GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THIS DECEMBER 4TH MEETING OF THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADVISES THE CITY COUNCIL ON DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, LONG RANGE PLANNING AND
TRANSPORTATION ISSUES SO ITEMS BEFORE THE PUBLIC BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION RATHER OUR STUDY ITEMS WHERE WE WILL NOT TAKE FORMAL ACTION OTHER ITEMS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ARE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND WE WILL ACCEPT PUBLIC TESTIMONY
ON THOSE. IF YOU'D LIKE TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOU CAN DO SO HERE AT CITY HALL IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS. YOU CAN ALSO DO SO AT HOME OR REMOTELY BY FOLLOWING THE INSTRUCTIONS ON YOUR SCREEN.
SOMETIMES BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL HAVE FINAL DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY WHILE OTHER ITEMS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION THE CITY COUNCIL HAS THE FINAL DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTS IN AN
ADVISORY CAPACITY. SEVEN VOLUNTEER RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON MAKE UP THE PLANNING COMMISSION ONE, 234. FIVE OF US ARE HERE THIS EVENING SO WE HAVE A QUORUM.
WE'LL START THIS EVENING WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ALL RIGHT. 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.
THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON IS THE APPLICANT REGARDING THE BLOOMINGTON FERRY ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY AMY MARONE IS HERE WITH THE STAFF REPORT
. GOOD EVENING. PLANNING COMMISSION. WE ARE BACK BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. WILL YOU LAST SIZE THIS SUMMER ? SINCE THEN WE'VE DONE SOME ADDITIONAL PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
AND COMPLETED AND EVALUATED ON SEVERAL CORRIDOR OPTIONS AND WE ARE HERE TONIGHT TO GIVE YOU THE RESULTS OF THE PLANNING STUDY AS WELL AS OUR TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION. WE'LL BE LOOKING FOR A RECOMMDATION FROM YOU TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND WE DO ASK THAT YOU OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AFTER THAT
PRESENTATION. AND SO PHIL COLLINS FROM ASA CONSULTING IS GOING TO LEAD OUR PRESENTATION. >> GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. SO WE HAVE A DECENT ANSWER TO
COVER TODAY. WE'VE DONE QUITE A BIT SINCE WE WERE HERE LAST TIME EARLIER THIS YEAR. SO WE'RE GOING TO GO OVER THE ANALYSIS THAT'S TAKING PLACE TODAY. ALL THE CONCEPTS ARE DEVELOPED TO DISCUSS THE INPUT WE
RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC ON THOSE AND HOW THAT'S HELPED SHAPE REALLY WHAT THEY ARE AND THEN GO THROUGH THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND ULTIMATELY LOOK FOR THE ACTION TO ADOPT
THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. >> JUST A REMINDER OF WHAT THIS PROJECT IS. SO IT'S BLOOMINGTON FERRY ROAD ON THE WEST SIDE JUST EAST
169. CURRENTLY IT'S A FOUR LANE DIVIDED ROADWAY. THIS STUDY IS LOOKING AT WHAT CAN BE DONE TO UTILIZE THAT EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY THAT'S OUT THERE. BETTER ALIGN WITH THE CORRIDOR
CONTEXT THAT'S OUT THERE. ALIGN THE DESIGN WITH THE USERS THAT ARE USING THE CORRIDOR. RECOGNIZING THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE ROADWAY HAS CHANGED OVER TIME AND IS NO LONGER NECESSARY FOR ALL THE REGIONAL
TRAFFIC THAT 169 NOW CARRIES. SO REALLY TRYING TO LOOK AHEAD HERE AND FIGURE OUT WHAT WE CAN DO WITH THAT EXISTING RIGHT AWAY THAT'S OUT THERE ON THE ROADWAY. THERE'S PARTS OF IT THAT ARE IN NEED OF WORK RIGHT NOW BUT
THEN ALSO THE WHOLE CORRIDOR IN THE NEXT 1520 YEARS IS DUE FOR A RECONSTRUCTION. SO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE CAN DO WITH THE CORRIDOR. SO LOOKING AT IT HOLISTICALLY, SEEING WHAT CAN BE DONE TO IMPROVE THE MODES
OF TRANSPORTATION. >> SO BASED ON ALL THE INPUT THAT WE GATHERED FROM THE PUBLIC FROM PLANNING COMMISSION, FROM SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY THROUGH ALL THE
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS AND LOOKING AT WHAT WHAT ARE THE NEEDS OF THE CORRIDOR, THREE CONCEPTS WERE DEVELOPED. ALL THREE CONCEPTS HAVE ONE LANE OF TRAVEL IN EACH DIRECTION BASED ON THE TRAFFIC
NUMBERS THAT ARE OUT THERE TODAY BASED ON LOOKING AT HISTORICAL DATA FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS. WE'RE NOT REALLY SEEING THE NEED FOR FOUR LANES OF TRAFFIC TO LANE IN EACH DIRECTION. SO THAT'S WHY ALL CONCEPTS
OF THE ONE LANE TO TRAVEL EACH DIRECTION RECOGNIZING THAT INTERSECTION SO IT WOULD OPEN UP AND THERE WOULD BE LEFT TURN LANES AT MOST OF THE INTERSECTION SO THIS IS JUST AT THE THE SEGMENT LEVEL. THE ACTUAL CONCEPTS AT
INTERSECTIONS IF THEY'RE SAY CONTROLLED THERE'S TURN LANES. IF IT'S A ROUNDABOUT. SO THERE MIGHT BE DIFFERENT INTERSECTIONS BUT OVERALL HOLISTICALLY LANE DIRECTION OR ONE LANE TRAVEL IN EACH DIRECTION. AND THEN REALLY THE
DIFFERENCES ARE WHAT HOW ARE THE PED BIKE FACILITIES ALONG THE CORRIDOR? SO CONCEPT A IS A ONE WAY BIKE WAY ON EACH SIDE OF THE ROADWAY. SO THAT WOULD BE INTENDED TO BE DIRECTIONAL.
SO IF YOU'RE GOING NORTHBOUND YOU'D BE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE ROAD. IF YOU WERE ON SOUTHBOUND YOU'D BE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE ROAD. THERE'D BE SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES. CONCEPT B IS A SHARED USE PATH ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROADWAY. SO THAT'S WHERE PEDESTRIANS
AND BICYCLES THEY'D BE USING THE SAME FACILITY. THERE'S NOT REALLY SEPARATION OF IF YOU'RE A BIKE OR A PAD OUT THERE AND THEN CONCEPT C IS A TWO WAY BIKE WAY AND THE
ONE SIDE OF THE ROAD. SO THAT'S BOTH DIRECTIONS OF TRAVEL ON THE BIKES WOULD BE ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER. AND THEN THERE'S A SIDEWALK ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD AS WELL
. SO THESE ARE DEVELOPED AGAIN BASED ON THE TECHNICAL ANALYSIS AS WELL AS ALL THE INPUT SO THERE ON THE RIGHT YOU CAN SEE THE INPUT THAT WE'VE RECEIVED THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT REALLY TRYING TO ALIGN THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT OR
DESIGN THE ROADWAY WITH THE NEEDS AND REALLY NOT LOOKING AT ADDITIONAL RIGHT AWAY WITH THIS PROJECT RECOGNIZING THAT THIS IS RIGHT IT'S PRETTY UNIQUE IN THE SENSE THAT THERE THERE'S THERE'S A LOT OF ROADWAY OUT THERE SO WE'RE
NOT REALLY SEEING THE NEED TO BE PURCHASING ADDITIONAL ROADWAY SO REALLY TRYING TO UTILIZE WHAT'S THERE. THERE IS ACTUALLY A DECENT AMOUNT OF PED BIKE FACILITIES THAT ARE OUT THERE TODAY. SO TRYING TO MAINTAIN THAT ALL
THE INPUT WE RECEIVEDROM THE PUBLIC IS REALLY IN FAVOR OF THOSE FACILITIES. IT'S REALLY LOOKING AT HOW CAN WE THEM HOW CAN WE ENHANCE THE CROSSINGS OF BLOOMINGTON FERRY ROAD?
THAT'S MAYBE ONE OF THE MORE BARRIERS TO TRAVEL ALONG GLAMAZON FERRY ROAD VIA PATTY'S BIKES IS PRETTY GOOD BUT CROSSING COULD BE MORE OF A CHALLENGE. SO LOOKING AT IMPROVING THE
CROSSINGS SO PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ROUND TWO SO THIS WAS HELD BACK IN SEPTEMBER. SO THIS IS THE THE OPEN HOUSE, THE ROUND OF ENGAGEMENT WHERE WE HAD THE CONCEPTS DEVELOPED
AND WE PRESENTED THEM TO THE PUBLIC. SO WE WERE AT SUNRISE PARK ALONG THE CORNER FOR THE OPEN HOUSE AND THEN WE ALSO USE LET'S TALK BLOOMINGTON THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT AS WELL TO GATHER INPUT SO PEOPLE
COULD PROVIDE INPUT TO STAFF AS WELL AS COMPLETE SURVEYS AT THE OPEN HOUSE AS WELL AS ONLINE. THE OPEN HOUSE WAS WELL-ATTENDED. I MEAN WE ESTIMATE WE HAD
ROUGHLY 120 130 PEOPLE THERE, 88 INDIVIDUALS SIGNED IN BUT THEN THERE ARE SOME OTHERS THAT THAT ARE NECESSARY SIGN IN. SO IT WAS WELL ATTENDED. WE RECEIVED A LOT OF INPUT ON THE CONCEPT SO THAT WAS GREAT TO SEE PEOPLE COMING OUT.
