FOR A BALCONY INSTEAD OF AN ACTUAL BALCONY. It just doesn't work for me. It should be open to everybody. If that's what we're trying to do, let's make it available to everybody. If that means we need to lower the overall number to make that work, that's fine. But I don't even like the balconies count towards open space. And I for sure don't like it if not everybody has a balcony or doesn't have a balcony and where there's just three to one bonus thing that I'm not really crazy about and also the 15 by 15 thing just the language is how that's written I find confusing and something we should clean up while we have the chance here I mean to me it clearly says here and maintains a minimum dimension of 15 feet in both width and depth I mean let's just change the language I mean that that doesn't even doesn't add up for me so Let's take the opportunity now to clean that up, it would be my opinion.

Chair, if I may, the table in Table 4 is... That was something that I put together because right now our usable open space standards are kind of scattered within chapter 21, 20 something, 206. Oh yeah, well, yeah, actually it tells you right in the header of that table. But anyways, yeah, so just wanted to throw that out there that also we would be proposing to condense all these usable open space standards within a table so that they're easier to find, but that, I mean, that doesn't really address your point.

Yeah, supportive of that. I think that's the right thing to do. Get it in a table, make it more clear. I just don't think we're there yet. And I don't like some of the nuts and bolts that's going into creating that table. I'll stop for a little bit, see if there's other comments before we get into the formal questions.

I'll just second.

Please, Commissioner Munster.

I'll just second everything you just said. Yeah, I mean, I have to agree that I am not a fan of individual patios and balconies counting toward the collective open space. It's not collective open space by its very definition. But if the solution to that is to then decrease the overall open space that we're expecting of people, okay, then let's just have that conversation rather than putting in sort of this false equivalency that a balcony of 50 square feet is three times more valuable than grass that people can go play on. So, yes.

Chair, commissioners, is there maybe I'll wait until the others chime in but there is support for investigating lowering the overall open space standard excluding those elements the balcony and the patio just in order to not overwhelm the usable open space requirements on an individual site?

Yeah, I think we're starting to go that way.

You have a question that's related to that, so I can follow up after that specific question there.

Mr. Johnson?

Yeah, Jerry Cook, if I can just provide one last comment about kind of the existing structure. Again, I'm not the author of it. I've certainly worked with it for many years, but I believe part of the intent was trying to incentivize the installation of balconies, right? And getting back to CPTED, crime prevention through environmental design, One of those principles of adding balconies is not only does it add activity along a street, you know, impact that way, but it could potentially be safer. And that's not to say that it should have some kind of very complex equation towards open space requirements. I'm just trying to think through some of the thought process in terms of what the authors were trying to achieve.

I think my, thank you Mr. Johnson, I think my reaction to that would be we're incentivizing by de-incentivizing something else or we're incentivizing, better stated, we're incentivizing at the expense of something else and I would rather incentivize through the opportunity housing order and so so if we incentivize we get something else we want instead of incentivizing by taking away something else we want so by providing balconies we like that but then that reduces the amount of green space and so i don't like the trade-off there i would rather have you can you know we'll get you balconies by some other means would be my

well thank you that's really helpful and i appreciate the comment about having just a more honest accounting or just being more straightforward about what your expectations are which you know in trying to get a more urban dense environment does have to be considered as you go that route from a development perspective commissioner

if I could just offer one final thought on that. Certainly, and I was gonna mention this in terms of the setbacks, but I do appreciate that Jane Jacobs is getting her shout out after 60 years about having eyes on the street. But I do think that since this, a lot at least of these requirements, well, we're talking about storage, but some of these requirements are just older, and they were meant to promote balconies. I think the market has shifted such that balconies now are expected. So developers are going to address that accordingly. And it sort of goes to the other things that we're talking about, that market forces will sort of dictate what's needed. And maybe that's the best way to address things like balconies versus promoting them over usable open space that's available to everyone. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other thoughts, initial comments? Gracia Summers.

Thoughts on anything?

Anything you want.

Okay.

Related to item number two.

Related to what we're talking about. I think it is interesting to talk about proximity-based options and I think that's walking potentially the planning staff, planning commission and city council into some risky territory potentially that if There's so many variables involved in that proximity-based optioning. Are they a family of four walking across American Boulevard to get to a green space? Although American Boulevard might be more green sometime soon. That I would need more convincing as to why that would be awesome, because it, to me, doesn't feel awesome now. I think if we're looking to add urban character, but also keep the parts of Bloomington that are really awesome, the neighborhoods, if we are asking people to leave their neighborhood, kind of, to go to a park instead of playing in the area or walking their dogs outside in their green space, that we might be missing an opportunity for community building to ask people to walk a couple blocks to a green space.

Chair, Commissioner, may I? Please. Okay. Is there a distance threshold that you'd be comfortable with for proximity? Would it be, maybe it's something on within 500 feet, a quarter mile is about 1300 feet. That's about a 10 minute walk, 10 to 15 minute walk for, I mean, that's been estimated to be about a 10, 15 minute walk. Something within a five minute, if there's an appropriate calculation for that. If there's any, just kind of throwing out options just to guide us as we're considering it. Again, I know there's no firm commitment, but as we're considering that option for meeting the open space requirement, what is the threshold that everyone would be comfortable with or that we can get a sense of?

