THIS JUNE 18TH MEETING OF THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADVISES THE CITY COUNCIL ON DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, LONG RANGE PLANNING AND
TRANSPORTATION ISSUES. SOME ITEMS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ARE STUDY ITEMS WHERE WE WILL NOT TAKE FORMAL ACTION WHILE OTHER ITEMS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ARE PUBLIC HEARINGS WHERE WE WILL TAKE FORMAL ACTION. WE HAVE ONE OF THOSE ITEMS
THIS EVENING AS ITEM NUMBER ONE. DURING THOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS WE DO ENCOURAGE THE PUBLIC TO TESTIFY IF THEY SO CHOOSE. YOU CAN DO SO HERE AT CITY HALL IN THE COMMISSION
CHAMBERS AND YOU CAN ALSO DO SO ONLINE BY FOLLOWING THE INSTRUCTIONS THAT ARE ON YOUR SCREEN. ON SOME ITEMS THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS FINAL DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY ON OTHER ITEMS.
THE CITY COUNCIL WILL MAKE THE FINAL DECISION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTS IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS MADE UP OF SEVEN VOLUNTEER RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON. EACH BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSIONER HAS BEEN
APPOINTED TO SERVE A THREE YEAR TERM WITH A TWO TERM LIMIT. WE HAVE FIVE COMMISSIONERS PRESENT AT CITY HALL THIS EVENING SO WE DO HAVE A QUORUM . OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS THIS EVENING IS THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
ALL RISE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH
LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. WE WILL BEGIN WITH ITEM NUMBER ONE WHICH IS OUR ONLY PUBLIC HEARING THIS EVENING FOR A CAMPUS EXPANSION TO THE
SEAGATE FACILITY AT 7850 NORD AVENUE AND 7801 COMPUTER AVENUE. MR. NICK JOHNSON IS HERE WITH STAFF REPORT. THANK YOU CHAIR KIRKTON. THE SEAGATE CAMPUS IS LOCATED
IN THE NORTHWEST PART OF THE CITY JUST EAST OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 102 NORTH OF 494 AROUND SOME OTHER OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES IN THAT AREA. IT'S A UNIQUE PROPERTY IN THAT
IT STRADDLES THE BOUNDARY OF EDINA. SO A PORTION OF THE CAMPUS IS IN TECHNICALLY IN THE CITY OF EDINA AND A PORTION IS IN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON. THE GREEN PORTION IS THE
PORTION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT IS IN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON. BUT IT DOES SHARE A PARKING SUPPLY AMONGST THE WHOLE CAMPUS AND THERE'S ACCESS AMONGST THE BUILDINGS THROUGHOUT ACROSS THE
BOUNDARY. WHAT SEAGATE IS PROPOSING TO DO IS TO CONSTRUCT A TWO STOREY APPROXIMATELY 65,000 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO ADD MANUFACTURING SPACE TO THEIR
FACILITY. THEY MANUFACTURE CHIPS AND OTHER TECHNOLOGY USES INSIDE THIS CAMPUS. SO IT'S A VERY LARGE CAMPUS. IT'S GOT A SIGNIFICANT PARKING
SUPPLY, VARIOUS BUILDINGS THROUGHOUT THE CAMPUS MOSTLY CONNECTED THE AREA OUTLINED IN RED IS WHERE THEY WOULD PROPOSE TO EXPAND THE BUILDING
AND IN 2021 THEY GOT APPROVAL FOR A SIMILAR ADDITION AND IT'S OUTLINED THERE JUST TO THE EAST OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION AREA. AND SO THIS IS A VERY SIMILAR
PROJECT TO WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED BEFORE IN ORDER TO BUILD THIS PROJECT THEY WOULD HAVE TO REMOVE SOME SURFACE PARKING AND LANDSCAPING AREAS BUT IT WOULD EFFECTIVELY MIRROR WHAT YOU'RE SEEING THERE.
AND THE 2021 ADDITION VERY SIMILAR. THE TOP STORY HAS MANUFACTURING SPACES. THE BOTTOM STORY IS HAS A LOT OF MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT THAT'S NEEDED TO
CREATE A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT FOR THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS. SO THIS IS A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANS THAT WAS IN THE PACKET I OUTLINED MOST OF THE SCOPE OF WORK. THERE IS A PROPOSED NITROGEN
PLANT AREA IN THE SOUTHEAST PORTION OF THE CAMPUS. THESE ARE EFFECTIVELY ABOVE GROUND TANKS THAT HELP SUPPORT THEIR OPERATIONS. SO I DO WANT TO POINT THAT OUT
AGAIN THERE'S THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY. THESE ARE THE TWO AREAS WITH A LITTLE BIT MORE ZOOMED IN SCALE. SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO REMOVE SOME OF THOSE PARKING AREAS AS
I MENTIONED THAT SHIFTS SOME PARKING ISLANDS TO THE WEST TO ACCOMMODATE THIS ADDITION. REMOVE SOME LANDSCAPING, ETC.. THERE'S SOME OTHER MISCELLANEOUS IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SITE THERE ADDING LANDSCAPING, EXPANDING
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ON THE CAMPUS AS WELL. AND THERE'S THAT NITROGEN PLANT AREA TO THE EAST. SO THE PRIMARY AREA OF REVIEW WITH THIS APPLICATION HAS TO
DO WITH ITS PARKING COUNTS. SO TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEW ADDITIONS THEY'D HAVE TO REMOVE 148 PARKING STALLS ON THIS VERY LARGE CAMPUS.
THE TOTAL PARKING SUPPLY POST CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE 1118 STALLS WHEREAS CODE WOULD REQUIRE 625 PARKING SPACES. THAT REPRESENTS A DEVIATION
OF 31.2%. SO WHEN WE GET INTO THIS RANGE TYPICALLY IN THE PAST HISTORICALLY SPEAKING THAT'S WHEN WE WOULD LOOK TO SEEK ANALYSIS FROM A THIRD PARTY TRAFFIC CONSULTANT.
THE CITY DID THAT THROUGH ALLIANT ENGINEERING. THEY PERFORMED A STUDY ON THIS PROJECT. THE FINDINGS OF THE STUDY WERE THOROUGHLY DOCUMENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT FOR YOU.
SO JUST A COUPLE OF HIGHLIGHTS ABOUT THE STUDY. SO SEAGATE OPERATES A MULTIPLE SHIFT SCHEDULE THE MAXIMUM OBSERVED PARKING DEMAND DURING THEIR STUDY WAS 607 I'M SORRY
765 STALLS IN USE. SO AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THERE'S LARGE PORTIONS OF THE CAMPUS THAT HAVE THAT ARE EFFECTIVELY VACANT OR NOT INTENDED FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST MOSTLY
MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SPACES THAT SUPPORT THEIR MANUFACTURING. THE ENVIRONMENT IS VERY SENSITIVE WITH THIS USE. SO IN EFFECT THERE'S A LOT OF DEAD SPACE. AND SO THAT'S A UNIQUE FEATURE
OF THIS CAMPUS VIA THE PARKING STUDY THE ANTICIPATE AT PEAK PARKING DEMAND WAS 818 STALLS POST CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW ADDITION. AND SO THAT REPRESENTS AN OVER
300 PARKING STALL SURPLUS FROM THE NEW PARKING SUPPLIER, THE PROPOSED PARKING SUPPLY. IN ADDITION TO THAT, ANOTHER CHARACTERISTIC IS THAT THEY LEASE A PORTION OF PUBLIC
RIGHT AWAY IN THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE CAMPUS WHERE THERE'S AN 81 ADDITIONAL PARKING STALLS. THESE STALLS AREN'T INCLUDED IN THE FORMAL SUPPLY BECAUSE THEY'RE WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY BUT THAT JUST ADDS
ADDITIONAL BUFFER AREA. SO BASED ON ALL THESE FINDINGS, STAFF HAS A LOT OF CONFIDENCE THAT THERE'S ADEQUATE PARKING SUPPLY THROUGH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT. THE TEST THAT THEY HAVE TO
MEET FOR FLEXIBILITY IS PUBLIC BENEFIT. STAFF FINDS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF PUBLIC BENEFIT WITH THIS PROPOSED EXPANSION JUST IN TERMS OF BEING A LEADER OF THIS INDUSTRY IN THE REGION AS WELL AS INCREASED
EMPLOYMENT AND VALUE HERE ON THE SITE. SO IT'S GOOD TO SEE THEM WANTING TO CONTINUE TO GROW HERE. SO STAFF DOES SUPPORT THE REQUESTED PARKING FLEXIBILITY REGARDING LANDSCAPING THEY
HAVE TO ADD TREES ON THE BASIS OF WHAT'S BEING REMOVED AS WELL AS THE AMOUNT OF DISTURBANCE AREA THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. THEY SHOWED A PLAN WITH 43 TREES SO THEY'RE SHORT BY AN ADDITIONAL 43 TREES.
THEY NEED TO FIND SPACE ON THE CAMPUS TO ADD THIS ADDITIONAL PLANT MATERIAL. WE'RE CONFIDENT THAT THERE IS ROOM TO DO SO SO THAT AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THIS
JUST GETS A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL. SOME OF THAT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA THAT I MENTIONED ON THE WEST SIDE HERE'S A RENDERING OF THE PROPOSED TWO STORY EXPANSION.
SO IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO THE FIRST PHASE A WAY FOR BUILDING THAT WAS JUST COMPLETED RECENTLY. IT WAS APPROVED IN 2021. SO EFFECTIVELY THEY'RE JUST KIND OF DOUBLING THE SIZE THERE.