>> IT WAS A SUPER NICE DAY SO IT WORKED OUT WELL IN THAT SENSE. YOU CAN SEE THERE ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT IS A QUESTION THAT WE HAD ON THE SURVEY IS WHICH CONCEPT DO YOU FEEL BEST
ADDRESSES THE GOALS CONCEPT SEE SHAKE OUT AS BEING THE MOST FAVORED BY THE PUBLIC AND THAT WAS WITH OVER 50 OF THE SURVEY. SO A DECENT REPRESENTATION
ROUGHLY 47% CONCEPT C SO THAT IS THE TWO WAY BIKEWAY AND THE ONE SIDE OF THE ROADWAY. >> HERE'S SOME THEMES THAT WE
HEARD FROM THE SECOND ROUND OF ENGAGEMENT. SO YEAH THERE'S DEFINITELY SUPPORT FOR IMPROVING THE PED BIKE FACILITIES OUT THERE. THERE'S ALREADY A DECENT AMOUNT OF GREENSPACE OUT THERE. IT'S IN THE CENTER OF THE
ROADWAY. THERE IS AN INTEREST IN THE PUBLIC OR FROM THE PUBLIC IN MAINTAINING THE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S OUT THERE MAINTAINING THAT GREEN SPACE AND THEN SIMILAR TO WHAT
WE HEARD AT THE FIRST GO AROUND THERE'S DEFINITELY CONCERN OF SPEED ALONG THE CORRIDOR AS WELL AS PEOPLE YIELDING TO PEDESTRIANS AT CROSSINGS AND INTERSECTIONS. SO SEEING WHAT CAN BE DONE IN THE NEAR TERM, RECOGNIZING
THAT THIS PROJECT IS OR AT LEAST THE FULL VISION ISN'T GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTED HERE IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE BUT SEEN WHAT CAN BE DONE IN THE NEAR TERM TO IMPROVE SOME OF THESE KEY LOCATIONS. SO DEVELOPING INTERIM
SOLUTIONS TO HELP ADDRESS SOME OF THE THE IMMEDIATE CONCERNS . AND THEN THERE WAS COMMENTS ABOUT PROJECT FUNDING COST PRIORITY UNDERSTANDING HOW DOES THIS FIT INTO THE OVERALL BUDGET OF THE THE CITY WHAT'S
WHAT'S DRIVING THE NEED FOR THIS AND HOW WOULD THIS BE FUNDED IN THE FUTURE? >> AS I MENTIONED THERE IS T
GREEN SPACE THAT WAS A COMMON INTEREST OF PEOPLE AND THOUGHTS ON IT WAS THERE IS NOTHING MORE FAVORITISM FOR MORE OF THE NATURAL VEGETATION NOT NECESSARILY JUST PLANTING
GRASS OUT THERE THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE MOWING CONSISTENTLY BUT OTHER STRATEGIES THAT CAN HELP HELP DRAW POLLINATORS TO THE CORRIDOR IMPROVING SHADE
THAT'S ALONG THE CORRIDOR OF THERE'S TREES OUT THERE TODAY PEOPLE ARE IN FAVOR WANTING TO MAINTAIN TREES OUT THERE AND HAVING THE SHADE AS YOU'RE WALKING AND BIKING ALONG THE CORRIDOR. SO THERE IS DEFINITELY INTEREST FROM THE PUBLIC AS
WELL ON SOME OF THIS GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND IMPROVING THE OVERALL FUNCTION OF THE CORRIDOR IN THAT SENSE AND
THEN BASED ON SOME INPUT WE RECEIVED AT THE OPEN HOUSE AND THROUGH THIS SECOND ROUND OF ENGAGEMENT AS WELL AS JUST CONTINUED ON SOME OF OUR TECHNICAL EVALUATIONS, SOME ACTIVITIES WE DID AFTER THE SECOND ROUND OF ENGAGEMENT
WE'LL TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT LINDSTROM AVENUE. WE HAD HEARD SITE DISTANCES THAT WAS A CONCERN OF PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO SEE ONCOMING VEHICLES AS WELL AS MAKING THE
TURN FROM LINDSTROM ON TO BLOOMINGTON VERY ROAD. SO WE TOOK A CLOSER LOOK AT THAT INTERSECTION. CITIZENS JUST MENTION WE DID THAT LINDSTROM AS WELL AS WE DID GO LOOK AT ALL OF THE OTHER INTERSECTIONS OR AT
LEAST MOST OF THEM WHERE WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT POTENTIALLY HAVING VEHICLES STOP ON THE SIDE STREET AND THEN HAVE TO FIND GAPS IN TRAFFIC AND BLOOMINGTON FERRY ROAD. SO WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE ADEQUATE SIGHT
DISTANCE TO MAKE THOSE MOVEMENTS SO WE WENT AND EVALUATED THAT VENUS ROAD SO THE SIGNAL AT THE VERY NORTH END THAT'S EXISTING INITIALLY WE WERE SHOWING THAT IT DOES
NOT MEAN SIGNAL WARRANTS TODAY IT DOESN'T MEET THEM IN THE FUTURE OR IS ANTICIPATED TO BUT THERE WAS NOTHING COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ABOUT REMOVING THAT SIGNAL. SO WE TOOK A CLOSER LOOK AT IT . WE ANALYZED THE WARRANTS UNDER
MANY DIFFERENT SCENARIOS TRYING TO LOOK AT IT THROUGH ANY LENS TO SEE HOW THIS REALLY A SIGNAL COULD POTENTIALLY BE WARRANTED THERE BASED ON THE ANALYSIS WE'RE NOT SEEING THAT A SIGNAL AT
VENUS AT THE NORTH END IS REALLY NEEDED OR WARRANTED. AND THEN WE IDENTIFIED SHORT AND INTERIM SHORT TERM AND INTERIM RECOMMENDATIONS. SO BUILDING OFF THE FULL VISION THAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING
SEEING WHAT CAN BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE NEAR FUTURE HERE RECOGNIZING IT'S GOING TO BE CHALLENGING TO BUILD THE WHOLE PROJECT AT ONCE. BUT THERE ARE SOME HOT SPOT LOCATIONS THAT HAVE MORE OF A NEED.
SO SEEING WHAT CAN BE DONE IN THE THE MORE IMMEDIATE FUTURE HERE AND THEN SOIL BORINGS THIS IS TIED TO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT COLLECTING SOIL BORINGS ALONG THE CORRIDOR TO SEE WHAT IS THE SOIL PROFILE OUT THERE FOR
VARIOUS TYPES OF WATER TREATMENT. >> THE MATRIX HERE THAT I'M GUESSING MOST OF YOU CANNOT SEE BUT THIS WAS INCLUDED
IN THE PACKET HERE THIS IS EVALUATING THE ALTERNATIVES AGAINST THE GOALS THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN IDENTIFIED AND PRESENTED. SO YOU SEE THERE THERE'S VARIOUS GOALS HERE WATER RESOURCES, SUSTAINABILITY,
MOBILITY AND COST VARIOUS CRITERIA FOR EACH OF THOSE. THE FIRST COLUMN FOR THE EVALUATION THE ONE THAT HAS MAINLY YELLOW THAT IS THE
EXISTING NO BUILD CONDITIONS AND THEN THE THREE TO THE RIGHT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES DON'T NECESSARY NEED TO DIVE INTO THIS MEAN WE CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF ANYONE'S
REVIEW THIS AND WANTS TO LOOK MORE AT IT BUT BIG PICTURE IS THE THREE CONCEPTS OVERALL COMPARE RELATIVELY CLOSE TO EACH OTHER AND THAT'S DUE TO MEAN AT LEAST FROM A TRAFFIC PERSPECTIVE IN TERMS
OF VEHICLES THEY THEY'LL HAVE THE ONE LANE THEY'RE ALL PRETTY MUCH THE SAME AT INTERSECTIONS AND THE SEGMENT LEVELS IT'S MORE ON THE PED BIKE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S DIFFERENT. SO THAT'S WHERE YOU SEE SOME OF THE NUANCES THAT ARE THERE.
IT'S A AND B ON THE NON-MOTORIZED PHASED TRANSPORTATION. SO LOOKING AT AS BIKES THOSE HAVE THOSE TWO RED ITEMS THERE AND THAT'S REALLY DUE TO TWO REASONS.
SO FOR THE SHARED USE PATH I'LL BE ON BIKES AND PADS ARE HAVING TO MIX IN THE SAME AREA THEY'RE USING THE SAME FACILITIES I ON THE MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY DESIRABLE PARTICULARLY WITH E-BIKES NOW
A LOT MORE PEOPLE ARE GOING FASTER ON BIKES IT'S NOT NECESSARILY GOING TEN 15MPH THOSE THINGS ARE CLIPPING ALONG FASTER SO IT'S NOT MAYBE AS DESIRABLE TO HAVE PADS AND BIKES HAVING TO SHARE THE SAME
AREA WITH WITH JUST THE SPEED DIFFERENCE AND THEN ALSO A ALSO HAS RED THERE AND THAT'S DUE TO SORT OF THE REQUIRED CROSSING AS WELL AS WHERE SOME OF THE CROSSINGS ARE IF YOU'RE
TIPPING WHICH DIRECTION OF THE ROAD OR DIRECTION YOU'RE TRYING TO GO IN MIGHT REQUIRE YOU TO CROSS THE ROAD AND IF YOU GO BACK GO PAST WHERE YOU'RE TRYING TO GO, YOU WENT AROUND ALL NIGHT.
YOU ACTUALLY HAD TO CROSS THE ROAD TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. SO THAT'S WHY THOSE TWO OUT HAVE THE RED BUT OTHERWISE WE'RE SHOWING IMPROVEMENTS ON PRETTY MUCH ALL ASPECTS HERE THAT WE HAVE IN TERMS OF SOME
OF OUR MANAGEMENT FLOODING REDUCING THE FLOODING, IMPROVING GREENHOUSE GASES, IMPROVING REALLY OVERALL INFRASTRUCTURE AND THEN COSTS IS THERE AT THE BOTTOM AS WELL.
SO WE DID A COST COMPARISON OF WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO RECONSTRUCT THE CORRIDOR AS A WHOLE IN TERMS OF A FOUR LANE ROADWAY IF WE JUST PUT BACK IN WHAT'S OUT THERE TODAY AS WELL AS IF WE WERE TO DO THE THREE CONCEPTS.
SO WE DID CAPITAL COSTS AS WELL AS LOOKING AT MAINTENANCE COST HERE MAINTENANCE IN THE SENSE OF M.A.C COST AS WELL AS CHIP SEALS AND THEN LOOKING AT
SNOW PLOWING, SALTING, MOWING AND REALLY THOSE IT MAKE MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE WITH THE ALTERNATIVES AND AT LEAST IN TERMS OF THE MOWING,
SALTING, PLOWING SO PROJECT BENEFITS AS I JUST MENTIONED I MEAN THERE REALLY ARE A LOT OF BENEFITS THESE ALTERNATIVES I MEAN THE FOUR GOAL AREAS THAT WE HAD THERE FRINGE BENEFITS ACROSS THE BOARD
IN TERMS OF WHAT THIS PROJECT WOULD LOOK LIKE IMPLEMENTING REALLY ANY OF THE THREE ALTERNATIVES THAT WERE EVALUATED AND WHERE OR IMPROVING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE WATER
QUALITY AS WELL AS THE FLOODING THAT'S AROUND LAND LANE USING THE EXISTING RIGHT AWAY THAT'S THERE THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPLEMENT STORMWATER TREATMENT BASINS, TREAT THAT WATER REALLY BEFORE
IT GETS DOWN TO WHERE IT'S CAUSING FLOODING. SO THAT'S A BIG ONE AS WELL AS THE MOBILITY. SO PEDS BIKES MOST CROSSINGS IN OUR FULL VISION HERE HAVE ENHANCED CROSSINGS FOR
PEDESTRIANS BIKES WHERE THERE IS THE CENTER REFUGE ISLAND THAT YOU CAN CROSS OR IS STOPPING EARLY ON CROSSING ONE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL AT A TIME AND IT'S ALONG ONE LANE SO THERE'S DEFINITELY A LOT
OF PROS FOR THE PROJECT IN TERMS OF THE FULL VISION AND THEN ALSO SUSTAINABILITY AGAIN USING ALL THAT GREEN SPACE THAT'S OUT THERE. THERE'S LOTS OF OPPORTUNITIES WITH THE FULL VISION TO
ENHANCE THAT AND THEN OF COST OBVIOUSLY THERE'S COST TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT, THERE'S COST REGARDLESS SO WE HAVE TO RECONSTRUCT THE ROADWAY RECOGNIZING THAT THE ROAD IS
UPCOMING ON 70 YEARS SINCE IT WAS INITIALLY BUILT. SO WE'LL NEED RECONSTRUCTION REGARDLESS BUT WITH THE CONCEPTS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THERE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE FOR PAVEMENT WOULD BE
DECREASED DUE TO THE REDUCTION IN PAVEMENT . >> SO BASED ON THE ANALYSIS THAT WE COMPLETED THAT MATRIX THAT WE JUST SHOWED AND WAS
INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET, ALL THE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ALL SEE IS THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THAT. SO THAT'S THE TWO WAY BIKEWAY WITH SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES
AND THIS DOES ALIGN ALSO WITH WHAT WE HAD HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC BASED ON THE THE SURVEYS THAT WE HAD THERE THAT THIS WAS THE MOST FAVORITE FAVORITE ONE OR THE MOST
PREFERRED ONE FROM THE PUBLIC AND I MEAN RECOGNIZING THAT THERE THERE'S STILL INFRASTRUCTURE THAT CAN BE UTILIZED THAT REGARDLESS OF WHAT MOVES FORWARD HERE THERE WOULD BE INTENT TO PRESERVE AS MUCH
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT CAN BE OUT THERE. IF THERE'S CURBS THAT CAN BE SAVED, WE'D BE LOOKING AT DOING THAT. SO HOLDING ONE CURB LINE MOST LIKELY AND KIND OF BUILDING OFF THAT SHIFTING AS YOU NEED TO. BUT THE INTENT WOULD BE TO
PRESERVE AS MUCH EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AS POSSIBLE AND A LOT OF THOSE DESIGN DECISIONS WOULD BE MADE LATER IN THE PROJECT ONCE YOU'RE GETTING MORE INTO THE WEEDS OF WHAT CAN BE SAVED AND WHAT NEEDS REPLACEMENT JUST DUE TO
SOME OF THOSE DETAILS AS WELL AS IT REALLY DEPENDS ON WHEN THIS OCCURS. IF IT OCCURS IN THREE YEARS IT MIGHT CHANGE THE STORY AS TO IF IT'S 15 YEARS FOR WHAT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED.
SO SOME OF IT'S DESIGNED DECISIONS WILL BE FURTHER VETTED ONCE IT GETS INTO THAT STAGE OF THE PROJECT AND THEN RECOGNIZING AGAIN THOSE FULL
VISION WAS ALSO SEE THE RECOMMENDATION BUT ARE LOOKING AT DOING SOME INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS HERE THAT DON'T NECESSARILY NECESSARILY REQUIRE THE FULL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE ROAD.