Commissioner Summers.

Thank you, Chair. I am an able-bodied person who does not have children. So for me, walking or biking to a park that's a couple blocks away, I live a couple blocks from a play lot. doesn't feel like a big deal, but I'd be interested to hear other people's opinion. To me, it seems like if I had an accessibility concern or really young kids, I'd be like, oh, it'd be so much easier to play out on our balcony than walk to the park.

Commissioner Risa.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. I ACTUALLY HAD THE SAME EXACT THOUGHT INITIALLY AS SUMMERS WHERE I GUESS MY POINT OF VIEW IS THAT IT BECOMES REALLY SUBJECTIVE. SO LET'S SAY LIKE I LIVE CLOSE TO AN OFFICIAL CITY PARK. OBVIOUSLY THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A PARK BUT WHAT IF I WANT AS A DEVELOPER TO CONSIDER THIS FOOTBALL FIELD OR FIELD EMPTY GRASS AND IT'S NOT A PARK. SO IT MAY GET COMPLEX ON THE at least if it's not super clear and objective that's my only thought. I'm kind of in the middle I don't I'm not yeah so that's that's my thoughts thank you.

Commissioner White.

Thank you Mr. Chair I'm kind of assuming we're not going to go back through the questions so I'll just I think we will but please we're on a roll here. So I guess a couple things first off I absolutely agree that the the open space or the sorry the balconies I forget which section that's even and I think that's usable open space you know I do think it seems very upside down I'm not as opposed as you are to giving some credit for individualized outside space like a balcony or patio to an extent but definitely it's more on like the 0.25 not the two and a half I think that When you are in multifamily housing, there are things that you give up compared to someone in a single-family house, and one of those things typically is a private yard. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't have some access, if possible, to somewhat private outdoor space, certainly to community-centered outdoor space. Everyone deserves to have that access and that ability to get outside, and enjoy that outdoor space. I think that in terms of the public access, I have a lot of questions and so I think You know part of me goes well, you know as we run out of land to develop and we could we use this to incentivize developers investing in accessible public parks and green space and development and expansion that we don't have now. Is that something that we should be thinking about looking into the future as we get more and more full in the city of Bloomington? But on the other hand, then you have unequal parks, you have unequal access for folks. And again, that issue of How far is it from any particular living space? It's a public benefit, publicly funded benefit, and now we're letting private developments benefit from that public benefit. So, sorry, I'm rambling a bit, but those are sort of the, since it's a study session, I think we're allowed to do that. that those are some of the things that swirl around as I think about what we've been talking about in terms of the balcony open space piece and the connection to public resources nearby. I'll save storage unit issues for when we get back to the questions.

All right. Chair, if I may add a little bit more context to this discussion and planning manager Johnson, if you want to correct me, our mixed use districts don't have a usable open space requirement. So you can have residential in a mixed use development and there is no open space requirement. So I just wanna put that out there that we kind of already have that in a sense. And I'm not part of evaluating those. I haven't evaluated those projects yet and I didn't author that standard. or lack of standard I should say. So I just want to put that out there that there is I guess some precedent for not necessarily requiring open space for some multifamily in certain contexts. But if there's more context to that that I'm missing then I turn that over to Planning Manager Johnson.

No that's correct.

Could either of you, Mr. Ramirelson or Mr. Johnson, just describe for the people at home, what is an RM district? Like just by feel.

Oh, sure.

Yeah. So the RM districts are multifamily districts. We do consider those high density per their relationship to our land use guidance. so um and they i guess we've been kind of going with the standards that you know going through some of the standards that characterize these districts but they're also cited in areas where we expect more urban style development too so they are they are matching certain characteristics of the cities that we're trying to develop certain characteristics within the city based on our long-term plans that we have in our guidance documents. So that should hopefully give some context of what those RM districts are, that they are multifamily and they are considered to be high density.

IS IT FAIR TO QUALIFY THEM AND I GET THIS IS NOT ACROSS THE BOARD BUT LIKE IN RESIDENTIAL TYPE NEIGHBORHOODS BUT PERHAPS AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF BUSY STREETS BUT NOT SO DENSE THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SOUTH LOOP. I DON'T THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PENN AND AMERICAN. I DON'T THINK THAT'S RM. SORRY MR. JOHNSON. ONLY RM 100. THAT'S VERY DENSE. RM 100 IS VERY DENSE. we're talking about generally developments that would be surrounded by other residential uses but in a more dense sense. It's not in the middle of a single family residential area. It's more at like the intersections of busy streets or commercial, like near commercial corridors, that type of thing.

Chair, that is correct. That's about the siting standards. Okay. Okay.

Mr. Commissioner Munster.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could ask just a follow-up question that I thought of based on Commissioner White's question. Do we have park impact fees for new development?

Sorry. It's okay. Chair, Commissioner Munster, we do not. The only park dedication fee that we collect that's authorized under Minnesota statute is through plats. The platting process is the only way we're collecting fees that are used to support capital improvements for parks.