THE BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED OUT OF PRECAST CONCRETE PANELS INTEGRAL IN COLOR. SO PRETTY TYPICAL FOR A TECHNOLOGY CAMPUS OR LARGE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AND
MATCHES WHAT WAS APPROVED IN THE LAST PHASE. AS FAR AS CORRESPONDENCE GOES, WE DID REACH OUT TO CITY OF EDINA VERY EARLY IN THIS PROCESS GIVEN THAT THE PARKING SUPPLY IS SHARED AMONGST BOTH
JURISDICTIONS, THEY DID NOT HAVE ANY CONCERNS OR COMMENT ON THE APPLICATION AND ONE EMAIL OF SUPPORT WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET THAT STAFF RECEIVED. THAT'S THE ONLY CORRESPONDENCE ITEM WE RECEIVED ON THIS.
AND WITH THAT I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL. THANK YOU MR. JOHNSON WE'LL START WITH QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AND I'LL GET US STARTED HERE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
SO I BELIEVE THE NUMBER WAS AROUND 300 SURPLUS PARKING SPACES THEY FOUND IN THE PARKING STUDY. IF IF C.J. COMES BACK WITH ANOTHER ADDITION THAT WOULD REQUIRE LESS THAN 300 PARKING
SPOTS, DO THEY NEED TO DO ANOTHER STUDY OR ARE WE JUST GOOD WITH THEM IF THE ADDITION OF SMALL ENOUGH YEAH. THANK YOU CHAIR CORRECT AND DINNER WOULD DEPEND ON THE TIMING AND JUST YOU KNOW IF IT WAS 15 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD
THEN SOME CHARACTERISTICS OR THINGS HAVE CHANGED IN THE AREA THAT WOULD I WANT US TO LOOK AT IT AGAIN BUT THE STUDY DOES PROVIDE US A GOOD GUIDEPOST IN TERMS OF KIND OF WHAT THE CURRENT SUPPLY IS
,WHAT THEY WOULD EXPECT. I KNOW THEY'RE LOOKING AT FUTURE POTENTIAL EXPANSIONS SO IT'S GOOD TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE GAP IS BETWEEN WHAT WE ANTICIPATE FOR THE PEAK DEMAND VERSUS WHAT THE SUPPLY IS.
SO YEAH IT WOULD JUST KIND OF DEPEND ON THE TIMING. I WOULD ALSO NOTE AS YOU KNOW THE CITY IS LOOKING AT A PROJECT A KIND OF RIGHT SIZE OUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS. AND SO THAT'S ANOTHER FACTOR THAT LIKELY WOULD REDUCE THE
SIZE OF THAT DEVIATION IN THE FUTURE SHOULD WAREHOUSE OFFICE THESE TYPES OF USES THE PARKING REQUIREMENT GO DOWN FOR THOSE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION, MR. JOHNSON.
THE TREES ARE BEING REPLANTED . WILL THOSE BE REPLANTED ON THE BLOOMINGTON SITE? YES. FOR SURE COOKED IN THEY DO NEED TO BE PLANTED ON THE BLOOMINGTON SIDE. IT IS OUR ZONING REQUIREMENT
SO THEY WOULD TO FULFILL THE REQUIREMENT THEY WOULD NEED TO BE PLANTED ON THE BLOOMINGTON SIDE. GREAT OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER WHITE THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE NITROGEN STORAGE PAD. I KNOW THAT'S NOT REALLY THE BIGGEST PART OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT BUT IF WE APPROVE THIS WE WOULD
ESSENTIALLY BE APPROVING THEIR ABILITY TO PLACE NITROGEN STORAGE IN THAT PARTICULAR SPOT, CORRECT? THAT'S RIGHT. CHAIR COOKED IN COMMISSIONER
RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. IT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY OUR FARM FIRE MARSHAL AND OTHER STAFF WITH MORE EXPERTISE ABOUT THAT. IF YOU'RE WANTING TO LEARN MORE ABOUT HOW THEY USE THOSE MATERIALS, I'D ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK TO THAT.
BUT YET AS PART OF THEIR MANUFACTURING PROCESS IS MY UNDERSTANDING. JENNIFER THANK YOU CHAIR JUST TO FOLLOW UP SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I MEAN I WILL CERTAINLY ASK THE APPLICANT TO
TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT BUT IS THERE ARE WERE THERE ANY SAFETY CONCERNS IDENTIFIED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL OR ANYONE ABOUT HAVING NITROGEN TANKS SO CLOSE TO A STREET?
THANK YOU. THEY WERE THAT CONCERN WAS NOT RAISED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS. I'M SURE THAT THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH SOME FINAL CHECKS AS THEY DEVELOP AND BUILD THOSE. SOME OF THAT IS REVIEWED AT
THE BUILDING PERMIT LEVEL. YEAH. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF SEEING NONE I WOULD INVITE THE
APPLICANT TO COME UP AND SPEAK IF THEY SO CHOOSE . COME ON UP IF YOU COULD SPEAK INTO A MICROPHONE FOR US IS APPRECIATED AND WHEN YOU'RE
DONE WE ALSO HAVE A SIGN IN SHEET FOR YOU BUT COME ON UP, INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND LET US KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY. OKAY FIRST OFF I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU SO MUCH. WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
I'M STEPHANIE PETERS AND I'M A CIVIL ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER WITH SEAGATE. MY NAME IS AUSTIN SHAW. I'M THE FACILITIES ENGINEERING MANAGER AT SEAGATE AND I'M I'M PETER LEAHY.
I'M A PROJECT MANAGER WITH BWB ARCHITECTS IN ST PAUL. YEAH, SURE. OKAY. JUST ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION ON THE NITROGEN PLAN.
IT IS EXISTING TODAY SO IT'S A RELOCATION OF THE TANKS JUST TO BETTER SERVE OUR MANUFACTURING FACILITY .
NO THE CURRENT THE CURRENT NITROGEN PLANT IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER FROM IT AND THE NEW ONE WILL BE LARGER TO INCREASE FOR FOR OUR PRODUCTION USE. AS YOU KNOW WE'RE CURRENTLY
TAXING IT WE KNOW WHAT IT SO WHAT ARE OUR CURRENT PLANTS CAN DO SO AND THERE IS PLANS TO HAVE A FENCE AROUND IT A CHAIN LINK FENCE TO PROTECT IN KEEP KEEP ANYONE OUTSIDE SO
YEAH TO YOUR POINT BOTH FOR PUBLIC SAFETY BUT ALSO OBVIOUSLY FOR OUR OWN SECURITY OF OUR TANKS AND WE HAVE SOMETHING SIMILAR IN OUR EXISTING SETUP TODAY WHICH IS
A LONG DRIVEWAY AS WELL. YEAH WE MIGHT HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU BUT IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO TELL US BEFORE WE GET INTO QUESTIONS? OKAY.
MAYBE THE POINT OF CLARIFICATION THE TREES AS WE DO SERVE WE STILL HAVE AN OUTSTANDING ITEM WITH THE NINE
MILE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT AND THEIR APPROVAL. SO I THINK THERE IS STILL A LITTLE BIT OF UNCERTAINTY WITH THAT PLAN SO THAT THE TREE AND THE FOOTPRINT EXACTLY IS STILL
A LITTLE BIT TO BE DETERMINED. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THE PROCESS WORKS. IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY THEN FOR A SECOND REVIEW WHEN IT COMES TO THE LANDSCAPING
REQUIREMENTS. MR. JOHNSON WHY DON'T I COME BACK TO YOU AND JUST A SECOND ON THAT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S TOO ATYPICAL FOR US. YEAH, I'LL GET YOUR FEEDBACK. OH, COME IN HERE. I'D LIKE TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY
COMMISSIONERS WHO HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. SEE NONE. I THINK THAT'S VERY GOOD IF YOU COULD SIGN IN FOR US. SO WE HAVE THAT FOR THE MINUTES IS APPRECIATED.
MR. JOHNSON, COULD WE HAVE YOU FOLLOW UP ON THE TREE PLANTING? YEAH. CHAIR COOKED AND IT IS AN ITERATIVE PROCESS SO YOU CERTAINLY GET WE REVIEW THE LATEST GREATEST VERSION OF THE PLANS. OF COURSE THE PLANS HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY NINE MILL CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICTS.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME MODEST CHANGES ALONG THE WAY. IT'S VERY TYPICAL. THAT'S AS I EXPECTED WITH THAT YOU KNOW THERE ARE SOME
UNDERGROUND STORAGE THAT REQUIREMENTS WITH THAT SO THAT MIGHT IMPEDE SOME TREE PLANTINGS DEPENDING HOW THAT SHAKES OUT. SO THAT'S KIND OF THERE BUT
LIKE YOU SAID, THE IDEA OF PART OF THIS WELL YOU KNOW WHETHER MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY IS SO AS LONG AS WE GET HIM ON THE GOLF COURSE I WAS GOING TO ASK IF WE COULD PUT YOU ON
THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AS THEY'RE SIGNING IN HERE, I'LL GET EVERYONE IN THE CHAMBERS HERE PREPARED FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY AS I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. NOW THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM IF YOU WOULD LIKE. WE WILL WELL, WE WON'T PUT A SHARP SHOT CLOCK ON ANYONE THIS EVENING. I THINK WE'RE GOOD ON TIME BUT
I'LL ASK IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY IN THIS ITEM. IF SO, PLEASE JOIN US UP HERE AT THE DESK . THANK YOU.
MISS BROWN. IS THERE ANYONE ON LINE WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY? ALL PARTICIPANTS ONLINE ARE STAFF OKAY. IS THERE A FINAL CUT? I JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO THIS TO THE CITY.