SO THE CORRIDOR I MEAN IT CAN BE STRIPED TO A SINGLE LANE OF TRAVEL IN EACH DIRECTION THAT'S BEEN DONE ELSEWHERE THROUGHOUT THE TWIN CITIES
HERE REDUCE IN A LANE JUST VIA STRIPING AGAIN THAT DOESN'T NECESSARY GET TO ALL THE GOALS OF SOME OF THE SUSTAINABILITY ASPECTS BUT IT DOES HELP IMPROVE SOME OF THAT PAD BIKE
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S OUT THERE VENUS ROAD AS WE MENTIONED THAT THE SIGNAL IS NOT WARRANTED THERE. I'M STILL LOOKING AT REMOVAL OF THAT SIGNAL AND THEN
IMPLEMENTED SOME BUMP OUTS. THEY'RE REDUCING THE WIDTH PADS ARE HAVING TO CROSS TO HELP IMPROVE THEIR EXPERIENCE THERE. LINDSTROM AVENUE IS THE SAME THING AS VENUS AND SENSE
OF BUMP OUT SO IT'S REDUCING THE LANE OF TRAVEL THROUGH THERE AND THEN HAVING THE BUMP OUTS TO ENHANCE THE PEDESTRIAN AIR EXPERIENCE AND REDUCE THEIR EXPOSURE AT THE INTERSECTION.
A MINI ROUNDABOUT CAN ALSO BE CONSIDERED HERE I'M REALLY THAT ONE'S ON THE TABLE HERE AS A POTENTIAL THIS YEAR THERE HAS BEEN MORE CONGESTION OUT THERE REALLY DUE TO
CONSTRUCTION ON I-35W THAT'S RESULTING IN MORE PEOPLE USING 169 AND A LOT OF THE ROUTES TO GET TO 169 HAVE EXPERIENCED INCREASED TRAFFIC THIS YEAR SO IT'S MORE PREVALENT THIS YEAR
WE LOOKED AT IT IT'S NOT AS PREVALENT IN PREVIOUS YEARS BUT WE DO WANT TO HAVE THAT AS A POTENTIAL OPTION TO SEE IF IT'S RECURRING YEAR AFTER YEAR MAYBE DESIGNING FOR SOME OF THAT TRAFFIC IS NECESSARY
AT THAT INTERSECTION. SO I THINK THAT JUST REQUIRES SOME FURTHER VETTING TO SEE ARE THE CONDITIONS THAT WE'RE EXPERIENCED THIS YEAR PERSISTENT YUKON AVENUE KIND
OF THE SAME THING HERE REDUCING THE LANE OF TRAVEL, KEEPING THIS ONE ALWAYS OFF CONTROL THAT'S THERE TODAY. SO REQUIRING ALL MOVEMENTS THAT ARE COMING TO THIS INTERSECTION TO STOP IF IT
REMAINS THIS MINI ROUNDABOUT OBVIOUSLY WOULD CHANGE THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT BUT ALWAYS WOULD BE SO THERE JUST DUE TO SIGHT LINES THAT ARE THERE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH SIGHT DISTANCE THERE TO HAVE
VEHICLES ON THE SIDE STREET AFTER THE JUDGE GAPS IN TRAFFIC SO THAT THAT WOULD STILL REMAIN ALWAYS SAFE UNLESS IT WENT TO A MINI ROUNDABOUT AND THEN 102ND STREET. THIS IS ALSO A SIGNAL TO TODAY
THAT ACCESS IS THE PARK RIGHT THERE. THE SIGNAL IS NOT WARRANTED. THIS WAS FURTHER AWAY FROM MEETING WARRANTS AND VENUS ROAD WAS SO RECOMMENDING REMOVAL THAT SIGNAL DOING THE
CURB BUMP OUTS REDUCING THE LANE OF TRAVEL THROUGH THERE AND THIS ONE WE ARE ALSO RECOMMENDING THE RFP SO THE RAPID FLASHING BEACONS THERE THIS ONE IS ON THE CURVE AND
IT'S IT'S YOU DON'T HAVE GREAT SIGHTLINES. IT DOESN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE AN INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE BUT JUST FOR PEDESTRIAN ENHANCEMENTS WE
WOULD BE LOOKING AT RFP THAT THIS LOCATION DUE TO JUST THE CURVATURE THROUGH THE INTERSECTION TO HELP DRIVERS BE AWARE THAT THERE ARE PEDESTRIANS IN THE CROSSING
AND HERE'S JUST SOME IMAGES OF WHAT THOSE INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS COULD LOOK LIKE. SO ON THE TOP LEFT WE HAVE THE CORRIDOR SO THAT'S RESTRIPING ONE OF THE LANES ESSENTIALLY
JUST THROUGH HATCHING TO REDUCE THAT AND THEN FOR EACH OF THE INTERSECTIONS THERE, VANESSA LINDSTROM, YOU GOT OF 102ND THESE ARE WHAT THESE INTERSECTIONS COULD LOOK LIKE
JUST AT THE INTERSECTION LEVEL YOU CAN SEE THAT YOU CAN TIE INTO THESE YOU CAN REDUCE THE LANE TO TRAVEL THROUGH THE INTERSECTION, DO THE CURB BUMP OUTS PROVIDE THOSE MEANING REFUGE ISLANDS FOR PEDESTRIANS
AND THEN GO BACK TO THE CURB LINES THAT ARE OUT THERE SO IT WOULD BE SIMPLER. IT'S NOT THE WHOLE CORRIDOR HAVING TO DO THIS ALL AT ONCE SO I'M JUST LOOKING AT WHAT COULD BE DONE MORE IN THE INTERIM AND FOCUSING ON SOME
OF THE HOT SPOT LOCATIONS SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION SO PRESENTED THE CONCEPTS TO THE SAME BUILDING COMMISSION BACK
IN OCTOBER GOT THEIR INPUT ON THE THREE ALTERNATIVES. I'M REALLY NOT TOO MUCH INPUT . I MEAN OVERALL I LIKED WHAT THEY WERE SEEING FROM THE
THREE CONCEPTS. ONE COMMENT WAS ON THE TWO A BIKE WAY JUST BEING COGNIZANT THAT THE ANIMAL SIDE OF THE ROAD YOU'RE APPROACHING FROM ON THERE MIGHT BE A NEED TO CROSS THE ROAD TO GET TO THE TWO WAY CYCLE TRACK ON THAT
SIDE AND THEN JUST HAVING MORE OF AN INTEREST AS WELL AS ONCE THIS GETS IN MORE DESIGN PHASE IS THERE MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO PROVIDE INPUT AND THERE DEFINITELY WOULD BE AS THIS GETS MORE INTO DESIGN FROM
WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW, HOW WE ARE TO THE ACTION ITEM HERE I'M GUESSING PREVIOUSLY PRIOR TO THIS THOUGH OPPORTUNITY TO
ASK QUESTIONS SEE IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, ANYTHING ELSE WE CAN PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION THAT YOU GUYS WOULD BE LOOKING FOR. >> THANK YOU MR. COLLINS WE'LL START WITH QUESTIONS FOR PRESENTERS.
MR. WHITE THANK YOU. I ACTUALLY HAVE TWO THANK YOU. CHAIR TWO QUESTIONS. THE FIRST WAS WITH THE PROPOSED INTERIM SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ARE THOSE
DESIGNED TO SORT OF STAY ONCE YOU DO THE LARGER OVERALL PROGRAM OR IS IT SOMETHING OR YOU'RE PUTTING IT IN AND THEN THREE YEARS FROM NOW YOU'RE RIPPING IT OUT BECAUSE YOU ARE COMING THROUGH WITH THE NEW DESIGN?
NO, THE GOOD QUESTION THE INTENT WOULD BE THAT THEY WOULD BE DESIGNED THAT THEY COULD FIT IN WITH THE FULL VISION THAT ALL THE INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS DON'T PRECLUDE ANYTHING FROM THE FULL VISION AND IT HELPS MOVE TOWARDS THE FULL VISION.
SO YEAH, THE INTENT WOULD BE TO NOT HAVE TO COME IN AND REDO THOSE IF IN THE FUTURE HERE. SO THOSE WOULD BE THE ENTIRE IMPROVEMENTS WOULD JUST IT'S A STEP TOWARDS A FULL VISION AND HELP MEET THE GOALS OF THAT.
THANK YOU. MY SECOND QUESTION IS IN TERMS OF THE THE I KNOW WE'RE NOT IN THE PLANNING PHASE YET BUT THINKING ABOUT THE BIKE PATH AND THE SIDEWALKS I MEAN AND IF ONE OF THE GOALS WAS TO
REDUCE THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ,ARE THERE PLANS OR PREFERENCES FOR MORE PERMEABLE PRODUCTS TO BE USED IN THE BIKE LANES BY PED LANES IN THE SIDEWALKS AT ALL? >> YEAH.
I CAME UP AT ONE POINT I WOULD SAY NO DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ON THAT. I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING TO BE CAN BE EXPLORED. MINNESOTA IT'S ALWAYS A LITTLE CHALLENGING WITH SOME OF THOSE WITH OBVIOUSLY COLD AND SNOW THAT ARE OUT THERE AND HOW
THOSE FUNCTION AND HOW THEY GET CLEARED ALL CONCEPTS DO REDUCE THE IMPERVIOUS AREA ROUGHLY 3 TO 4 AND A HALF ACRES COMPARED TO WHAT'S OUT THERE TODAY. SO IT IS A PRETTY SIZABLE
THING AND ONE ONE OPPORTUNITY IS THAT WE DID LOOK AT LIKE IF THE CURBS OR THE MEDIANS WENT FROM BEING PAVED TO SAY NATURAL VEGETATION THAT'S ESSENTIALLY ANOTHER ACRE
OF ALL THOSE MEDIANS THAT COULD ALSO BE IMPERVIOUS. SO THEY ARE REDUCING IMPERVIOUS AREA. BUT I THINK SPECIFICALLY LOOKING AT THE TRAILS IN THAT I THINK THAT REQUIRE FURTHER VETTING WE HAVEN'T REALLY GOT
TO THAT AT THIS POINT IN OTHER QUESTIONS FOR OUR PRESENTERS SEE NONE. THANK YOU MR. COLLINS I WILL AS THE CHAIR HAS THE DISCRETION TO DO OPEN A PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD FOR THIS STUDY ITEM. I DON'T SEE ANYONE IN THE CHAMBERS HERE OTHER THAN STAFF MEMBERS. MS. BROWN DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ON LINE? I'M SORRY THAT'S I MISS BROWN. I DIDN'T LOOK DOWN THE TABLE
TODAY. >> DEFINITELY NOT. THIS IS CREAM AND THERE IS NO ONE ALL I THANK YOU, CORY. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL MOVE THEN INTO DISCUSSION. MR. COLLINS. YOU CAN TAKE A SEAT IF YOU LIKE AND WE'LL MOVE INTO
DISCUSSION. I DO NOT. OKAY, MR. CUNNINGHAM. THANK YOU, CHAIR. I WANT TO START BY THANKING
STAFF FOR THE AMOUNT OF WORK THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, THE TAC PUT INTO THIS AND THE AMOUNT OF PUBLIC OUTREACH, THE AMOUNT OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY IN THE PACKET IS I
THINK SOMETHING TO BE ADMIRED . YOU GUYS DID A GREAT JOB OF ENGAGING NEIGHBORS STAKEHOLDERS IN THIS JOB AND GETTING THEIR FEEDBACK BECAUSE WE FRANKLY DON'T GET A LOT
OF FEEDBACK ON PLANNING COMMISSION PACKETS AND SO I WAS REALLY HAPPY TO SEE THAT I, I THINK THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT TIME TO BE THINKING ABOUT A IMPROVEMENT TO THIS
NOT NECESSARILY FOR EVERY REASON I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH EVERY REASON BUT THE ROAD IS ALL READY TO BE REPLACED. SO I THINK IMPROVING IT WHILE REPLACING IT FOR KIND OF A
LONG TERM VISION OF THE CITY IS A GOOD IDEA. SO I'M IN FAVOR OF MOVING THIS FORWARD. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM. OTHER THOUGHTS
I TOO AM IN FAVOR OF THE THE PROPOSAL HERE. I DON'T HAVE VERY STRONG FEELINGS ON THE ALTERNATES. I DIDN'T THE FIRST TIME WE SEE IT I STILL DON'T I THOUGHT THE
PUBLIC COMMENT WAS PRETTY DEFINITIVE IN THE IN THE ON SITE SURVEY BUT IT'S A RELATIVELY SMALL SAMPLE SIZE TOO. BUT I DIDN'T SEE A GREAT DEAL OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE THE
ALTERNATIVES I'M FINE WITH ALTERNATIVE C AND I'M COMFORTABLE MOVING THIS FORWARD AS WELL. IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS I WOULD LOOK FOR A MOTION.
COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM EXCUSE ME CHAIR A POINT OF ORDER QUESTION PLEASE. IS THIS BEING A STUDY ITEM?
IS THERE A FORMAL MOTION TO BE TAKEN ON THIS ASK FOR CLARIFICATION FROM MR. JOHNSON THANK YOU. CHAIR KIRKTON YES, THE STAFF IS SEEKING A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE
ALTERNATIVE AND THE FINDINGS OF THE STUDY I BELIEVE SO I'LL LOOK TO THEM IF THEY'RE NOT IN SO THEY ARE SEEKING A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION. VERY GOOD.
I WOULD ALSO FORGIVE ME CHAIR I WOULD ADD THAT A PUBLIC HEARING IS PLANNED AT THE CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER THE 22ND IN THE MR. CUNNINGHAM I MOVE
TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OR RECOMMEND RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL DID THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PREFERRED CONCEPT IS CONCEPT C OF THE ATTACHED
REPORT. MR. GOING OVER IF I MAY ADVICE PLEASE. WE HAVE A MOTION AVAILABLE TO US ON OUR SCREEN AND I THINK IF YOU STARTED WITH I AND THEN STARTED WITH THIS WORD
RECOMMEND GOT IT AND READ THROUGH THE WHOLE THING THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT. GOT IT. I RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BLOOMINGTON FERRY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE QUARTER
OF VISIONING CORRIDOR VISION PREFERRED ALTERNATE CONCEPT C WITH PROJECT DESIGN WORKING TO HOLD ONE CURB LINE TO PRESERVE SOME EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND INTERIM SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS THAT INCLUDES
STRIPING CHANGES AND INTERSECTION CONTROL MODIFICATIONS. SO A SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND THAT YOU RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I, I OPPOSED THAT MOTION PASSES FIVE ZERO AS MR. JOHNSON NOTED, THIS WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE CITY COUNCIL ON
DECEMBER 22ND, 2025. THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE THEN TO ITEM NUMBER TWO THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON AGAINST THE APPLICANT TO DISCUSS OFFENSE STANDERS
REVIEW MR. DILLON PALMER IS HERE WITH THE STAFF REPORT . >> ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING CHAIR 15 COMMISSIONERS MY NAME IS DYLAN
PALMER WITH PLANNING AND VISION. I'M HERE TO PRESENT ITEM NUMBER TWO ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA WHICH IS THE FENCE STANDARDS REVIEW. SO THIS IS JUST A STUDY ITEM AND TONIGHT WE'RE JUST WORKING
WITH THE COMMISSION TO GATHER SOME FEEDBACK TO DEVELOP A FINALIZED CODE. WE'RE LOOKING AT BRINGING THAT TO YOU GUYS FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN JANUARY AND THEN TAKING THAT TO THE CITY
COUNCIL IN FEBRUARY OF 2026. >> SO JUST TO GET STARTED OUR OBJECTIVES OF THIS PROJECT ARE TO UPDATE THE FENCE CODE TO BE CLEAR FOR RESIDENTS AS WELL AS FOR STAFF PARTICULARLY AROUND
FENCE MATERIALS CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS, WE'RE EVALUATING OPPORTUNITIES TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL PRIVACY FENCING FOR RESIDENTS AS WELL AS MAKE SOME CLERICAL UPDATES. SO JUST A LITTLE BIT
OF HISTORY. THE CODE WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN BACK IN 2008 AND THERE WERE SEVERAL STATEMENTS OF PURPOSE AND INTENT THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE CODE BACK
WHEN THIS CODE WAS INITIALLY WRITTEN MOSTLY SURROUNDING KEEPING AN OPEN DESIGN ALONG CITY STREETS, PROVIDING SCREENING FOR ESPECIALLY COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL
PROPERTIES, ENHANCING OVERALL ESTHETIC CONDITIONS, LIMITING SIGHT LINE OBSTRUCTIONS, REDUCING OPPORTUNITIES FOR CRIME AND THEN PREVENTING CONFLICTS WITH UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE FLOW AND THEN ONE
EXTRA CAVEAT I'LL ADD IS THAT MANY OF THE FENCES YOU'LL SEE AROUND THE CITY WERE INSTALLED PRIOR TO 2008. SO WE HAVE A LOT OF LEGALLY NONCONFORMING FENCES THAT EXIST IN ALL CORNERS OF THE
CITY. >> SO THESE ARE THE FOUR MAIN TOPICS THAT STAFF EXPLORED AND WE'RE GOING TO WORK THROUGH TONIGHT. THE FIRST IS TO ALLOW FOR TALLER FENCES AND CORNER SIDE YARDS. THE SECOND IS TO EVALUATE
FENCE OPACITY REQUIREMENTS. THE THIRD IS THE ALLOWABLE FENCE MATERIALS AND THE FOURTH ARE JUST SOME MINOR CODE EDITS TO MAKE THE OVERALL LANGUAGE A
LITTLE BIT CLEARER. >> SO BEGIN WITH OUR CURRENT FENCE STANDARDS FOR CORNER SIDE LOTS SO WHEN I'M TALKING ABOUT CORNER SIDE LOTS WE'RE LOOKING ON THE LEFT SIDE
OF THE SCREEN THERE'S A RED CIRCLED AREA TO THE LEFT OF THE HOUSE ON THE CORNER LOT THERE. >> THERE'S NO REAL DEFINITION FOR THAT AREA BUT WE'RE CALLING IT A QUARTER SIDE YARD JUST TO HOPEFULLY THAT WILL
REDUCE A LITTLE BIT THE CONFUSION. >> THESE ARE A CURRENT EVENT STANDARDS. THIS IS A GRAPHIC THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS IN OUR CITY'S FENCE AND OUT THERE'S A FOUR FOOT TALL FENCE MAXIMUM HEIGHT
IN THE FRONT YARD AND THAT APPLIES TO ANY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ACROSS THE CITY AS WELL AS IN THESE CORNER SIDE YARDS. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE THERE'S THAT DASHED AREA. THERE'S ALSO A SIX FOOT TALL
REQUIREMENT IN THE REAR AND SIDE YARDS. AND THEN JUST TO GIVE YOU A COMPARISON, INTERNAL LOTS THEIR FRONT YARD AGAIN THEY HAVE A FOUR FOOT TALL MAX WITH A 50% CAPACITY REQUIREMENT AND
THEY'RE ALLOWED TO GO UP TO SIX FEET IN THEIR REAR AND THEIR SIDE YARDS. AND THEN ONE ADDITIONAL NOTE FOR THIS IS THIS DIAGRAM. IF YOU LOOK ON THE RIGHT SIDE
OF THE INTERNAL LOT, THERE'S TWO WORDS THERE'S REAR PLAIN AND FRONT LANE. SO THAT'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO BE DEFINING OUR OUR PROPOSED OPTIONS THAT WE'VE BROUGHT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.
THE REAR PLANE BEING FOLLOWING THE BACK WALL OF THE HOUSE, THE REAR WALL OF THE HOUSE OVER THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE FRONT LANE BEING THE SAME THING FOLLOWING THE FRONT WALL OF THE HOUSE OVER TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE.
>> SO THESE ARE SOME PROPOSED OPTIONS THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR RECOMMENDATIONS ON. THE FIRST OPTION IS OPTION A THAT'S TO MAINTAIN OUR CURRENT STANDARDS. SO THAT GRAPHIC THERE IS THE SAME GRAPHIC ON THE PREVIOUS
SIDE THAT'S TO HAVE A FOUR FOOT TALL MAXIMUM HEIGHT IN THAT CORNER SIDE YARD AND THEN FOUR FOOT IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE. >> THE SECOND OPTION OPTION B WOULD BE TO ALLOW FOR A SIX
FOOT FENCE IN THAT CORNER SIDE YARD WITH A ONE FOOT SETBACK. THIS GRAPHIC IS FROM THE CITY OF BLAINE AND THEY ALSO SHOW THE FRONT PLAIN OF THE HOUSE
BEING THE BAR AS FAR FORWARD AS THAT SIX FOOT FENCE IS ALLOWED TO GO. >> THESE ARE OUR NEXT TWO OPTIONS. OPTION C IS TO ALLOW A SIX
FOOT FENCE AT THE REAR PLAIN OF THE HOME. SO THAT'S THE GRAPHIC ON THE LEFT. THAT'S FROM THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS. THEY HAVE A FOUR FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT GOING FROM THE REAR PLAIN FORWARD TO THE STREET AND THEN A SIX FOOT HEIGHT
LIMIT GOING FROM THE REAR PLANE IN THE HOUSE BACK TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND THEN OPTION D THE GRAPHIC ON THE RIGHT IS TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT FENCE GOING UP TO THE FRONT PLANE OF THE HOME. THIS GRAPHIC IS FROM THE CITY
OF SAINT PAUL. THEY HAVE THEIR MINIMUM SET AT SEVEN FEET TALL. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND ALLOWING A SEVEN FOOT TALL FENCE. WE'RE PROPOSING A SIX FOOT
TALL FENCE BUT SAME SITUATION WE WOULD ALLOW IN THIS CASE ALLOW FOR A SIX FOOT TALL FENCE BEHIND THE FRONT PLAIN OF THE HOME IN THAT CORNER SIDE YARD. >> AND THEN THIS IS A TABLE
THAT LAYS OUT ALL THE OPTIONS IN GOING FROM THE LEFT TO THE RIGHT. THE MOST RESTRICTIVE TO THE MOST PERMISSIVE THE FOUR FOOT MAX ALL THE WAY OVER TO THE SIX FOOT MAX STAFF. AT THIS POINT WE SUPPORT
OPTION C WHICH WOULD BE TO ALLOW FOR A SIX FOOT TALL FENCE IN THE CORNER SIDE YARD BEHIND THE REAR PLAIN OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE OF THE HOME AND THAT'S MOST SIMILAR TO MINNEAPOLIS'S GRAPHIC SO I
KNOW THAT WAS A MOUTHFUL THAT I JUST THREW AT YOU THERE BUT IF WE COULD ASK THE CHAIR COMMISSIONERS IF YOU HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS, ANY PREFERRED OPTIONS OR ANY KIND
OF FEEDBACK FOR THESE OKAY COMMISSIONER, I'M GOING TO FIRST START BY ASKING IF WE ANYONE WOULD LIKE ANOTHER REVIEW OF ALL OF THIS. IT IS A LOT OF INFORMATION. ARE WE ALL CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE
SEEING OR ANY FURTHER EXPLANATIONS? >> COMMISSIONER WHITE THANK YOU CHAIR. I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION. I BELIEVE IT WAS GO BACK A SLIDE.
I DON'T REMEMBER BUT THERE ARE THE OPTION C NO SORRY GO ONE MORE THERE WE GO. OPTION B SORRY ABOUT THAT.
SO JUST CURIOUS ON THIS ONE IF THE CURB LINE WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE'S A SIDEWALK? IS IT FROM A FOOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, THE SIDELINE THE CURB LINE SO I JUST WANT
TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE TERMINOLOGY. CHAIR COMMISSIONER WHITE WE DO HAVE A TWO FOOT SETBACK FOR FENCES FROM SIDEWALKS THAT EXISTS IN OUR CURRENT CODE AND THAT WILL BE MAINTAINED AND
THIS IS KIND OF ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE'RE ASKING TONIGHT IS SHOULD THERE BE THAT TWO FOOT SETBACK AND THEN A ONE FOOT SETBACK IN ADDITION TO THAT AND THEN IN CASES WHERE THERE ARE LOTS WITH NO SIDE
SIDEWALK IN THAT AREA, WOULD IT JUST BE A ONE FOOT SETBACK ? COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU, CHAIR. JUST SO I'M CLEAR ON THE SETBACKS, IS THAT SETBACK FROM
PROPERTY LINE OR RIGHT OF WAY? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON THAT. CHAIR CAPTAIN COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM THAT IS A SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. THANK YOU.
