This is a transcript of the **Bloomington Planning Commission** meeting from June 11, 2020. Based on the context of the dialogue and the municipality's staff list, I have identified the speakers (including the Planning Commissioners and relevant City Staff). **Format:** [Timestamp] Speaker Name: <Dialogue> [0:00] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: June 11, 2020. The Planning Commission is supported by the City Council. Most items we make recommendations to the Council; however, some items we have final decision-making authority subject to an appeal to the City Council. For each item, there will be a staff report, a chance for the applicant to speak, and then time for public comment. We start with the pledge—if you're able, please stand. [0:46] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: All right. Starting with Mr. Markergard—if you could give an overview about the Webex? [0:48] **Glen Markergard (Planning Manager)**: Sure, Madam Chair, Commissioners. This is our sixth remote meeting since the pandemic started. We have three people physically present in the Chambers tonight; everybody else is joining remotely including Planning Commissioners, staff, applicants, and members of the public. So if you're watching live and would like to testify, you can call the number on the screen: 952-563-8926, or send an email to Planning@BloomingtonMN.gov and you'll receive instructions on how to participate remotely. We do have one person that said that they—or has already registered to speak tonight. And I would note that that number will be scrolling across the bottom of the screen throughout the meeting if you need to refer to it. Unless you're watching on delay, then it would not be there. So all votes must be conducted by roll call, and that's all. Thank you. [1:34] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: Thank you. If we could move on to Item 1, then, please. [1:36] **John James (Planner)**: Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair and Planning Commissioners. Let me try to share my screen here. And Mr. Markergard... okay, here we go. All right, is that viewable? [2:19] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: Yes, we can see that, Mr. James. [2:20] **John James (Planner)**: Okay, thank you. So the first item is a privately initiated city code amendment to allow banks without drive-throughs in the C-3 and C-5 commercial zoning districts. So the applicant is specifically interested in—and has a bank without a drive-thru for the former Wedding Day Jewelers site at 7901 Xerxes Avenue, which is zoned C-3. So with this proposed amendment, that use would be permitted at the site. [3:21] **John James (Planner)**: So, banks today are defined in the code as an establishment with the primary purpose of deposit banking, included but not limited to commercial banks, savings institutions, and credit unions. So by this definition, banks have a retail component; they usually have a teller that's present and they typically include a few officers at least. Then looking at the use table, they're currently a permitted use in most commercial zoning districts; however, they're limited in the C-3, C-4, and C-5 districts. And so by "limited," it means that they cannot locate in a standalone building and make up the entire floor area. They're only allowed to occupy up to 25% of the building's floor area. So currently, the code as shown here treats all banks the same whether or not they have a drive-through. The first proposed change is to distinguish those without drive-throughs from those that do have them. You'll see with these images, banks with drive-through structures are certainly more common in the city; most of the city's existing banks have drive-throughs, lots of times several lanes. Also, banks with drive-throughs kind of obviously are much more auto-oriented than those without, whereas those without drive-throughs aren't especially common, but there has been a recent trend for them as more and more online banking services become available. Additionally, banks without drive-throughs might be able to better reuse existing office or retail space that might be vacant. Then the second proposed change is to allow all banks without drive-throughs as permitted in C-3 and C-5 zoning districts; all other use designations would remain the same. [5:42] **John James (Planner)**: Really, the substantive changes that are proposed tonight are shown in blue in the table here on the screen. It's staff's perspective that a bank without a drive-through or operating would really have similar off-site impacts as an office or a standalone retail type of use. As you can compare on the screen here, offices and retail are allowed today. Staff is recommending that banks without drive-throughs then be permitted in the same way that office and retail is permitted, thereby now permitting them in the C-3 and C-5 districts. Currently, the C-3 and C-5 districts are all located in and around the Penn American district with just a few exceptions—there’s a couple of parcels just to the east of I-35W as shown in the map here in red. Staff feels that a bank without a drive-thru in this area would also suit the intentions of that Penn American district in that it would support a more walkable, pedestrian-friendly type of environment, and that the bank then would also support a mix of residential and commercial uses in that area, enhancing the livability of the area. The other benefit of the change is that it would allow more reuse options for a few smaller buildings that are legally non-conforming in this area today. With that, I do have a motion of what staff is recommending. I'm happy to answer any questions and I believe the applicant is also available. [7:20] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: Any questions? Commissioner Goldsmith. [8:10] **Commissioner Goldsmith**: Thanks, Madam Chair. If we could go back to the second or the third slide? I did have a question about the amendments—the next one... the next slide here, that one. Correct. So I noticed you mentioned that we're trying to follow the office and retail space, but I'm looking at the B-1 and the C-1 districts for retail services or retail-type banking institutions. So can you talk a little bit about those two zones and why a bank without a drive-through would be permitted, but the retail service would be a limited use in those two zones, B-1 and C-1? [8:56] **John James (Planner)**: So B-1 and C-1 retail is limited today; however, you'll notice in C-1 that banks with or without drive-throughs are already permitted. So with this amendment—keeping in mind it is a privately initiated amendment—they didn't want any limitations to banks. Looking at B-1, though, with a similar idea—this being a privately initiated code amendment—banks are not allowed in that district today with or without drive-throughs. Really, that B-1 district is just a few parcels zoned B-1 and they're really intended for more of the like less intense, more neighborhood-oriented service or commercial service type uses. So again, understanding that the applicant is really interested in permitting banks without drive-throughs in C-3, I didn't want to make additional proposals beyond the scope of that applicant's interest. [9:42] **Commissioner Goldsmith**: Perfect. Thank