Okay.

Thank you.

I had some of the same swirling thoughts as you, Commissioner White, about the whole idea of proximity to a park. And off the cuff, I want to say, no, that's terrible. That's cheating. We're going to start having preferential treatments, and what's a park and what isn't, and it's going to become a mess for staff. But then I also have a thought. I was like, well, we are trying to densify here, and is that actually really clever? Let's just say the most aggressive scenario, you're right across the street from a park. Why can't they use that as their green space? It's, you know, then you get more dense development, which is also a benefit. And so I'm kind of 50-50 on that one. I think if nothing else, I think it's a mess for staff to have to try to figure out what's a park, what's proximity. And then somebody said it, not all our parks are of equal quality. And so there could be some some inequity issues if we have older parks or whatever and so I think there could be some issues with that as well although I do think there's a formal question on that coming up so I'll save it.

Chair if I may please if we were guide or if we were directed to explore that as an option for usable open space open space flexibility we would do that in in collaboration with our parks and rec department just to get their feedback on the what is an appropriate green space or recreational space or leisure space that would count toward that. We would want to get their input as well. And we would do research on other communities that grant that sort of crediting for proximity to an open space like that. We would definitely research what qualifies and what doesn't. and you know we you know in close collaboration with all these developments we have a lot of conversations so I think we'd be able to pinpoint that early within the conversation about what qualifies and apologies if you don't know this offhand but are other municipalities allowing that chair I I DON'T KNOW. THIS WAS AN IDEA THAT I HONESTLY HAD AND I JUST WANTED TO EXPLORE IT AND IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT OTHER COMMUNITIES HAVE DONE BUT I WON'T SPEAK OUT OF TURN FOR THAT.

WELL, IT WAS CERTAINLY PROVOCATIVE. HAPPY TO PROVOKE. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER ISSA.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. NOW THAT WE'RE STILL ON THIS TOPIC, I JUST WANTED TO THROW IN THERE THAT I DO THINK it's good to try it at least because it's not like it would decrease housing stock. Having something like that would potentially make it more flexible for the housing developers to develop, housing to increase. So I don't see a negative. So I think it's worth exploring and it's super creative. So yeah.

Thank you. Any other thoughts? Commissioner Munster.

I would just add, and not to certainly throw any water on that because I think it would be worth exploring, but just as a question, how much land are we really talking about here that's actually developable right now and designated with these zoning designations that we're talking about? Because I'm looking at the zoning map and there's a good bit, but there's not a huge amount. So just as we're looking at where to sort of balance staff time and exploring these questions, is it worth sort of digging in or is it worth giving it a try and seeing how it works out?

If I could respond to that, and I'll ask Mr. Johnson for verification. What I have typically seen on this is when we see a development come forward, they ask for a rezone as part of a dense development, and so they're rezoning up to this type of thing. So what you see on the map is not necessarily where future ones will be. But Mr. Johnson, do you have thoughts on that?

Chair, that's correct.

Okay.

Commissioner Issa. Thank you, Chair. I hear you, Commissioner Munster. I just, even if that's the case, it wouldn't hurt to have it and have the option to do it, versus just saying, I don't want to see it. Thank you. Thank you.

Other thoughts? Mr. Johnson, something to add? Well, I was just going to add to that. So I've heard you study proximity to parkland and get feedback from the park division or park department, so we can certainly do that. I also heard a comment about potentially a payment in lieu of open space. I'd have to study that with our legal department to make sure that we're not running afoul of state statute, but that's something we can look into, certainly. ON SOME CONSTRAINED SITES, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING LIKE THAT MIGHT MAKE SENSE AND COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE CITY'S PARK SYSTEM. COMMISSIONER WHITE.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. JUST TO BE CLEAR, IF IT WAS PAYMENT IN LIEU, THOSE HAD BETTER BE DEDICATED PARK IMPROVEMENT FUNDS. THANK YOU.

OTHER THOUGHTS? Mr. Anderson, we've had a lot of conversation. Do you still want to go through your questions? We're happy to do that.

For my benefit. You don't want to miss anything.

Yeah, exactly.

Well, here, your guidance on the street side setbacks. We talked a lot about storage units and usable open space. But so interesting getting your feedback on what staff is supporting. If you think we should maintain the 40-foot setback, go to 20 feet. We're even open to even considering something less than 10 or 20 feet. So if just interested in your feedback on that.

Yeah, I'll start here. I'm supportive of this. If anything, I would be open to exploring even more than 20 feet, especially for RM50. I mean, that's still a pretty dense development, and to require a 40-foot setback seems like too much. It doesn't seem to fit the character of even that massing of a structure being set so far back. It doesn't really add up to me. I like buildings close to the street. I think even in low-density areas, I think that adds... perceived safety character to the neighborhood. I think having these huge setbacks is just living back in the 1960s, and that's why Lindale looks like it does and has a parking lot in front of every single building is because of all these enormous setbacks we had from decades prior. And I'm a huge supporter of getting buildings back close to the street. And so I'm in favor of the 20 feet and would be open to going even more aggressive. Commissioner Issa.

