. >> GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THIS DECEMBER 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 OUR STUDY ITEMS WHERE WE WILL NOT TAKE FORMAL ACTION WELL OTHER ITEMS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ARE
PUBLIC HEARINGS WHERE WE WILL TAKE FORMAL ACTION AND WE ENCOURAGE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. YOU CAN DO SO HERE AT CITY HALL IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS OR YOU CAN ALSO DO SO ONLINE BY FOLLOWING THE INSTRUCTIONS ON YOUR SCREEN ON
SOME ITEMS THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS FINAL DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY. WELL IN 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. WE HAVE FOUR OF THOSE RESIDENTS HERE THIS EVENING SO WE DO HAVE A QUORUM AS WE BEGIN THIS EVENING I ASK EVERYONE IN THE CHAMBERS TO
PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION
UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL . WE WILL BEGIN WITH ITEM NUMBER ONE WHICH IS A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A NEW DAYCARE FACILITY. MISS LIZ O'DAY, YOU'RE HERE WITH THE STAFF REPORT. I AM. THANK YOU, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. AND I'M ONE IS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
DAYCARE. SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION IS AT 400 AMERICAN BOULEVARD EAST JUST LOCATED WEST OF PORTLAND ON AMERICAN BOULEVARD.
SURROUNDING LAND USES INCLUDE OFFICE WAREHOUSE TYPE USES TO THE NORTH OF AMERICAN BOULEVARD AND THEN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTH. THE BUILDING SIZE IS
APPROXIMATELY 13,000FT. THE DAYCARE WOULD TAKE UP THE WESTERN HALF OF THE BUILDING. THEY'RE PROPOSING TO HAVE 60 CHILDREN AND EIGHT CAREGIVERS
. THEY'RE PROPOSING TO HAVE JUST A TYPICAL MIX OF AREAS WITHIN THE DAYCARE ITSELF PRESCHOOL TODDLER AND INFANT ROOMS AS
WELL AS A COMMERCIAL KITCHEN. AND THEN KIND OF AN INDOOR PLAY AREA AS WELL. THEY'RE REQUIRED THROUGH THE STATE TO HAVE AN OUTDOOR PLAY AREA. SO THEY'RE PROPOSING TO HAVE
THAT LOCATED WEST OF THE BUILDING. THERE'S ABOUT TEN FEET OF SPACE THERE. THEY'RE PLANNING ON INSTALLING A FENCE WITH SOME PLAY EQUIPMENT THAT WOULD BE UNDER SEVEN FEET TALL.
AND THEN AS FAR AS PARKING GOES, 29 PARKING STALLS ARE REQUIRED FOR THE ENTIRE BUILDING. AND THEY'RE SHOWING 31 STALLS ON SITE. >> AND THEN WITH ANY KIND OF CHANGE OF USE, THEY'RE
REQUIRED TO BRING SOME ITEMS UP INTO COMPLIANCE. SO THE FIRST ONE IS PARKING LOT LIGHTING WHICH IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT FOR A DAYCARE PROVIDER. SO THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED
LIGHTING PLANS AND THEY ARE COMPLIANT. THEY'VE SEEN IT APPLY FOR AN ELECTRICAL PERMIT FOR THAT INSTALLATION. AND THEN LANDSCAPING THEY'RE REQUIRED TO INSTALL SEVEN
TREES AND A HANDFUL OF SHRUBS. THEY HAVE TO GET A LANDSCAPE SURETY AND SUPPLY A LANDSCAPE PLAN PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE. AND THEN LASTLY DUE TO
INCREASE IN PED TRAFFIC THEY'RE REQUIRED TO INSTALL A SIDEWALK THAT LINKS FROM THEIR PRIMARY BUILDING ENTRANCE TO THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK ALONG AMERICAN BOULEVARD.
AND WITH THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. THIS IS A FINAL DECISION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT TO AN APPEAL. THANK YOU MR. DE. WE WILL BEGIN WITH QUESTIONS
FOR STAFF. MR. CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU, CHAIR. ON THE OUTDOOR FACILITY REQUIREMENT IS THERE A SQUARE
FOOTAGE THAT'S STATED IN CODE ? CHAIR COMMISSIONER IT'S NOT ACTUALLY IN OUR CITY CODE. IS THAT ME? SORRY. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT FEEDBACK
SAMMY SORRY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THAT. IT'S NOT IN CODE. IT'S ACTUALLY IN THEIR STATE LICENSE. THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE 1500 SQUARE FEET OF OUTDOOR PLAY
SPACE. EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. YEP. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER WHITE. THANK YOU, CHAIR. >> I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ARE THEY USING THE ENTIRE BUILDING
OR JUST HALF OF THE BUILDING? I WASN'T QUITE CLEAR ON THAT. CHAIR COMMISSIONER THEY'RE JUST USING THE HALF WEST SIDE. AND SORRY MR. CHAIR. AND WHAT'S IN THE OTHER HALF?
IT'S A A MIX OF OFFICE WAREHOUSE AND THEN THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING HAS A PICKLEBALL COURT THAT THEY USE FOR JUST KIND OF THEIR PRIVATE USE ONLY NOT OPEN FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC. OKAY.
THANK YOU. YEP. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ? THANK YOU MR.. THANK YOU. I WILL INVITE THE APPLICANT UP
NOW IF THEY'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. NOT NECESSARY. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING SO I WILL OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING NOW AND ASK IF THERE'S ANYONE
IN THE CHAMBERS WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY ON THIS ITEM. SEEING NO ONE STEPPING FORWARD, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ONLINE? OH, PARTICIPANTS ONLINE OUR STAFF. THANK YOU, MS. BROWN. LAST CALL FOR ANYONE IN THE
CHAMBERS TO TESTIFY ON THIS ITEM. SEEING NO ONE STEPPING FORWARD, I WILL LOOK FOR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SO MOVED WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I OPPOSED NO MOTION PASSES FOUR ZERO AND WE WILL MOVE TO DISCUSSION
. COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU CHAIR. SEEMS LIKE A VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD RECOMMENDATION IN FRONT OF US.
I'M IN FAVOR OF OF GOING WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. >> I CONCUR. I THINK THAT IT IS A GREAT USE
OF THE SPACE AND A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO GET MORE CHILD CARE IN THE COMMUNITY. >> I AGREE WITH THAT. I IT'S NICE TO SEE NEW BUSINESSES COMING INTO THE CITY AND I THINK IT'S A GREAT
ADAPTIVE REUSE OF SOME YOU KNOW, LOOK I MEAN A LOT OF A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE WORKING FROM HOME. SOME OF THESE OLDER STOCKS OF COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS ARE NOT BEING USED FOR THEIR ORIGINAL USE AND I'M HAPPY TO SEE IN ADAPTIVE REUSE IN THIS
WAY AND I THINK IT'S A GREAT AMENITY TO OUR RESIDENTS. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? IF NOT, I WILL LOOK FOR A MOTION. MR. CUNNINGHAM HAVING BEEN
ABLE TO MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS, I MOVE TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DAYCARE WITHIN THE EXISTING OFFICE WAREHOUSE BUILDING LOCATED AT 400 AMERICAN BOULEVARD EAST.
SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND CODE REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN THE RESOLUTION, THERE ARE A SECOND SECOND I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I OPPOSED THAT MOTION PASSES FOUR ZERO. THIS IS A FINAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNLESS AN APPEAL IS RECEIVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT 4:30
P.M. ON DECEMBER 23RD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER TWO WHICH IS THE PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON AS THE APPLICANT REGARDING COMMERCIAL
VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. MISS NAVARRO IS HERE WITH A STAFF REPORT. >> GOOD EVENING CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS DUDLEY NAVARRO AND WE WILL BE FOCUSING ON
COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS ON THE AGENDA TODAY WHERE WE HAVE THE THE PROJECT OVERVIEW, THE PROJECT TIMELINE AND STUDY SESSIONS FEEDBACK AND THE
CODE THE CURRENT CODE AND PROPOSED CHANGES THIS ZONING CODE LIMITS WHAT TYPE OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAILERS MAY BE PARK OR STORE IN RESIDENTIAL
AREAS OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEAR YEARS THE STAFF HAVE SEEN AN INCREASE IN ENFORCEMENT CASES AS THE VEHICLE SIZE AND THE SIGNS HAVE CHANGED. MANY RESIDENTS WHO RELY NOW ON
WORK MAY BE CALLS FOR A SMALL BUSINESSES TRADE WORK OR DELIVERIES. HOWEVER, THE CURRENT CODE SORRY THE CURRENT
CODE CAN BE DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND AND DOESN'T ALWAYS MATCH THE TYPE OF MOTOR VEHICLES THAT RESIDENTS COMMONLY ARE USING TODAY SO THIS PROJECT IS ABOUT FINDING
A BALANCE BETWEEN FLEXIBILITY FOR RESIDENTS AND PROTECTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS FOR THIS PROJECT AND STAFF CONDUCTED BOTH
IN-PERSON AND ONLINE COMMUNITY OUTREACH INCLUDING TABLING AT BLOOMINGTON BLACK PRIDE EVENT AND AS WELL AS THE LESTER BLOOMINGTON PAGE AND STAFF
ALSO MET INTERNALLY WITH ENVIRONMENTAL HOPEFULLY WORKS POLICE PLANNING AND LEGAL TO UNDERSTAND ENFORCEMENT CHALLENGES AND CONCERNS AND THEN ADD STAFF PRESENTED THE
PROJECT AS A SELF STUDY ITEM TO BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL AND BASED ON THE STUDY SESSIONS FEEDBACK ITS STAFF DRAFTED AN ORDINANCE AND HELD
TWO STAFF MEETINGS WITH THE SAME GROUP OF PEOPLE TO REVIEW THE PROPOSED CHANGES AND TESTED IN ADDITION, I PARTICIPATED IN A FIELD TRIP WITH AN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM COORDINATOR ORDER TO
LOOK AT COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND TRAILERS THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING USED BY RESIDENTS IN BLOOMINGTON. AND TODAY WE'RE HERE AT A PUBLIC HEARING AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE
MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND THIS PROJECT WILL GO TO CITY COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON JANUARY 26TH AND THIS IS A TENTATIVE DATE
DEPENDING ON THEIR AGENDA AND SCHEDULE AND THROUGH COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL SESSIONS SEVERAL THEMES CAME UP SUCH AS
SUPPORT FOR GREATER FLEXIBILITY FOR WORK RELATED VEHICLES, MAINTAINING NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AND SAFETY CLARIFY HOW ATTACHMENTS ARE MEASURED ADDRESS SAFETY
NEAR DRIVEWAYS AND INTERSECTIONS AND REFLECTING COMMUNITY INPUT SO THESE FEEDBACK HELP US SHAPE THE
PROPOSED ORDINANCE . >> SO AS I MENTIONED EARLIER I WENT ON A FIELD TRIP WITH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TO LOOK AT THE MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAILERS THAT ARE CURRENTLY
USED BY RESIDENTS IN BLOOMINGTON. I AM NOT ABLE TO SHARE THOSE PHOTOS FOR PRIVATE REASONS BUT I WAS ABLE TO FIND SIMILAR VEHICLES HERE AT CIVIC PLAZA
AND OUR FLEET DEPARTMENT AND WE MEASURED THOSE VEHICLES AND MOST USE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES DO NOT EXCEED 12FT IN HEIGHT AND 22FT IN LENGTH AND SO THIS
CONFIRMS THE VEHICLE SIZE RESEARCH THAT IS STAFF CONDUCT CONDUCTED DURING THE STUDY SESSIONS. >> SO UNDER THE CURRENT
CODE VEHICLES ARE DIVIDED INTO DIFFERENT TYPE BASED ON THE SIZE AND THE USE. SO WE HAVE TYPE ONE, TYPE TWO AND TYPE THREE TYPE ONE VEHICLES ARE UP TO A FEEDING
HEIGHT AND 22FT IN LENGTH. TYPE TWO VEHICLES INCLUDE TAXES, LIMOUSINES AND IS NO PLOW EQUIPPED BICYCLES THAT THAT MEET THE SAME SIZE US AS
TYPE ONE VEHICLES AND THEN WE HAVE TYPE THREE VEHICLES WHICH ARE THOSE VEHICLES THAT EXCEED THOSE SIZES AND ARE CLASSIFIED AS NONRESIDENTIAL AND ARE
PROHIBITED AS STAFF IS PROPOSING TO REMOVE THE TYPE THE VEHICLE TYPE CATEGORIES AND JUST REPLACE IT WITH ONE
CLEAR SIZE STANDARD. THE PROPOSED CHANGE INCREASES THE HEIGHT LIMIT TO 12FT IN HEIGHT AND WE'RE KEEPING THE EXISTING 22FT IN LENGTH
BASED ON COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS RESIDENTS REPORTED SUPPORTED ALLOWING VEHICLES THAT ARE TAXES CARGO BANDS, FOOD TRUCKS, VEHICLES WITH ATTACHED EQUIPMENT, LIMOUSINES
AND BUSSES BUT USING JUST ONE SIZE AS STANDARD AND INCREASING THE HEIGHT LIMIT TO 12FT. THE ORDINANCE CAN ACCOMMODATE MOST OF THE COMMERCIAL
VEHICLES CURRENTLY USED BY OUR RESIDENTS AND IT WILL BETTER REFLECT THE COMMUNITY FEEDBACK THAT WE GOT DURING THE OUTREACH FOR EQUALS WITH
ATTACH EQUIPMENT AND STAFF PURPOSES MEASURING ONLY THE VEHICLE ITSELF DURING THE STAFF REVIEW WE FOUND THAT REGULARLY AN ATTACHMENT WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE
AND COULD CREATE AN UNNECESSARY VERY CHALLENGES FOR TRADESPEOPLE AND WHO YOU KNOW WHO RELY FOR WORK EQUIPMENT AND KNOW WHAT'S
GOING ON RELIEF WORK AND WORK EQUIPMENT, VEHICLES. >> SO AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE CURRENT CODE PROHIBITS TYPE THREE VEHICLES WHICH ARE
CLOSED THAT EXCEED EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT AND 22FT IN LENGTH. THE CODE ALSO INCLUDES A LONG LIST OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT THAT ARE QUALIFIED AS NONRESIDENTIAL.