you. [9:44] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: Other questions for staff? Does the applicant wish to speak on this item? [10:27] **Applicant Representative**: Yes, thank you very much for having me, and thanks a lot, John, for all your help with this. Yeah, more specifically, we are looking to include, like we said, the financial services section with a new kind of innovative bank in this area. It fits very well in with the motif and the original intention of the C-3 district in that these areas usually incorporate high foot traffic; they want the pedestrian traffic to be around the areas while at the same time utilizing the same retail functions as most of these spaces in here. So that's kind of the intention. Also, the other intention is that there will be no drive-throughs here, so we wanted to keep that intention still in the area. So that's kind of what we wanted to do. It's kind of what we've been talking about for the past couple of months together, and I'm hoping that we move forward. So thank you very much for everything. [11:58] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: I'm not seeing any... do we have any [public comment]? [12:01] **Glen Markergard (Planning Manager)**: Madam Chair, we did not have anybody pre-register and we have not had anybody register since the meeting started. [12:08] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: All right. Do I have a motion to close the public hearing, then? [12:10] **Commissioner Solberg**: Madam Chair, I make a motion to close the public hearing. [12:12] **Commissioner Roman**: Second. [12:14] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: All those in favor say Aye. Commissioner Goodrum? [12:16] **Commissioner Goodrum**: Aye. [12:18] **Commissioner Solberg**: Aye. [12:20] **Commissioner Goldsmith**: Aye. [12:22] **Commissioner Korman**: Aye. [12:24] **Commissioner Roman**: Aye. [12:26] **Commissioner Albrecht**: Aye. [12:28] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: Motion passes. Moving on to discussion. Commissioner Roman. [12:51] **Commissioner Roman**: Thank you, Madam Chair. I am supportive of this amendment. I think that as we are seeing more of our C-3 area develop and seeing it head in the direction—I think that was part of the vision in the original previous comprehensive plan—I think this is very much in alignment with it. As the Orange Line... you're going to have these kinds of less auto-centric things in this area of our city. They are very much in alignment, so I am supportive. [13:37] **Commissioner Goldsmith**: Thanks, Madam Chair. I would second what Commissioner Roman says. Now, one of the things that I have in the back of my mind is during this current pandemic—I would say actually it's probably the first time in about a decade I've used the drive-through of the bank and it was quite convenient for me to use and obviously distanced. I know a lot of the lobbies are closed. So I support this overall. I think the timing and obviously the current situation is something to think about, but I think the intent for what we hope is the future—when we could have more walkable, more face-to-face conversations and person-to-person interactions—it's definitely moving in the right direction. [14:28] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: Any other discussion or anyone who would like to make a motion? Commissioner Roman. [14:42] **Commissioner Roman**: Thank you, Madam Chair. In Case PL2020-78, I move to recommend approval of the ordinance attached to the staff report, amending Chapter 21 of the City Code to allow banks or financial institutions without drive-throughs as permitted uses in the C-3 and C-5 zoning districts. [15:10] **Commissioner Albrecht**: Second. [15:11] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: Moved by Commissioner Roman, second by Commissioner Albrecht. All those in favor say Aye. Commissioner Goodrum? [15:14] **Commissioner Goodrum**: Aye. [15:15] **Commissioner Solberg**: Aye. [15:16] **Commissioner Goldsmith**: Aye. [15:18] **Commissioner Korman**: Aye. [15:20] **Commissioner Roman**: Aye. [15:22] **Commissioner Albrecht**: Aye. [15:24] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: And that is an Aye from me. Motion passes 7-0. This will move on to the July 6th City Council meeting. Moving on to Item 2. [15:48] **Glen Markergard (Planning Manager)**: Madam Chair, Mr. Centenario will be presenting Item 2. [15:52] **Mike Centenario (Planner)**: Okay, thank you. He’s getting the presentation ready... All right, Mr. Markergard, it does not look like I'm able to share my screen at the moment, but—oh, here we go. Sorry for the awkward transition here. Okay, so sorry, let's try this again here we go. Can everyone see the presentation okay? [16:28] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: Yes, thank you. [16:29] **Mike Centenario (Planner)**: Right, thank you. So Item 2 in your agenda is for American Square land development, and what that entails is a two-phase planned development. Phase 1 is intended to be a 242-unit market-rate apartment building—that's currently a surface parking lot. And then Phase 2 would be an 86-unit workforce housing development. Originally the applicant did apply for two variances to bluff protection standards; however, the City Council very recently adopted essentially a rewrite of bluff protection standards and that was in the works for quite some time, and those amendments were published in today's Sun Current, so they are official. And because the variances are no longer necessary for what the applicant is proposing, they have withdrawn those. So we are asking you to take action on the preliminary and final development plan for the American Square development. [17:49] **Mike Centenario (Planner)**: Here's the existing conditions for this area. So we're in the South Loop district. The site obviously—this site is pretty much developed. You can see quite a bit of surface parking, but in addition, there's an existing hotel, quite a bit of office development. Some of the primary features of the proposed development is they'd essentially be converting surface parking lots into development: both a six-story apartment building on Phase 1 (which I'll show you in more detail in a moment), but then a second surface parking lot being converted to a parking structure as well as a five-story workforce housing building. [18:35] **Mike Centenario (Planner)**: Here's the existing conditions for what's intended to be Phase 1. And so this is looking southeast from more or less American Boulevard. And again, surface parking lot. You can see the trail on the north side of the site and that leads—if you're looking off the screen—that leads to the refuge to the east. This is the development plan in plan view. So Phase 1, if you can follow my cursor, is a six-story market-rate building, 242 units. And that would be built quite close to American Boulevard East. In the HX-R district, there isn't a minimum building setback relative to public right-of-way. Now, that being said, we still need to make room for public easements. So essentially in the HX-R district, the setback is whenever the public easement is in that particular location. The applicant through separate applications is working on some easement changes and that's in