THEY'VE BEEN EXTREMELY HELPFUL IN TERMS OF PLANNING AND HELPING US UNDERSTAND THE REQUIREMENTS. WE'D ESPECIALLY LIKE TO NOTE LAURA MCCARTHY WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN INTEGRAL IN TERMS OF UNDERSTANDING ALL THE BUILDING REQUIREMENTS
ESPECIALLY FOR SOMETHING THAT HAS A LOT OF CHEMICALS. SO I JUST REALLY APPRECIATE THE STAFF. RIGHT. THANK YOU. ZERO IN THE CHAMBERS WHO WERE WISHES TESTIFY FINAL CALL.
SEE NO ONE COMING FORWARD. I WILL LOOK FOR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SO MOVED SO I CAN HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I OPPOSED THAT MOTION PASSES FIVE ZERO AND WE'LL MOVE INTO DISCUSSION. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK ONE MORE QUESTION OF STAFF.
MR. JOHNSON IN TERMS OF THIS APPLICATION WE ARE REPLACING THE TREES THAT ARE REMOVED BUT WE ARE NOT REQUESTING OR REQUIRING THEM TO MOVE CLOSER
TOWARDS FULL CODE COMPLIANCE BECAUSE THEY ARE SHORT FORM FOR CODE COMPLIANCE. WHAT IS THE CITY'S POSITION ON THAT? DO DO WE ASK APPLICANTS TO
NUDGE FORWARD AS THEY AS THEY GROW TOWARDS FULL COMPLIANCE OR IS IT JUST A ONE FOR ONE REPLACEMENT? THAT'S CORRECT. YOUR CORRECT AND THEY ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING ON THE BASIS OF THE AMOUNT OF SITE
DISTURBANCE SO WE APPLY KIND OF THE SAME RATIOS THAT WE WOULD TOWARDS A FULL SITE JUST BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF SITE DISTURBANCE ACCORDING TO THOSE RATIOS ONE TREE FOR 20 500FT ONE SHRUB PER 1000.
SO IT'S NOT JUST REPLACEMENT. THE REQUIREMENT THEY HAVE TO MEET IS ALSO REFLECTIVE OF THAT AMOUNT OF SITE DISTURBANCE. GREAT. I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT
DISCUSSION . I'LL GET US STARTED. SEEMS LIKE A GOOD APPLICATION. WE'VE SEEN SEAGATE HERE MANY TIMES IN THE PAST AND IT SEEMS
TO ME THEY'VE BEEN A FINE A FINE RESIDENT AND NEIGHBOR OF US HERE AND I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION. IT SEEMS STRAIGHTFORWARD THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR MAJOR DEVIATIONS IN TERMS OF THE PARKING I AM COMFORTABLE WITH
ALTHOUGH THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT DEVIATION FROM OUR REQUIRED PARKING. MY CODE I THINK IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE AND I'M I'M COMFORTED
ALSO IN THAT IT'S A SINGLE TENANT, IT'S A SINGLE TENANT HERE AND SO IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S A OFFICE BUILDING OWNER WHO'S MAYBE SQUEEZING THEIR TENANTS OR A SHOPPING MALL WHO'S SQUEEZING THEIR CUSTOMERS.
IT'S GOING TO IN MY OPINION GOING TO SUPPLY THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THEIR STAFF NEEDS. OTHERWISE THEY'RE GOING TO HEAR ABOUT IT AND HAVE THEIR OWN PROBLEMS. AND SO I DON'T SUSPECT THEY WOULD UNDER PARK THEMSELVES AND SO I'M PLENTY COMFORTABLE
WITH THE PARKING DEVIATION . COMMISSIONER MUNSTER. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WOULD ECHO THAT IN THAT THIS IS VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND AS
YOU NOTED, THE PARKING IS SORT OF ABOVE THE THRESHOLD WHERE WE USUALLY GIVE IT A MUCH CLOSER LOOK AND IN FACT WE DID THERE WAS A STUDY PERFORMED ON IT. BUT AGAIN THERE'S THIS THE
NUMBERS WORK OUT THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO POSE A PROBLEM. THIS IS GOING TO PROVIDE THE PARKING THAT'S NECESSARY FOR THE PROPOSED USE AND FOR THE USE GENERALLY. SO WITH THAT I ALSO SUPPORT THIS.
THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? IF NOT I WOULD LOOK FOR A MOTION .
MR. MUNSTER THANK YOU. IN CASE P.L. 2026-90. HAVING BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS I MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL
DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A TWO STOREY APPROXIMATELY 64,500 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ADDITN. AND NITROGEN TORRIE STORAGE TANK PAD AND AN EXISTING TECHNOLOGY CAMPUS LOCATED AT
7801 COMPUTER AVENUE SOUTH AND 7850 NORTH AVENUE SOUTH. SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND CODE RUIREMENTS ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT. SECOND THAT WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I OPPOSED THAT MOTION PASSES FIVE ZERO. THIS WILL GO TO THE CITY CITY
COUNCIL ON THEIR CONSENT AGENDA ON JUNE 29TH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER TWO.
ITEM NUMBER TWO THE CITY OF THE BURLINGTON IS THE APPLICANT. THIS IS A STUDY ITEM FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IT'S A REVIEW OF MULTIFAMILY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND MR. TOMMY RIMMER OLSON IS HERE
WITH THE STAFF REPORT . OKAY. GOOD EVENING. YES, AS MENTIONED, THIS IS A
STUDY ITEM LOOKING AT STAFF'S REVIEW MULTIFAMILY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS IN OUR CITY CODE. THIS IS A WORK PLAN PROJECT ON
THE 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN AND JUST TO I GUESS KIND OF SPOIL THE ENDING THE STANDARDS WERE WE'RE RECOMMENDING SOME REVISIONS TO
OUR STREET SIDE SETBACKS STORAGE UNITS AND USABLE OPEN SPACE AND THAT'S JUST FOR MULTI MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS THAT INCLUDES OUR 24 HOUR AND
50 AN HOUR OUR MONTH ALTHOUGH YOU KNOW THERE'S SOME THERE'S SOME NUANCE TO THAT AND I'LL GET INTO THAT IN JUST A MOMENT. SO A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND TO THIS IS SOME OF THE STANDARDS THAT ARE THAT WILL
BE DISCUSSED. THEY'VE EXISTED SINCE THE 60S BUT THERE'S BEEN NO COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF MULTIFAMILY STANDARDS SINCE 2015. SO IT'S BEEN A WHILE.
IT'S BEEN OVER TEN YEARS AND SO THIS IS PROBABLY A GOOD THING TO DO ON THE ON A REGULAR BASIS TO MAKE SURE OUR MULTIFAMILY STANDARDS ARE MEETING THE MARKET OR WHAT THE NEEDS ARE FOR THE MARKET. AND THIS ALSO COMPLEMENTS
OTHER STUDIES THAT STAFF ARE CURRENTLY UNDERTAKING THAT INCLUDES THE MINIMUM OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS. PRETTY SOON THERE'S GOING TO BE A STUDY OF LOOKING INTO PERMITTED SETBACKS AND
ENCROACHMENTS AND THIS WAS A WHILE AGO BUT I THINK IT FALLS IN THE SAME VEIN OF THE STREAMLINING DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED BACK
IN 20 I THINK 2024. I CAN'T HEAR YOU. SO WHAT HOW STAFF APPROACH THIS PROJECT WAS IT WAS VERY
ENGAGEMENT HEAVY. WE SPOKE WITH MULTIPLE INTERNAL PARTNERS TO THE CITY INCLUDING PLANNING BUT GETTING
A SURVEY FROM FOLKS WHO OKAY I GUESS THAT'S IT A SURVEY FROM FOLKS WHO REGULARLY REVIEW MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE SOME OF THE OBSTACLES THAT THESE
APPLICATIONS ARE EXPERIENCING RELATIVELY FREQUENTLY. WE ALSO SPOKE WITH PORT AUTHORITIES SINCE THEY'RE HIGHLY INVOLVED IN MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS IN A NUMBER OF CAPACITIES.