A STAFF IS PROPOSING TO PROHIBIT MOTOR VEHICLES OVER 12 FEEDING HEIGHT AND 22FT IN LENGTH AND KEEPING A LIST OF COMMERCIAL MACHINERY AND
EQUIPMENT AS PROHIBITED UNLESS THE EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT IS ACTUALLY ACTIVELY USED IN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. THE PHOTOS ON THE RIGHT SIDE
OF THE SCREEN REPRESENT THE VEHICLE TYPES THAT WILL REMAIN PROHIBITED UNDER THE PROPOSED CHANGES .
>> THINK MY COMPUTER IS WEIRD TO TODAY. >> THERE YOU GO. SO IN 2024 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAD APPROXIMATELY 280
ENFORCEMENT ENFORCEMENT CASES RELATED TO OVERSIZE MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAILERS OF THOSE CASES ONE 141 CASES WERE
RELATED TO OVERSIZE TRAILERS ALONE UNDER THE CURRENT CODE TRAILERS ARE LIMITED TO SIX FEET IN HEIGHT AND EIGHT
FEET AND SIX INCHES IN LENGTH . DURING OUR FIELD TRIP THE STAFF WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY MOST COMMON TRAILERS USED BY RACING ENDS WHICH ARE SHOWN IN THE PICTURES.
AND THESE TRAILERS ARE APPROXIMATELY 6 TO 8FT IN HEIGHT AND 20FT IN LENGTH. SO THESE SHOWS THAT CURRENT TRAILER SIZE LIMITS DO NOT
REFLECT COMMON USE OR AND HELPS EXPLAIN WHY WE HAVE AN INCREASE IN ENFORCEMENT CASES OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS. SO TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE A STAFF IS PROPOSING TO INCREASE
THE TRAILER SIZE TO 12 FEEDING HEIGHT AND 22FT IN LENGTH AND THIS WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SIZES STANDARDS.
SO RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ARE NOT PART OF THIS PROJECT BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHY OR WHAT IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED UNDER THE RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE ORDINANCE. THERE ARE TWO TYPE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES CLUBS CLASS ONE AND CLASS TWO THE PENDING ON THE SIZE AND GENERAL RECREATIONAL VEHICLES UP TO 40FT IN LENGTH ARE
ALLOWED TO BE PARK AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. AND THIS ALSO APPLIES TO TRAILERS FOR RECREATIONAL BAGELS A COMMON THEME FROM COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND IS
STAFF REVIEW MEETINGS WAS THE FRUSTRATION FROM RESIDENTS WHO CAN NOT PARK A MUCH SMALLER COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OR TRAILER. BUT THEN LARGER RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ARE ALLOWED.
MANY OF THE COMPLAINTS RECEIVED BY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH WERE NOT ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF THE BAKER OR TRAILER ITSELF BUT MORE ABOUT
THE CURRENT CODE NOT REFLECTING THE STANDARDS THE STANDARD VEHICLE SIZE AND TRAILER THAT ARE CURRENT CURRENTLY USED BY THEIR RESIDENTS FOR THE MAXIMUM
QUANTITY. THE CURRENT CODE ALLOWS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES ONE TRAILER AND TWO TRAILERS FOR RECREATIONAL
VEHICLES THAT COULD BE EITHER ONE CLASS ONE OR CLASS TWO OR THEY ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE THREE MOTOR VEHICLES ONE TYPE TWO
BAKER, ONE TRAILER AND TWO TRAILERS FOR RESCUE FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES. SO THESE MEANS THAT THEY COULD HAVE UP TO THREE TRAILERS.
WE ARE PROPOSING TO KEEP THE FOUR MOTOR VEHICLES AND ALLOWED ONLY TWO TRAILERS OF ANY TYPE.
SO OR WE ARE ALLOWING THREE MOTOR VEHICLES ONE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE UP TO 12FT IN HEIGHT AND 22FT IN LENGTH AND TWO
TRAILERS OF ANY TYPE COULD BE COMMERCIAL OR RECREATIONAL. SO THIS IS JUST A DECREASE FROM THE CURRENT CODE FROM THREE TRAILERS TO TWO TRAILERS
OF ANY TYPE INCLUDING COMMERCIAL, COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL . SO FOR PARKING ON LOCATION
UNDER THE CURRENT CODE LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ONLY APPLY TO TRAILERS. THESE REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE PARKING AT LEAST EIGHT FEET BEHIND A DWELLING UNIT UNLESS
A TRAILER IS PARK ON A LEGAL DRIVEWAY OR OFF DRY PARKING AREA AND MAINTAINING AT LEAST FIVE FEET FROM ANY LOT LINE. >> BASED ON SAFETY FEEDBACK
THAT WE GOT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE CITY COUNCIL AND RESIDENTS STAFF IS PROPOSING TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND TRAILERS FROM PARKING ON PUBLIC STREETS WITHIN THE
RIGHT OF WAY SIDEWALKS OR IN CLEAR BLUE TRIANGLES. SO THESE MEANS THAT COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND TRAILERS MUST BE PARKED IN A LEGAL DRIVEWAY OR
A PROOF OF DRIVE FOR PARKING AREA. AND IN ADDITION IS STAFF IS MAINTAINING THEIR REQUIREMENT OF AT LEAST FIVE FEET FROM ANY
LINE NOT ABOUT ABUTTING A STREET AND A MINIMUM OF 30FT FROM ANY VERY LOW LINE ABUTTING A STREET.
SO THESE AS I CHOSE HOW A STAFF IS ALIGNING RELATED SECTION OF THE CITY CODE TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ALLOWANCES ARE NOT BEING
BROADLY CHANGE IN SET MEASUREMENTS AS STANDARD AND TRAILER QUANTITY LIMITS ARE BEING ALIGNED WITH THE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE AND TRAILER ORDINANCE. AND FOR EXTERIOR STORAGE THE
PROPOSED CHANGE REMOVES THE CONFUSION BY ALLOWING HEAVY HEAVY EQUIPMENT STORAGE TO BE OUTSIDE A GARAGE ONLY WHEN IT
IS ACTIVELY BEING USED. AND THE GOAL IS TO CREATE CONSISTENCY AND THERE'S A REASONS AND ENVIRONMENT TO HOLD. INSPECTORS ARE NOT TRYING TO NAVIGATE CONFLICTING RULES
ACROSS DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE CODE. AND FINALLY STAFF IS PROPOSING TO ADD CLEARER DEFINITIONS FOR COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES AND
TRAILERS WHICH ARE CURRENTLY MISSING FROM THE CODE. AND WITH THAT I WELCOME ANY FEEDBACK OR ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. >> AND ONCE WE'RE READY THERE IS DEMO SHOWN IN THE SCREEN. >> THANK YOU, MR. MORROW. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING SO WE WILL BEGIN WITH QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
COMMISSIONER WAIT. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR. MS. NOVARRO I'M CURIOUS COULD YOU JUST TALK FOR A MINUTE AND I APOLOGIZE IF YOU DID AND I MISSED THIS ABOUT THE
REDUCTION IN LENGTH FROM 25 TO 22 AND A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT THE REASONING BEHIND THAT IS. >> YEAH. SO SINCE WE ARE CURRENTLY PROPOSING THAT COMMERCIAL
MOTOR VEHICLES INCLUDING COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND TRAILERS ARE ALLOWED TO BE 12FT IN HEIGHT AND 22 IN LENGTH, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE THAT WE HAVE IN THE RB
SECTION AN ALLOWANCE OF 25FT IN LENGTH. SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE IS JUST TO HAVE A MORE CLEAR AS STANDARD
BETWEEN THESE CODES. SO WE'RE PROPOSING TO MAKE THAT CHANGE TO REFLECT THE SAME SIZE AS THE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE AND TRAILERS.
THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. SO JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY AGAIN SORRY IF YOU SAID THIS ALREADY . THE 22FT FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES WHY WHY NOT JUST MAKE
THAT 25? >> CHAIR COMMISSIONERS SO THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION. SINCE WE MEASURE MOST OF THE THE COMMON VEHICLES THAT ARE CURRENTLY USED, THEY DO NOT
EXCEED MORE THAN 22FT IN LENGTH. SO WE WENT WITH 22. IT MADE MORE SENSE TO JUST
UPDATE THE RV SECTION FROM 25FT IN LENGTH INSTEAD OF THE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE TO 25 IF THAT MAKES SENSE. OKAY. MR. JOHNSTON, ANYTHING TO ADD?
YEAH. THANK YOU. CHAIR COOKSON AND COMMISSIONER WHITE JUST TO MAKE ONE CLARIFICATION TO THE LIMITATION ON THE TRAILER LENGTH AND REALLY CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG THE 22FT IS WHEN IT'S PARKED IN THE FRONT YARD ONLY SO THERE ARE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR OTHER SIZED RECREATION VEHICLE TRAILERS. THIS IS BECAUSE BECAUSE ENVIRONMENTAL HAVE HEALTH STAFF JUST SEES IT IN THE FRONT YARD. A TRAILER IS A TRAILER KIND OF THING. THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE TO BE
ALIGNED. BUT JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLARIFICATION THAT'S FRONT YARD ONLY. FORGIVE ME IF THAT WAS ALREADY UNDERSTOOD. IT SEEMS LIKE MAYBE IT WAS ORIGINALLY NO. THANK YOU, CHAIR. MS. NAVARRO CAN YOU GO BACK TO
THE SLIDE? THE PICTOGRAM THAT HAD SORT OF THE THREE CAR FOURARS PLUS ONE TRAILER THAT ONE? >> YEAH.