process, which we are supportive of. But essentially the setback is only about 10 feet from American Boulevard East. So that does, again—like we want to see in the South Loop district—very much create American Boulevard... create more of a corridor with the built environment as opposed to surface parking lots. And that would definitely be accomplished with this project. [20:10] **Mike Centenario (Planner)**: Phase 2, as I mentioned, has two main components. One is the 86-unit workforce housing development and then a structured parking structure. And that really is to serve shared uses within the American Square development. A surface lot that exists today serves one of the office buildings within the development and would also be shared with the proposed development tonight. As we see Bloomington intensifying, in particular within our South Loop District, we're going to continue to see more shared parking so you don't have entirely independent plots of parking where they aren't used a large portion of the day. But in this case, if you share parking between residential uses and office uses, it works quite well from a peak standpoint. [20:56] **Mike Centenario (Planner)**: This is a three-dimensional representation of what of the preliminary development plan. So on the right side of the screen, you see the market rate building. And you know, again, this is along the river bluff. Like I mentioned, they don't need any variances anymore now that the bluff protection standards have been revised. But they are along the bluff, so that certainly is very unique for this site. And then you can see on the left side of the graphic that workforce housing with the parking structure in between. This is a Phase 2 image—we’ll get back to Phase 1 as we talked about the final development plan—but for the PDP, we really actually have a lot of information for Phase 2, more than we normally would for a PDP for a future phase. This is a three-dimensional image of as you approach the building how you would access the parking structure from the north. So this drive that's in the center of the screen is a north-south connection. There would also be a connection to the west linking this building to 34th Avenue. Therefore, folks that would live here, probably the most convenient way to get to the light rail station—which is less than a quarter mile’s walk—is to go to the west to 34th Avenue. [22:29] **Mike Centenario (Planner)**: Similar again, this is Phase 2, so you can see a site plan view, the footprint of the building, and then the top level of the parking structure. You see the pedestrian and vehicular connection out towards 34th Avenue. And then on the northeast side of the site, you see essentially a ramped access up to the top level of the parking structure, and that leads towards Phase 1 as well as American Boulevard. Now going to the final development plan for Phase 1, this is a three-dimensional image of what that Phase 1 would look like. So six stories again; you can see the relationship of the building to American Boulevard East. And you know, in terms of building materials, they are not taking any flexibility for exterior building materials. It's a mix of what we've often seen in the past several years between masonry, fiber cement, metal panels, and stucco. So their intent—and we have no reason to believe that they would not be code-complying—from an exterior material standpoint. [23:15] **Mike Centenario (Planner)**: Here's Phase 1 in plan view form. So you see the footprint of the building, you see the relationship to the bluff. The footprint of the extent of the building goes pretty close up to the bluff. There is, of course, a little bit of grading, but the applicant has done a tremendous amount of engineering analysis to ensure that there would be no negative impact to the bluff. For the questions, I imagine they'd be able to address that. But as part of our review, we definitely wanted to ensure that the analysis was done. So not only is it bluff-safe, if you will, but then you know, there's a tremendous number of mature trees along the bluff, and the vast majority of those would be retained with this phase. [24:48] **Mike Centenario (Planner)**: You know, with any significant development, we always have at least a couple of comments and things we'd like to see changed with the project. And one thing that we wanted to see—and we have a condition of approval—is to provide access for—and this is for Phase 1—to provide a better pedestrian connection between the building and the surface parking lot. And this is really a timing consideration. The parking lot that I'm showing on the screen is the Phase 2 site. And if for some reason Phase 2 is delayed or it takes longer than anticipated, we want to ensure that pedestrians have access to the parking in addition to the structured parking that's on Phase 1. It's just a minor thing that we'd like to see. They were already intending on having a gravel maintenance path. But we want people to have a safe connection if they are utilizing that surface parking lot for overflow parking or guests, for example. [25:33] **Mike Centenario (Planner)**: This is a landscape plan. And one benefit of a planned development is you can meet landscaping requirements on other properties. And to a small degree, that's what they would do here. Obviously, along the street, they would be implementing quite a lot of trees and shrubs along American Boulevard East. We have a public plaza which I'll touch on momentarily. On the lower part of the screen, you can see a row of kind of like boulevard-style trees along the access drive. But then I wanted to direct your attention to the existing parking structure along American Boulevard East in this general area. On the Phase 1 site itself, they don't meet the quantity requirements, but because the existing parking structure is part of this planned development, they can meet the requirement by having landscaping on that site. And so this is actually a really beneficial thing in our mind because if you look out there today—and this is just a street view image—there is no landscaping between the parking structure and the street. So the proposal would improve the aesthetic of that area quite a bit. [27:06] **Mike Centenario (Planner)**: Going on to the public plaza—it’s a unique requirement to the HX-R district. And we have certain, I guess, performance standards for plazas: one, that there has to be one available to the public; you have certain size requirements and seating requirements and some dimensional standards. It appears as though they would be meeting those. You can see a very well-heavily landscaped plaza area that has a direct connection to the American Boulevard Trail. And the intent is it'd be a nice place to sit and have lunch or visit with coworkers or friends. Perhaps someone's biking along the trail, they maybe want to stop for a break or something, and this would provide an opportunity to do that. As well as that, you know, this is a high-amenity market-rate building, but then it provides yet another amenity for residents beyond the terrace that they've programmed. [27:53] **Mike Centenario (Planner)**: And you know, with all high-density residential development in Bloomington, the Opportunity Housing Ordinance (OHO) does apply to this site, and it applies