SO MR. PALMER. OPTION B ALLOWS A SIX FOOT FENCE STARTING AT ONE FOOT SETBACK FROM THE THE LOT LINE. IS THAT CORRECT? CHAIR CORRECT AND YES, THAT'S
CORRECT. OKAY. CAN WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE AS WELL PLEASE
? >> MR. PALMER WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OPTION C AND OPTION D OTHER THAN THESE TWO GRAPHICS ARE ROTATED OR LESS SEVEN FEET IS THAT THE
CHAIR COOKED IN THE IN THIS CASE THE WHERE THE SIX FOOT TALL FENCE COULD START IS THE ON THE GRAPHIC ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE FRONT IS THE REAR PLANE OF THE HOME AND THEN THE
GRAPHIC ON THE RIGHT IT WOULD START AT THE FRONT PLANE OF THE HOME. OKAY. SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OPTION D AND B IS THAT D ALLOWS IT AT THE FRONT PLANE
OF THE HOME WHILE OPTION B ALLOWS IT EFFECTIVELY AT THE FRONT OF THE LOT A CHAIR TRIP IN OPTION B WOULD ALLOW FOR IT TO GO TO THE FRONT PLANE
OF THE HOME WITH THE SETBACK COULD YOU STATE THAT AGAIN? OPTION B IT IS THE THE SIX FOOT ALLOWANCE GOES TO THE FRONT PLANE OF THE HOME
IN ADDITION TO THE ONE FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK. MR. JOHNSON YEAH. CHAIR IF I MAY ADD TO THAT, I THINK WHAT THE BLAIN EXHIBIT IS ALSO DEMONSTRATING IS THAT THEY HAVE A REQUIREMENT AROUND
THERE. THEY HAVE LIKE A MORE EXTENSIVE CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE REQUIREMENT FROM THEIR CORNER. SO YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A 60 FOOT DIMENSION. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT EXTENDS
ON LOTS UNIFORMLY BUT IN BLOOMINGTON OUR CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE IS DEFINED AS 15FT FROM THE POINT OF INTERSECTION AND MAKING A TRIANGLE. SO THIS IS A LARGER CLEAR VIEW
TRIANGLE LOTS AND BLAIN CAN BE LARGER THAN SOME LOTS IN BLOOMINGTON SO BUT I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES THEY HAVE A LARGER CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE REQUIREMENT.
I'D LIKE TO DILLON TO CONFIRM IF I'M INTERPRETING THAT CORRECTLY. YEP. PLANNING MANAGER JOHNSON THAT'S CORRECT. MR. MOSER AND JUST TO CLARIFY EXCUSE ME ON THAT. SO IN LOOKING AT OPTION B,
WOULD IT BE PROPOSED THAT WE WOULD ALSO BE ADOPTING THE 60FT OR WE WOULD RETAIN THE 15 FOOT TRIANGLE THAT WE HAVE NOW ? CHAIR COOKED IN? COMMISSIONER MUNSTER WE WOULD MAINTAIN THE 15 FOOT CLEARVIEW TRIANGLE.
THANK YOU. I'M SORRY, MR. PALMER. I'M STILL STRUGGLING WITH THE DIFFERENCE BETEN B AND D YEP. CHAIR CORRECT.
AND SO THE THE MAIN DIFFERENCE IS OPTION B THERE WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL SETBACK FROM THE SIDE YARD WHEREAS OPTION D YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT THE FENCE ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO IT'S MORE SO THE THE DIFFERENCE IS ON THE SIDE SETBACK NOT THE FRONT OF THE HOME. YES. CHAIR THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM THANK
YOU, CHAIR. MR. PALMER AND I'M REREADING THE CODE SECTION THAT'S IN THE PACKET AND A QUESTION ABOUT OPACITY.
SO WITH THESE OPTIONS FOR THE SIX FOOT TALL IS THAT DOES THAT FOLLOW THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE OPACITY LIMITATIONS LIKE COULD THESE SIX FOOT FENCES
THAT ARE PROPOSED TO BE SIDE YARD OR AIRPLANE SIDE YARD FRONT PLANE BE GREATER THAN 50% OPAQUE? CHAIR CORRECT. AND COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM IN OUR CURRENT CODE THERE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONS SO I THE
STREET WERE TO BE IN ARTERIAL STREETS LIKE OLD GEOGRAPHY OR PAN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO OVER THE 50% OPACITY. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WILL BE PROPOSING TONIGHT IS JUST
TO REMOVE THAT OPACITY REQUIREMENT ALTOGETHER AND I HAVE SOME MORE SLIDES THAT WILL FURTHER ADDRESS THAT IN DETAIL. BUT GOT IT.
THANK YOU MR. PALMER . MR. PALMER, CAN WE GO BACK TO OPTION A AND SO AT THE FRONT LINE YOU CAN HAVE A FOUR FOOT
FENCE OR A SIX FOOT FENCE SURE COOKED IN UNDER OPTION A YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE A FOUR FOOT FENCE WITH A 50% OPACITY IN THE FRONT AND THE SIDE LOT
LINES THAT'S THE GRAPHIC ON IT'S THE FAR LEFT SIDE AND YOU COULD HAVE A SIX FOOT FENCE AT THE REAR LOT AT THE REAR LINE. YES.
CHAIR COOKED AND IF YOU KIND OF FOLLOW HEY TO ADD A THIRD PLANE BUT THE SIDE PLANE OF THE HOUSE BACK TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AT THAT POINT THAT'S WHERE YOU WOULD BE ABLE
TO GO UP TO A SIX FOOT FENCE. OKAY . ANY OTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OR WE CAN MOVE ON TO THOUGHTS
. >> MR. PALMER, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE WITH THE QUESTIONS THE QUESTION THANK YOU.
QUESTIONS WHICH ARE FOR THE MOST COMMISSIONER WHITE SO IN GENERAL I APPRECIATE BEING A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBLE WITH
THE SIDE PLANE ON ON CORNER LOTS. SOME OF THE CORNERS IN BLOOMINGTON ARE A LITTLE WEIRD SO SO I THINK IT'S GOOD
TO HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THERE AS LONG AS IT'S NOT BLOCKING ANYONE'S SAFETY. IT I DON'T I'VE NEVER UNDERSTOOD WHY IT NEEDED TO BE OFF. MY ONLY CONCERN WITH OPTIONS C
IS I DO THINK IT'S A LITTLE FUNKY TO HAVE THE FOUR FOOT TO THE FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE TO THE BACK OF THE HOUSE AND THEN BE ABLE TO GO UP TO SIX FOOT. SO THAT JUST SEEMS A LITTLE
ODD TO ME. SO I LIKE OTHER THINGS ABOUT IT BUT THAT I, I THINK IS A LITTLE CONFUSING AND PROBABLY NOT VERY ATTRACTIVE.
SO CHAIR ACTING COMMISSIONER WHITE THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION AND THE RECOMMENDATION. MR. JOHNSON THANK YOU. CHAIR COOKED AND ONE THING I WOULD ADD TO THAT COMMISSIONER WHITE IS THAT ALSO SOME
OF THOSE CITIES WE SET A LOWER LIMIT IN BLOOMINGTON VERY CLEAR OF YOUR TRIANGLE 36IN BUT SOME CITIES ALLOW A FOUR FOOT TALL STRUCTURE IN THEIR CLEARVIEW TRIANGLE AREA. SO IN OTHER WORDS, BY ALLOWING
A FOUR FOOT TALL FENCE IN THAT AREA YOU'RE ALSO NOT VIOLATING THEIR CLEARVIEW TRIANGLE POLICY. SO THAT'S THAT'S KIND OF THOSE THINGS ARE TOO TIED TOGETHER
. MR. CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU, CHAIR. I DON'T WANT TO BUCK THE TREND. I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH OPTION B AND I KNOW WE HAVE A GREAT
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND CITY YOU KNOW, JUST CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICE IN THE CITY BUT THE DEFENSE IN MY BACKYARD IS LEANING A LITTLE BIT AND SO
HAVING A ONE FOOT SETBACK IS PROBABLY I THINK PRUDENT. BUT THAT'S THOSE ARE JUST MY THOUGHTS I'M IN FAVOR OF OPTION B.
COMMISSIONER MR.. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. I, I LIKE BOTH OPTION B AND C HOWEVER, I AM NOT A FAN OF THE
ONE FOOT SETBACK BECAUSE IT'S SORT OF AT LEAST IN MY MIND CREATES THIS SORT OF IN CONCEPT UNUSABLE STYLE STRIP AND I KNOW THAT YOU KNOW IN REALITY IT WOULD JUST TIE
INTO THE EITHER THE BOULEVARD OR PART OF THAT SETBACK NEXT TO THE SIDEWALK BUT IT'S STILL THAT ONE ADDITIONAL FOOT THAT WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THAT SO THAT THAT'S THAT'S THE ONLY SORT OF HESITATION I HAVE ON
OPTION B BUT AS FAR AS WHETHER THAT FENCE ON THE CORNER SIDE CAN COME TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE OR AT THE BACK PLAIN OF THE HOUSE, I'M INDIFFERENT ON THAT PART.
MR. SUMMERS THANK YOU. CHAIR. I AM IN FAVOR OF A SETBACK AND IN FAVOR OF THE SIX FOOT TALL
MAX STARTING AT THE BACK PLAIN OF THE HOUSE I SPEND TIME DRIVING IN EAST BLOOMINGTON
AND IT IS A REAL, REAL PRESENT CONCERN IN MY HEAD THAT THERE'S NO STOP SIGNS IN A LOT OF AREAS INCLUDING I LIVE IN A
CORNER LOT IN THAT AREA AND WHEN I THINK ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF SIX FOOT TALL FENCES GOING PRETTY CLOSE TO THE FRONT PLAIN OF THOSE HOUSES I THINK ABOUT IF SOMEONE IS GOING JUST
A LITTLE BIT ABOVE THE SPEED LIMIT THEY'RE GOING TOWARDS AN INTERSECTION WITH A LOT LESS TIME TO REACT. WE'VE GOT A LOT OF KIDDOS ON BIKES ALSO IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD
SO AND THEY'RE A LITTLE LESS PREDICTABLE THAN AN ADULT DRIVING A CAR BUT NOT ALWAYS SO FOR ME I APPRECIATE THE
SETBACK AND I APPRECIATE THE BACK PLAN OF THE HOUSE BEING WHERE A SIX FOOT TALL FENCE CAN BE. I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHERE THAT
FALLS ON HERE BUT DOES THAT GIVE ENOUGH FOR YOU TO TELL WHERE I FALL? CHAIR CORRECT. AND COMMISSIONER SUMMERS YES IT DOES BECAUSE IT I'M
IN FAVOR OF OPTION A I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF SIX FOOT FENCES. I LIKE TO MINIMIZE THEM AND KEEP THEM AS FAR AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC EYE AS POSSIBLE. I THINK SHORT FENCES JUST MAKE
A MORE WELCOMING AND TRANSPARENT AND SAFE SAFE COMMUNITY AND SO I LIKE KEEPING US WHERE WE'RE AT AND IN LINE WITH WHERE YOUR DINNER
IS AT WITH OPTION EIGHT. MR. CUNNINGHAM I KNOW WE'RE WE'RE GIVING RECOMMENDATIONS. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF THANK YOU.