GIVE ME ONE SECOND ON MY COMPUTER IS FROZEN . HEY, YOU THINK YOU'RE A MINNESOTAN? YOU CAN'T BLAME. OKAY, SO LOOKING AT THE
CURRENT CODE TO THE PROPOSED CHANGE, DO WE HAVE ANY SENSE OF HOW MANY RESIDENTS? WELL, THIS IS A TWO PART QUESTION. HOW MANY PEOPLE CURRENTLY HAVE
SITUATION ON THE LEFT SIDE WHO WILL NOW BE CONFINED TO THE RIGHT SIDE, NUMBER ONE AND NUMBER TWO, WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY ALREADY HAVE THOSE VEHICLES?
ARE THEY GRANDFATHERED IN OR DO THEY HAVE TO SUDDENLY GET RID OF THEIR VEHICLES OVERNIGHT OR START FACING FINES? CHERRY COMMISSIONERS SO WE
DON'T HAVE AIST OF LIKE HOW MANY BE CALLS OR TRAILERS RESIDENTS HAVE CURRENTLY HAVE WHEN WE WENT ON A FIELD TRIP
WITH THEM ARE MEANT TO HOLD WE WE NOTICE THAT MOST OF THE RESIDENTS ONLY HAVE 1 OR 2 TRAILERS AND BUT NICK I DON'T
KNOW IF YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT. MR. JOHNSON THANK YOU CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER O'NEILL A LOT. INVITE KEVIN TURNEY, KEVIN, TO ASK YOU TO ADD SOMETHING TO THE LEGALLY NON CONFORMING PART OF THE QUESTION IN THE
GRANDFATHERED BUT IT'S NOT A LONG LIST IT DOES COME UP IN ENFORCEMENT CASES NOW AND AGAIN ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH IS HAVING RIGHT NOW AS IT RELATES TO TRAILERS IS THAT PEOPLE WILL HAVE MULTIPLE TRAILERS,
MANY TRAILERS AND THEY'LL SAY SOME OF THEM ARE FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AND SOME OF THEM ARE FOR WORK. AND SO THERE WHAT HAPPENS IS THERE KIND OF IS A LITTLE BIT OF A GAMING OF THE SYSTEM NOT BY MANY PEOPLE BUT PEOPLE WHO HAVE STUDIED OUR ORDINANCES
AND CAN OF GREATER DETAIL. AND SO THE GOAL REALLY IS JUST TO ALIGN OR CREATE AN ALLOWANCE OF TRAILERS THAT KIND OF FULFILLS BOTH NEEDS. AND SO WHETHER IT BE 2 OR 3 WE
WANT A TRAILER TO BE A TRAILER AND NOT BE CONSIDERED ONE'S A COMMERCIAL TRAILER AND ONE'S A WRECKED TRAILER BECAUSE BASICALLY PEOPLE KIND OF PLAY SOME GAMES WITH THAT. SO WITH RESPECT TO LEGALLY
NONCONFORMING KEVIN, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS IS SOMETHING BECAUSE THIS IS JUST KIND OF A OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTIC OF A SITE. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S ELIGIBLE FOR LEGAL NONCONFORMING STATUS.
SO NO, A SITE WOULD NOT BE GRANDFATHERED IN BUT IN OUR EXPERIENCE IT'S NOT A LONG LIST OF PROPERTIES IN TOWN THAT HAVE HAD MORE THAN TWO TRAILERS TYPICALLY ANYTHING TO ADD? MR. TUSKY YEAH, JUST A LITTLE
BIT. CHAIR COMMISSIONERS WE RECOGNIZE NONCONFORMING USES NON CONFORMING LOTS AND NON CONFORMING SITE CHARACTERISTICS IN OUR CODE.
I DON'T THINK THE VEHICLE NUMERICAL LIMITS OR TRAILER LIMITS WOULD BE ONE OF THOSE THINGS SO YOU WON'T HAVE LEGALLY NONCONFORMING RIGHTS ECHOING WHAT THE PLANNING
MANAGER SAID LIKE LIKE INITIALLY SAID MOST OF THE ENFORCEMENT CASES ARE JUST THE TRAILERS SO INCREASING THAT HEIGHT BY JUST A FEW FEET WILL ELIMINATE A LOT OF ENFORCEMENT
CASES AND KIND OF REFLECT CURRENT PRACTICES WE HAVEN'T HAD. YOU KNOW, WHEN WE GET TO THE FINE STAGE AND ENFORCEMENT I'M USUALLY IN REVIEW THOUGH AS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND WE HAVEN'T HAD MUCH WITH TRAILER QUANTITY IT'S ALWAYS
SIZE IT SEEMS LIKE TO ME. SO THIS IS LIKE THE ONE THING THAT I KIND OF AGREED WITH STAFF ON IS LIKE THIS WOULD JUST ELIMINATE TONS OF WORK FOR US. SO YEAH, THANKS.
OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER WAIT MR. CHAIR AND ACTUALLY MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION FOR MR. TASK AS WELL. SORRY TO GO BACK TO THE THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE VERSUS
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE LENGTH BUT I'M CURIOUS ON THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, DO YOU HAVE ANY SENSE OF HOW MANY THEY'RE CURRENTLY BEING PARKED ARE IN BETWEEN THAT 22 TO 25 FOOT?
I'M MY IMPRESSION IS THAT RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ARE OFTEN LONGER RIGHT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT CREATING AN ENFORCEMENT PROBLEM ON THAT END. >> YEAH.
CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS I DON'T THINK SO ON THAT FRONT THE SIZE OF OUR RVS I THINK YOU CAN GO UP TO 40FT IS IT RIGHT OR MAXIMUM AS LONG AS
IT'S STORED A PROPER WAY. SO MOST PEOPLE PUT THOSE ON THE SIDE OF THEIR HOUSE. SO IT'S NOT BEEN A PROBLEM THAT I'VE SEEN AND I CAN'T RECALL A SINGLE FINE OR ANYTHING ENFORCEMENT ACTION ON
LOCATION OF AN RV SO I AGREE WITH THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER ANDY THANK YOU CHAIR. THIS IS JUST KIND OF A GENERAL QUESTION AND SOME OF THE
PARTICULARLY LIKE CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF IN USE LIKE SO BOBCAT SOMEBODY IS DOING THEIR OWN HOME NOW AND THEY'VE GOT THE BOBCAT AND IT'S OUT THERE FOR
SEVEN MONTHS IS THAT I MEAN HOW IS THAT DEFINED? >> TERRY COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SO WE ACTUALLY HAD THAT HAPPEN BEFORE AND
THAT'S WHY WE ARE KIND OF WE'RE TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT PART OF THE CODE WHERE YEAH PEOPLE CAN'T REALLY STORE A COMMERCIAL MACHINERY FOR
MORE YOU KNOW FOUR SEVEN MONTHS, SIX MONTHS SO THERE'S ONLY ONE IS ACTIVELY BEING USE ON A PROJECT THAT THEY'RE CURRENTLY WORKING ON THE
PROPERTY IF I MAY ADD TO THAT MR. JONES ACTIVELY IN USE DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY DRIVING AROUND THE LOT. IT CAN BE PARKED TEMPORARILY ESPECIALLY WHILE THEY HAVE AN ACTIVE BUILDING PERMIT FOR SAY, YOU KNOW, LARGER LANDSCAPE PROJECTS RETAINING
WALLS. THOSE OFTEN REQUIRE PERMITS OR A GRADING PERMIT OF SOME KIND. SO ACTIVE PERMITS HELP DIFFERENTIATE SOME OF THOSE THINGS. SO IT DOESN'T MEAN ACTIVELY MOVING AROUND ON THE SITE.
IT CAN BE PARKED AND BE STATIONARY OVERNIGHT. IT'S JUST AGAIN GAVE ME BACK TO THAT YOUR POINT ABOUT GAMING THE SYSTEM CAN'T BE SITTING THERE FOREVER BECAUSE I'M MEANING TO GET TO IT AT SOME POINT.
TERRY, IF I MAY PLEASE CLARIFY COMMISSIONERS WHITE QUESTION SO IT WILL BE THE 22FT LONG IT WILL BE ON THE ON THE FRONT YARDS.
THEY ARE RECREATIONAL VEHICLES LONGER THAN 22 WILL BE ABLE TO STILL PARK ON THE REAR OF THE DWELLING ON THE SITE SO THAT'S NOT CHANGING IS JUST THE FRONT
YARD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ? THANK YOU MR. BARROW. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING WHICH I WILL OPEN NOW AND ASK IF THERE'S ANYONE IN THE CHAMBERS WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY ON THIS
ITEM AND I DON'T SEE ANYBODY CONG FORWARD. I WILL ASK IF THERE'S ANYBODY ONLINE ALL PARTICIPANTS ONLINE, OUR STAFF. THANK YOU MS. BROWN I WILL LOOK FOR A MOTION THEN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SO
MOVED. SECOND I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I OPPOSED THE MOTION PASSES FOUR ZERO WE'LL MOVE INTO
DISCUSSION ANY THANK YOU CHAIR I'M GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS. MY ONLY CONCERN IS FOR THE HANDFUL OF PEOPLE THAT PERHAPS WILL NOT COMPLY WITH IT WHOSE
SITUATION DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE CHANGES TO THE CODE BUT I THINK I CAN GET OVER THAT . COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM THANK
YOU CHAIR. I JUST WANT TO SAY THANKS TO STAFF I'M IN FAVOR OF THE RECOMMENDED KIND OF MOTION BEFORE US. I KNOW THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING
THAT I DON'T THINK ANY OF US THOUGHT WOULD BE AS INDEPTH AS IT IS AND I APPRECIATE THE THE LEVEL OF DETAIL THAT STAFF DOVE INTO ON THIS AND THE THE LEVEL OF CARE THAT THEY PUT FORTH FOR THIS. THANK YOU.