AND THEN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH FIRE PREVENTION AND AN ENGINEERING AS WELL. AND THEN THERE WERE SOME INTERVIEWS DONE WITH EXPERIENCED MULTIFAMILY
DEVELOPERS THAT HAVE MULTIPLE PROJECTS IN THE CITY JUST TO GET THEIR TAKE. AND THEN PART OF THIS COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE BACKLOG OR IN THAT BACKLOG THE THE
CATALOG OF MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE COME ACROSS THE CITY AND BEEN APPROVED OR JUST BEEN DISCUSSED AND FOR SOME
OF THOSE PROJECTS WE WERE GOING TO HAVE TO EXAMINE THE OPPORTUNITY HOUSING ORDINANCE AND THE ASSOCIATED ATTEND INCENTIVES SINCE THOSE ARE RELATED TO SOME OF THE SOME
OF THE STANDARDS THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED TONIGHT. AND JUST WORD OF CAUTION. THE RAM 15 DISTRICT WAS NOT CONSIDERED BECAUSE THAT WAS JUST RECENTLY EVALUATED WITH
THE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING STUDY. SO THAT'S IT'LL BE DEPICTED ON THE SCREEN BUT IT'S NOT PART OF THE ANALYSIS SINCE IT'S ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH. SO THAT FIRST STANDARD STREET
SIDE SETBACKS IT'S KIND OF CLEAR WHAT THIS DOES. IT ENSURES THERE'S ENOUGH AREA FOR UTILITIES, OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE DRAINAGE SO IT PERFORMS A PRETTY VALUABLE
SERVICE WITH MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND ALSO CONTRIBUTES TO THE PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE THE CLOSER THAT BUILDINGS ARE TO THE SIDEWALK, THE MORE INTIMATE THE EXPERIENCE IS FOR THE
PEDESTRIAN. AND YEAH, IT JUST IT SPEAKS TO THE URBAN DESIGN THAT'S TRYING TO BE ESTABLISHED IN THE IN THE PROXIMITY OF THOSE BUILDINGS THAT ABIDE BY THOSE
SETBACKS AND IT GOES TO SHOW THAT THE LARGER THE SETBACK THE MORE DEVELOPMENT IS CONSTRAINED BECAUSE THERE'S LESS AREA TO BE DEVELOPED AND
IT'S ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH AN ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN IT'S AN AREA STUDY LOOKING AT CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND HOW THEY
CONTRIBUTE TO PREVENTING CRIME OR LOWERING THE INCIDENCE AND FROM FROM THAT AREA SMALLER SETBACKS HAVE BEEN HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED AS INCREASING
SAFETY BECAUSE IT ALLOWS MORE EYES ON THE STREET BY BRINGING PEOPLE CLOSER TO WHERE THE FOLKS ARE ON THE SIDEWALK OR IN THE STREET. THE CURRENT STREET SIDE SETBACKS FOR MULTIFAMILY
DISTRICTS RIGHT NOW ARE M 24 AND 50 ARE AT 40FT AND OUR M 100 IS AT TEN FEET. OUR M 100 IS NOT BEING CONSIDERED. IT'S ONLY WE ONLY HAVE TWO PARCELS RIGHT NOW THAT ARE
ZONED RM1 HUNDRED SO THAT'S TOO SMALL A SAMPLE SIZE TO REALLY GATHE ANY OBSERVATIONS TO SEE IF ANY ADJUSTMENTS ARE NEEDED FOR THAT AND TEN FEET SEEMS TO BE ADEQUATE CONSIDERING THE NEEDS THAT ARE
THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. HERE'S A SAMPLE OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND CONSTRUCTED AND THAT HAVE BEEN GRANTED SOME
FLEXIBILITY WITH THIRD STREET SIDE SETBACKS. SO IT GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF OF WHERE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS COMING FROM AND THE TYPE OF FLEXIBILITY THAT THEY'VE
BEEN GRANTED TO HAVE A CONSTRUCTION COMMENCE. SECOND AREA FOR THE SECOND PERFORMANCE STANDARD UNDER ANALYSIS IS STORAGE UNITS.
THOSE ARE JUST INDIVIDUAL LOCKERS FOR THE DWELLING UNITS WITHIN MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS AND CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW OUR CODE REQUIRES OR CURRENT
CODE SORRY THAT WOULD BE SINGULAR REQUIRES ONE STORAGE UNIT PER DWELLING UNIT SO IT'S A 1 TO 1 RATIO RIGHT NOW AND THERE'S TWO VOLUME OPTIONS FOR
MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT OR MULTIFAMILY WITHIN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS AND THAT'S 96 CUBIC FEET IF THERE'S BIKE PARKING PROVIDED OUTSIDE OF THAT STORAGE SPACE OR 175 CUBIC
FEET IF THE STORAGE UNIT IS MEANT TO CONTRIBUTE TO BIKE STORAGE ON SITE BUT A WHICH
CLARIFYING THIS IS THAT THE BIKE STORAGE OUTSIDE OF THESE STORAGE UNITS IS ALREADY REQUIRED. WE'RE ALREADY REQUIRING IT SO THE 175 CUBIC FEET IS TO THE
DISCRETION REALLY OF THE DEVELOPER IF THEY WANT TO DO THAT. BUT IT DOES SPEAK TO HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND WHY AND WHY THERE MIGHT BE BIGGER
STORAGE UNITS AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT. THE SLIDE IS A SAMPLE OF MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS WHERE WE'VE GRANTED A LOWER A LOWER
AMOUNT OF STORAGE SPACES USING THE INCENTIVES THROUGH THE SHOW. SO THERE'S A GOOD SAMPLE OF DEVELOPMENTS FOR YOU TO LOOK AT AND WE CAN GO BACK TO SLIDE IF YOU NEED TO REFER
BACK TO IT AND STAFF'S VIEW OF ONSITE STORAGE IS THAT IT'S THEY ARE AN AFFORDABLE OPTION FOR TENANTS THAT THAT NEED
THAT EASY ACCESS YOU KNOW THEY'RE UNABLE TO DRIVE AND SO IF THERE'S SOMETHING ON THE SITE OH MY LORD HERE WE GO. OKAY GOOD. IF THEY NEED TO GO OFFSITE
THEY CAN IT'S GOING TO BE MORE INCONVENIENT AND IT JUST MAY NOT BE FEASIBLE ON THEIR PART. SO IT'S NICE TO HAVE THAT ON SITE AND IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT IN OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH
THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH THEY THEY EXPRESSED SOME SUPPORT FOR STORAGE UNITS FOR FIRE. IT WAS A WAY TO REDUCE INCIDENTS. I MEAN THEY'VE OBSERVED
INCIDENTS OF OF PEOPLE STORING THEIR BELONGINGS IN PARKING SPACES AND SOMETIMES THAT STORAGE CAN INCLUDE FLAMMABLE ITEMS AND SO THAT NATURALLY, YOU KNOW, RAISES THE SUSPICION
OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND OR THE YOU KNOW, THE THE THE CAUTION ON THEIR PART AND THEN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ALSO JUST THOUGHT IT WAS A QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUE THAT IF YOU
DON'T HAVE ONSITE STORAGE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE CLUTTERED, CLUTTERED DWELLING UNITS AND SO THAT JUST REALLY LOWERS THE YOU KNOW IN THEIR VIEW LOWER THE QUALITY OF LIFE
OF OF TENANTS IN THESE MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS THAT THEY DON'T HAVE EASILY EASY ACCESS TO STORAGE UNITS PLANNINGS VIEW IS WE DON'T DISCOUNT ANY OF THAT BUT THAT
IS PROBABLY BEST BEST MANAGED THROUGH CODE ENFORCEMENT THAT IS A PRIVATE MATTER THAT'S ON THOSE PROPERTIES AND CODE ENFORCEMENT CAN RECTIFY THOSE THOSE THOSE ISSUES AND
IT JUST SEEMS TO BE AN OUTDATED STANDARD ACTUALLY BECAUSE IT WAS ADDED TO OUR CODE SOMETIME BETWEEN 62 AND 1975. SO IT'S JUST A VESTIGE THAT'S
KIND OF CARRIED THROUGH ALL THE ITERATIONS OF THE CITY CODE UP UNTIL TODAY AND YOU KNOW LOOKING AT OUR PEERS IN THE IN THE REGION IT'S WE WERE UNABLE TO IDENTIFY ANY
OTHER COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE A STORAGE UNIT REQUIREMENT. YOU KNOW WE LOOKED AT SIX MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE LOOKED AT MORE BUT NONETHELESS THROUGH THAT SIX THERE WERE NO REQUIREMENTS FOR STORAGE UNITS
. SO WE'RE FAIRLY UNIQUE IN THAT REGARD AND YOU KNOW WITH THAT THE 1 TO 1 REQUIREMENT JUST MIGHT BE TOO EXCESSIVE FOR WHAT THE MARKET DEMANDS AND IF
THAT'S THE CASE, IF THEY'RE PROVIDING A 1 TO 1 IF THEY'RE MEETING THAT 1 TO 1 STANDARD, THEY'RE TAKING UP SPACE THAT COULD BE PUT TO MORE PRODUCTIVE USE AMENITIES SPACE MORE UNITS OR JUST SOMETHING
LEASABLE THAT MAKES THE DEVELOPMENT MORE AFFORDABLE AND MINIMIZES THOSE FINANCING GAPS TO GET A PROJECT OVER THE FINISH LINE. AND IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT
BACK IN 2015 WHEN THESE MULTIFAMILY STANDARDS WERE BEING REVIEWED AND STORAGE UNITS WERE PART OF THAT REVIEW, DEVELOPERS DID EXPRESS
CONCERN ABOUT THE SIZE THAT THAT WAS BEING REQUIRED. SO THAT WAS THE 175 CUBIC FEET AND AND THEY STILL EXPRESSED
THAT THAT RESERVATION ABOUT HOW HOW BIG IT WAS AND THEY WERE AT THAT TIME STAFF WAS SUPPORTING A A VOLUME OF 54 CUBIC FEET.