HAVE WE HAD THIS BE AN ISSUE WITH CORNER LOT LIKE OWNERS OF CORNER LOTS COMING IN TO TALK TO CITY STAFF ABOUT ADDING FENCING FOR VEHICLE LIGHT SCREENING OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES SO CHAIR
COOKING COMMISSIONER COMING. CUNNINGHAM YES WE DO RECEIVE CALLS I WOULD SAY PROBABLY ONCE OR TWICE A MONTH FROM PROPERTY OWNERS ON CORNER LOTS WHO WISH TO EXPAND THE FENCED IN AREA IN THEIR BACKYARD OR
HAVE A SIX FOOT FENCE FOR USUALLY ITS KIDS OR DOGS OR ALLOWING PEOPLE TO RECORD IN THEIR BACKYARDS. SO YES, IT IS AN ISSUE THAT DOES COME UP FAIRLY FREQUENTLY
. ANYTHING TO ADD? MR. JONES YEAH, YOU'RE CORRECT AND THANKS AND THANKS DYLAN. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM WHAT I WOULD ADD TO THAT IS THAT IT BECOMES MORE ACUTE OR MORE PROBLEMATIC FOR HOMES THAT ARE SET BACK FURTHER BECAUSE THE
PLAIN OF THE HOME ESTABLISHES WHERE THE TRANSITION GOES FROM FOUR FOOT 50% OPEN FENCING TO SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCING IF YOUR HOME IS SET BACK QUITE A BIT OF WAYS WHAT IT CREATES IS
THAT THERE'S A VERY SMALL AREA OF YOUR REAR YARD THAT CAN BE ENCLOSED WITH A PRIVACY FENCE AND SO FOR MOST BLOOMINGTON LOTS IT'S LESS OF AN ISSUE BUT WE DO HAVE AS YOU MENTIONED THERE ARE IS A FAIR AMOUNT
OF VARIANCE OF OUR CORNER LOTS WHERE YOU'LL HAVE SOME SETBACK QUITE A WAYS AND THEN THE AREA THAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY FENCE IN WITH PRIVACY FENCING IS QUITE SMALL SO IT HAPPENS FROM
TIME TO TIME IN THAT SCENARIO . >> THANK YOU MR. WHITE MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO SAY I REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT COMMISSIONER SOMMER SAID ABOUT REMINDING US
THAT NOT ALL LOTS HAVE HOUSES SET FAR BACK FROM THE STREET IN BLOOMINGTON. I THINK WE ALL PROBABLY TEND TO THINK ABOUT OUR OWN NEIGHBORHOODS AND WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THESE THINGS. SO I REALLY I DO THINK IT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT THE SET BACK OF THE HOUSE IS IN A CORNER LOT AND I DON'T WANT TO MAKE THINGS MORE COMPLICATED OR REQUIRE MORE MATH BUT I DO
THINK THAT THAT AGAIN AS I SAID IN MY FIRST COMMENT THAT IDEA OF THE SAFETY TRIANGLE IS REALLY IMPORTANT AND WHILE YOU MIGHT HAVE A LOT WHERE SOMEBODY IS 100FT BACK FROM THE STREET, IT'S NOT YOU KNOW,
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT ISSUE BUT IN LOTS WHERE THIS HOUSE IS MAYBE ONLY 20FT FROM THE STREET, IT DOES CREATE MORE OF AN ISSUE. SO THAT'S WHY YOU KNOW, I'M A LITTLE NERVOUS ABOUT JUST A
UNIFORM STANDARD WITHOUT YOU KNOW, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE KEEP THAT LANGUAGE ABOUT THE VISIBILITY AND THE SAFETY TRIANGLE TO TO TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS THE TOP PRIORITY FOR ANY FENCE THAT'S THAT'S
POTENTIALLY INTERFERING WITH VISION ON THE CORNER. AND YOU KNOW, IF IT'S OKAY
THANK YOU FOR THE FEEDBACK. I KNOW THAT'S IT'S IT'S EVEN HARD FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND STILL. >> ALL RIGHT. MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT QUESTION WHICH IS ABOUT OPACITY.
SO CURRENTLY AS WE'VE ALREADY KIND OF DISCUSSED IN FRONT YARDS FOR A FOUR FOOT TALL FENCE YOU'RE REQUIRED TO BE 50% OR LESS OPAQUE. SO THAT BASICALLY MEANS YOUR
FENCE HAS TO BE 50% SEE THROUGH YOU CAN'T HAVE A SOLID BOARD PRIVACY FENCE IN YOUR FRONT YARD. STAFF IS LOOKING AT REMOVING THAT REQUIREMENT AND ALLOWING THERE WOULD STILL BE A FOUR FOOT TALL FRONT YARD FENCE
REQUIREMENT. HOWEVER, GETTING RID OF THE OPACITY REQUIREMENT AND A GOOD DEMONSTRATION OF THAT IS THE PHOTO ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE THERE IT'S A SHORT FOUR FOOT
TALL BOARD FENCE. OUR PEER CITIES EDINA, RICHFIELD AND EAGAN DO NOT HAVE ANY OPACITY REQUIREMENTS IN THEIR FENCE CODE AND THEY MOSTLY FOCUS ON HEIGHT ALONE. STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF REMOVING THE OPACITY
REQUIREMENTS JUST TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT EASIER FOR RESIDENTS TO UNDERSTAND AND ALLOW FOR RESIDENTS IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE CITY IF THEY MAY HAVE CONCERNS WITH PRIVACY IN THEIR FRONT YARD TO BUILD A
FENCE THAT IS FULLY OPAQUE. SO OUR MAIN QUESTION TO THE COMMISSION IS DO YOU SUPPORT REMOVING OPACITY REQUIREMENTS? DO YOU SUPPORT KEEPING THEM IN PLACE OR DO YOU HAVE ANY
OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR US THAT'S I, I THINK I'M JUST A FENCE STICK IN THE MUD HERE
BUT I, I DON'T SUPPORT IT. I THINK FULLY OPAQUE FENCES ALLOW FOR PEOPLE TO START PILING NUISANCE THINGS IN THEIR YARD AND WHEN YOU
HAVE A OPAQUE FENCE PEOPLE GET AFTER YOU AND CAN SEE THAT STUFF AND I JUST I THINK THERE'S LESS CHANCE FOR NUISANCE BUILDUP WHEN YOU HAVE OPACITY TO YOUR FENCE.
THAT'S MY OPINION. >> COMMISSIONER WHITE THANK YOU. CHAIR YEAH I, I TEND TO AGREE. I THINK THAT ALTHOUGH I, I UNDERSTAND THE THERE'S ALL
SORTS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF FENCES I DON'T KNOW IF 50% IS THE RIGHT NUMBER BUT I DO THINK THAT HAVING PARTICULARLY IN THE FRONT YARDS FENCE HAVING THAT BE MORE MORE VISIBILITY FROM THE STREET IS
PROBABLY A GOOD THING. ALSO FROM A SAFETY PERSPECTIVE ,PEOPLE WALKING BY, KIDS RIDING THEIR BIKES YOU KNOW I THINK THERE'S A VARIETY
OF REASONS THAT IT MAKES SENSE FROM COMMISSIONER MUNSTER. I THINK WHERE ISLAND IS IS
IT'S ONLY A FOUR FOOT TALL FENCE. I DON'T NECESSARILY SEE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IT BEING FULLY OPAQUE AND NOT MORE THAN 50% OPAQUE. YOU CAN SEE OVER IT EITHER WAY
BUT I THINK IT MAY BE IF WE WANT TO KEEP SOMETHING MAYBE 50% IS THE RIGHT NUMBER, MAYBE IT ISN'T. AND LIKE YOU SAID, THE GOOD ILLUSTRATION IS THE FENCE THAT'S SHOWN IN THAT PICTURE.
YOU KNOW, IT'S AN OTHERWISE ATTRACTIVE FENCE. IT'S GOT SOME LEVEL OF OF TRANSPARENCY TO IT BUT IT CERTAINLY IS NOT 50%. SO THAT'S THAT'S MY $0.02 ON
THAT ONE PICTURE. SO THANK YOU CHAIR I AM I AM IT SEEMS LIKE A DINER TENDS TO
BE STICKLER ABOUT NUISANCE ITEMS AND CODES THAT MAKE SPACE FOR NUISANCE OR FUNNY BUSINESS.
>> SO WHEN I LOOK AT A DINER BEING A PURE CITY THAT DOES NOT HAVE AN OPEN OPACITY REQUIREMENT THE CURIOSITY TO CURIOSITY TO ME IS DO THEY
HAVE OTHER CODES THAT PROTECT AGAINST SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT A FOUR FOOT NON OPAQUE FENCE WOULD ALLOW FOR?
THAT BEING SAID I AM IN GENERAL SUPPORTIVE OF REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE?
OKAY. EXCELLENT. THANK YOU CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS MOVE ON TO NEXT ISSUE AND THAT IS FENCE MATERIALS. SO SOME PROPOSALS FROM STAFF ARE TO CLARIFY THAT PLASTIC
FENCE PLASTIC FENCE SLATS THAT GO IN CHAIN LINK FENCES DO NOT COUNT TOWARDS SCREENING REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES. I KNOW THAT THERE IS AN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAS TOLD US THAT THERE IS A LOT OF ISSUES WHERE PEOPLE HAVE PUT THESE PLASTIC SLATS IN THE FENCES AND OVER TIME OVER THE YEARS THEY'VE BROKEN OR FALLEN OUT AND NOW THEY'RE NO LONGER
SCREENING THE PROPERTY PROPERLY. SO WE'RE JUST MAKING THE CODE CHANGE TO CLARIFY THAT THEY DO NOT COUNT TOWARDS SCREENING. WE'RE ALSO PROPOSING TO ADD LANGUAGE THAT WOULD RESTRICT FENCE COVERINGS TO BE A
COMMERCIALLY BUILT PRODUCT MANUFACTURE YARD SPECIFICALLY FOR USE ON FENCING. SO THAT'S THE IMAGE ON THE LEFT THERE. THAT'S JUST THE FENCE COVER THAT YOU CAN BUY OFF OF AMAZON THE MAIN POINT
OF THIS CODE LANGUAGE IS TO NOT ALLOW PEOPLE TO PUT TARPS OR BANNERS OR ANY KIND OF OTHER THINGS UP ON THE FENCE THAT ARE NOT NOT SIGHTLY
AND DO NOT LOOK GOOD. DO YOU GUYS SUPPORT OR DOES THE COMMISSION SUPPORT MAKING UPDATES TO THE FENCE MATERIALS STANDARDS AND DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER RECOMMENDED SUGGESTIONS
FOR US? MR. PLUMMER I CAN SUPPORT THIS ONE. I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET OURSELVES INTO ANY TROUBLE HERE WITH POLITICAL SIGNS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT FREEDOM
OF EXPRESSION TYPE SITUATIONS . CHAIR COOK TO KNOW OKAY COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM I AM
IN FAVOR OF REMOVING OR CLARIFYING THAT PLASTIC SLIDES DO NOT COUNT TOWARD SCREENING REQUIREMENTS. THE AMOUNT OF TIMES I'VE SEEN THESE THINGS BLOWN OUT BY WIND
SNOWPLOWS, TIME IN THE SUN THEY JUST BREAK DOWN AND IT'S YOU KNOW, A LITTLE MICROPLASTIC CITY AT THE BOTTOM OF THE FENCE. SO I THINK THAT THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING TO BE
COMMERCIALLY BUILT PRODUCT MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICALLY FOR USE IN FENCING IS BROAD ENOUGH TO GIVE APPLICANTS LEEWAY AND SOME STAFF SOME DISCRETION AS
WELL. SO I THINK I'M IN I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS CHANGE. >> SURE WE I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY SO THIS WOULD JUST BE
ON INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES LIKE IF SOMEBODY IS USING THESE SLATS IN THEIR BACKYARD FENCE TO MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE PRIVATE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WOULD THAT STILL BE ALLOWED WITH THIS LANGUAGE?
>> CHAIR CORRECT. AND COMMISSIONER WHITE THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. THEY WOULD STILL BE ALLOWED TO USE THE FENCE SLATS ON THEIR CHAIN LINK FENCES AND THE MAINTENANCE OF THOSE WOULD
COME DOWN TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH JUST ENFORCING THAT IF IT DOES TURN INTO AN ISSUE OR THEY'RE BROKEN OR FALLING OUT OF THE FENCE OR SOMETHING. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. >> COMMISSIONER MUNSTER JUST
AS A QUESTION AND I'LL BE HONEST PERHAPS IF I READ THROUGH THE WHOLE PROPOSED CODE LANGUAGE IT WOULD BE CLEARER WHAT IS THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN THESE TYPES OF SCREENINGS AND THE FOUR
FOOT 50% OPAQUE FENCES IN THE FRONT YARD? CAN YOU PUT THESE THINGS IN AND IT STILL COUNTS AS MEETING THE STANDARD BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THE FENCE IS BUILT OR.
CHAIR CORRECT. AND COMMISSIONER MUNSTER I THINK IN THIS CASE IT WOULD REALLY JUST DEPEND ON WHAT MATERIAL IS BEING USED TO SCREEN. SO LIKE IN THIS CASE THE PHOTO
ON THE LEFT THERE THAT WOULD BE OVER THE 50% OPACITY LIMIT WHICH IS JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE THROUGH IT. SO I THINK IT WOULD IT WOULD REALLY COME DOWN TO A CASE BY CASE BASIS JUST DEPENDING ON THE MATERIAL THAT PEOPLE ARE USING.
THANK YOU. MR. PULLINGER, HELP ME UNDERSTAND IF WE DON'T IF WE'RE NOT ALLOWING THESE FOR INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL, WHY ARE WE ALLOWING THEM FOR RESIDENTIAL? >> CHAIR CORRECT.