BECAUSE YOU WERE TALKING OVER THE RV STANDARDS SPEAKING FOR MYSELF I SAID THIS DURING THE STUDY I DID WHEN WE SAW THIS AND I'LL JUST SAY IT AGAIN
THIS IS JUST TOO MUCH FOR ME. I, I I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF IT JUST BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE VEHICLES OF THAT SIZE IN AND IN THE PUBLIC EYE. I HAD A NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE
HERE IN BLOOMINGTON WITH A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT WAS IT WAS BEING A NUISANCE AND TAKING I LIVE ON A BUSY STREET AND IT WAS TAKING OFF SPOTS WHERE CUSTOMER CARS AND OTHER THINGS
REALLY WANTED TO BE IN. ITELT LIKE IT WAS A SORT OF AN ABUSE OF A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE USING IT AS FREE PARKING. AND SO THAT'S I GUESS JUST ONE PERSONAL NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE FOR ME WHICH HAS SOURED ME ON
THIS. BUT YEAH, FOR ME I'M I PREFER TO KEEP THINGS THE SAME. I RECOGNIZE I'M IN THE MINORITY ON THAT AND THAT THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL FEELS
DIFFERENT BUT I'LL JUST SPEAK FOR MYSELF AND YEAH THAT'S IF NOT I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION
. COMMISSIONER WHITE IN CASE NUMBER PL 2025-163I MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE CREATING DEFINITIONS FOR COMMERCIAL
MOTOR VEHICLE AND TRAILER UPDATING THE ALLOWED TYPE OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAILERS ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY UPDATING HEIGHT AND LENGTH STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAILERS AND CLARIFYING THE
NUMBER OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAILERS PERMITTED AS A RESIDENT AT A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY THEREBY AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE CITY CODE AS THEIR SECOND SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND TO APPROVE
THIS APPLICATION. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I OPPOSED NO THIS MOTION PASSES THREE ONE THIS WILL
MOVE TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS A PUBLIC HEARING ON JANUARY 26TH. THANK YOU, MISS NAVARRO. WE'LL MOVE THEN TO ITEM NUMBER THREE WHICH AGAIN IS A PUBLIC HEARING. THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON IS THE
APPLICANTS AND IT'S TO DISCUSS THE ART INCENTIVE CODE AMENDMENTS. MISS EMILY BECK IS HERE WITH A
STAFF REPORT. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. I FEEL TALL HAVING TO MOVE MY MICROPHONE SO YEAH, I'M HERE
TONIGHT TO TALK AGAIN ABOUT INCENTIVES FOR PUBLIC ART ON PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT. I'M SO A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND OF WHERE THIS CAME FROM THE CREATIVE
PLACEMAKING COMMISSION ADOPTED THE CITYWIDE PLAN IN MARCH OF 2025 AND ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CAME OUT OF THAT WAS TO EXPLORE HOW
UPDATING THE ZONING CODE COULD POTENTIALLY ENCOURAGE THE BUILDING OF PUBLIC ART ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. SO I WENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND WE TALKED ABOUT
THIS AT A STUDY ITEM AND THEN I WENT TO THE CREATIVE PLACEMAKING COMMISSION TO GET FEEDBACK AND CITY COUNCIL. THIS TIMELINE JUST KIND
OF SUMMARIZES WHAT I JUST SAID AND THAT THERE'S A ATTENDED TENTATIVE PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED AT CITY COUNCIL IN JANUARY. SO THERE ARE SIX PROPOSED
CODE CHANGES. I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THEM ONE BY ONE. SO THE FIRST PROPOSED CODE CHANGE IS TO CREATE A DEFINITION FOR OUR STRUCTURE BECAUSE THERE'S CURRENTLY NO
DEFINITION FOR ART IN THE ZONING CODE OTHER THAN A MURAL . THIS PROPOSED CODE CHANGE WOULD CREATE THE FOUNDATION FOR THE REST OF THE CHANGES AND TO BE ABLE TO ADD
INCENTIVES FOR ART. THE SECOND PROPOSED CODE CHANGE IS TO ALLOW ART STRUCTURES TO ENCROACH INTO REQUIRED SETBACKS AND
RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS SO AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT STAFF IS PROPOSING REQUIRING A MINIMUM OF TEN FEET A TEN FOOT SETBACK IN THE FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE
AND FIVE FEET FROM SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES FOR STRUCTURES THAT ARE 15FT OR LESS IN HEIGHT AND THEN FOR NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT STAFF IS PROPOSING AGAIN A
MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK OF TEN FEET AND A MINIMUM REAR AND SIDE SETBACKS OF FIVE FEET FOR ART STRUCTURES THAT ARE LESS THAN 30FT IN HEIGHT AND JUST FOR REFERENCE THE GOLDFINCH WHICH IS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN
IS AROUND 30FT IN HEIGHT AND CAN CONVERGENCE STRUCTURE WHICH WAS ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE IS 18FT.
THE THIRD PROPOSED CODE CHANGE IS TO SUBSTITUTE WHEN NO REQUIREMENTS AND MIXED USE DISTRICTS FOR MURALS. SO THIS WOULD ALLOW MURALS TO ACT AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE
REQUIREMENTS THAT BUILDINGS MUST CONSIST OF WINDOWS ON THE GROUND LEVEL OF THE FACADE BETWEEN TWO AND TEN FEET IN MIXED USE DISTRICTS. THERE ARE SEVERAL EXCEPTIONS FOR THIS ALREADY INCLUDING
EMBELLISHMENT OF THE FACADE OR INSTALLATION OF DISPLAY BOXES AND THEN STAFF IS PROPOSING ALLOWING THE MURAL SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY SIZE AND SCALE REQUIREMENTS.
THE FOURTH PROPOSED CODE CHANGE IS TO ALLOW FOR ART STRUCTURES TO ACT AS A SUBSTITUTION FOR UP TO 25% OF SRGB REQUIREMENTS. SO ORIGINALLY STAFF WAS
PROPOSING TO HAVE A REDUCTION FOR UP TO 25% OF TREES AND SHRUBS BUT REMOVED THAT AFTER GETTING IN COMMISSIONER AND COUNCILMEMBER FEEDBACK.
SO EXISTING EXCEPTIONS FOR LANDSCAPING INCLUDE FEE IN LIEU OF PLANTING AND CERTAIN REDUCTIONS FOR MIXED USE DISTRICTS AND STAFF IS PROPOSING ADDING ART
STRUCTURES TO THE LIST OF EXCEPTIONS AGAIN JUST FOR SHRUBS WITH REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE ISSUING AUTHORITY. >> THE FIFTH PROPOSED
CODE CHANGE KIND OF AGAIN CAME OUT OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM COMMISSIONERS AND AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. WE HEARD THAT YOU DIDN'T WANT A REDUCTION OF TREES AND MAYBE
PARKING COULD BE AN INCENTIVE INSTEAD. SO WE ARE PROPOSING A PARKING REDUCTION OF UP TO 10% OR TEN
PARKING SPACES WHICHEVER IS LESS OF OFF STREET PARKING SPACES WHEN AN ART STRUCTURE OF SUFFICIENT SCALE AND ORIENTATION IS INSTALLED WHICH WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE
PLANNING MANAGER. ADDITIONALLY THE ART STRUCTURES AS KIND OF THROUGHOUT ALL THIS CODE MUST MEET SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS AND IF IT'S OVER SEVEN FEET IT
REQUIRES A BUILDING PERMIT. THE SIXTH AND LAST PROPOSED PROPOSED CODE CHANGE IS TO ALLOW ART STRUCTURES AND LANDSCAPING YARD YARDS.
SO IN ADDITION TO PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS WHICH IS KIND OF SIMILAR TO THIS STAFF IS PROPOSING TO CLARIFY THAT ART STRUCTURES WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT
LANDSCAPING YARD THAT MOST ZONING DISTRICTS HAVE EXISTING ALLOWANCES FOR THAT INCLUDE RAIN GARDENS, SIDEWALKS AND
BUS SHELTERS AND WITH THAT THE RECOMMENDATION IS ON THE SCREEN AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. MISSPEAK AGAIN WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING SO WE WILL
START WITH QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FISHER WAIT YES, I'M JUST GOING TO BE FIRST THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. TONIGHT. CAN YOU TALK TO ME JUST A LITTLE BIT ON THE MURAL MURALS
AS A REPLACEMENT FOR THE WINDOW REQUIREMENT, DO MURALS HAVE THE SAME UPKEEP REQUIREMENTS AS OTHER ART? MY MY CONCERN IS MURALS ARE OFTEN PAINTED PAINT DETERIORATES.
SO I'M JUST CURIOUS YOU CAN TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT. YEAH. >> CHAIR COMMISSIONER WHITE SO MURALS DO REQUIRE LIKE A MAINTENANCE PLAN I BELIEVE
THAT HAS TO BE SUBMITTED AND SO WHEN THE SIGN CODE WAS UPDATED AND MURALS WERE ADDED TO THAT THEY WERE VERY AWARE ALSO OF EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT OF LIKE PAINT
CHIPPING AND NOT WANTING TO LOOK BAD. SO THERE ARE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS ALREADY IN CODE ABOUT MURALS SPECIFICALLY ALONG THE LINES OF THIS
PROPOSED CODE CHANGE. NUMBER THREE MISSPOKE HOW MUCH OF THE BUILDING FACADE ON THAT GROUND LEVEL CAN BE REPLACED WITH NON WINDOWS?
IS IT AND I'M SORRY I DIDN'T PREPARE YOU FOR THAT QUESTION BUT YOU KNOW IT'S REAL OUT THE ENTIRE THING IF IF THE BUILDING OWNER SAYS WELL THE ENTIRE THING IS BACK OF HOUSE, DO WE ALLOW 100% REPLACEMENT
OR IS THERE A LIMIT? >> CHAIR GOOD QUESTION. GIVE ME ONE SECOND. OKAY. I'LL LET MR. JOHNSON MAYBE A ARE A FRIEND HERE. YEAH. CHAIR CORRECT.
AND I WAS ANTICIPATING THIS QUESTION S THE CURRENT CODE DOES ALLOW FOR REPLACEMENT AND SO AS EMILY MENTIONED IT'S RELATED WHILE DESIGN EMBELLISHMENT DISPLAY BOXES AND PERMANENT ART WITH
GRAPHIC DESIGN ELEMENTS THIS IS SOMETHING I KNOW THAT CAME UP AT THE STUDY SESSION. I RECALL THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUGGESTING THAT ONLY SAY 50% OF THE WINDOW REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT MAYBE BE ELIGIBLE FOR THAT JUST TO
KNOW THAT THAT IS NOT HOW THE CURRENT CODE IS STRUCTURED IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU FEEL LIKE IS TOO GENEROUS OR NOT IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE CITY'S STRUCTURE DESIGN GOALS, WE
CERTAINLY COULD LOOK AT THAT GOING FORWARD. THAT BEING SAID, I WILL SAY WE HAVE ENCOUNTERED A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT THAT HAVE A LOT OF THESE BACK OF HOUSE OPERATIONS WHERE WINDOWS DOES NOT IDEALLY FUNCTION.
I'M AN EXAMPLE IF I MAY I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN SHARE MY WELL JUST EVERYONE'S FAMILIAR WITH FRESH TIME. THERE'S ART THAT'S INSTALLED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER AS
WELL AS ON THE EASTERN WALL AND THAT IS A REPLACEMENT IF YOU'RE JUST THINKING ABOUT AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE THIS HAS BEEN APPLIED IN THE CITY. SO THIS ASPECT WAS BEFORE US
THIS EVENING IS NOT A QUESTION OF HOW MUCH OR HOW LITTLE IT'S JUST ADDING MURALS INTO AN EXISTING PIECE OF THE CODE. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? CHAIR THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU. OKAY.
OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF EING NONE. THANK YOU. MS. I SPOKE WE'LL MOVE INTO A PUBLIC HEARING WHICH I WILL OPEN NOW THERE IS NOBODY HERE
IN THE CHAMBERS ON THIS RATHER SNOWY BLOOMINGTON EVENING. I'LL ASK IF THERE'S ANYONE ONLINE ALL PARTICIPANTS ONLINE OUR STAFF. THANK YOU MS. BROWN I'LL LOOK THEN 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 I. I I OPPOSED MOTION PASSES FOUR ZERO WE'LL MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION.