to Phase 2. So there is an affordable requirement; however, the applicant is choosing to utilize the payment in lieu of affordable units for Phase 1. And as such, what that means is that before the applicant would get permits to start building Phase 1, they would provide just under $1.7 million that the City would hold onto in anticipation of Phase 2. There are very detailed timelines for when that would take place in terms of our analysis for the related to the Opportunity Housing Ordinance—that's for the second phase—and we do feel it meets the objectives of the OHO. And on this next slide, we have just a summary of some of the incentives that they are seeking for Phase 2. I want to reiterate that they're not seeking any OHO incentives for Phase 1; they wouldn't qualify for those even with the payment in lieu. This identifies incentives for a future final development plan, so it is something that is relevant to our analysis for the whole planned development, but we will essentially be revisiting Phase 2 in relationship to the affordable housing ordinance when that application does come in. [29:26] **Mike Centenario (Planner)**: Parking—again, I kind of mentioned this earlier in the presentation on shared parking. That's an important factor for this development because they're proposing shared parking. And so they did conduct a parking study that was revised numerous times as the project evolved over the past year plus two years. Essentially, the amount of deviation, if you think of independent standalone uses, is about 33%, which seems quite large. But then when you consider the fact that we're less than a quarter mile from the Blue Line, we are in the South Loop district where we anticipate intense development, and the fact that they are proposing shared parking between different uses, it really works out pretty well. And the parking study reflected that. So from a parking perspective, we're comfortable with the proposal. They are proposing over 700 parking stalls between the two phases, and we do think it is adequate. I just identified this to show that Phase 1 does propose two levels of structured parking. They are seeking a deviation for a slight reduction in the one-enclosed-stall-per-unit requirement, and we're comfortable with that deviation. One, because it's quite small—the applicant doesn't anticipate every tenant needing or desiring a parking space, and hopefully that turns out to be the case. But then in addition, the Phase 2 parking structure that would be available to Phase 1 residents would essentially exceed—well exceed—the requirement that we have for enclosed spaces. So not only is it a small deviation, but it's a temporary deviation. [31:45] **Mike Centenario (Planner)**: Finally, one thing that we've been talking about among staff and the applicant is sanitary sewer service in the South Loop District. So as we mentioned in the staff report, and then we sent a supplemental memo this afternoon—there needs to be sewer improvements within the South Loop district to serve the dense, intense development that we want. Those... that's a known issue and the City has planned for those improvements and has even started working on that issue. But after thinking about the proposed conditions that we included in the report, we feel like we want a slightly different condition. To go back to the condition as it reads today: it ties a building permit to the City accepting a bid for a sewer improvement project. And that's okay, but we're not sure exactly when that would be. You know, it's planned, it has to happen, but we can't give you an exact date. So we don't want to unnecessarily delay the applicant in getting started on construction knowing that we need these improvements in order for them to serve their building. So what we're proposing is a slight change that you can see in the lower part of the screen. Instead of tying permits to a bid, we would like it to be tied to the City Council accepting a feasibility study and ordering the project. And that essentially ties in funding and then gives a level of certainty that we're comfortable with so the applicant could get going on the project. We are recommending approval of the PDP and FDP for Phase 1 with that minor revision to the preliminary development plan condition Number 3. I'm certainly available for questions. We also have Jeri Quest in our HRA and a couple of engineering staff as well as the applicant, and we're all available to answer questions. [33:19] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: Are there questions for staff? Commissioner Roman. [33:20] **Commissioner Roman**: Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple of questions, Mr. Centenario. So help me understand—and I probably should have asked this question earlier—but it didn't come to me until as you were walking us through this. We think about this project, you know, Phase 1 and Phase 2. We're asked to consider it as a planned development, a bigger scope, and yet Phase 1 is clearly distinct and Phase 2 is distinct. So to develop my question: do the residents of Phase 2 have access to the amenities of Phase 1, or are they only distinct? [34:05] **Mike Centenario (Planner)**: Madam Chair, Commissioner. I think in terms of the amenities, probably they are each building would have its own amenity spaces. So I suspect Phase 2 residents would not have access to Phase 1 amenities such as, like, the pool, for instance, but would have access to the public plaza, for example, that's directly next to Phase 1. [34:50] **Commissioner Roman**: Okay. What I'm wrestling with is the dispersion question because, well, if each one is standalone, then that meets the test. But if we consider it as a project, it's very clearly segregated between market rate and affordable. So I’m struggling with that finding. That being said, I think depending on how many other questions that we get related to the affordable housing ordinance, we'll get some help on that from Mr. Quest. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Centenario. What is our—I know we probably have a guideline, all those laws around this—but given the location of this along the bluff and it is part of the city, are there conditions related to potential indigenous burial sites? [35:37] **Mike Centenario (Planner)**: Madam Chair, Commissioner. You know, it's something that has been in the back of our minds related to area mounds. We do have a number of them in the City of Bloomington. The applicant is aware of that. And there hasn't been in their due diligence period—in their surveying and tree preservation planning—any indication if there are any archaeological sites. And you know, we could have a condition related to that. Regardless of whether the City has a condition, there still are state requirements and Native American requirements that if they do come upon something, everything has to stop temporarily. So we chose not to include a condition given that there's a pretty robust regulation for that potential issue. [36:23] **Commissioner Roman**: Thank you. [36:25] **Commissioner Solberg**: Thanks, Madam Chair. And maybe this is one more for Engineering. I know we talked about sanitary sewer there, but one of the questions that I think came up a couple of years ago—and that was maybe a little bit further to the