Thank you chair. I definitely agree with your points there. I think one important thing that I kind of saw or noted is that cities are already at we're already at this you know we're on the extreme end so relative to that to other cities we're on the extreme. Of course if you look at it as we've never had this before, then it may seem like it's a change that's extreme on the other end. And yeah, it will make it easier to develop, which will have increased housing stock, which will supply basic supply and demand more housing, more affordability for options for residents. And so I think it's a no-brainer. Me personally, that's what I think. And I also think that if even decreasing it further would be cool too. I like that point. But yeah, that's my take. Thank you. Okay.

Commissioner Muster.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll jump on that same bandwagon. That while we're exploring reducing this, and again, maybe it's not right for RM24, because maybe just the context of where that is, but RM50 certainly should go less. As a question, what is the setback required for RM100?

Chair, Commissioner, it's 10 feet.

So perhaps that may be the sort of line 50 up with 100 in terms of the setbacks.

Other thoughts on setbacks? Commissioner White?

Thank you, Chair. Generally, I don't have a problem with it. One of the tricks of zoning is that we're creating something that we're trying to make fit for everything. And there's always, thank goodness for variances, I guess. the variance process, but, you know, because I do worry that for some of the smaller, the RM24 and the smaller developments, again, that kind of conversation about green space and character comes into play for me. So if you've got buildings right up to the street, where is the green space? Where is the landscaping? Where are the things that soften it and also provide the environmental benefit of some of the more natural settings?

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rambler-Olson. We can go to the next one for you.

Yeah. We might have talked about usable open space enough, but we can still go back to, or go to it. Storage units. So of the three that you see presented, again, eliminating the requirement altogether, lowering the, or just maintaining one volume standard, and then lowering the ratio of of only half the units being represented within that storage unit count. So there would only be 200 unit building, you'd only need 100 storage units. And then option three is similar to that option, but lowering that storage unit volume even more to 54 cubic feet. Which one do you support? Or it can be, you know, I don't know. I guess you could take bits and pieces of either one. Well, except the first one, that one's, it's gone. But however you feel about the next two options and mixing up the parts of the recommendations, I'm willing to take that feedback. But then, yeah, and then, so that's in also response to question two. So happy to get your feedback.

Do you have a question or comment? Please go ahead.

What do you mean by number one is gone?

Eliminating the storage units so it's not a matter of mixing and matching the various recommendations. We're getting rid of the storage units so you can't have .5 storage units. I'm sorry. I stated that confusingly so I apologize.

I have a question, Mr. Rambler-Olson. So in its current form, are landlords allowed to charge for the storage units they build?

Chair, yes, I believe they are. Yeah, so I mean, they are required to provide them, but then what they do with them after is up to their discretion.

Terry Cookton, the only exception to that is for opportunity housing units are not allowed to be charged fees for parking or for storage.

So to me, if they're not required to be free to every unit, then it's kind of like, what's the point? The landlord then is still relying on the market to determine how much they're being used or not, if they're allowed to charge for them. So if that's the case... then why are we requiring them to build them? To me, this is a case where I would just I would go with number one and just let the market take care of this. I like the concept, but if they're not required to be free, then I don't like the concept anymore. Commissioner White.

Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I generally agree with that. I mean, I'm somewhat alarmed at the fact that I feel like every time I turn around, I'm seeing a new storage facility building crop up, which is a bigger probably societal problem than storage units in multifamily housing. But I do agree that if it's not being required as an amenity that comes with an apartment or a condo, I assume that all of these things would apply regardless of whether it's rented or owned, that it doesn't seem to fit the approach we want to take to requirements in the city.

and chair commissioner if I may so these storage unit requirements have been with us since the 60s or 70s I can't remember between or I wasn't able to discover between 62 and 75 when it came into city code but so storage units have already been I've been built even with this store or I'm sorry storage buildings self storage buildings I've already been built even with the storage unit requirements so I'm not I'm not totally sure if there was a solid connection between the two but I don't know. I mean that is something to still consider.

Commissioner Summers.

Thank you, Chair. I shared the concern that Commissioner White had about are we creating a market for storage facilities and is that something we're looking for more of those businesses in Bloomington compared to other, I don't know. A three by three by six storage space doesn't even feel, I've had a storage space that large. and you could we it was we bought a storage place at a storage facility um as renters so it really doesn't seem effective to me number three i think that having not found any other municipalities that are requiring this um brings me to a space where I'm thinking eliminating it makes sense. Because if they had had lots of issues with it, they would have brought it back as a practice, I think. Yeah, so I'm in favor of number one.

Okay. Commissioner Rizzo.