BUT ULTIMATELY THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE THE TWO TIER SYSTEM THAT THERE IS RIGHT NOW. SO GOING ON TO THE THIRD PERFORMANCE STANDARD UNDER
SCRUTINY USABLE OPEN SPACE THIS INCLUDES LIKE LANDSCAPED OR DEVELOPED AREAS THAT ARE INTENDED FOR ACTIVE OR PASSIVE RECREATION LEISURE AND IT CAN
BE EASILY ACCESSIBLE FROM ALL THE DWELLING UNITS. IT ALSO NEEDS TO MEET A MINIMUM DIMENSION OF 15 BY 15FT SO LANDSCAPED OUR
DEVELOPMENT THAT MEANS THAT CAN INCLUDE BALCONIES OR PATIOS BUT THERE'S A THERE'S A A FORMULA FOR FIGURING OUT HOW THOSE ELEMENTS CONTRIBUTE TO THE OPEN SPACE STANDARD THAT INCLUDE THAT IN THE SLIDE BUT
THAT IS IN THE STAFF REPORT FOR YOUR REVIEW AND BELOW THAT LITTLE THE TINIEST TABLE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SLIDE SHOWS THE OPEN SPACE STANDARDS FOR
ALL THE MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS SO YEAH, 600FT FOR 15 AND 24,000FT FOR ARM 15 AND 100
AND AGAIN STAFF'S VIEW OF THIS IS THAT THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT. IT'S IT'S GOOD TO PROVIDE EASY ACCESS TO AREAS OUTSIDE THE
DWELLING UNIT JUST TO UM TO PROVIDE A YOU KNOW WHAT IS ESSENTIAL PART OF JUST THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF A DEVELOPMENT BUT RIGHT SIZING
THESE SPACES IS NECESSARY BECAUSE IT CAN IMPOSE COSTS SIMILAR TO THE SETBACKS WHERE YOU'RE CONSTRAINING DEVELOPMENT, THE AREA OF DEVELOPMENT YOU'RE LIMITING
WHERE YOU CAN PLACE ESSENTIAL SIDE ELEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY AND SO IT'S GOOD TO THINK ABOUT HOW MUCH OF THE REQUIREMENT WE'RE IMPOSING ON DEVELOPERS OR ON DEVELOPMENT I
SHOULD SAY AND WITH THESE REQUIRE AREA REQUIREMENTS WE MAY BE PRECLUDING ADDITIONAL HOUSING OR LEASABLE AREA SIMILAR TO SIMILAR TO THE OTHER TWO STANDARDS AND AGAIN
BELOW IS THE SAMPLE OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN GRANTED A LOWER USABLE USABLE OPEN SPACE AREA THROUGH THE
RELEVANT INCENTIVE. SO AGAIN WE CAN COME BACK TO THE SLIDE IF YOU'D LIKE. UM BEFORE PROCEEDING TO THE DISCUSSION WHERE I'LL PRESENT
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, IT'S PROBABLY GOOD TO TALK ABOUT THE IMPACTS TO THE RATIO OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT STAFF THAT STAFF IS PREPARED
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO STORAGE UNITS AND OPEN SPACE STANDARDS . THIS DOESN'T INCLUDE THE STREET SIDE SETBACKS SO IT'S ONLY THOSE TWO STANDARDS. THOSE ALREADY REFLECT A WEIGHT SHOW INCENTIVES AND SO WITH
THAT BEING THE CASE, IF THERE WAS SUPPORT ULTIMATELY FOR AMENDING THE STANDARDS FOR STORAGE UNITS AND USABLE OPEN
SPACE WE WOULD HAVE TO DO A SIMILAR TYPE OF AMENDMENT TO THE SHOW TO THE OPPORTUNITY HOUSING ORDINANCE JUST SO THAT THERE WASN'T DUPLICATIVE
REDUCTIONS IN CODE. SO AN EXAMPLE OR A CONCEPTUAL OR CONCEPTUALIZATION OF HOW THIS CHANGE WOULD MAYBE TAKE PLACE IS IN THE TABLE AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS SLIDE.
AGAIN, THIS IS ONLY CONCEPTUAL . IT'S JUST AN IDEA OF HOW THIS MIGHT LOOK. IT SHOULD YOU KNOW, WE GET DIRECTION TO PREPARE THIS AMENDMENT. YOU'LL SEE THE EXISTING OPEN
SPACE REDUCTION AND ALL OF THE THE REDUCTIONS BY BY A LEVEL OF AFFORDABILITY AND BELOW THAT IS THE PROPOSED AND AGAIN
LIKE FACIALLY THE HYPOTHETICAL PROPOSAL OF ELIMINATING THE INCENTIVE FOR THE FIRST THE TOP TWO AFFORDABILITY BUCKETS
BUT STILL LEAVING DEEPLY AFFORDABLE THAT THE DEEPLY AFFORDABLE COLUMN STILL GIVING THEM THE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TO
REDUCE THEIR OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS BY ANOTHER 25% SO THAT'S CONCEPTUALLY HOW IT WOULD LOOK AND YOU KNOW I WOULD APPRECIATE DIRECTION FROM FROM YOU ALL AND OR GUIDANCE HOW IT SHOULD GO IF
THAT IS THE DIRECTION SO ON TO THE DISCUSSION ITEMS I'LL JUST TALK THROUGH ALL THREE IF THAT'S EASIER AND THEN WE CAN REVISIT THEM IF THAT'S OKAY AND THEN WE CAN HAVE THAT
CONVERSATION. BUT I'LL JUST GET THROUGH ALL THREE STREETS. STREET SIDE SETBACKS STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT WE REDUCE STREET SIDE SETBACKS TO 20FT
FROM 40FT IN THE ARM 24 AND ARM 50 DISTRICT 20FT WOULD PROVIDE ENOUGH ROOM FOR UTILITY SIDEWALKS, DRAINAGE LANDSCAPING. SO WE THINK THAT'S AN ADEQUATE DISTANCE.
IT ALSO EXHIBITS A MORE URBAN CHARACTER WHICH IS IN LINE WITH THE DISTRICT INTENT OR THE INTENT FOR THOSE DISTRICTS . SO THERE'S ALSO THAT CONCURRENCE AND THEN IT ALSO
REFLECTS FIRE TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S PREFERENCE FOR BUILDINGS THAT ARE CLOSER TO THE STREET BECAUSE THAT PROVIDES EASIER AND SAFER ACCESS FOR THEM IF THEY SHOULD PERFORM EMERGENCY SERVICES AT
THE BUILDING. SO THE QUESTION THAT COMES WITH THAT IS IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF BUT I'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE.
STORAGE UNITS SO WE PREFER PREPARED THREE DIFFERENT OPTIONS. OH I'M SORRY. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT FOR ALL THESE OPTIONS FOR OUR FOR ALL OF THESE A RECOMMENDATION THERE IS AN OPTION OF JUST
MAINTAINING IT. IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE CHANGED SO MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED THAT CAVEAT AT THE BEGINNING IS THAT YOU COULD ALSO JUST NOT SEE A PROBLEM WITH IT AND SHOULD BE
MAINTAINED SO THAT'S FINE AS WELL. BUT THE THREE OPTIONS FOR STORAGE UNITS THAT STAFF ARE PAIRED IS ELIMINATE THE STORAGE UNIT REQUIREMENT ALTOGETHER.
SO DON'T HAVE IT BE A REQUIREMENT FOR ANY MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT WHETHER IN A IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OR IN A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. THAT'S ONE OPTION AND THAT
WOULD BE IN LINE WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE REGION. THE SECOND OPTION ESTABLISH A SINGLE MINIMUM STORAGE UNIT VOLUME LIKE I SAID, THERE'S
TWO TIERS RIGHT NOW THERE'S THE 96 CUBIC FEET OR THE 175 CUBIC FEET RIGHT NOW WE REQUIRE BIKE STORAGE SO THE 96 CUBIC FEET IS IS FINE IF THEY
WANT AND IF DEVELOPERS PROPOSE TO GO LARGER THAT'S TO THEIR PROFESSIONAL DISCRETION AND THAT'S THAT'S HOW STAFF USE THAT FOR THE THIRD OPTION IT'S
SIMILAR TO THE LAST OPTION BUT LOWERING THE AREA I'M SORRY LOWERING THAT MINIMUM STORAGE UNIT VOLUME EVEN MORE TO 54 CUBIC FEET WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED BACK
IN 2015. SO THAT WOULD BE IF YOU CAN IMAGINE IT THREE FEET BY THREE FEET BY 6 OR 3, B BY THREE FEET BY SIX FEET.
SO THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE 54 CUBIC FEET AND YEAH, THE QUESTION SORRY THE QUESTION IS ALSO ON THIS SLIDE IS JUST REGARDING OPTIONS TWO AND THREE.