COMMISSIONER WHITE GENERALLY I THINK THIS IS GREAT. I APPRECIATE THE CHANGE IN LANDSCAPING. I'M NOT INCLUDING TREE REPLACEMENT. I THINK THAT'S INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT. IN FACT I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE VOTED AGAINST THIS IF THAT WAS IN HERE. I'M STILL NOT CONVINCED ON THE SHRUBS BUT ALL I CAN PROBABLY LIVE WITH THAT AND YOU KNOW I
DO SHARE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THE MURALS WILL BE USED AND USED AND MAINTAINED BECAUSE I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF REASONS FOR FOR WINDOWS TO BE REQUIRED BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CODE MORE BROADLY
DEALS WITH THAT. SO SO GENERALLY I THINK IT'S A IT'S A GOOD MOVE. I'M EXCITED TO SEE MORE ART IN BLOOMINGTON. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER WHITE I TOO AM HAPPY THAT WE'VE SWAPPED OUT
TREE REPLACEMENT FOR PARKING REPLACEMENT. I THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR ON THAT AND I APPRECIATE STAFF REACTING TO OUR FEEDBACK . I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF REPLACING THE ENTIRE GROUND LEVEL FACADE
WITH EVEN IF IT IS A MURAL REGARDLESS OF HOW BEAUTIFUL IT IS, THE INTENT OF THAT IS TO ACTIVATE THE STREET AND I ALTHOUGH I LIKE A MURAL I CERTAINLY THINK TRANSPARENCY AND SEEING PEOPLE ACTIVATES
THE STREET MORE AND CREATES A GREATER FEEL OF SAFETY. BUT AS WE WERE TOLD THAT'S NOT A PART OF THIS APPLICATION TONIGHT I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THAT POSSIBLY COMING BACK
BEFORE US AS A MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES ORDINANCE IF IF OTHERS FEEL THAT THAT'S SOMETHING WE MAYBE WANT TO LOOK AT. I'M NOT SURE I'M NOT SURE WE'RE IN THE RIGHT PLACE ON THAT PART OF THE CODE. BUT AGAIN, AS WE WERE TOLD
THIS EVENING, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT ENHANCING THAT PART OF THE CODE BY ALLOWING MURALS WHICH I CAN SUPPORT SO WITH THAT I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THIS
APPLICATION THIS EVENING. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? ANY OTHER THOUGHTS I GUESS I WOULD ASK ON THE TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENT IF THAT WOULD BE
SOMETHING THAT IF THAT WOULD BE OF INTEREST AS A MISCELLANEOUS ISSUE IN THE FUTURE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE. MR. CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU CHAIR . I AGREE. I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE
SHOULD PUT IN THE 26 OR MAYBE 27 WORK PLAN AS WE'RE REVIEWING NEXT YEAR'S WORK PLAN TONIGHT AND IT'S IT'S FULL SLATE BUT MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES I THINK WOULD BE A GOOD
THING TO TO PUT SOME TIME SOME STAFF TIME INTO IT ON THAT I DO WANT TO SAY THAT I FEEL LIKE SOME OF OUR OUR HIGHER DENSITY ZONING AREAS YOU KNOW REQUIRE CERTAIN USES AT GRADE
THAT WOULD REQUIRE WINDOWS SO POTENTIALLY THAT COULD ALLEVIATE THAT PROBLEM. AND THEN THERE'S ALSO THE THE FREE MARKET OF SOMEONE WHO'S DEVELOPING LOTS OF BEAUTIFUL BUILDING. BUT I DEFINITELY GET WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM AND I THINK
THAT PUTTING SOMETHING INTO CODE WOULD BE TIME WELL-SPENT . >> COMMERCIAL YEAH, JUST BUILDING ON COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM I THINK THAT I WOULD WANT TO UNDERSTAND IF THIS REALLY IS A POTENTIAL
RISK LIKE WHAT KIND OF FACILITIES WOULD THERE BE A REAL RISK FOR THEM CHOOSING TO DO ALL MURAL VERSUS WINDOWS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO OVERRIDE SLATE SOMETHING THAT
ISN'T EVEN POTENTIALLY A RISK OF THE MARKET OR WHATNOT COULD TAKE CARE OF IT. SO I GUESS THAT'S WHERE I WOULD COME AT IF IT IS A REAL RISK THE DEVELOPERS WOULD OPT FOR MURALS VERSUS WINDOWS AND
I THINK IT IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD LOOK AT BUT IF IT'S SORT OF A FEAR THAT IS UNLIKELY TO COME TO PASS THEN IT MAY NOT BE WORTH THE EFFORT AND TIME FOR STAFF.
WELL PUT COMMISSIONER AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE I WOULD SAY I'M NOT PROPOSING THAT WE DO IT. I'M PROPOSING THAT STAFF TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND COMES BACK TO US AND MAYBE IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA AT ALL AND WE WE DON'T
THINK ABOUT IT ANY FURTHER. IF THERE'S NO FURTHER COMMENTS ON THIS APPLICATION I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION COMMISSION ANY IN CASE PL 2025159I MOVED
TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A DEFINITION FOR ART STRUCTURE ALLOWING ART STRUCTURES TO ENCROACH INTO SETBACKS IN RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING
DISTRICTS ALLOWING FOR LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT REDUCTION FOR INSTALLATION OF ART STRUCTURES, PROVIDING A PARKING REQUIREMENT INCENTIVE FOR INSTALLATION OF ART STRUCTURES AND ADDING MURALS AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE WINDOW
REQUIREMENT IN MIXED USE DISTRICTS THEREBY AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE CITY CODE. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE OR RECOMMEND RATHER THE APPROVAL OF THIS
ORDINANCE BEFORE US. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I OPPOSED THE MOTION PASSES FOUR ZERO THIS ITEM WILL GO BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ON
JANUARY 26TH. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WE MOVE INTO ITEM NUMBER FOUR WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING. THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON AGAIN IS THE APPLICANT TO DISCUSS
THE REVISED OFFICIAL HEIGHT LIMITS MAP OF THE CITY. THOMAS RAMER OLSON IS HERE WITH A STAFF REPORT .
OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH, UM, LIKE THE CHAIR SAID THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERING AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL HEIGHT LIMITS MAP AND
CHAPTER 21 HEIGHTS OR HEIGHTS NAME IS FOUND IN CHAPTER 21 AND SECOND SO SIMPLY PUT, WE'RE GOING TO BE PROPOSING A WHOLE HOST OF CHANGES TO
CHAPTER 21 THAT INCLUDES CHANGES TO THE USER UNIT MEASUREMENT FOR HEIGHT HOW WE MEASURE HEIGHT. YOU'LL PROBABLY RECALL THAT FROM THE STUDY SESSION WE'RE PROPOSING TO EXEMPT ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT AND STAIR
AND ELEVATOR COURSE THAT PROJECTED ABOVE THE ROOF LINE FROM HEIGHT MEASUREMENTS. OF COURSE THOSE WILL STILL BE SUBJECT TO SHADOW STANDARDS SO
THAT'S YEAH IT'S GOOD TO KEEP IN MIND AND THEN WE'RE RECOMMENDING A BUNCH OF CHANGES TO THE OFFICIAL HEIGHT LIMITS MAP AND WE'LL DISCUSS THAT IN JUST A LITTLE BIT. BRIEF BACKGROUND THIS IS ALL
YOU'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE BUT JUST BRIEFLY RECAPPING THE CURRENT HEIGHT STANDARDS THAT THE THE CITY USES TO WHEN REVIEWING DEVELOPMENTS NEW
DEVELOPMENTS THAT WAS ESTABLISHED BACK IN 2010 THAT SET UP THE SHADOW CASTING LIMITS FOR NEW BUILDS AND THEY'RE CASTING SHADOWS ON
PROTECTIVE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. IT ESTABLISHED BUILDING SETBACKS FOR THE UPPER STORIES OF BUILDINGS TO REDUCE SHADING OF PEDESTRIAN STREETS AND ALSO PROTECTED RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTIES AT THE AT THEIR PROPERTY LINE AND IT ALSO CREATED OR ADOPTED A MAP BASED HEIGHT REGULATION FRAMEWORK SO REGULATING HEIGHTS BASED ON
THEIR GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION FOR THE MOST PART WE HAD A STUDY SESSION IN FRONT OF YOU ALL ON OCTOBER 23RD AT THAT TIME OR A CONCLUSION FROM THAT MEETING
WAS THAT THERE WERE RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE BUILDING MEASUREMENT AS I MENTIONED IN THE PREVIOUS SLIDE CONSIDERATION OF ROOFTOP OF ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT AND STAIR AND ELEVATOR CORES AND A
REEXAMINATION OF HEIGHT LIMITS AROUND 86 AND LYNDALE AFTER REVIEW OF WHAT STAFF HAD INITIALLY PROPOSED FOR HIGH LIMIT CHANGES IN THAT AREA,
THE CITY COUNCIL MET ON NOVEMBER 17TH AND AFFIRMED THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS. SO WE CONSULTED A VARIETY OF RESOURCES OBVIOUSLY LOOKING AT THE CURRENT HEIGHT LIMITS
MAP SHOWN ON SCREEN HERE AND YOU CAN SEE THE GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THE VARIOUS HEIGHT LIMITS THROUGHOUT THE CITY THE HIGH CATEGORIES ARE
IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER AND YOU KNOW WE'RE GOING TO THE VISION EXPRESSED IN THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THROUGH THE LAND USE GUIDANCE
IN THAT DOCUMENT AND FROM THAT STAFF WERE KEENLY INTERESTED IN THOSE PARCELS THAT WERE GUIDE AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND YOU CAN SEE
THOSE ISOLATED HERE ON THE SLIDE ARE OUR READ OF THE DEFINITIONS OF THOSE LAND USE CATEGORIES IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS MEANT THAT
THOSE SHOULD BE LOOKED AT MORE CLOSELY AND THROUGH OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING OF THOSE DEFINITIONS WE CAME UP WITH A
FRAMEWORK THAT WOULD ALLOW ALL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS TO HAVE A HIGH LIMIT UP TO I BELIEVE IS 50FT.
SO A LOT OF THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS THAT ARE THAT CURRENTLY EXIST RIGHT NOW OR THAT ARE GUIDED RIGHT NOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
THEY DON'T HAVE OR THEY'RE NOT WITHIN A HEIGHT LIMIT CATEGORY WHICH MEANS THEY'RE SUBJECT TO A 40 FOOT LIMIT SIMILAR TO A SINGLE FAMILY IN TWO FAMILY STRUCTURES FOR HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL WE PROPOSED A MINIMUM OR A HEIGHT LIMIT OF 60FT AT A MINIMUM AND SO THEREFORE BASED ON GEOGRAPHY
OR LAND USE CONTEXT THEY MAY ACTUALLY BE TALLER THAN THAT SAME THE SAME GOES FOR MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WE ALSO LOOKED AT ALL THE AREA AREA
AREA SPECIFIC PLANS THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED SINCE 2010 AND AND ALSO CONSULTED THE WELL HERE JUST BRIEFLY TOUCH ON
WHAT'S WHAT'S BEEN WHAT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN THIS IN THIS SLIDE IS THE NORMANDALE LAKE DISTRICT ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE PAN AMERICAN DISTRICTS TOWARD
THE NORTH ALONG FOR 94 THE LYNDALE AVENUE SUBURBAN RETROFIT PLAN, THE 90TH STREET STATION AREA AND THE SOUTH LOOP DISTRICT EXCUSE ME
IT'S DRAWING HERE. SO THEN WE ALSO RECOGNIZE THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AREAS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED IN A 2017
STUDY BY THE HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THAT WAS ALSO INCORPORATED INTO THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. YOU CAN SEE THE DISTRIBUTION OF THOSE COMMERCIAL NODES THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND YOU
KNOW FOR EACH ONE WE LOOKED SPECIFICALLY AT THEIR LAND USE AND OBVIOUSLY CURRENT HEIGHT LIMITS WITHIN EACH AREA. SO THAT'S BEEN HIGHLIGHTED ON THE SLIDE.
UM GETTING BACK TO THAT FEEDBACK THAT YOU ALL PROVIDED ON OCTOBER 23RD WE TOOK A DEEPER LOOK AT 86TH AND LYNDALE WHAT WAS BROUGHT UP AT
THE TIME IS THAT THIS INTERSECTION WAS NOT GIVEN THE SAME TREATMENT AS 90TH ONLY LYNDALE THESE THOSE TWO NODES WERE HIGHLIGHTED IN THE LYNDALE AVENUE SUBURBAN
RETROFIT PLAN BASED ON STAFF'S ANALYSIS. WE TREATED THEM DIFFERENTLY BASED ON THE CONTEXT. HOWEVER, WE DID LOOK AT 86 AND LYNDALE A LITTLE BIT MORE
CLOSELY AND WITH THE LAND USE GUIDANCE IN THAT AT THAT INTERSECTION WE FELT IT APPROPRIATE THEN TO GIVE THE PARCEL TO THE NORTH ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER A HIGHER HEIGHT LIMIT OF NO HEIGHT LIMIT SO STILL MAINTAINING THE CURRENT HEIGHT LIMIT ON THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER BECAUSE THAT IS GUIDED INDUSTRIAL AND SO WE FELT IT APPROPRIATE TO KEEP THAT AT A 50 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT OR I'M SORRY AT A 60 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT. MY APOLOGIES.