Yeah, I also agree with my fellow commissioners. Thank you, Chair, by the way. on their points, I think eliminating it would open the market and let the market decide. There may be a lot of times in the past where developers may have analyzed a potential development but couldn't because they didn't pencil out just because of that, for example. I GUESS OVERALL WHAT I BELIEVE IS THAT BLOOMINGTON SHOULD HAVE MORE HOUSING STOCK AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS IMPORTANT. SO I THINK THAT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO, YEAH, TO CREATE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND THEN SECONDLY, I THINK IT WAS FELLOW COMMISSIONER BROUGHT IT UP EARLIER, A POTENTIAL CONCERN ABOUT STORAGE. AND SO I WANT TO SAY THERE'S A GOOD ANECDOTAL WAY OF SEEING IF the properties that did have the OHO incentives. If it is a concern for residents, it's like if you go on those five, go on like the Google reviews, and then if you see a lot of complaints about lack of storage, that may be a good way of like anecdotally at least seeing if that's a problem. But yeah, thank you.

I'LL ADD JUST A COUPLE MORE PIECES OF CONTEXT FOR THIS OVER MY SIX YEARS ON THE COMMISSION. I THINK A VERY COMMON REQUEST WE'VE SEEN FROM NEW APARTMENT DEVELOPMENTS IS A REQUEST FOR DEVIATION ON THE STORAGE. AND IT SEEMS LIKE AN ABOVE AVERAGE AMOUNT AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR BIG DEVIATIONS. I buy that the market is oversaturated with this one storage. I think they're being honest about that. So that gives me comfort in reducing this down or eliminating it. The other thing, it was just brought up here about, will this have a negative side effect in potentially creating a higher demand for self-storage facilities? one of the most controversial applications we've ever had before this commission on my six years was a Request like a code amendment to effectively eliminate self storage facilities as a permitted use in the city of Bloomington and And although it's not, it is still permitted. It's literally on like three sites left in the city of Bloomington. And so you will not see another self-storage building going up in this city. Go back and watch the YouTube videos for those fireworks. That was something. Any other thoughts on storage units? Okay. Okay.

I'm just gonna glance at this one again. I think we got enough feedback to this side. Sorry. It was a lovely discussion, but I think we got enough feedback on the questions presented by staff. So yeah, I appreciate your time and oh, unless- Please, Commissioner Munster.

I just have one question on this. Is there a reason, other than this using the 25% reduction standard, is there any reason we were treating open space for RM24 and RM50 and 100 differently in terms of the number at the end of the equation?

Oh, Chair, Commissioner, the 25%, this is what's interesting about the OHO is that it does provide like an interesting test case for are these standards workable? Do they negatively impact the quality of life of these developments and the tenants? And 25% seems to be a very palatable percentage. to that requirement and it still leads to plenty of open space for tenants on site. So that's the reason why 25% was selected is because it almost, we just see that request in multiple cases and it being granted. you know, it gives staff some confidence that it's a workable number and that glancing at other communities, again, a few other communities, it was between like 400 or 200 square feet for multifamily development to have usable open space or per dwelling unit to grant or to require 200 or 400 square feet of usable open space for dwelling unit in certain communities, so.

Commissioner Munster. Just a follow-up sort of wrap-up comment on that question. All I would say is if we're looking at reducing it, it may be better to pick a number that we're comfortable with and simply apply that number to the multifamily districts instead of tiering it like that.

I have a follow-up question related to that, Commissioner White, unless you also did. Please, no, you go ahead, Commissioner White.

So there was a slide that had the chart with the OHO incentive. Nope. Oh.

Nope.

Sorry, I didn't remember what slide it was. It had something about removing consent requirements.

That one. Oh, this one? Oh, I'm sorry. Apologies, Commissioner.

Thank you. I wanted to just ask a question about, with the proposed open space reduction, we're essentially eliminating... the OHO incentives and the 51 to 60 and the 31 to 50% AMI. And I'm just curious how often those incentives have been used in those particular areas. And if you don't have the answer tonight, that's fine, but something to consider. I'd be concerned about making changes that eliminate our ability to incentivize affordable housing and the opportunity housing ordinance. So I'm not sure I'm comfortable with a complete elimination of those reductions and their impact on the opportunity housing.

IF I MAY, CHAIR COMMISSIONER. PLEASE. SO THIS WAS PRESENTED TO PORT AUTHORITY STAFF BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ADMINISTER THE O.H.O. AND THEY WERE I MEAN THIS TABLE ACTUALLY CAME FROM THEM AGAIN JUST TRYING TO ILLUSTRATE HOW IT MIGHT CONCEPTUALLY WORK IF THE O.H.O. WAS AMENDED. SO THIS IS SOMETHING FROM THEM AND FROM WHAT I RECALL FROM THE CONVERSATION WITH THOSE STAFF IS THAT trying to figure out or formulate different ways of incentivizing affordable housing development instead of creating a standard that needs to be relieved by the OHO. So it's trying to rethink those incentives instead of erecting an artificial constraint and then us giving them the ability to reduce that constraint through, as long as they provide affordable housing, there might be other means for providing affordable housing. So they were comfortable with this change. BUT NONETHELESS, YOUR FEEDBACK IS WELL TAKEN AND I CAN CERTAINLY HAVE MORE CONVERSATIONS WITH AUTHORITY STAFF.