IS THERE A OH YEAH I'M SORRY I SHOULD MENTION THAT THE RATIO WOULD BE LOWERED AS WELL. WE'RE RECOMMENDING LOWERING FROM 1 TO 1 TO POINT FIVE
UNITS PER DWELLING UNIT SO SORRY THERE'S A LOT TO WRAP YOUR HEAD AROUND. I APOLOGIZE. AND THE THIRD STANDARD UNDER DISCUSSION IS USABLE OPEN SPACE. WE'RE RECOMMENDING LOWERING OR STAFF IS RECOMMENDING LOWERING
THE BASELINE MINIMUM AREA OF REQUIRED USABLE OPEN SPACE BY 25% FOR THE ARM 24 ARM 15 ARM 100 DISTRICTS. SO HOW THAT WOULD LOOK
COMPARED TO THAT TABLE THAT I SHOWED ON THAT PREVIOUS SLIDE IS THAT WE WOULD REQUIRE 450FT OF USABLE OPEN SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT FOR THE ARM 24 DISTRICT AND THAT'S DOWN
FROM 600FT FOR ARM IN ARM 100 IT WOULD BE 225FT PER DWELLING UNIT AND THAT'S DOWN FROM 300. SO THE TWO QUESTIONS THAT ACCOMPANY THIS DISCUSSION ITEM
IS DO YOU SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND JUST TO PUT IT OUT THERE THAT STAFFERS ALSO CONSIDERING INVESTIGATING ANOTHER AN ALTERNATIVE WAY FOR
DEVELOPMENTS TO MEET THE USABLE OPEN SPACE STANDARDS BY LOOKING AT THE PROXIMITY OF ESTABLISHED RECREATIONAL SPACES NEAR THE BUILDING SO PARKS ANY SORT OF GREEN SPACE,
OPEN SPACE, EVEN PLAZAS STUFF WHERE PEOPLE CAN RECREATE OR JUST BE LEISURELY UM SO THAT'S THAT'S ONE WAY THAT THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT STAFF IS IS THROWING OUT THERE TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK ON IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD INVESTIGATE FURTHER TO MAYBE GRANT SOME CREDIT FOR BUILDINGS THAT ARE PROPERLY LOCATED NEAR OTHER
RECREATIONAL AMENITIES AND WITH THAT I CAN YOU KNOW IF WE CAN START THE DISCUSSION I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. MR. OLSON. I THINK WE'LL START WITH ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GET INTO
THE FORMAL QUESTIONS. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT CAME UP DURING THE PRESENTATION YOU'D LIKE CLARIFICATION ON? MR. MOSER THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I HAVE JUST A COUPLE
OF QUESTIONS FOR OUTREACH. WAS ANY EFFORT MADE TO SPEAK TO TENANTS OF MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS? THIS IS PARTICULARLY WITH NOTE TO THE STORAGE QUESTION NOT SO MUCH THE DEVELOPMENT
PARAMETERS BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO BE CHANGING THOSE TYPES OF THINGS THAT ARE ESSENTIALLY AMENITIES WAS ANY EFFORT MADE ? CHAIR COMMISSIONER NO, NO WE DID NOT REACH OUT TO ANY
TENANTS. WE WERE PRIMARILY RELYING ON THE HISTORICAL RECORD FOR THE FLEXIBILITY THAT'S BEEN GRANTED FOR MULTIFAMILY
DEVELOPMENTS AND RELYING ON THAT FEEDBACK FROM FROM FOLKS INTERNAL TO THE CITY AND THEN THOSE DEVELOPERS THAT YOU KNOW MANAGE THE BUILDINGS ON AN
ONGOING BASIS TO SEE WHAT'S THE LEVEL OF USE OF THOSE STORAGE UNITS AND HAS THERE ARE THEY SEEING ANY ISSUES
WITH THE AMOUNT THAT THE CITY IS REQUIRING SO NOT NOT TO THE LEVEL OF ACTUALLY ENGAGING
TENANTS BUT YEAH IF IF YOU'D LIKE OR CERTAINLY I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT THAT'S THE OUTREACH
BUT IT JUST IT SEEMED JUST APPROPRIATE TO FOR THE FOR THE LEVEL OF THIS ANALYSIS TO KIND OF JUST RELY ON STAFF'S EXPERTISE AND EXPERIENCE WITH MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS WITH REGARD TO THAT REQUIREMENT.
FAIR ENOUGH. AND IF I MAY 1ST MORE I ACTUALLY THINK MR. JOHNSON HAS A FOLLOW UP IF THAT'S OKAY. YEAH. THANK YOU CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER MUNSTER. GOOD QUESTION. IT IS ANECDOTAL BUT JUST FROM SPEAKING WITH PROPERTY MANAGERS AT THESE SITES LESS
SO DIRECTLY WITH TENANTS BUT SOME PROPERTY OWNERS OR DEVELOPERS DO CHARGE FOR THESE SPACES SO THEY DO HAVE A FEE TO ACCESS SOME OF THESE STORAGE UNITS AND THAT CAN BE A BARRIER WE'VE HEARD FROM
BOTH PROPERTY MANAGERS AND DEVELOPERS SO IF THEY CHARGE A FEE THERE'S LOWER RATES OF UTILIZATION OF THOSE SPACES. SO I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT ONE POINT. THANK YOU. AND YOU HAVE A FOLLOW UP
QUESTION JUST ONE SECOND QUESTION ON IN THE CALCULATION OF OPEN SPACE, DO INDIVIDUAL BALCONIES THAT ARE ONLY ACCESSIBLE THROUGH A SINGLE UNIT COUNT TOWARD OPEN SPACE
OR ONLY COMMUNITY ACCESSIBLE THINGS A CHAIR COMMISSIONER BOTH OR ARE INCLUDED IN IN THE CALCULATION SO YEAH INDIVIDUAL
BALCONY OR BALCONY IS OFF OF INDIVIDUAL UNITS AND AND ANYTHING THAT'S EXTERIOR EASILY ACCESSIBLE AND EXTERIOR TO THE DWELLING UNITS. OKAY THANK YOU MR. MEMBERS AND
I'D LIKE TO DIVE DEEPER INTO THE BALCONY THING AND I WAS I WAS GOING TO WARN YOU BUT I DIDN'T COULD YOU GO TO THE BALCONY SLIDE AGAIN PLEASE?
UH, THIS ONE PLEASE. THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO START WITH A 15 BY 15 PIECE. I CAN'T THINK OF ANY BALCONY ABOVE THE FIRST FLOOR THAT'S
15FT LONG. SO DOES THAT DISQUALIFY ALL BALCONIES ABOVE THE FIRST FLOOR SO.
SO APOLOGIES, CHAIR. UM, TABLE FOUR OF THE STAFF REPORT TALKS ABOUT THE THE SIZE AREA OR THE AREA
OF BALCONIES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THE USABLE OPEN SPACE STANDARD. SO THOSE DON'T HAVE TO BE 15 BY 15 BUT AS LONG AS THEY MEET THAT MINIMUM AREA REQUIREMENT
THAT THAT'S PRESENTED IN THAT TABLE THEN YOU KNOW THE VARIOUS CALCULATIONS OF THAT OF THE AREA PROVIDED OF THAT BALCONY IS THEN CONTRIBUTING
TO THE USABLE OPEN SPACE FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT OR FOR SAID DEVELOPMENT. SO I DIDN'T INCLUDE THAT ON SLIDE BECAUSE IT'S JUST A LOT OF I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS GOING TO MUDDY THE CONVERSATION.
YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S MY MISTAKE FOR NOT ASKING YOU TO INCLUDE THAT. SO JUST TO CLARIFY SO THERE'S A FEW MINIMUM SIZES HERE IF
I'M INTERPRETING THIS CORRECTLY. SO IT SAYS FOR THE FIRST 50FT OF PORCHES AND BALCONIES OF AT LEAST 50FT.
SO IF IT'S ABOVE 50FT IT COUNTS TOWARDS THE CALCULATION IS THAT CHAIR CORRECT? UNLESS PLANNING MANAGER
JOHNSON WANTS TO CORRECT ME NO AND THANK YOU CHAIR AND UH TOM THE THE TABLE IN THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IT'S A LITTLE BIT WONKY I'LL SAY NO
TECHNICAL TERM BUT BASICALLY YOU GET 150FT OF CREDIT TOWARDS THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT FOR THE FIRST 50FT SQUARE FEET OF A BALCONY. AND SO IF YOU HAVE A BALCONY THAT'S 50FT, THAT'S THE
MINIMUM SIZE THRESHOLD TO GET IN THE DOOR THAT GIVES YOU A CREDIT OF 150FT OF OPEN SPACE AND THEN FOR EACH ADDITIONAL
ONE SQUARE FOOT YOU GET A 2.5FT ABOVE THAT. SO REALLY WHAT WE'RE MEASURING IS WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE BALCONY ABOVE THAT 50FT. SO IF YOU HAD A 40 SQUARE FOOT BALCONY YOU WOULD NOT GET ANY
CREDIT TOWARDS OPEN SPACE JUST TO BE CLEAR. BUT IF YOU HAVE A 50 SQUARE FOOT BALCONY YOU GET 150FT CURRENTLY. THAT'S CORRECT. YEP. I HATE IT.
I HATE THAT MR. KUSHNER MR.. JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU DON'T EVEN GET THE 40FT THAT YOU DO PROVIDE IF IT'S NOT 50 FAIR
YOU DO NOT OKAY. YES AND YES, I AGREE, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT THAT IS NOT IDEAL. I THINK THE INTENT HERE IS JUST WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE BALCONIES OF ARE OF SOME
MINIMUM SIZE THAT THEY ACTUALLY CAN PROVIDE SOME RECREATIONAL VALUE OF JUST BEING OUTSIDE ENJOYING TIME WITH NEIGHBORS AND FRIENDS AND WHATNOT. SO YEAH PRIORITIES AND THOSE INTENSE GONE WRONG MAYBE
FORGIVE ME FOR GOING A LITTLE OUT OF ORDER HERE MR. HAMMER ALSO BUT I'M GOING TO PROVIDE COMMENTARY ON THAT. IT SEEMS TO ME IF YOU HAVE A 50 SQUARE FOOT BALCONY AT MOST THAT SHOULD ACCOUNT FOR 50FT
OF OPEN SPACE. IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO SAY THAT A BALCONY IS MORE PREMIUM LIKE IT'S A 3 TO 1 PREMIUM OVER JUST WHATEVER GRASS OUTSIDE AND SO THAT
MAYBE WAS THE INTENT OF HOW THAT WAS DONE THAT WE REALLY WANT TO ENCOURAGE BALCONY DEVELOPMENT. SO WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU A 3 TO 1 BONUS BUT TO ME THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO FIT THE INTENT
OF GREEN SPACE. I DON'T I DON'T REALLY LIKE THE WAY THAT'S SET UP, YOU KNOW WHEN I SAW THIS ON THE AGENDA AND WE I, I KNEW WE
WERE IN TALK ABOUT BALCONIES I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING THE OTHER WAY ACTUALLY I'VE I'VE SAID ON THIS COMMISSION A FEW TIMES OVER THE YEARS THAT I DON'T EVEN LIKE THAT BALCONIES ARE COUNTED INTO OPEN SPACE. IT DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT TO ME
THAT OKAY, IF THE INTENT IS TO HAVE OPEN SPACE A A BALCONY I DON'T KNOW I MAYBE COULD GET THERE BUT THAT'S GOING TO LEAD ME INTO SOME OTHER QUESTIONS I HAD ABOUT BALCONIES AND I WILL
APOLOGIZE AGAIN FOR NOT WARNING YOU IS GOING TO COME IN WITH SOME FIRE AND FURY HERE. WHAT IF WHAT IF NOT EVERY UNIT
HAS A BALCONY? DO WE STILL GET TO COUNTER A CHAIR? YES. HATE IT, HATE IT AGAIN. RIGHT. LIKE IF IF ONLY A FEW UNITS LIKE IF SOME UNITS DON'T HAVE
ACCESS TO A BALCONY LIKE THAT'S NOT GREEN SPACE FOR EVERYBODY AND I THINK IT'S ANTITHETICAL TO THE LANGUAGE OF INTENT HERE THAT SAYS OPEN USABLE SPACES DEFINED AS THAT
PART OF A LOT THAT IS NOT COVERED BY YADA YADA IS CONVENIENTLY LOCATED AND I HIGHLIGHTED AND ACCESSIBLE TO ALL RESIDENTIAL UNITS ONSITE.