east—was stormwater capacity. Is there any impact to that based on this development? Do we know that? [37:10] **Mike Centenario (Planner)**: Madam Chair, Commissioner. I'll let one of our engineering staff answer that question in more detail. But yeah, obviously the stormwater management plan has been a component of their application. And one of the reasons they need that access road to the south is to maintain an existing stormwater facility that was built to serve the entire site. And so a lot of the analysis they did was infiltration analysis to ensure that not only were they going to meet the City requirements, but that it was just overall adequate for the amount of stormwater that they would need to retain on-site. But for a more technical answer, I think Mr. Hanson or Ms. Long can better answer the question. [37:57] **Commissioner Solberg**: Yeah, if they have any more information, that would be appreciated. Thank you. [38:10] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: Would you like to unmute? [38:12] **Glen Markergard (Planning Manager)**: Yes, both Julie Long and Brian Hanson are panelists now and can unmute as they're ready. [38:44] **Brian Hanson (Engineering)**: Yeah, good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners. This is Brian Hanson, Development Coordinator with the City of Bloomington Engineering. And yeah, we have been working with the applicant on the stormwater component for this and done some analysis. Working with them on what Mr. Centenario mentioned: utilizing that existing basin in that outlot area. And based on the information that we've received so far and reviewed, they do seem to be in compliance with our surface stormwater management policies. We will continue to work with them to ensure that is the case as they move forward with the permit application. But we've had extensive conversations with the design team with their engineers, and we are comfortable that they will be able to meet our stormwater management requirements for this site. [39:17] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: Thank you, Mr. Hanson. Other questions for staff? I'm not seeing any. Would the applicant wish to speak on this item? [39:30] **Carl Runck (Applicant - Alatus)**: I'll be real brief and then can stay for questions afterwards. But I wanted to say a few words—wanted to thank the staff for being so collaborative with us, namely Mike and Brian. Great to work with. We've been working on this project in different renditions over the course of the last—I suppose it's been almost two years now. And this is where we're at, really excited about it. We've owned this site—the ownership of the Crowne Plaza Hotel—for five or six years now. Worked with the staff over there coming up with what's in front of you today over the course of the last couple of years. As you're all well aware, it's one of the last three great development sites in Bloomington along this corridor, and we think the work that we put in along with our team on our side has really, I guess, captured those great river views and everything that there is to capture on this site. We think we've done a really good job of kind of honoring the fact that this is one of the last few great development sites for this sort of thing in Bloomington. And so I want to express our excitement—we’re here to see it come to fruition and just happy to be here today and thank you for the time. We'll open ourselves up for any questions. I think we have Architectural, Engineering, and our partner Mike Walter with Ron Clark Construction on the line as well. Thank you. [41:10] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: I have a question. Could you maybe talk to the reasoning for segregating between the market rate and workforce apartments? [41:20] **Mike Walter (Ron Clark Construction)**: This is Mike Walter with Ron Clark Construction. I think Carl will pass that one on to me. Normally, one of the things we do is quite a bit of work in both the affordable housing side and the market rate side. And when you look at a site like this where you have such an expense to try and build the market rate side to make it work within the component and to get the rents you need there—as you start to mix more affordable in, you make that very difficult. In this case, we felt it better to build more overall workforce apartments which we will end up obtaining by having the standalone building. Some of the other things, just from a regulation perspective: it allows people to stay in a workforce building longer. If it's 100% affordable, they don't have to—you know, normally if your income continues to grow, you're out of there at a certain point after your income is raised to 120 or 140% of the median. And so we find that the stability of those apartments, having the affordable in the other building that we have, is a very strong thing. People truly make it their home instead of just a temporary location. We see about 10% of the people we see buy houses in the community within the first two to three years, so we're seeing a low turnover overall. But when people turn over, they tend to have put away some money and saved some money because they're not paying 50-60% of their incomes anymore. And so it's worked well. And so we think the shared outside amenities, the shared location—I don't really feel it's much segregated. I think the two projects together standalone make a much better whole than if we tried to merge everything. I think we wouldn't make it both work monetarily and I think functionally as well. [43:08] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: Looking at the market-rate building, it looks like you have some three-bedrooms. Are you anticipating these being families? Or just, you know—I guess I'm just curious what you're anticipating regarding families and small children. [43:25] **Mike Walter (Ron Clark Construction)**: I think in our work with Steven Scott Management, who will be managing it, it was really... you could have made some oversized twos, but in a lot of cases, you know, you'll have families in transition that'll want a place to stay for a couple of years as they're coming into a community deciding what they want to do. I think it would be more of a younger kid scenario. We don't expect a lot from a family perspective—more of a younger family person with the kids, you know, maybe zero to six or seven that might live in there. But the family side will be much more in the workforce area where we have more of those. [43:53] **Carl Runck (Applicant)**: Thank you. And I would like to note that based on the previous lease-up at the Indigo and the current lease-up of the El in the South Loop district itself—the demand patterns for the different styles of units is trending much more urban in its tenant makeup than it is suburban. And so while Bloomington as a whole leases up more as a suburban market, you'll notice with our unit mix here, we're intending and expecting—based on those that have gone before us—that this is going to have more of an urban makeup. Once again, millennials, younger families with younger kids—it’s kind of a jumping-off point on their way perhaps out of the downtowns into the suburbs to set up and have a larger family. But again, the way the other two are leasing, we're not expecting large families