AND THAT WAS AN ISSUE BROUGHT UP BY STAFF IN ONE OF OUR MEETINGS BEFORE THIS AND THAT WAS TO ALLOW FOR GREATER FLEXIBILITY FOR RESIDENTS JUST TO BE ABLE TO SCREEN THE PROPERTY.
I BELIEVE THAT THESE SLATS ARE A LOT CHEAPER THAN SOME OF THE OTHER PRODUCTS ON THE MARKET NOW AND THEN THERE ARE A LOT OF THEM IN PLACE AND FENCES THROUGHOUT THE CITY AT THIS TIME. SO ADDING MORE LEGALLY
NONCONFORMING FENCES TO THE CITY IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE NOT SUPPORTIVE OF DOING. >> MR. CUNNINGHAM AND CAN I YOU SEEM TO HAVE MORE EXPERIENCE WITH THESE THAN I DO.
CAN I ASK YOU IF YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? I THINK THAT THANK YOU CHAIR. I HAVE A FEW THOUGHTS. THEY ARE A VERY CHEAP WAY TO ADD PRIVACY TO A CYCLONE CHAIN
LINK FENCE WHERE THEY GET THE MOST BEAT UP IS WHERE THEIR INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL SCREENING WHERE THEY'RE ADJACENT TO A ROADWAY AND GET HIT BY SNOW LIKE PLOW WORK.
THAT'S WHEN THEY I'VE SEEN THEM GET DAMAGED THE MOST IN SOMEONE SIDE AIRED ON A FOUR FOOT FENCE. IT'S THEIR HOME. IT'S LIKE MR. PALMER SAID IT'S IT'S UP TO ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH TO ENFORCE THE USE OF THAT AND KIND OF THE WAY THE CODE IS WRITTEN AND I PROMISE I'M NOT THAT PASSIONATE ABOUT FENCING BUT THE WAY THE CODE IS WRITTEN IS THAT THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT
FOR YOU CAN AND LIKE I SAY THE SIDE YOU CAN BE MAXIMUM 50% CAPACITY THE WAY THAT THIS IS PROPOSED TO BE WRITTEN IS THAT THE SLOTS DON'T COUNT WHICH IS KIND OF A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION BUT THE THE BACK
OF YOUR PROPERTY CAN BE FULLY OPAQUE IF YOU WANT BUT IF YOU ALREADY HAVE A CHAIN LINK FENCE THERE, YOU KNOW AND YOU WANT A LITTLE BIT MORE PRIVACY
ADDED IN I WHERE YOU SEE THESE GET BEAT UP THE MOST AS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY HOME USE ESPECIALLY WHERE SETBACK FROM ROADWAY IT'S IT IS MUCH LESS THANK YOU THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM I GUESS I'M JUST A LITTLE
CONCERNED THAT WE'RE GIVING PEOPLE THE LICENSE TO PUT UP A CHEAPER FENCE WITH A CHEAPER SCREENING OPTION. SO JUST PUTTING UP A DECENT LOOKING FENCE. >> COMMISSIONER WHITE THANK
YOU CHAIR I, I THINK THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE SCREENING AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AREN'T SO I THINK
TO ME THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE LIKE IF WE'RE REQUIRING COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES TO PUT UP FENCE THAT IS MEANT TO SCREEN WHAT'S HAPPENING BEHIND THE FENCE THEN I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE REQUIREMENTS THAT LEAD TO
FENCES THAT ARE MORE DURABLE AND WILL LAST LONGER AND AND MEET THAT REQUIREMENT. WHEREAS FOR HOME USE WE WE ACTUALLY YOU KNOW TO YOUR WORDS EARLIER KIND
OF DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM HAVING COMPLETELY OPAQUE FENCES BUT THIS THEY STILL MAINTAIN THE FLEXIBILITY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT IN A MORE ECONOMICAL WAY AND SO I GUESS
THAT'S THAT'S MY THINKING ON IT IS THAT THE DIFFERENCE TO ME IS WHEN YOU REQUIRE IT FOR SCREENING VERSUS WHEN IT'S JUST AN OPTION. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO US? SO YOU KNOW THANK YOU CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. OUR NEXT QUESTION THIS IS MORE
OF A FAIRLY NICHE QUESTION THAT WE'RE ASKING. IT'S ABOUT ALLOWING FOR TALLER FENCES AT STRUCTURE SETBACKS. >> SO THERE ARE NOT MANY I'D
SAY VERY FEW LOTS IN THE CITY WHERE AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE CAN BE CONSTRUCTED RIGHT NOW RIGHT NOW THE YOU CAN CONSTRUCT AN
EIGHT FOOT FENCE IF YOU ARE SET BACK 65FT FROM THE FRONT LINE AND THEN 30FT FROM THE REAR OF THAT LINE AND TEN FEET FROM THE SIDE BY LINE AND THAT'S IN AN HOUR I SHOULD CLARIFY THAT'S IN AN R ONE
ZONING WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS TO JUST REDUCE OR EXPAND THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO A 30 FOOT ALLOWANCE. SO THAT WOULD JUST MEET THE
STRUCTURE SETBACKS OF WHATEVER ZONING DISTRICT IT IS. SO IN THIS CASE IN OUR ONE ZONING DISTRICT WHICH IS WHERE PRETTY MUCH ALL OF THESE LARGE LOTS ARE, IT WOULD BE A 30 FOOT SETBACK FOR AN EIGHT FOOT
FENCE IN THE FRONT, A 30 FOOT SETBACK IN THE REAR AND A TEN FOOT SETBACK ON THE SIDE. DID YOU GUYS HAVE ANY OR EXCUSE ME DID THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS,
QUESTIONS OR OTHER SUGGESTIONS FOR US COMMISSION? MR.. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION HOW
DOES THIS STANDARD AND GRAPHIC OVERLAY WITH WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT FIRST AND THE CORNER SIDE YARDS AND HOW ALL OF THAT PLAY TOGETHER? >> YES CHAIR COOK AND
COMMISSIONER MUNSTER THIS IS FOR EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCES SO THERE ARE I BELIEVE IT'S OVER SEVEN FEET TALL FENCES ARE REQUIRED TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT. SO IN THAT IF SOMEBODY IS
CONSTRUCTING AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PERMIT REVIEW AND THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THESE MORE RESTRICTIVE SETBACKS IF
THEY'RE AT EIGHT FEET. BUT SO JUST I'M THINKING OF MY HOUSE AS AN EXAMPLE. I'M ON A CORNER AND THE SIDE OF MY HOUSE IS FAR MORE THAN
TEN FEET IN THE YOU KNOW IT'S PROBABLY CLOSER TO 30. CAN I MEET THE TEN FOOT SETBACK AND PUT AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ALONG THE CORNER SIDE OR WHAT?
I HAVE TO BRING IT BACK TO THE HOUSE. I'M SURE THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS HOW THESE ALL STACK ON TOP OF EACH OTHER. YEP. CHAIR COOKED IN COMMISSIONER MUNSTER NOT IN THE CASE OF A CORNER SIDE YARD.
THIS THESE STANDARDS WOULD ONLY REALLY APPLY TO INTERNAL LOTS AT LEAST. COMMISSIONER MUNSTER IF I MAY THE 10TH FOOT SIDE YARD
SETBACK IS THE FOR AN INTERIOR A 30 FOOT SETBACK IS REQUIRED FOR A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE FROM ALL YARDS LONG STREETS ARE KIND OF TREATS AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A CORNER LOT STUDY COMING FURTHER DOWN THE PIPELINE AT SOME POINT BUT
YEAH IT WOULD APPLY TO THE INTERIOR LOT LINE NOT A CORNER SIDE FOR A SHORT SORRY IT'S
IT'S BEEN A LONG WEEK SO I AGREE IS THIS ALLOWING AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE IN FRONT OF THE STRUCTURE AS OPPOSED TO THE FOUR FOOT FENCE THAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT?
SO THIS IS THIS AND THIS IS OUR ONE RESIDENTIAL CORRECT. SO OKAY. I'M CURIOUS AS TO WHY EIGHT
FOOT HERE AND FOUR FOOT ANYWHERE ELSE CHAIR HOOKED IN COMMISSIONER WHITE SO THE CURRENT STANDARD ALLOWS FOR AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE IF YOU ARE
65FT FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND THAT'S AGAIN THAT'S VERY FEW LOTS IN THE CITY WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT AMENDING IT TO HAVE THE SETBACK AT 30FT FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE
SO IF YOU'RE YOUR HOUSE IS LET'S SAY 55FT FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, YOU CAN HAVE A 30 FOOT YARD AND THEN AN EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCE AND THEN AN
ADDITIONAL 25FT UNTIL YOUR HOME I CAN. MR. JOHNSON YEAH. THANK YOU, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER IT HAS BEEN A LONG WEEK FOR WHATEVER REASON BUT NO WHAT I WOULD SAY IS
THAT THIS IS KIND OF A REMNANT OF A PREVIOUS POLICY WHERE THE CITY USED TO HAVE PREVAILING SETBACK AND SO IT PUSHED A LOT OF HOMES FURTHER BACK WHEN ESTABLISHING AND SUBDIVIDING NEW LOTS THAT STANDARD NO LONGER EXISTS.
BUT THEN AGAIN THIS IS ONE OF THOSE STANDARDS THAT IS MUCH MORE INFLUENTIAL ON THE CENTRAL AND WEST SIDE OF TOWN AS OPPOSED TO THE EAST SIDE OF TOWN BASED ON THOSE BUILDING SETBACKS IN A LARGE
PROPORTION OF THE COMMUNITY YOU KNOW MOST OF THE HOMES ARE AT A 30 OR 35 FOOT SETBACK. SO THERE'S REALLY LITTLE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN WHERE YOU COULD HAVE THAT TALLER FENCE AND WHERE THE FRONT PLANE
OF YOUR HOME IS EVEN IF YOUR HOME IS SETBACK AT SAY 40 OR 55FT, YOU COULD STILL HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCE AT THE FRONT PLANE OF YOUR HOME TODAY YOU JUST CAN'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF THE HOME TODAY.
AND SO AND I FORGIVE ME IF I'M NOT EXPLAINING THIS VERY WELL BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST WE HAVE THIS ODD POLICY OF THIS 65FT WHAT THE 65FT RELATES TO IS THE MAXIMUM FRONT SETBACK, ONE PREVAILING SETBACK
EXISTED. SO IT'S KIND OF A REMNANT OF A FORMER SETBACK POLICY THAT STILL EXISTS IN OUR FENCE CODE AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH IT. PART OF STAFF'S THINKING IS THAT IF A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE
CAN BE CONSTRUCTED AT A 30 FOOT SETBACK IT MAKES SENSE THAT A FENCE THAT QUALIFIES AS A STRUCTURE BECAUSE IT'S TALLER THAN SEVEN FEET SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THOSE SAME SETBACKS REQUIREMENTS. BUT IT IS A POLICY DECISION ON THE PART OF THE CITY YOU DON'T
HAVE TO ALLOW TALLER FENCING JUST BECAUSE IT'S MEETING THE PRINCIPAL OR STRUCTURE SETBACK AND I THINK I MADE A MESS OF THAT. >> BUT IT WAS IT WAS AN ATTEMPT FOR SHORT THANK YOU
CHAIR AND AND PLANNING MANAGER JOHNSON THAT I THINK THAT ACTUALLY WAS HELPFUL. I THINK THE THING I'M JUST STRUGGLING WITH IS THAT JUST BECAUSE YOUR HOUSE IS SET FURTHER BACK YOU GET AN EIGHT
FOOT FENCE AS OPPOSED TO SOMEBODY ELSE WHO ONLY GETS A FOUR FOOT FENCE. SO I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THE HISTORICAL REASON FOR IT AND THE THAT SORT
OF THING. I THINK I JUST IT IT'S SORT OF SEEMS UNFAIR TO ALLOW THAT FOR FOLKS JUST BECAUSE OUR HOUSE IS FURTHER BACK FROM THE
STREET. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH WHICH PROBABLY IS JUST AN OPINION ISSUE AND CHAIR IF I IF I COULD JUST ONE CORRECTION TO THAT ACTUALLY IS THAT IF YOUR HOME WAS SETBACK FURTHER
YOUR LOT WOULD ACTUALLY AS OF TODAY WOULD BE MORE RESTRICTED IN TERMS OF INSTALLING THAT TALLER FENCING BECAUSE YOU CAN INSTALL THE TALLER FENCING IF IT'S EVEN OR BEHIND THE FRONT PLAIN OF YOUR HOME IF YOU'RE
STILL MEETING THAT SIDE YARD SETBACK THAT'S KIND OF THE KEY BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HAVE THE TALLER FENCE IN FRONT OF YOU'RE CLOSER TO THE STREET THAN YOUR HOME TODAY UNLESS IT'S BEYOND 65FT.