SO THAT'S BEING MAINTAINED BUT NONETHELESS WE ARE PROPOSING TO CHANGE THE THE HEIGHT LIMIT ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER AND
THEN AS AS WAS I YEAH, THIS WAS MENTIONED ALSO AT OCTOBER 23RD STUDY SESSION WE WERE CONTACTED BY THE OWNERS
OF OR MINNESOTA MINNESOTA MASONIC HOMES OWNERS OF 1140 11 431 AND 11 4 OR 5 ONE NORMANDALE BOULEVARD THEY HAD
COME BEFORE DRC WITH A PROPOSAL TO EXPAND THEIR CAMPUS BUILDINGS AND THEY WERE SHOWING A HEIGHT LIMIT OF 65FT STAFF CONSIDER THIS REQUEST
AND WE WERE PROPOSING THEN TO GIVE THEM A HIGH LIMIT OF 60FT WHERE THEY'RE CURRENTLY ALLOWED ONLY 50FT. SO THERE'S A FIVE FOOT GAP
THAT THEY'LL HAVE TO MAKE UP FOR AND THEY CAN DO DO SO THROUGH THE OPPORTUNITY HOUSING ORDINANCE. BUT NONETHELESS THIS IS ANOTHER CHANGE FOR YOU ALL TO CONSIDER IN ALL OF THAT TAKING
INTO CONSIDERATION THIS IS THE HEIGHT LIMIT MAP THAT STAFF ARE PROPOSING. AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE THE YOU CAN COMPARE THIS TO WHAT'S OUR CURRENT HEIGHT LIMIT MAP.
WE'VE IDENTIFIED ALL THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND UH GIVEN THEM THE HEIGHT LIMIT THAT I
DISCUSSED EARLIER OF A 50FT FOR MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND 60FT FOR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEPENDING ON CONTEXT FOR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IT COULD BE TALLER BUT NONETHELESS THAT WAS THE
BASE THAT WE WERE WORKING FROM AFTER THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER THE CITY COUNCIL.
SO YOU SESSION ON NOVEMBER 17TH STAFF WERE I MEAN WE WERE PROMPTED TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT OUR HEIGHT STANDARDS
IN CHAPTER 21 AND TO REEXAMINE THE STEP BACK STANDARDS AS IT RELATES TO PROTECTED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES RIGHT NOW STEP BY STEP BACK
STANDARDS PROHIBIT STRUCTURE HEIGHT EXCEEDING THE HORIZONTAL DISTANCE OR SEPARATION BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE AND THE PROTECTED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE. SO FOR EXAMPLE IN THAT EXAMPLE
THIS IS EXAMPLES IN THE STAFF REPORT IMAGINE A STRUCTURE THAT'S 40FT FROM A PROTECTED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE. IT CANNOT EXCEED 40FT IN HEIGHT THEN SO WHAT WE'RE
PROPOSING USING IS TO REMOVE REFERENCES TO PROTECTED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND TO REPLACE THAT WITH LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. SO THAT'S THE QUESTION BEFORE
YOU ALL TONIGHT IS SHOULD SITES GATED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TRIGGER STEP BACK REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE THERE WOULD BE
IMPLICATED IF WE HAVE THIS PROHIBITION OF HEIGHTS NOT EXCEEDING THE HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM A PROTECTED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINES SO
BECAUSE THE DEFINITION OF A PROTECTED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CITY CODE MENTIONS SITES ARE ZONED RESIDENTIAL AND GUIDED RESIDENTIAL SO FROM
STAFF'S ANALYSIS AND POINT OF VIEW WE THINK THIS WOULD MAINTAINING THE STANDARDS AS THEY ARE THE STEP BACK STANDARDS AS THEY'RE CURRENTLY SPELLED OUT IN CODE COULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT DEVELOPMENT. WE'RE PROPOSING TO INCREASE
THE HEIGHTS OF A LOT OF PARCELS THAT ARE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OR GUIDED MEDIUM DENSITY AND HIGH DENSITY AND SO TO HAVE THAT OFF WE'RE PROPOSING TO CHANGE
THE LANGUAGE SO THAT IT'S NO LONGER A PROTECTED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BUT LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SO THAT WON'T THAT WILL ALLOW THOSE SITES GUIDED
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO NOT AFFECT TALLER BUILDINGS ON ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
SO THIS IS NEW AND THIS IS BEFORE WE WHILE WE I'M WITH YOU WITH THAT BEING SO NEW WE'VE DEVELOPED TO ALTERNATIVE ORDINANCES THAT WILL BE
CONSIDERED AT THE JANUARY 26TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING BUT CERTAINLY WANT A RECOMMENDATION FROM YOU ALL THAT SO RECOMMENDATION THE ALTERNATIVE ONE ORDINANCE TO
CONSIDER IS IS WITHOUT THE AMENDMENTS TO THE RESIDENTIAL STEP BACK REQUIREMENTS AND THEN THE SECOND ALTERNATIVE IS WITH THOSE AMENDMENTS TO RESIDENTIAL STEP BACK
REQUIREMENTS. SO I'LL JUST LEAVE THAT AT THAT AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. I'M SORRY FOR ANYTHING LIKE THANK YOU MR. WILSON I DO WANT TO ASK ONE QUESTION AFTER THE
JUMP HERE YOUR TWO PROPOSED MOTIONS ONE REFERENCES EXHIBIT AND AND ONE REFERENCES EXHIBIT M I WANT TO CONFIRM THAT'S NOT A SPELLING ERROR.
CHAIR NO, THAT'S CORRECT. THERE'S TWO EXHIBITS WITH ATTACHED THE STAFF REPORT THAT HAVE THE DRAFT ORDINANCES FOR YOU TO CONSIDER THAT ARE LABELED APPROPRIATELY.
THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. MR. CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU CHAIR . MR. RIMMER ALSO I JUST WANT TO
MAKE SURE I'M CRYSTAL CLEAR IN THE ORDINANCE AND HOW WE'RE MEASURING THE HEIGHT OF A BUILDING. SO IF THE IS ON A TOPOGRAPHICALLY YOU KNOW,
VARIABLE LOT IT'S THE LOWEST POINT TO THE HIGHEST POINT OF STRUCTURE. SO IF IT'S LIKE A FLAT ROOF IT WOULD BE THE PARAPET WALL BECAUSE WE'RE NOW EXCLUDING
ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT, LIGHTNING RODS AND ELEVATOR OR OVERRUNS. CHAIR COMMISSIONER YES, THAT IS CORRECT. SO ESSENTIALLY HOW IT'S
MEASURED RIGHT NOW WOULD JUST BE EXCLUDING THOSE ELEMENTS THAT YOU IDENTIFIED AND THAT STAFF HAVE EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. CAN I MAKE ONE CLARIFICATION? MR. JOHNSON YEAH. THANK YOU CHAIR COOK AND
COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM, IF I CAN JUST MAKE ONE CLARIFICATION TIME INVITE YOU TO IF YOU HAVE ANY MORE FEEDBACK ON THIS BUT IN TERMS OF YOU KNOW IT IS THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE AT THAT POINT SO YOU COULD THE STRUCTURE COULD BE TALLER WHERE THE
GRADE IS HIGHER AND SO WE ARE MEASURING IT FROM THAT POINT TO THE GRADE TO THAT POINT OF THE BUILDING. THIS ISN'T GOOD FOR THE RECORD BECAUSE I'M POINTING HERE IN THE AIR BUT FROM THE LOW
POINT TO THE HIGHEST POINT AT THAT POINT. SO IN OTHER WORDS IT WOULDN'T BE MEASURING THE VERY LOWEST POINT OF THE BUILDING AND THE VERY TALLEST POINT OF THE BUILDING IF THEY ARE AT DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE BUILDING. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
YES. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. I MADE A MEAL OF THAT ONE BUT HOPEFULLY THAT WAS CLEAR. MR. WILSON CAN YOU GO BACK TO
THE HEIGHT LIMIT MAP AT 86 AND LYNDALE PLEASE? WHAT WERE THE THOUGHTS ON THESE SOUTH EAST CORNER OF THAT INTERSECTION AND NOT
NOT GOING TO A NO HEIGHT LIMIT THERE BUT KEEPING IT AT 60FT? CHAIR THE MAIN CONSIDERATION WAS THAT WERE THOSE AS YOU'LL SEE IN THAT THE MIDDLE GRAPHIC
THAT'S THE LAND USE GUIDANCE AND GUIDANCE IS FOR INDUSTRIAL AND STAFF FELT IT WAS JUST MOST APPROPRIATELY TO KEEP THE
HEIGHT LIMIT AS IT CURRENTLY IS AT 60FT INSTEAD OF A NO HEIGHT LIMIT INDUSTRIAL AREA I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT WOULD MANIFEST IN THE IN THE
LANDSCAPE BUT NOT REALLY OR STAFF FELT IT WAS JUST APPROPRIATE TO KEEP IT AT 60FT AND FELT THAT THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE MOST INDUSTRIAL USES.
AND MR. TAYLOR ALSO IF AT SOME POINT IN TIME WE WANTED TO WE GUIDE THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 86TH AND LYNDALE WE COULD IN WE COULD MODIFY THE HEIGHT
LIMIT MAP AT THAT TIME. CHAIR THAT IS CORRECT. SO WE HAVE THE THE UPDATED COMP PLAN COMING UP AND WE'LL BE REVIEWING ALL ALL THIS LAND USE DATA AND IF WE FEEL IT'S
APPROPRIATE AND IT'S APPROVED BY THE CITY TO CONSIDER THAT A DIFFERENT LAND USE WE WOULD ALSO COMMENSURATE WITH THAT YOU KNOW PUT IT BEFORE YOU ALL
AND CONSIDER A NEW HEIGHT THAT THAT IS CONGRUENT WITH THAT LAND USE GUIDANCE. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSION.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR AND THIS IS GOING BACK TO COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM'S QUESTION. SO UNDERSTANDING THE HEIGHT EXCUSE ME I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND HOW IT WORKS SO I'M LOOKING PARTICULARLY AT
EXHIBIT L ON THE PROPOSED HEIGHT LIMITS MAP BY CITY AREA AND WHICH I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS IN YOUR SLIDE OR NOT BUT IT'S THE AREA AROUND HERITAGE
HILLS PARK SO LIKE SOUTH OF 102ND NORTH OF OLD SHACK UP BETWEEN NORMANDALE AND CHERRY. COMMISSIONER YOU'LL HAVE TO
OKAY SO LET ME KNOW LIKE STOP ME WHEN I I'LL STOP IT IF WHEN YOU GET TO IT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ACTUALLY NEED THE PICTURE FOR ME TO ASK A QUESTION. CERTAINLY. YES, SIR. YEAH. SO WHAT THE QUESTION IS IS IF YOU'RE MEASURING THE HEIGHT
IN THAT PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD I KNOW THAT ON THE LOWER IT'S A VERY HILLY PART OF THE CITY AND I MIGHT LOOKING AT THE MAP IT LOOKS LIKE MANY OF THE HOUSES THAT
ARE ON THE BACK SIDE THAT WILL REMAIN LOADED WITHOUT THE HEIGHT LIMITS THEY MAY BE AT A LOWER LEVEL SO ARE THEY BACKING UP AGAINST A HOUSE LIKE COULD SOMEONE BUILD AN
APARTMENT BUILDING WHERE BECAUSE OF THE LOT LEVEL AND I KNOW AGAIN THIS IS NOT GREAT IF YOU CAN'T SEE BUT IF THIS IS WHERE THE HOUSE IS IS DOWN HERE AND THE LOT BEHIND THEM IS ALREADY AT A, YOU KNOW,
ELEVATION BECAUSE OF THE HILL AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GO EVEN HIGHER. I MEAN THE RISK OF THEM DWARFING THAT HOUSE AND PROVIDING A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT
OF SHADE HOW DOES THAT FACTOR IN IF THERE'S ALSO DRAMATIC ELEVATION FROM LOT TO LOT? I DON'T I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S AN ANSWERABLE QUESTION BECAUSE I'M ASSUMING THE HOUSE THAT WOULD BE ON THE HIGHER END THE
GROUND IS LEVELED AT THEIR GROUND, NOT THE GROUND OF THE OTHER SIDE. I CHAIR COMMISSIONER REGARDING THE DETAILS OF HOW HEIGHT
MEASUREMENT IS IS CONDUCTED I WILL HAVE TO DEFER TO PLANNING MANAGER NICK JOHNSON BUT WE WOULD ACCOUNT FOR THOSE DIFFERENCES IN SHADOW STUDIES. OKAY.