COMMISSIONER ISRAEL.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. THIS IS KIND OF A TWO TIERED QUESTION. MY FIRST QUESTION IS THAT WILL ANY ASSUMING OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE IMPLEMENTED, THE OHO INCENTIVES WOULD ALSO THERE WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR or the OHA incentives would then change, right? If that's my understanding?

Chair, Commissioner, correct, yes.

My follow-up question is that if that's the case, be part of that process to help come up with ideas or can we I guess? I would want to be.

Yeah. Commissioner. This is certainly the opportunity to provide an idea but we the structure of this will be we'll have another study session with city council get their feedback and we'll present some some proposed amendments and we can certainly discuss those at the time. It would be a public hearing so it would be at the time of the public hearing unless I guess I would have to discuss with senior staff if another study session is warranted to go into more depth with some and get more collaborative feedback on what's being proposed. So but right now how it's set up is to have another study session with city council and then move on to public hearings later this year.

Thank you. Yeah, I think it's only right for the Planning Commission just because we do get applications that involve the OHO.

Certainly. Yeah, so there would be a public hearing in front of Planning Commission. Yes. I'm sorry. Maybe that's – I should have just said that right away. Short and simple. There would be a public hearing in front of Planning Commission as well as in front of City Council. So your input would be incorporated, certainly. For sure. Thank you.

I'd like to follow up again just on the framework of the table that was presented on this slide here and some of Commissioner White's comments. The way I think I would frame it, Commissioner White, is that, and it's been a while since we've seen the numbers, but when we used to get like an annual update on how the OHO is doing and we were knocking it out of the park with the 60% AMI stuff. We were just crushing our goals of all of the 60% affordable housing, but we just couldn't make any traction whatsoever on the deeply affordable housing at 30% AMI or you know those areas and so I think what staff's intent here was is paring back a few of the incentives for the 60 percent AMI and trying to push developers towards more of that deeply affordable units which I'm supportive of because we still have the backdrop of there's a required amount of affordable housing that needs to be created and whether that's some percent at 60% AMI or some other percent at 30% AMI or whatever, they're still going to have to do something. And so, in my opinion, I'm okay with getting rid of, with this framework of getting rid of the 60% and the 50% to push people a little further, closer towards that deeply affordable 30% that we've had a hard time building. Commissioner White.

Thank you, Chair. That's actually extremely helpful, and I appreciate your comments and Planner Rammler-Olson's comments, because I agree. I think that if the impact of eliminating these incentives would actually push folks to the 30%, I would be 1,000% in favor of it. I just want to make sure that we're not inadvertently losing ANY AFFORDABLE, ALLEGEDLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

FAIR COMMENT. TO THAT END, MR. JOHNSON, I THINK WE COULD, THIS COMMISSION COULD USE ANOTHER UPDATE ON THE O.H.O. AND JUST HOW OUR NUMBERS ARE DOING. WE USED TO GET THAT QUITE OFTEN. IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S BEEN A WHILE. SO MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE I'D LIKE TO SEE STAFF COME BACK WITH ANOTHER UPDATE ON JUST HOW OUR NUMBERS ARE DOING. CAN DO.

THANK YOU.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU, MR. RAMLOR-OLSON. More excitement to come with item number three, which is another study item for the city of Bloomington. It's our minor policies updates for miscellaneous issues. Mr. Dakota Cassanday is here with the staff report.

Yes, thank you chair and commission. I'm gonna jump right in. So for those that aren't aware and just for the public's benefit, every year staff review the zoning code to correct. One to kind of correct any grammatical errors or making sure that different parts of the code align with one another and for the purposes of this ordinance we call those cleanup items and then we also kind of review to clarify any policies that Staff kind of deem as a small-scale change And we'd call those a minor policy update. So we're kind of focusing on those minor policy updates tonight and But then really as an efficiency measure, what we do is kind of compile all of these things into one ordinance for planning commission and city council review versus, you know, potentially having to go 15 times throughout the year for pretty minor cleanups in the code. And so these items that are kind of more smaller scale changes are things that kind of working with staff. We kind of determined that don't necessarily warrant a separate project on the planning commission work planner, involve a ton of research and are more just kind of memorializing things that have kind of been interpreted in code. And so this year we're looking at kind of 16 cleanup items and six minor policy updates. Just kind of for awareness in the timeline, kind of October through March, we're working to collect ideas that come across from staff. Some of it comes from engineering, environmental health, legal, and within community development. And then we work with our legal staff to kind of finalize the list to kind of see what makes the cut for each year and then kind of discuss like what would be considered kind of minor policy update and what's a cleanup. And then we work to kind of do some research and draft those code concepts. And then here we are tonight at the study session on those minor policy updates. Again, like I mentioned, just here's some examples of some cleanup items that would be on the ordinance later this fall, like correcting an incorrect code reference in our home business code section. Kind of a minor clarification in our limited use definition and clarifying lighting compliance. So those are some examples of things that would be to come later. But then tonight in the study session, we really just focus on the proposed minor policy updates. So I'll just kind of jump right in and because these are kind of six random things that aren't really related to each other, I'll just take them one at a time and then kind of go on from there. So the first item is looking at requiring odor control standards for cannabis businesses. The city has added an odor mitigation condition on all conditional use permits for cannabis cultivation and manufacturing uses that have come before the planning commission or city council. And this is similar to how we've approached odor mitigation for restaurants and other things. So while odor can never be fully removed, we do try to get odors mitigated as best as they can. And just because we put that in as a pretty consistent condition, staff kind of viewed as best practice to just kind of memorialize that in code. And then this also allows, you know, just further support for that standard. And then if uses were ever to change to go from a conditional use to a permitted use, you're still kind of covering those standards in code. And so this proposed amendment would require odor mitigation for any cannabis business that's within 150 feet of a property that's used and zoned residentially. And this mimics the restaurant change that we just made with the small business codes and processes earlier this year. And then really kind of the discussion question here, staff kind of felt we could really just require this for cultivation and manufacturing uses as those are the ones that typically permit more odor and our retail use doesn't necessarily have a ton of odor outside of the building. But the way it's written here is just a KIND OF COVER ALL CANNABIS BUSINESSES JUST FOR SIMPLICITY'S SAKE, BUT I THINK THE QUESTION MAYBE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL IS SHOULD THAT ODOR MITIGATION STANDARD APPLY TO ALL CANNABIS BUSINESSES OR JUST THE CULTIVATION AND MANUFACTURING USES?