here; it's just not taking place in the other two buildings. So we wouldn't expect that it's necessarily going to take place at ours. [44:35] **Commissioner Goldsmith**: Thanks, Madam Chair. My question is actually a follow-up to the conversation about children. Can we go to the slide with the plaza? So one of the questions I have is really about safe places for those children to play, and the plaza I think is great, but what type of amenities are you planning to put in there for those younger children that would be in those types of units? [44:55] **Mike Walter (Ron Clark Construction)**: If you look at it—I think Mike, can you pull up the one which shows the back pool deck and the whole amenity structure on the rear? We focused a lot of the apartment amenities to the back on the market-rate side. And you can see you've got a pool, we've got a potential hot tub, we've got a little area that might be a putting green, we've got areas to grill. So from a play area there, we think there'll be a lot of things for them to do. We don't technically have a full play structure, but we're seeing less and less of those; it's much more of organic play areas now with the true green spaces we can do—kind of multi-purpose that based on the tenant need versus trying to predetermine it ahead of time without knowing the tenants in the building. [45:31] **Carl Runck (Applicant)**: I'm not seeing any... do we have any [public comment]? [47:25] **Glen Markergard (Planning Manager)**: Yes, we do, Madam Chair. We've pre-registered Mr. Kyle Groves, who is on the line, and we have a couple of others that I'm not recognizing. So after he speaks, I'll check in with them. Thank you. [47:45] **Kyle Groves (Public)**: Hey, thank you very much. My name is Kyle Groves. Thank you, Madam Chair and the Commission. This is my first meeting jumping in with one of these, so I'm really enjoying everything so far. I do live in the Indigo Apartments currently, over at 8101 33rd. So I had a few things I wanted to comment on just from a perspective of someone who's living in these apartments and someone who would like to stay in the area. So number one—and this, I guess, is more of a comment or question—is anybody on the engineering or the architecture team or the applicant... have they worked on either the Indigo or the El, the new Rush Street development? [48:45] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: I guess, sorry, I should have explained a bit more about the public comment period. So you're free to voice questions; however, it's not meant like a Q&A. So if you have questions, you can voice them, and then the commissioners at the end, if they believe there are issues that need to be followed up on with either the applicant or staff, they will go ahead and address those questions. The public comment period is meant to take testimony. [49:00] **Kyle Groves (Public)**: Simple question just so then we have a... I can save everybody some time if it's not an appropriate one for the architecture team or the mechanical engineering team for these apartments: are there plans to have operable windows on either the Phase 1 or the Phase 2 units? [49:15] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: That's the type of question we're looking for today. Well, you're free to voice whatever questions you have and then—basically, this is a public hearing and so we have certain findings we have to make to reach a determination. So if we feel that those are important to reaching the findings or if we feel they need to be followed up on, the commissioners can go ahead and ask those after the public comment period. [49:46] **Kyle Groves (Public)**: Okay, so my question is: do any of these units have plans for operable windows to be opened up? I'm currently in the new apartment, Indigo Apartments. The only thing we have is our balcony window and I gotta say, it gets pretty stuffy in here even if I open the window or open the balcony door all the way. There's not really a good way to cycle airflow through because all of the windows are closed. I understand that we're in a part of town where things are allowed—the airport's right next door, the trains go honk-honk all the time—however, it is my understanding that just because you have a really nice double-pane window that's going to do a great job for sound reduction, and for the people who do want fresh air in the apartments, opening that window is not going to significantly... or that's their choice to make. But when that window is closed, the sound performance of having that multi-pane window is going to be similar if not 100% as a fully sealed apartment. So that is one comment that I'd like to pass off to the architecture and mechanical team, or that question: whether or not that is in the works or on the plan set for the project. [50:32] **Kyle Groves (Public)**: Another question that I have for the applicants is: what are the plans for bike storage? Based off the first item from our meeting today, we were discussing reducing our reliance on car culture in this part of town. There is a lot of public transit, there are a lot of trails. At the Indigo apartment, there is a dedicated secure key fob access for bike storage—that is an amazing amenity and I'm really happy that it's here, and I would like to see that continue if it were planned as part of either of these. So that's the question: what is the plan for storing a large number of bikes for the tenants or their guests in these new units, either Phase 1 or Phase 2? Thank you. And then did you have, besides your questions, did you have any additional comment you wanted to make on the item? [52:05] **Kyle Groves (Public)**: Yes, just a moment. I'm looking at some of the notes that I was taking for Phase 2. There was a comment earlier—if Phase 2 gets delayed—about increasing pedestrian access up from the road from the current surface parking lot down on the south end of the site. Are there any plans—or I suppose is it practical or legal—to get pedestrian access connected through the current condominium complex at 8121 34th Avenue South, basically allowing people to make a pedestrian loop from the east side or from the current project property south up through into the Appletree Square business area? I also do work over in that area and then come around the Crowne Plaza either through Appletree Square or around on 34th Avenue. Are there any plans to connect that all the way through? Is that possible? Is that feasible? As a neighborhood resident, that is a walk that I would like to be able to take through, assuming we have some sort of easement or the ability to make that through. I know the grade is really steep in the southeast corner of the proposed Phase 2 area. So the boiled-down question is: is it possible or are there plans to get pedestrian access around the south end of that site into the existing developed area? [52:51] **Kyle Groves (Public)**: I do have a comment related to parking. So I'm in the Indigo complex. I do have a car; I do park there; I would like to go car-free eventually. But I would say the internal parking structure has parking floors all the way up, including a seventh floor which is currently the roof access. Floors two through six are pretty much always at 90% capacity. We do have a parking structure and spaces on Floor 7 that