SO AGAIN THERE ARE PROHIBITIONS ON CASTING SHADOWS ON WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING OR IN THAT SECOND MOTION OR THAT ALTERNATIVE MOTION CASTING SHADOWS ON LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RIGHT NOW I MEAN IF WE WENT WITH THE OR IF YOU ALL SUPPORTED THE THE FIRST MOTION IT WOULD BE JUST PROTECTED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WHICH WOULD INCLUDE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
SO SHADOW STUDIES WOULD STILL HAVE TO BE CONDUCTED. I THINK THERE THEY NEED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SHADOWS AT CERTAIN TIMES OF THE YEAR WHERE SHADOWS ARE LONGEST SO THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD ACCOUNT
FOR THAT. SO IF YOU IF THERE WAS A MASSIVE GRADE CHANGE BETWEEN A NEW DEVELOPMENT AND SOMETHING AT THE LOWER PART OF A HILL THAT WOULD BE CAPTURED IN A
SHADOW STUDY AND HAVE TO BE RECONCILED OKAY. OKAY. I THINK I THINK THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION. THANKS, CHAIR. IF I MAY ADD TO THAT SHE WAS JUST THAT THE BASE HEIGHT LIMITS ABSENT THE STEP BACK
REQUIREMENT SETTING THAT ASIDE FOR A SECOND THEY ARE WHAT THEY ARE BUILDINGS ARE ALLOWED TO GO TO THAT HEIGHT AGAIN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE SHADOW REQUIREMENTS BUT WHERE THE SITUATION THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT COULD COME INTO PLAY SAY IF YOU HAD A
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION THAT WAS SEEKING SOME TYPE OF FLEXIBILITY TO THEIR STRUCTURE HEIGHT IN SOME WAY OR SEEKING A VARIANCE OF THAT KIND THAT LOCAL CONTEXT ABSOLUTELY WOULD BE A FACTOR
IN STAFF'S EVALUATION OF THE MERITS OF THAT REQUEST IF THAT MAKES SENSE. YES IT DOES. OKAY.
OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. THANK YOU, MR. EMERSON. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING WHICH I WILL OPEN NOW AND WE AGAIN DO NOT HAVE ANYBODY IN THE CHAMBERS THIS EVENING SO I WILL ASK IF THERE'S ANYONE
ONLINE. OH PARTICIPANTS ONLINE OUR STAFF. THANK YOU MS. BROWN. I WILL LOOK FOR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SO MOVED SO SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE
THIS PUBLIC HEARING ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I OPPOSED MOTION PASSES FOUR ZERO. LET'S MOVE TO DISCUSSION. I'LL GET US STARTED HERE AND I
WOULD LIKE TO JUST THANK STAFF AGAIN I THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR ON THIS APPLICATION. WE HAD A LOT OF FEEDBACK DURING THE STUDY AND I THINK IT'S A CREDIT TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND IF YOU EVER
WONDER WHETHER YOUR VOICE IS TRULY HEARD IN THIS CITY I THINK YOU CAN LOOK AT THE LAST TWO APPLICATION AND SAY THAT THE WORK YOU'RE DOING IS REALLY MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN WHAT MAKES IT IN THE CITY CODE AND WHAT DOESN'T THAT
THIS COMMISSION HAS A TANGIBLE IMPACT ON THE CITY. SO CREDIT TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ON THAT. THANKS ALSO TO STAFF FOR THEIR ATTENTION TO DETAIL ON 86TH AND LYNDALE I WAS READY TO
JUMP ALL OVER YOU FOR THAT SOUTHEAST CORNER BUT I THINK THAT'S QUITE QUITE SAVVY TO KEEP THAT AS A LOWER HEIGHT LIMIT WHILE IT'S STILL GUIDED INDUSTRIAL. I WOULD NOT WANT TO SEE SOME
VERY TALL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT THERE WHILE IT'S STILL GOT AN INDUSTRIAL. SO I THINK THAT WAS I THINK THAT WAS A FINE DECISION THERE . SO WITH THAT I AM IN SUPPORT
OF THIS APPLICATION AND I'M ALSO IN SUPPORT OF THE MORE AGGRESSIVE VERSION OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED TO US WHICH I BELIEVE MODIFIES EXHIBIT AND
THAT'S COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU CHAIR AND THIS MIGHT NEED TO BE OF SOME STAFF FEEDBACK ON BUT I BELIEVE THE MORE AGGRESSIVE OF AS FAR AS
PUSHING FOR MORE DENSITY FOR AERATION HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS IS EXHIB M THAT RIGHT? MR. OLSON CHAIR COMMISSIONER ACTUALLY THAT WOULD BE EXHIBIT
AND BECAUSE WE ARE AGAIN WE'RE CHANGING WHAT WE'RE THOSE STEP BACK STANDARDS OF APPLY IF IT'S WITH RESPECT TO PROTECTED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WHICH
COULD INCLUDE BOTH MEDIUM DENSITY AND RESIDENTIAL GATED PROPERTIES. SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING OR WHAT STAFF IS PROPOSING IS TO INSTEAD HAVE IT ONLY IMPACT
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL GATED PROPERTIES SO SINGLE FAMILY TO FAMILY WHATEVER IS KIND OF LOW DENSITY. SO IT WILL ALLOW OR IT'LL BE
LESS OF AN IMPEDIMENT FOR ERECTING TALLER BUILDINGS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. OLSON. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. I WILL ADMIT THAT I TOTALLY MISUNDERSTOOD THE SETBACK AND
SLOPES I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU CHAIR I'M I AGREE WITH THE EXHIBIT AND AS THE PATH FORWARD OF THE THOUGHTS
IF NOT I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION . YEAH. CAN WE GO BACK IN? COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM.
THANK YOU, CHAIR. I MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY'S OFFICIAL HEIGHT LIMITS MAP AMENDING OTHER HEIGHTS STANDARDS AND AMENDING
RESIDENTIAL STEP BACK STANDARD THERE THEREBY AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE CITY CODE AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT MN ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT THERE A SECOND
SECOND I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE MOTION THAT WAS STATED BY COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I.
I OPPOSED NO THAT MOTION PASSES THREE ONE THIS WILL MOVE TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ACTION ON THE 26TH OF JANUARY.
THANK YOU MR. AMARAL'S. OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER FIVE A STUDY ITEM FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION. ONCE AGAIN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON WILL BE PRESENTING TO US AND THAT'S THE ADOPTION OF OUR 2026
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN. MR. DAKOTA CASSADY IS HERE WITH THE STAFF REPORT. GOOD EVENING. ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING COMMISSION. THANKS FOR STICKING OUT TO THE END. LET ME JUST GET ME SLIDES UP
AND SO YOU ALL HAD SEEN A DRAFT VERSION ALREADY JUST TO KIND OF GET SOME INITIAL FEEDBACK ON OUR WORK PLAN. SO NOW WE'RE WE'RE HERE KIND OF WITH OUR FINAL DRAFT SO JUST WANTED TO COVER A COUPLE
OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS FROM THIS YEAR THAT WE DIDN'T COVER THE FIRST TIME AND THEN JUST REALLY QUICKLY SUMMARIZE A FEW CHANGES THAT WE MADE FROM JUST A COUPLE WEEKS AGO.
SO JUST WANTED TO START OFF IN YOU KNOW ACKNOWLEDGE 2025 HAS BEEN A BUSY YEAR AND SO JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT A FEW OF THE CODE AMENDMENTS AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND OTHER
PROJECTS THAT HAVE COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO I WON'T READ EVERY SINGLE ONE HERE BUT JUST WANT TO YOU KNOW, HIGHLIGHT WE'VE GONE THROUGH SMALL BUSINESS, WE'VE MADE CHANGES TO OUR ONE
ZONING DISTRICTS CO-LIVING WAS ANOTHER BIG CODE AMENDMENT THIS YEAR WE HAD DISCUSSION AROUND AN OFFICE CONVERSION STUDY AND KIND OF DETAILING WHAT THAT COULD LOOK LIKE IN BLOOMINGTON.
WE'VE MADE OUR UPDATE TO THE SOUTH OF DISTRICT PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT. THE KENNEDY AND JEFFERSON HIGH SCHOOL STADIUMS ARE COMPLETE AND HOSTING GAMES. WE'VE SEEN APPLICATIONS FOR
CITY PROJECTS FOR THIS FLEET MAINTENANCE GARAGE HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER, OUR BLOOMINGTON ICE GARDEN RENOVATIONS YOU ALL APPROVED COMP PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE ST
MARK'S SUBDIVISION AND THEN AS YOU SEE WE'RE WE'RE STILL GOING NOW AND YOU'VE WENT THROUGH THREE STUDY OR PUBLIC HEARINGS TODAY FOR SOME
ADDITIONAL ORDINANCES ON OUR WORK PLAN FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES OR INCENTIVES IN LIGHT MAP AND THEN ATTACHED INTO THE PACKET WAS ALSO JUST
A SUMMARY OF OUR WE TRACK OUR APPLICATION TYPES THAT HAVE COME THROUGH THIS YEAR. SO THIS JUST KIND OF SUMMARIZES BOTH APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE GONE TO EITHER THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL AS WELL AS OUR
ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS THAT GO THROUGH PLANNING STAFF AND BUILDING AND INSPECTIONS AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS. SO JUST PROVIDING A SUMMARY THERE AND THEN FOR THE 2026
WORK PLAN ITSELF AGAIN THERE'S 23 PROJECTS THIS TIME WE'RE ESTIMATING ABOUT 4065 STAFF HOURS TO CARRY OUT THOSE PROJECTS. THEY INCLUDE 17 PROJECTS THAT
ARE BEING LED BY OUR PLANNING DIVISION STAFF, A COUPLE OF CARRYOVER PROJECTS AND THEN WE ALWAYS INCLUDE SOME POTENTIAL PROJECTS FOR FOR FUTURE YEARS OR IN THE ODD
CHANCE THAT WE GET THROUGH ALL OF OUR PROJECTS AND NEED MORE WE CAN PULL FROM THAT LIST. AND THEN AS I MENTIONED LAST TIME WE'LL BE STARTING THE 2050 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND SO
YOU'LL BE SEEING MORE OF ME TO TO TALK THROUGH THAT AND WHAT YOUR ROLE WILL BE IN THE 2050 PLAN OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS AS WELL. SO AGAIN HERE ARE THE PROPOSED
NEW PROJECTS FOR 2026. I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE CHANGES SINCE THE LAST TIME THE DRAFTERS BEFORE YOU WE HAD SWAPPED OUT NUMBER SIX
HERE WAS TEMPORARY STRUCTURES AND LIKE SMALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE STANDARDS AFTER TALKING TO SOME ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH STAFF WE FELT LIKE WE COULD ADDRESS SOME OF THE THINGS THEY WERE THINKING
ABOUT THROUGH OUR MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES ORDINANCE JUST TO AGAIN THEY WERE FAIRLY PRETTY MINOR CHANGES AND JUST TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE EFFICIENT WITH OUR PROCESS TO BRING THOSE FOR YOU. AND SO BECAUSE OF THAT WE
REMOVED THAT ONE AND I SWAPPED IT IN WITH THE ALIGNING INDOOR RECREATION SPORTS TRAINING AND HEALTH CLUBS DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS GIVEN IT WAS ABOUT WE ESTIMATED ABOUT A SIMILAR
WORK SCOPE AND AMOUNT OF STAFF TIME FOR THAT AND THEN ONE NEW PROJECT THAT WAS ADDED THAT WE DID NOT TALK ABOUT AT THE LAST MEETING IS NUMBER NINE HERE THE CITY OWNED LAND
DISPOSITION POLICY AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING STAFF WITHIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR A WHILE AND ULTIMATELY FELT LIKE WE COULD MAKE SOME PROGRESS ON IT IN 2026.