MR. CASTANEDA, I HAVE A QUESTION FIRST. I want to make sure the folks at home are clear on this. We're not changing. So for anyone who's been a part of, we've had a lot of cannabis applications recently. We're not changing what's required of the applicant. We're kind of just putting it in a different place. Is that correct?

Yeah, Chair Cook, that is correct. So it's always been a condition on our conditional use permits. And if we would go this direction of memorializing it in code, I think our practice would still be to also add that as a condition on conditional use permits. So it's just another layer or thing that we can kind of point to for enforcement purposes.

I understand.

Okay. Well, I'll get it started here then with my position is I'm fine with 150 feet for campus businesses, but I would exclude FORGIVE ME WHAT THE, WAS IT THE SALE OF CANNABIS OR WHATEVER. I'M OKAY EXCLUDING THAT, BUT FOR THE CULTIVATION, ET CETERA, I'M GOOD WITH 150 FEET. COMMISSIONER WHITE.

THANK YOU, CHAIR COOKTON. YEAH, I AGREE. For other cannabis businesses, I'm stretched to figure out what that would be, but that isn't covered under cultivation and manufacturing if we're essentially exempting retail. But, yeah, I agree. I don't think that it makes sense for sale.

Sure. Commissioner Mustard.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I agree entirely. I do just have one question. Are there any other conditions that we have consistently put on those conditional use approvals that we could lump into a cannabis business requirements section?

MANAGER JOHNSON THAT'S A LITTLE MORE ON THE DEVELOPMENT SIDE THAN I AM NOWADAYS.

CHAIR, COMMISSIONER MUNSTER, THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. IT RELATES TO ODOR AGAIN, BUT ONE CONDITION WE HAVE BEEN INCLUDING IN THOSE CUPS IS THAT THE VERIFICATION THAT THE SYSTEM IS WORKING PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE PROBABLY COULD BUILD INTO THIS CODE STANDARD IF IT WAS DESIRED. SEEING SOME HEAD

Other thoughts on Ordinance Q? Seeing none, all right, wonderful.

okay so then the the next one um this is looking at establishing a use allowance and a definition for car detailing so currently under our definitions a car detailing business is actually considered a car wash and then car washes are conditionally permitted in some commercial districts and then it's only a conditional use in our i3 zoning district when along a collector and arterial road so it's pretty limited locations where a car wash is allowed in the city AND KIND OF WITH THAT, THERE HAVE BEEN CASES WHERE SOMEONE HAS COME TO US WITH A CAR DEALING OR CAR DETAILING USE WHERE IT WAS NOT PERMITTED BECAUSE OF THERE'S PRETTY LIMITED LOCATIONS WHERE A CAR WASH IS LOCATED AND STAFF FELT LIKE IT PROBABLY COULD HAVE BEEN A PRETTY REASONABLE REUSE OF A COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL SPACE. AND SO THIS PROPOSAL would make a distinction on car detailing. And I would say the key distinctions there are that the cosmetic cleaning, restoration, and finishing is done by hand and then is done kind of as a low-impact auto use and then is more appointment-based, where a car wash is really meant to be kind of high vehicle throughput, automatic washing, dryers, and all the mechanicals and things like that. car detailing is usually kind of done within within the space um and they're you know shampooing the interior of the vehicle um and kind of hand washing in there and someone wouldn't be able to just like come to the car dealing business to like detailing business to wash their wash their car this would be done by appointment typically so that that was kind of the um with this distinction. And so if you were comfortable kind of moving forward with a distinction of car detailing outside of car wash, then the other question is where should those things be permitted? And so staff would propose that they be a permitted use in the B2, I1, I2 and I3 zoning districts. So those are the areas that I just tried to shade in black to kind of give you an idea where they are in the city. So in general, They're the industrial areas just north of Civic Plaza here and along I-35W. Some industrial commercial areas along or near Lindale, and I did note those are outside of the priority nodes of the Lindale Avenue suburban retrofit plan, which those are B4, so we're not proposing to allow detailing in B4. and then just a kind of handful of a few commercial pockets along American Boulevard and kind of West Old Shakopee Road. So really kind of open discussion if you're comfortable separating out the car detailing use and then if so, do you feel these are the appropriate zoning districts or what do you feel is appropriate for it? Thoughts? Commissioner Issa.