is almost always empty; I never see anybody up there. So I would agree that having less than one parking stall per unit throughout the whole complex—that is tracking with my user experience over here at the Indigo complex. [53:36] **Kyle Groves (Public)**: And then as another comment on the living patterns and whether we're looking for an urban market or a suburban market: I'm 27, almost 28 years old, so that would put me solid in the millennial category. I don't necessarily have plans for making a family in the near future, but I also don't have plans for moving out to the suburbs. If I were to get into a family situation, I want to live in an urban environment or I want to live out in the sticks. Being here in the Twin Cities, living in the Indigo apartments, having access to public transportation and a safe place to store my bike that's not out on the street are all really important to me. But I want to have an ability to continue that lifestyle even if I do have a family. And you know, after my kids grow up past three or four years old, what are we going to do with the elementary school kids? What are we going to do with the teenagers? I understand why the common spaces are back behind the wall; I understand in that southeast corner of the Phase 1 property that makes a lot of sense. But generally speaking, I think if we do have more of these projects proposed, we would want to consider having some sort of an open space park or perhaps some extra development. I don't know who owns the Bloomington Central Park south of the Hyatt, a little bit west of this project site, but having additional space like that—another one of those parks and plazas—I think would be really great for the community if we could open up that green space, especially if we are doing things like having parking structures that are integrated into the structures of these proposed multi-level developments. Thank you. [55:47] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: Thank you. Comments on parking, bike storage... yeah, I think those are all of my comments. Thank you for the time. All right, thank you. Mr. Markergard, did you want to check if there was additional? [56:00] **Glen Markergard (Planning Manager)**: Yeah, Madam Chair, we have one call-in user. I just want to make sure that... phone number starting in the area code 507, I'm going to unmute you just to check in, see if you had a comment. [56:32] **Carl Runck (Applicant)**: It’s part of the applicant team. [56:34] **Glen Markergard (Planning Manager)**: Thank you. Mr. Keating, did you have a question? [56:36] **Carl Runck (Applicant)**: No, actually, I didn't know if you want our team to field Mr. Groves' questions, or if Mike wanted to tackle them. [57:00] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: So I think what I'll do is allow the Planning Commissioners to follow up as they feel appropriate on the questions, and I will go ahead and get started. Could you address the plans for bike storage since that is something we tend to look at in these projects? [57:21] **Carl Runck (Applicant)**: Yes, of course. Yes, bike storage. At this point, we have dedicated 233 secure bike storage slots in the basement plus a repair area, and then there's 10 outside for the market-rate building. So we have a pretty significant number—essentially one-to-one for our unit count. So I appreciate Mr. Groves bringing that up and noting it. It has certainly been part of our discussions with City staff and we'd love to see this area continue to go more and more car-free. You know, there would be a light rail station here in the airport, some of the great biking out here, obviously the growing use of services such as Uber and Lyft. Yeah, we'd love to see this garage not sit at 100% capacity, although true—good for everyone out here, good for the environment. And so we're set up with 233 secure bike storage locations in the basement plus a repair area and 10 outside. [58:07] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: Thank you. And then I suppose if you want to also just follow up on Mr. Groves' question about the windows? And then Mr. Centenario, could you maybe just do a brief overview of what the pedestrian access is like in that area? [59:02] **Mike Centenario (Planner)**: Sure. Madam Chair, what we'll try and do is go to the overall aerial. And I think I understood the guest's comments to be essentially that pedestrian connectivity through the development isn't the greatest. You know, specifically related to the condo development—the applicants don't have site control of that development, so they would not be able to make pedestrian improvements on that site. We also have, of course, the bluff to contend with, so having sidewalks or pedestrian access to the south of these buildings probably is not an option. Now, that being said, for this particular development, the overall pedestrian access for both phases is a significant improvement from the existing condition. I'll go to a different slide here. Right now where you have the Phase 2 surface parking lot, there is a really significant drop in grade, so you can't walk from west to east through the site. Whereas there would be a pedestrian connection from the Phase 2 building to 34th Avenue. So improving that access for those residents. And similarly for the market-rate building, there would be a direct sidewalk connection between American Boulevard East and the main entrance. And given the comments that we had, there would be a connection between the market-rate building and either the surface parking for Phase 1 or, as part of Phase 2, the pedestrian connection for access to the parking structure. So for this development, the pedestrian access is a significant improvement. We'd have to research in more depth other connections within the development and see what improvements could be made there if the applicant is willing to engage in that discussion. [1:00:35] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: Thank you. Any other questions at this time, or is there anyone who wishes to make a motion regarding the public hearing? [1:01:10] **Glen Markergard (Planning Manager)**: Madam Chair, I see that Mr. Groves does have his hand raised; I don't know if he has additional comments. Mr. Groves, do you have additional comments? [1:01:22] **Kyle Groves (Public)**: Apologies, that was an old hand raise. I’ll put that down. Okay, thank you. [1:01:30] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: All right, then. Is there any other questions while we have the public hearing open, or does anyone want to make a motion to close the public hearing? [1:02:00] **Commissioner Albrecht**: I move to close the public hearing. [1:02:02] **Commissioner Goldsmith**: Second. [1:02:04] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: Moved by Commissioner Albrecht, second by Commissioner Goldsmith. All those in favor say Aye. Commissioner Goodrum? [1:02:06] **Commissioner Goodrum**: Aye. [1:02:08] **Commissioner Solberg**: Aye. [1:02:10] **Commissioner Goldsmith**: Aye. [1:02:12] **Commissioner Korman**: Aye. [1:02:14] **Commissioner Roman**: Aye. [1:02:16] **Commissioner Albrecht**: Aye. [1:02:18] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: And that is an Aye from me. Motion passes 7-0. Moving on to discussion. Commissioner