I MEAN IF NOT EVERY UNIT HAS A BALCONY THAT THAT TO ME DOESN'T EVEN FIT THE INTENT OF OF WHAT OUR CODE IS TRYING TO SAY. SO THAT'S ANOTHER THING I THINK WE SHOULD RECONSIDER. I'M NOT A FAN OF THAT AND I
THINK IT ALSO CREATES CONCERNS IF SOME UNITS ARE OF DIFFERENT SIZES LIKE IF I ONLY GET A TINY LITTLE BALCONY THAT'S JUST AN EXCUSE FOR A BALCONY
INSTEAD OF AN ACTUAL BALCONY. AGAIN, IF THE IT JUST DOESN'T WORK FOR ME IT SHOULD BE OPEN TO EVERYBODY IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO LET'S MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO EVERYBODY. IF THAT MEANS WE NEED TO LOWER THE OVERALL NUMBER TO MAKE
THAT WORK, THAT'S FINE. BUT I, I DON'T EVEN LIKE THE BALCONIES COUNT TOWARDS OPEN SPACE AND I FOR SURE DON'T LIKE IT IF NOT EVERYBODY HAS A BALCONY OR DOESN'T HAVE A
BALCONY AND THERE'S THIS 321 BONUS THING THAT I'M NOT REALLY CRAZY ABOUT AND ALSO THE 15 BY 15 THING JUST THE LANGUAGE IS HOW THAT'S WRITTEN I FIND CONFUSING AND SOMETHING WE SHOULD CLEAN UP WHILE WE HAVE THE CHANCE HERE.
I MEAN TO ME CLEARLY SAYS HERE AND MAINTAINS A MINIMUM DIMENSION OF 15FT IN BOTH WIDTH AND DEPTH. I MEAN LET'S JUST CHANGE THE LANGUAGE. I MEAN THAT THAT DOESN'T EVEN
DOESN'T ADD UP FOR ME. SO LET'S TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY NOW TO CLEAN THAT UP. IT WOULD BE MY OPINION CHAIR
IF I MAY, THE TABLE IN TABLE FOUR IS THAT'S A THAT'S A THAT'S THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT I PUT TOGETHER BECAUSE RIGHT NOW OUR VIEWS OF OPEN SPACE
STANDARDS ARE KIND OF SCATTERED WITHIN CHAPTER 20 120 SOMETHING YOU KNOW SIX OH YEAH WELL YEAH ACTUALLY IT TELLS YOU RIGHT IN THE HEADER
OF THAT TABLE BUT ANYWAYS YEAH SO JUST JUST WANTED TO THROW THAT OUT THERE THAT ALSO WE WOULD BE PROPOSING TO CONDENSE ALL THESE USABLE OPEN SPACE STANDARDS WITHIN A TABLE SO THAT THEY'RE EASIER TO FIND
BUT THAT THAT I MEAN THAT DOESN'T REALLY ADDRESS SUPPORTIVE OF THAT I THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO GET IT IN A TABLE MAKE IT MORE CLEAR I JUST DON'T THINK WE'RE THERE YET AND I DON'T LIKE SOME OF THE THE NUTS AND BOLTS THAT'S GOING INTO CREATING
THAT TABLE. I'LL STOP FOR A LITTLE BIT, SEE IF THERE'S OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE GET INTO THE FORMAL QUESTIONS. I'LL JUST SECOND PLEASE COMMISSIONERS I'LL JUST SECOND
EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID THAT. YEAH. I MEAN I HAVE TO AGREE THAT I AM NOT A FAN OF INDIVIDUAL PATIOS AND BALCONIES COUNTING TOWARDS THE COLLECTIVE OPEN SPACE. IT'S NOT COLLECTIVE OPEN SPACE
BY ITS VERY DEFINITION. BUT IF IF THE SOLUTION TO THAT IS TO THEN DECREASE THE OVERALL OPEN SPACE THAT WE'RE EXPECTING OF PEOPLE OKAY THEN
LET'S JUST HAVE THAT CONVERSATION RATHER THAN PUTTING IN SORT OF THIS FALSE EQUIVALENCY THAT A BALCONY OF 50FT IS THREE TIMES MORE VALUABLE THAN GRASS THAT
PEOPLE CAN GO PLAY ON. SO YES SIR CHAIR COMMISSIONERS ,IS THERE A MAYBE I'LL WAIT UNTIL THE OTHERS I'M SORRY CHIME IN BUT THERE IS A
SUPPORT FOR INVESTIGATING LOWERING THE OVERALL OPEN SPACE STANDARD EXCLUDING THOSE ELEMENTS THE BALCONY AND THE PATIO TO JUST IN ORDER TO NOT
OVERWHELM THE USABLE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS ON AN INDIVIDUAL SITE. YEAH, I THINK WE'RE STARTING TO GO THAT WAY. YOU HAVE A QUESTION THAT'S RELATED TO THAT SO I CAN FOLLOW UP AFTER THAT CERTAIN
SPECIFIC QUESTION THERE. MR. JOHNSON ARCHER AND IF I CAN JUST PROVIDE ONE LAST COMMENT ABOUT KIND OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AGAIN, I'M NOT THE AUTHOR OF IT. I'VE CERTAINLY WORKED WITH IT FOR MANY YEARS BUT I BELIEVE PART OF THE INTENT WAS TRYING
TO INCENTIVIZE THE INSTALLATION OF BALCONIES, RIGHT AND GETTING BACK TO SEPTEMBER CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN ONE OF THOSE PRINCIPLES OF ADDING BALCONIES IS NOT ONLY DOES IT ADD ACTIVITY
ALONG A STREET, YOU KNOW IMPACTS THAT WAY BUT IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE SAFER AND THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT IT SHOULD HAVE SOME KIND OF VERY COMPLEX EQUATION TOWARDS OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS. I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK
THROUGH SOME OF THE THOUGHT PROCESS IN TERMS OF WHAT THE AUTHORS WERE TRYING TO ACHIEVE. I THINK MY THANK YOU MR. JOHNSON. I THINK MY REACTION TO THAT
WOULD BE WE'RE INCENTIVIZING BY INCENTIVIZING SOMETHING ELSE OR WE'RE WE'RE INCENTIVIZING BETTER STATED INCENTIVIZING AT THE EXPENSE OF SOMETHING ELSE. AND I WOULD RATHER INCENTIVIZE
THROUGH THE OPPORTUNITY HOUSING ORDER AND SO SO IF WE INCENTIVIZE WE GET SOMETHING ELSE WE WANT INSTEAD OF INCENTIVIZING BY TAKING AWAY SOMETHING ELSE WE WANT. SO BY PROVIDING BALCONIES WE LIKE THAT BUT THEN THAT
REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF GREEN SPACE AND SO I DON'T LIKE THE TRADEOFF THERE. I WOULD RATHER HAVE YOU CAN YOU KNOW WE'LL GET YOU BALCONIES BY SOME OTHER MEANS WOULD BE MY OH THANK YOU THAT'S REALLY HELPFUL AND I APPRECIATE THE COMMENT ABOUT
HAVING JUST A MORE HONEST ACCOUNTING OR JUST BEING MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD ABOUT WHAT YOUR EXPECTATIONS ARE WHICH YOU KNOW AND TRYING TO GET A MORE URBAN DENSE ENVIRONMENT DOES HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AS
YOU GO THAT ROUTE FROM A DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE. QUESTION WAS IF I COULD JUST OFFER ONE FINAL THOUGHT ON THIS CERTAINLY AND I WAS GOING TO MENTION THIS IN TERMS OF THE SETBACKS BUT I DO
APPRECIATE THAT JIM JACOBS IS GETTING HER SHOUT OUT AFTER 60 YEARS ABOUT HAVING EYES ON THE STREET AND BUT I DO THINK THAT SINCE THIS A LOT AT LEAST SOME
OF THESE REQUIREMENTS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT STORAGE BUT SOME OF THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE JUST OLDER AND THEY WERE MEANT TO PROMOTE BALCONIES. I THINK THE MARKET HAS SHIFTED SUCH THAT BALCONIES NOW ARE
EXPECTED SO DEVELOPERS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT ACCORDINGLY AND IT SORT OF GOES TO THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT MARKET FORCES WILL SORT OF DICTATE WHAT'S NEEDED AND
MAYBE THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO ADDRESS THINGS LIKE BALCONIES VERSUS PROMOTING THEM OVER USABLE OPEN SPACE THAT'S AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER THOUGHTS INITIAL COMMENTS FOR MR. SUMMERS THOUGHTS ON ANYTHING? ANYTHING YOU WANT.