AND SO IT'S ACTUALLY THE HOMES THAT ARE SETBACK FURTHER THAT ARE HAVE LESS OPTIONS I GUESS YOU COULD SAY IN THIS IF WE WANT TO FRAME IT THAT WAY. UM YEAH.
MR. WHITE THANK YOU. I'M ALL FOR LET HIM HAVE THE YOU KNOW THE 30FT INSTEAD OF THE 65FT. IT'S JUST THE EIGHT FOOT VERSUS FOUR FOOT THAT I'M HAVING PROBLEMS WITH SO I
MIGHT GET THERE. I MIGHT NOT I CANNOT GET THERE. I DO NOT LIKE EIGHT FOOT FENCES. 30FT IS WAY TOO CLOSE TO THE STREET FOR ME AND I GET WE'VE
GOT THIS WEIRD DINOSAUR OF 65FT IN OUR CODE BUT 30FT FOR AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE IS NOWHERE NEAR WHERE I'M I'M COMFORTABLE HAVING FENCES IN THIS CITY.
MR. MUNSTER FOR US IS GENERALLY SORT OF PRO FENCES. I AM I HAVE TO ECHO THE CHAIR ON THIS ONE THAT AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE I COMPLETELY APPRECIATE THE LOGIC THAT IF YOU CAN PUT A BUILDING THERE YOU SHOULD BE
ABLE TO PUT A FENCE THERE BUT IT'S STILL IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND IF WE'RE GOING TO SAY THAT FRONT YARD NEED TO REMAIN OPEN, THE FRONT YARDS NEED TO REMAIN OPEN.
CHAIR IF I MAY I MEAN WHAT IS ONE SUGGESTION I COULD MAKE THEN IS IS JUST TO DISALLOW TALLER FENCING CLOSER TO THE STREET THAN THE FRONT PLAIN OF THE DWELLING REGARDLESS OF ITS LOCATION?
WE STILL DO GET QUESTIONS AT TIMES ABOUT REAR AND SIDE YARD IF IT'S EVEN IN BEHIND IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO STAFF FOR YOU TO KIND OF SHARE YOUR
THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT IN TERMS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE EXISTING POLICY OF JUST HAVING TO MEET THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING SETBACKS IS STILL APPROPRIATE FOR THE SIDE AND REAR YARDS
SAY ON AN INTERNAL A TYPICAL INTERNAL LOT FOR FOR YOU MR. JOHNSON MR. PALMER, WHAT IS THE CURRENT STANDARD CHAIR CORRECT IN THE CURRENT STANDARD FOR AN EIGHT FOOT
FENCE IN THE REAR IN THE SIDE IS A 30 FOOT SETBACK IN THE REAR AND A TEN FOOT SETBACK FROM THE SIDE . IF IT WERE UP TO ME I JUST
WOULDN'T ALLOW EIGHT FOOT FENCES. MR. CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU, CHAIR I'M IN FAVOR OF LEAVING THIS AS IS.
I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE SOME LEGACY CODE ISSUES WITH THIS THAT MIGHT CAUSE A HEADACHE FOR STAFF BUT I ECHO COMMISSIONER MUNSTER AND COMMISSIONER COOK OR CHAIR
CAPTAIN'S CONCERNS ABOUT AN EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCE IN FRONT OF SOMEONE'S HOME OR I GUESS I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT WHERE THE PLANE IS AND EVERYTHING BUT I,
I THINK YOU KNOW IF SOMEONE WANTS TO COME IN WITH LIKE A MUST HAVE PROPOSED TO PUT A DOG RUN IN AND WORKS WITH STAFF ON A VARIANCE IMPROVES
THAT BURDEN OR YOU KNOW THAT THERE'S NO OTHER WAY TO DO SOMETHING YOU KNOW MAYBE BUT I, I CAN'T I CAN'T SUPPORT THE
30 FOOT SETBACK THANK YOU , MR. SUMMERS THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I THINK I AM PRO TALL FENCES AND I ALSO AM PRO NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. UM, I DON'T THINK THOSE TWO
ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE BUT I DO THINK THAT USING THE BACK PLANE OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE HELPS KEEP NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER.
UM YEAH. THAT'S MY FEELINGS ON THAT. >> THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SILVERS. MR. MOSER AND I THINK THIS
ALSO REFLECT IT'S THE PROBLEM WITH TRYING TO COME UP WITH A SIMPLIFIED CODE THAT FITS ACROSS A VERY DIVERSELY DEVELOPED COMMUNITY BECAUSE IF
YOU'RE ON A LOT THAT'S A HALF AN ACRE AND YOU HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE. DOES ANYBODY REALLY NOTICE AS OPPOSED TO YOU KNOW, YOU'RE MEETING TEN FOOT SETBACKS
BETWEEN HOUSES AND THERE'S AN EIGHT FOOT WALL BETWEEN YOU THAT THAT'S VERY IMPOSING. BUT BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO SIMPLIFY AND BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO COME UP WITH A STANDARD, I THINK IT WOULD
JUST BE EASIER TO REMOVE EIGHT FOOT FENCES ALTOGETHER . WE'VE BEEN REMARKABLY CONSISTENT ON OUR
INCONSISTENCIES ON EXPENSES AND SORRY MR. PALMER, MAKING YOUR LIFE ANY EASIER HERE. NO WORRIES TO I THINK WE'VE HEARD FROM EVERYBODY JUST ANYONE HAVE ANY FURTHER
THOUGHTS? OKAY. THERE WE ARE. THANK YOU CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS NEXT ITEMS THESE ARE JUST SOME KIND OF HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS THAT
STAFF IS LOOKING AND CLEANING UP. SO ONE OF THE CHANGES IS WAS RECOMMENDATION FROM LEGAL AND THAT IS TO REMOVE A COUPLE PIECES OF CODE LANGUAGE THAT PERTAIN TO LOCATING A FENCE UP
TO OR ON THE PROPERTY LINE. SO WE HAD SOME CODE LANGUAGE THAT IT MORE OR LESS EXPLICITLY STATES YOU CAN BUILD YOUR FRIENDS ON THE PROPERTY LINE AND IT WAS A RECOMMENDATION FROM LEGAL TO
REMOVE THAT LANGUAGE IN ORDER TO REMOVE THE CITY FROM ANY KIND OF LIABILITY ISSUES OR ANY OTHER YOU KNOW, COMPLAINTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT FROM A RESIDENT THAT MAY THINK THAT
THAT ISSUE LIES WITH THE CITY FENCE PLACEMENT ON PROPERTY LINES. IF THERE IS A DISPUTE IT ULTIMATELY IS A PRIVATE ISSUE AND THE CITY IS AND STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF REMOVING THIS
CODE TERM OF THE CITY'S LIABILITY THIS HAS MY SUPPORT . MR. CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU,
CHAIR IT ALSO HAS MY SUPPORT SAYING SOME HANDOUTS. OKAY. CONSISTENCY. THANK YOU CHAIR AND
COMMISSIONERS AND THE NEXT HOUSEKEEPING ITEM IS TO REMOVE LANGUAGE GOVERNING ARBORS AND TRELLISES AS FENCES SO ARBORS AND TRELLISES HAVE CURRENTLY
HAVE TWO SEPARATE DIFFERENT REGULATIONS IN THE CODE. SO THERE IS THE FENCE CODE SECTION THAT DEFINE ARBORS AND CHALICES AS A FENCE AND APPLIED FENCE STANDARDS TO THEM.
AND THEN IN CODE SECTION 21 30102G FOR AG IT'S SEPARATELY DEFINED AS A PERMITTED ENCROACHMENT AND IN THE PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS CODE SECTION THERE IS A FIVE
FOOT SIDE SETBACK, TEN FOOT REAR SETBACK AND 20 FOOT FRONT SETBACK FOR ARBORS AND TRELLISES AND AT THIS POINT STAFF IS JUST PROPOSING TO COMPLETELY REMOVE THE SECTION
THE CODE SECTION IN THE FENCE CODE PERTAINING TO ARBORS AND TRELLISES AND JUST USING THE PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS REGULATIONS FOR ARBORS AND TRELLISES.
COMMISSIONER MR.. JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION SO ASSUMING THIS IS REMOVED THAT THAT I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH WITH THAT PROPOSAL I CAN'T CONNECT
A TRAIL TO MY FENCE BECAUSE IT HAS A REQUIRED SETBACK. CHAIR I UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT? COMMISSIONER MUNSTER YES, THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY.
MR. JOHNSON AND CHAIR IF I MAY COMMISSIONER MUNSTER I THINK ONE OF THE DIFFERENTIATION ISSUES IS TALLER TRELLIS, RIGHT? SO ONE OF THE WAYS THAT WE CAN DIFFERENTIATE WHEN SETBACKS
ARE REQUIRED OR NOT AS ONE TO TRELLIS IS A TALLER STRUCTURE OR NOT. SO WE CAN REVIEW THAT IN OUR CODE AND MAKE SURE WHERE THAT LINE IS AND MAKE SURE IT'S BEING CONSISTENT WITH KIND OF THE INTENT OF OUR FENCING
REGULATIONS ETC. WITH THAT I CAN SUPPORT THIS SEEING ENOUGH HEADERS. THANK YOU. CHAIR ALL RIGHT.
ALL RIGHT. AND THAT'S ALL OF THE SLIDES THAT I HAVE. SO IF YOU HAD ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME THANK YOU FOR BEARING WITH ME. I KNOW IT'S CLEAR AS MY
ANYTHING ELSE FOR MR. BONNER THANK YOU, MR. FULLER. THIS WILL GO BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL AS A STUDY ITEM ON DECEMBER 15TH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE WILL MOVE THEN TO ITEM
NUMBER THREE WHICH IS THE CONSIDERATION OF THE NUMBER NOVEMBER 6TH MEETING SYNOPSIS SYNOPSIS IS THERE A MOTION
? >> COMMISSIONER SUMMERS I MOVE TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SYNOPSIS FROM NOVEMBER 6TH, 2025 AS PRESENTED IS THERE A SECOND
MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THESE DRAFT MEETING MINUTES? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I OPPOSED ABSTAIN ABSTAIN MOTION PASSES FOUR ZERO WITH
ONE ABSTENTION. WE'LL MOVE TO OUR FINAL ITEM ITEM NUMBER FOUR WHICH IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY AND ISSUES UPDATE MR. JOHNSON THANK YOU CHAIR COOKED IN BRIEF UPDATE TONIGHT DECEMBER 11TH IS CANCELED
SHOULD RECEIVE THAT CANCELLATION AND DOES REFLECT IT AS SUCH ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE. I COMING UP AT THE DECEMBER 18TH MEETING WE HAVE FOUR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND A STUDY
ITEM SO A BUSIER AGENDA WE HAVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DAY CARE FACILITY AT 403 EAST 78TH STREET. WE HAVE THREE CITY CODE AMENDMENTS. THE FIRST ONE IS FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. THE SECOND ONE IS AN ART
INCENTIVES ORDINANCE AIMED AT INCENTIVIZING MORE ART AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE ZONING CODE. AND THE THIRD ONE IS A REVIEW OF THE CITY'S HEIGHT MAP AS WELL AS THE OTHER PROVISIONS
WITHIN THE HEIGHT ORDINANCE IN THE ZONING CODE. ALL THREE OF THOSE HAVE BEEN BEFORE YOU AT VARIOUS STUDY SESSIONS AND THEN FINALLY WILL BRING THE 2026 PLANNING
COMMISSION WORK PLAN BACK BEFORE YOU FOR YOUR FORMAL RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND THAT IS ALL THE ITEMS ON THE DECEMBER 18TH MEETING. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU MR. JOHNSON THIS IS
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO BRING UP ANYTHING THAT WAS NOT ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING. >> IS THERE ANY MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED? >> SEEING NONE THAT CONCLUDES THIS DECEMBER 4TH MEETING
OF THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION. >> GOOD NIGHT