Solberg. [1:02:30] **Commissioner Solberg**: Thank you, Madam Chair. I like the proposal that's before us. It's utilizing some of the existing or the existing underutilized parking that's out in the South Loop. I think the development is doing a nice job of kind of fitting in to the surroundings where it can be pinched between the bluff and the road and other development. And while I think there's a need for more public space out there, as even Mr. Groves had brought up during the hearing, I can certainly support this application and realize that that is not the applicant's responsibility to find that for the community. [1:03:00] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: Thank you, Madam Chair. I too can support this project. I appreciate all of the work that the staff has done regarding the bluff standards and making it a much smoother transition to go through that process for the applicant. I also just wanted to mention that as well as I think this is a great upgrade to the land use—existing land use—and will be great for more folks to live near public transit. So I'm in support. Commissioner Goldsmith. [1:04:00] **Commissioner Goldsmith**: Thanks, Madam Chair. Just two comments here. I think the project overall is great, and I agree with Commissioner Albrecht that it's a good use of the land. Obviously, turning a surface parking lot into something that is developed and is a place for new residents to come in and live is great. I did like the plaza area. One area that I'm a little bit disappointed in is just the play area. I'm interested to see what type of organic play areas could exist. Concerned about the Phase 2, however—there really won't be any outside places other than that public plaza for children to play. And I think in those units especially, there will be families. So again, I'm supportive, but I'd like to see a little bit more area for play for those children, for safe areas for them. And then the other thing I just want to comment on is I really appreciate the city looking at more flexible parking arrangements. A lot of times we talk about deviations, and I think having the shared parking structure being used by two different uses—office during the day and residents by night—is a nice way to be creative and flexible. So I really appreciate that, and I'm in support of the proposal as it stands. Thanks. [1:05:40] **Commissioner Korman**: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm also in support of this application. I really like seeing how they continue to work in this area of the development. I also have to agree with Commissioner Goldsmith on the plaza part, and then I would use the same word: "disappointment." I do feel disappointed as well finding out that there's not additional opportunities for attracting more families. I understand that probably we're not looking into large families, but even if it was just a young member of a family—whether it's a teenager or it's a small child—I think it's important to have an area for recreation, especially during the warmer months of the year. We have talked for so long about the need of attracting more young families into Bloomington that I just get concerned that maybe we're missing an opportunity here by not having additional outdoor amenities for the kids. It is possible that some people probably are not looking into being in one of those apartments if they find that they don't have even a playground if they're a young family with a child. That takes away the future opportunity for a family that's growing to stay in Bloomington—to really have that time and that opportunity to get to know the city more, to fall in love with the city and to create that sense of belonging so then they can stay with us and later on move into a bigger place. So, but overall, I'm in complete agreement with the support of it. But yeah, definitely like to have seen more opportunities for families. [1:07:50] **Commissioner Goodrum**: Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, earlier [I mentioned] about burial mounds. There are historically [mounds] in that area. I don't think a condition is needed as long as the applicant is listening; probably to their benefit to have an analysis done or a study done. I’d hate to have this project slowed down because they did not take a look at the potential of impacts of burials and then shutting down a project until something's corrected during the construction period. So I just want to repeat that comment. [1:08:50] **Commissioner Roman**: Thank you, Madam Chair. Echoing all the comments that have been made. Overall the project is a strong candidate and I also appreciated Mr. Schmidt from the Port Authority and—you know, it's talked about recently—we had the question with shared parking and affordable housing. And I was glad to see that that note was made in there, that we do expect that affordable use and access to parking without additional surcharge. So no major concerns about this project. [1:09:40] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: Any other comments or discussion, or would anyone like to make a motion? I see Commissioner Korman’s hand is up. [1:09:54] **Commissioner Korman**: In Case PL2020-28, having been able to make the required findings, I move to recommend City Council approval of preliminary development plans for a 328-residential unit multi-phase American Square planned development and final development plans for a 242-unit apartment building at 3701 American Boulevard East, subject to the conditions including the revision to PDP condition Number 3 and code requirements attached to the staff report. [1:10:30] **Commissioner Albrecht**: Second. [1:10:39] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: Moved by Commissioner Korman, second by Commissioner Albrecht. All those in favor say Aye. Commissioner Goodrum? [1:10:41] **Commissioner Goodrum**: Aye. [1:10:43] **Commissioner Solberg**: Aye. [1:10:45] **Commissioner Goldsmith**: Aye. [1:10:47] **Commissioner Korman**: Aye. [1:10:49] **Commissioner Roman**: Aye. [1:10:51] **Commissioner Albrecht**: Aye. [1:10:53] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: And that is an Aye from me. Motion passes 7-0. This will move on to the June 22nd City Council meeting. [1:11:00] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: All right, so then moving on, the final item is just approval of Planning meeting minutes from the May 21st, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. The only Commissioner I believe was absent was Commissioner Goodrum. [1:11:20] **Commissioner Albrecht**: I move to approve the draft Planning Commission meeting synopsis of May 21st, 2020 as presented. [1:11:25] **Commissioner Roman**: Second. [1:11:27] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: Moved by Commissioner Albrecht, second by Commissioner Roman. All those in favor say Aye. Commissioner Solberg? [1:11:30] **Commissioner Solberg**: Aye. [1:11:32] **Commissioner Goldsmith**: Aye. [1:11:34] **Commissioner Korman**: Aye. [1:11:36] **Commissioner Roman**: Aye. [1:11:38] **Commissioner Albrecht**: Aye. [1:11:40] **Chair Kimberley Cook**: There’s an Aye from me. Motion passes 6-0. That will conclude the June 11, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. Our next meeting will be on June 25th, 2020. Thank you.