SO THE CITY AS WELL AS THE PORT AUTHORITY AND THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OWN A NUMBER OF PARCELS HERE IN THE CITY AND SO WHILE SOME OF THEM YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY
HOST THINGS LIKE CIVIC PLAZA OR PARKS AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS THERE'S ALSO A NUMBER OF PARCELS THAT ARE MAYBE UNDERUTILIZED OR VACANT AND SO AND THIS IS JUST A
CHANCE FOR STAFF TO KIND OF THINK THROUGH WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A POLICY OR PROCEDURES OR THINK ABOUT HOW WE COULD EITHER SELL OR OR
THINK ABOUT HOW WE COULD REUSE LAND TO JUST BE OF A BETTER AND MORE PUBLIC USE. AND SO THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR STAFF TO KIND OF DO SOME RESEARCH, PRESENT SOME OPTIONS
AND THEN WORK WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL FOR FOR FEEDBACK ON THAT. AND I GUESS I WOULD JUST NOTE IF YOU KNOW, CITY COUNCIL HAS TO APPROVE ANY KIND OF DISPOSITION OF LAND AS
WELL. SO WE'RE NOT PROPOSING NECESSARILY ANY SPECIFIC SITES OR ANYTHING MORE. THINK ABOUT WHAT DOES THAT THAT THAT PROCESS OR WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA WE WANT TO THINK ABOUT ON UNDERUTILIZED LAND
THAT'S OWNED BY THE CITY AND THEN IN THE WORK PLAN WE WE TRY TO ALIGN NOW WITH OUR BLOOMINGTON TOMORROW TOGETHER OR BETTY STRATEGIC PLAN THAT'S
THE CITY STRATEGIC PLAN THAT PLAN CALLS FOR KIND OF THREE CORE GOALS SO A CONNECTED WELCOMING COMMUNITY, A HEALTHY COMMUNITY AND A COMMUNITY WITH
EQUITABLE ECONOMIC GROWTH AND SO WE ALWAYS TRY TO JUST SHOW HOW SOME OF OUR PROJECTS IN THE WORK PLAN ALIGN WITH THOSE GOALS OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN. AND SO THIS IS JUST KIND OF A SUMMARY HERE OF THE PROJECTS
ALIGNING WITH OUR CITY'S STRATEGIC PLAN. AND THEN WE ALSO NOT EVERY PROJECT HAS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT BUT CERTAINLY ON MORE IN DEPTH PROJECTS WE ALWAYS TRY TO HAVE SOME
COMPONENT OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. THE CITY UTILIZES THIS KIND OF P2 LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT FROM THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND SO THERE'S KIND OF THIS KIND
OF SPECTRUM A RANGE OF ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES. SO STAFF WE ALWAYS TRY TO DO AN INITIAL ESTIMATION OF KIND OF WHAT LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT PROJECTS WE MAY NEED AND THAT
CAN CHANGE OVER TIME AS THE SCOPE EVOLVES OR STAFF CAPACITY AS WELL. BUT WITH THE 2050 COMP PLAN THERE'S GOING TO BE A NUMBER OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
OPPORTUNITIES FOR FOLKS AND THIS IS JUST ALSO INCLUDED IN THE WORK PLAN. WE DO A KIND OF PRIORITIZATION AND DRAFT SCHEDULE. I WOULD JUST SAY AT A AT A
HIGH LEVEL WE'RE KIND OF AIMING FOR ONE QUARTER OR TWO TO WRAP UP THOSE CARRYOVER PROJECTS FROM THIS YEAR TOO AND THEN IN ORDER TO KIND OF START TO LAUNCH SOME OF THESE NEW PROJECTS AND THEN
LIKELY YOU'D SEE STUDY SESSIONS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR SOME OF THESE NEWER PROJECTS LATER IN THE YEAR KIND OF QUARTER THREE QUARTER FOUR. AGAIN, THIS IS JUST OUR BEST
ESTIMATE AND THERE'S THINGS OUT OF OUR CONTROL THAT KIND OF CHANGE THE SCHEDULE. BUT JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT WE'RE HOPING TO TO DO FOR TIMING ON SOME OF THESE PROJECTS. SO WITH THAT I'M HAPPY TO
ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE OR CHANGES YOU WANT TO MAKE BUT IF YOU ALL ARE COMFORTABLE WITH WORK PLAN THAT'S PRESENTED HERE IN THE PACKET THERE IS A RECOMMENDED MOTION THERE AND THIS GOES TO CITY
COUNCIL FOR FINAL ADOPTION. THEY APPROVE ALL BOARDS AND COMMISSION WORK PLANS. THANK YOU MR. CASSIDY THIS IS A STUDY ITEM SO I WILL OPEN IT
UP NOW AND ASK IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR STAFF . >> I DID HAVE JUST SORT OF ONE THOUGHT HERE AND THAT'S TO MY
FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ONE ITEM THAT THIS COMMISSION ASKED FOR SPECIFICALLY LATE IN THE YEAR WAS THAT REVIEW OF THE SOUTH OF REGARDING AND THAT IS THE LAST ITEM ON THE ON THE LIST
HERE FOR 2026. SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU AS YOU'RE ON THIS COMMISSION TO STAY ON STAY ON TOP OF YOUR CITY STAFF MEMBERS AND REMIND THEM IT'S IMPORTANT TO YOU IF IF THAT IS SO INDEED SO BUT
STAFF DOES A GREAT JOB OF MAKING SURE THAT THINGS COME BEFORE US AND STAY COMMITTED TO WHAT THEY SAY THEY WILL. I DON'T AT ALL MEAN TO SUGGEST THAT THE FATHER AND FATHER NOT
THE OTHER THING I WILL SAY JUST FOR MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS I'M A BIT JEALOUS THAT YOU ALL GET TO WORK ON THE 2050 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT IS NOT SOMETHING I I MY SIX YEARS ON THE COMMISSION HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO
BECAUSE WE HAD JUST ADOPTED THE 2040 PLAN WHEN I GOT ON THIS COMMISSION AND IT'S AN EXPERIENCE THAT I MISSED OUT ON BUT I THINK IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT ROLE FOR THE CITY AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS A BIG ROLE IN THAT AND SO
I ENCOURAGE YOU TO PUT LOTS OF THOUGHT INTO THAT AND I HOPE YOU CAN APPRECIATE THAT EXPERIENCE BECAUSE NOT EVERYBODY GETS THEIR HANDS ABLE TO SHAPE THE FUTURE OF THE CITY LIKE YOU'LL BE
ABLE TO AS YOU WORK ON THAT 2050 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO I WISH YOU ALL LUCK AS YOU GO THROUGH THAT FOR THE NEXT FEW YEARS. OTHER THOUGHTS?
IF NOT I WOULD LOOK FOR EMOTION. I SAW THREE HANDS GO UP. I'M GOING TO CHOOSE COMMISSIONER WINNIE. I MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE 2026
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN AS ATTACHED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SECOND MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THIS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS PLANNING COMMISSION
WORK PLAN. ANY FINAL DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE OPPOSED MOTION PASSES FOUR ZERO THIS WILL GO BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ACTION ON JANUARY 5TH. THANK YOU, MR. CASSIDY.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ITEMS NUMBER SIX IS NEXT WHICH IS THE APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 20TH AND DECEMBER 4TH.
WE WILL START WITH NOVEMBER 20TH. >> COMMISSIONER WHITE SIR I MOVE UP TO BE AN OFFICIAL I MOVE WE APPROVE THE MEETING
SYNOPSIS FROM NOVEMBER 20TH 2025 THAT'S PRINTED SO MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 20TH. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I.
I OPPOSED ABSTAIN ABSTAIN THE MOTION PASSES THREE ZERO WITH ONE ABSTENTION. WE'LL MOVE ON TO DECEMBER 4TH. I MOVE THAT WE OH NO I WASN'T
THERE I CAN'T I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THAT I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 4TH 2025 COMMISSION.
WOW SORRY IT'S BEEN A LONG WEEK. COMMISSION AS PRINTED IN THE PACKET SECOND MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 4TH. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I.
I OPPOSED ABSTAIN ABSTAIN THAT MOTION PASSES THREE ZERO WITH ONE ABSTAINING MOTION. OUR FINAL ITEM THIS EVENING IS ITEM NUMBER SEVEN WHICH IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY AND ISSUES UPDATE MR. JOHNSON
THANK YOU CHAIR COOKTOWN BEFORE RAY, ONE LAST THOUGHT FOR THE YEAR I'LL JUST SHARE A PREVIEW OF THE UPCOMING MEETING. SO JANUARY 15TH 2026 WE HAVE
TWO MEETINGS IN JANUARY. BOTH ARE SHAPING UP TO BE BUSY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION MEETINGS THE FIRST 1ST JANUARY 15TH THERE'LL BE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND FINAL SITE AND BUILDING PLANS FOR A NEW
CONVENIENCE FACILITY WITH FUEL SALES QUIKTRIP AT 1050 AND 1000 WEST 94TH STREET THAT'S AT APPROXIMATELY 35 W AND 94TH STREET EAST OF 35 W.
THE SECOND ITEM IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A CANNABIS MANUFACTURING FACILITY AT AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AT 8200 GRAND AVENUE SOUTH. THE THIRD ITEM IS ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING FOR INVOLVING A
REGARDING A REZONING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR A FOUR STORY 180 UNIT MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AT 9955
AND ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH LYNDALE AVENUE. THERE'S A NUMBER OF PROPERTIES THAT ARE INVOLVED BUT 9955 IS THE MAIN PROPERTY. THERE ARE LOTS OF WORKS AND
JEWELERS SITE. >> THE JANUARY 20TH SECOND MEETING FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS TRACKING TO THE JANUARY 22ND MEETING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING FACILITY AT MALL
OF AMERICA. THE EXISTING ON TOP OF THE EXISTING EAST PARKING RAMP. A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A VEHICLE REPAIR FACILITY AT 9200 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH.
A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAJOR REVISION FOR A PARKING FLEXIBILITY FOR A RETAIL USE SAID 81 ON 1/34 AVENUE SOUTH ON THE SOUTH LOOP.
AND A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A CITY INITIATED APPLICATION A CITY CODE AMENDMENT FOR THE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING PHASE TWO ORDINANCE. SO THAT'S A PREVIEW OF THE TWO UPCOMING MEETINGS IN JANUARY.
AND JUST FINAL THOUGHT, THANK YOU FOR A WONDERFUL YEAR. IT'S A PLEASURE TO WORK WITH YOU ALL. WE ONBOARDED THREE NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONERS THIS YEAR AND IT'S BEEN VERY SMOOTH AND APPRECIATED IN TERMS OF THE COLLABORATION WITH
STAFF. SO AGAIN HAPPY HOLIDAYS AND THANK YOU ALL FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK THIS YEAR. THANK YOU, MR. JOHNSON. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO ADDRESS ANYTHING THAT WAS NOT
ON THIS EVENING'S AGENDA. ARE THERE ANY MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS THAT A COMMISSIONER WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS? SEE NONE. I WILL CLOSE THIS MEETING OF THE BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FOR DECEMBER 18TH.
>> GOOD NIGHT