Thank you, Chair. Technically someone can detail in their own private a lot. I would assume or is that not allowed?

Chair Cookton Commissioner you say I think if someone was detailing their vehicle their own personal vehicle They could if they're doing it as a business then I don't believe it's allowed or if so Then there's pretty strict things around our home business standards, but Commissioner planning manager Johnson. I don't think it's a permitted home business

CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, YOU SAY WHERE I'M SEEING THIS POTENTIAL IS IT'S ACTUALLY MORE OF A MOBILE BUSINESS. I SEE PEOPLE GOING TO PEOPLE'S HOMES TO DO THIS. SO I KNOW TECHNICALLY ZONING CODES ARE NOT MEANT TO BE PERMISSIVE DOCUMENTS OR MORE PROHIBITIVE THE OTHER WAY AROUND, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT HASN'T CREATED A LOT OF NUISANCE CHARACTERISTICS TO MY AWARENESS. SO I THINK IT'S JUST SOMETHING THE CODE IS CURRENTLY SILENT ON.

THANK YOU.

OTHER THOUGHTS? Commissioner Munster.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The comment about these being envisioned as more of a mobile business versus a fixed location sort of complicates this question. But I'm guessing that we have requirements for car washes for the oil water separation mechanisms. Would that be required for sort of a fixed location detailing place as well?

Yeah, Chair Cook-Dinn, Commissioner Munster, that's correct. And so even if it was a permitted use, you know, it might not necessarily have a zoning application that would come before the Planning Commission. It would still go through building permits, likely would change the occupancy of that space. So there will probably be additional things around sprinkling and other things that would be required. And then looking at that kind of oil separation and kind of drainage of different cleaning products and things, too.

I HAD A HARD TIME GETTING TOO EXCITED ABOUT THIS ONE. FOR ME WHAT WAS IMPORTANT WAS PROTECTING THE LINDALE AVENUE RETROFIT PLAN. I'M MORE PROUD OF THAT THAN ALMOST ANYTHING WE'VE WORKED ON IN THIS COMMISSION IN A LONG TIME. SO PROTECTING THAT WAS IMPORTANT TO ME. THE REST OF THIS FELT REASONABLE AND I COULD SUPPORT IT. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS?

SEEING NONE. And then this third one is talking about window requirement exceptions in our mixed-use zoning districts. So this was actually kind of a recommendation from Planning Commission through the Art Incentive Ordinance to just have us take a look again at this kind of window exception. So currently in code, it's kind of a ALL OR NOTHING ALLOWANCE IF AN APPLICANT PROVIDES TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF ART. THAT'S AN EQUIVALENT AREA OF WINDOWS. THEY CAN THEN KIND OF REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF TRANSPARENT WINDOWS ON A PRIMARY OR SECONDARY FACADE. AND SO STAFF DID LOOK AT THIS AND OUR PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO require that a primary facade has to have at least 25% transparent windows that cannot be exempted or substituted with art enhancements. And then the secondary facade would kind of remain as it is now and could be an all or nothing reduction. So currently a primary facade, facade is required to have at least 50% transparent windows and a secondary facade has to have 25%. So essentially with this, if someone provided an art, two different kinds of art, the primary facade would still have to have 25%, but then in theory, the secondary facade could potentially have no transparent windows as long as it's an equivalent replacement there. So no specific discussion question here, more just does that sound good? Do you want to leave it as is? Do you want to change it? Any thoughts?

If you could clarify, Mr. Castendate, what is it today?

Yep, so it's an all or nothing approach. So as long as someone's providing at least two different kinds of art installments that are of an equivalent area, they can get an exemption from the window. So it's kind of an all or nothing approach.

AND CAN YOU REMIND US JUST IN GENERAL WHAT ZONES ARE LIKE WHAT WHERE IS WHERE IS THIS TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENT?

YEAH CHAIR COOKTON THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION SO YEAH CURRENTLY THIS IS IN THREE ZONING DISTRICTS SO B4, C5 AND THEN OUR LX THAT LIKE LINDAU MIXED USE DISTRICTS.

PENAMERICAN SOUTH LOOP. YEAH THAT SIDE OF THE THING.

SOME NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL NODES ARE ZONED B4 AS WELL.

I'm not sure I can support this one going down to – I don't know if I can do 25%. I think I need more than that. The point of having transparency on the ground floor of these – I I'm in close proximity to one of these neighborhoods and just I think it was yesterday or the day before there was like a group of people doing some weird like dance studio thing in their apartment building.

Transparent windows. But this only focuses on the first floor.

So I guess I would just say that Phil at every turn has taken an opportunity to become more educated.