OKAY. RELATED ITEM NUMBER TWO RELATED TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, I THINK IT IS INTERESTING TO TALK ABOUT
PROXIMITY BASED OPTIONS AND I THINK THAT'S WALKING POTENTIALLY THE PLANNING STAFF PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL INTO SOME RISKY
TERRITORY POTENTIALLY THAT IF THERE'S SO MANY VARIABLES INVOLVED IN THAT PROXIMITY BASED OPTIONING IS IT ARE THEY
A FAMILY OF FOUR WALKING ACROSS AMERICAN BOULEVARD TO GET TO A GREEN SPACE ALTHOUGH AMERICAN BOULEVARD MIGHT BE MORE GREEN SOMETIME SOON THAT
I WOULD NEED MORE CONVINCING AS TO WHY THAT WOULD BE AWESOME BECAUSE IT TO ME DOESN'T FEEL AWESOME NOW
I THINK IF WE'RE LOOKING TO ADD URBAN CHARACTER BUT ALSO KEEP THE PARTS OF BLOOMINGTON THAT ARE REALLY AWESOME THE
NEIGHBORHOODS IF WE ARE ASKING PEOPLE TO LEAVE THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD KIND OF TO GO TO A PARK INSTEAD OF PLAYING IN THE AREA OR WALKING THEIR
DOGS OUTSIDE IN THEIR GREEN SPACE THAT WE MIGHT BE MISSING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMUNITY BUILDING TO ASK PEOPLE TO WALK A COUPLE OF BLOCKS TO A GREEN SPACE.
CHAIR COMMISSIONER, MAY I PLEASE. OKAY. SO, UM, IS THERE A DISTANCE THRESHOLDS THAT YOU'D BE COMFORTABLE WITH FOR PROXIMITY
? WOULD IT BE MAYBE IT'S UM, SOMETHING ON WITHIN 500FT? UM, A QUARTER MILE IS ABOUT 1300 1300 FEET.
UM, IT'S ABOUT A TEN MINUTE WALK 10 TO 15 MINUTE WALK FOR I MEAN THAT'S BEEN ESTIMATED TO BE ABOUT A TEN 15 MINUTE WALK SOMETHING WITHIN A FIVE MINUTE DISTANCE OF IF THERE'S
A AN APPROPRIATE CALCULATION FOR THAT. UM IF THERE'S ANY JUST KIND OF THROWING OUT OPTIONS JUST TO GUIDE US AS WE'RE THINKING
AS WE'RE CONSIDERING IT. AGAIN I KNOW THERE'S NO FIRM FIRM COMMITMENT BUT AS WE'RE CONSIDERING THAT OPTION FOR MEETING THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, WHAT IS WHAT IS THE THRESHOLD THAT EVERYONE
WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH OR THAT WE CAN GET A SENSE OF? MR. SUMMERS. THANK YOU, CHAIR. I AM AN ABLE BODIED PERSON WHO DOES NOT HAVE CHILDREN SO FOR
ME WALKING OR BIKING TO A PARK THAT'S A COUPLE BLOCKS AWAY I LIVE A COUPLE BLOCKS FROM A PLAY LOT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE A BIG DEAL BUT I'D BE INTERESTED
TO HEAR OTHER PEOPLE'S OPINION . TO ME IT SEEMS LIKE IF I HAD AN ACCESSIBILITY CONCERN OR
REALLY YOUNG KIDS I'D BE LIKE OH IT'D BE SO MUCH EASIER TO PLAY OUT ON OUR BALCONY THAN WALK TO THE PARK . THANK YOU CHAIR.
YEAH, I ACTUALLY HAD THE SAME EXACT THOUGHT INITIALLY AS SUERS WHERE I GUESS MY POINT OF VIEW IS THAT IT BECOMES REALLY SUBJECTIVE.
SO LET'S SAY LIKE I LIVE CLOSE TO IT OFFICIAL CITY PARK WILL THAT BE THAT OBVIOUSLY THAT BE CONSIDERED A PARK BUT WHAT IF I WANT AS A DEVELOPER TO
CONSIDER THIS FOOTBALL FIELD THAT'S OR FIELD AND TO GRASS AND IT'S NOT A PARK SO IT MAY GET COMPLEX ON THE BACK END FOR STAFF IF IT'S AT LEAST IF IT'S NOT SUPER CLEAR AND OBJECTIVE THAT'S MOLLY I I'M
KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE I DON'T I'M NOT UH YEAH SO THAT'S THAT'S MY THOUGHTS THINKING WISH RIGHT. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. I'M KIND OF ASSUMING WE'RE NOT
GOING TO GO BACK THROUGH THE QUESTION, SO I'LL JUST I THINK WE WILL BE OKAY. PLEASE. WE'RE ON A ROLL HERE. YEAH. SO I GUESS A COUPLE OF THINGS. FIRST OFF, I ABSOLUTELY AGREE
THAT THE THE OPEN SPACE OR THE SORRY THE THE BALCONIES I FORGET WHICH SECTION IT'S EVEN AND I THINK THAT'S USABLE OPEN SPACE YOU KNOW I DO THINK IT
SEEMS VERY UPSIDE DOWN I'M NOT A AS OPPOSED AS YOU ARE TO GIVING SOME CREDIT FOR INDIVIDUALIZED OUTSIDE SPACE
LIKE A BALCONY OR A PATIO TO AN EXTENT BUT DEAFENED LATELY IT'S MORE UM LIKE THE 0.25 NOT THE TWO AND A HALF. I THINK THAT WHEN YOU ARE
IN MULTIFAMILY HOUSING YOU THERE ARE THINGS THAT YOU GIVE UP COMPARED TO SOMEONE IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND ONE OF THOSE THINGS TYPICALLY IS A PRIVATE YARD BUT THAT DOESN'T
MEAN THAT YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE SOME ACCESS IF POSSIBLE TO PRIVATE OUTDOOR SOMEWHAT PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE CERTAINLY TO COMMUNITY CENTERED OUTDOOR SPACE. EVERYONE DESERVES TO HAVE THAT
ACCESS AND AND THAT ABILITY TO TO GET OUTSIDE IN AND ENJOY THAT OUTDOOR SPACE.
I THINK THAT IN TERMS OF THE PUBLIC ACCESS I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND SO I THINK YOU KNOW, PART OF ME GOES WELL YOU KNOW AS WE RUN OUT OF LAND
TO DEVELOP AND WE COULD WE USE THIS TO INCENTIVIZE DEVELOPERS INVESTING IN ACCESSIBLE PUBLIC PARKS AND GREEN SPACE AND DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION THAT
WE DON'T HAVE NOW IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT LOOKING INTO THE FUTURE AS WE GET MORE AND MORE FULL IN THE CITY
OF BLOOMINGTON? BUT ON THE OTHER HAND THEN YOU HAVE YOU HAVE UNEQUAL PARKS, YOU HAVE UNEQUAL ACCESS FOR FOLKS AND AGAIN THAT ISSUE
OF HOW DO YOU HOW FAR IS IT FROM ANY PARTICULAR LIVING SPACE? IT'S A PUBLIC BENEFIT PUBLICLY FUNDED BENEFIT AND NOW WE'RE
LETTING PRIVATE DEVELOPMENTS BENEFIT FROM THAT PUBLIC BENEFIT. SO SORRY I'M RAMBLING A BIT BUT THOSE ARE SORT OF THAT THE SINCE IT'S A STUDY SESSION I THINK WE'RE ALLOWED TO DO THAT THAT THOSE ARE SOME OF THE
THINGS THAT SWIRL AROUND AS I AS I THINK ABOUT WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF THE THE BALCONY OPEN SPACE PIECE AND THE CONNECTION TO PUBLIC RESOURCES NEARBY I'LL
SAVE STORAGE UNIT ISSUES FOR WHEN WE GET BACK TO THE QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT, CHAIR, IF I MAY AND A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTEXT IS DISCUSSION AND PLANNING MANAGER JOHNSON IF YOU WANT TO
CORRECT ME OUR MICS USE DISTRICTS DON'T HAVE A USABLE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT SO YOU CAN HAVE YOU CAN HAVE RESIDENTIAL OR IN A MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT AND THERE IS NO OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT. SO I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE THAT WE KIND OF ALREADY HAVE THAT IN A SENSE AND I'M
NOT PART OF EVALUATING THOSE. I HAVEN'T EVALUATED THOSE PROJECTS YET AND WHAT THE AND I DIDN'T AUTHOR THAT STANDARD OR LACK OF STANDARD I SHOULD
SAY SO I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE THAT THERE IS THAT THERE IS I GUESS SOME PRECEDENT FOR NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRING OPEN SPACE FOR MIXED USE OR FOR SOME MULTIFAMILY IN CERTAIN CONTEXTS.
BUT IF THERE'S MORE CONTEXT TO THAT THAT I'M MISSING THEN I TURN THAT OVER TO PLANNING MANAGER JOHNSON NO THAT'S THAT'S CORRECT. YEP. COULD EITHER OF YOU MR. RAY WILSON OR MR. JOHNSON JUST
DESCRIBE FOR THE PEOPLE AT HOME WHAT WHAT IS AN ARMED DISTRICT LIKE JUST BY FEEL? OH SURE. YEAH. SO THE M DISTRICTS ARE MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS WE DO
CONSIDER THOSE HIGH DENSITY PER THERE RELATIONSHIP TO OUR LAND USE GUIDANCE SO AND THEY I GUESS WE CAN BEEN KIND OF GOING WITH THE STANDARDS THAT YOU'RE GOING THROUGH SOME
OF THE STANDARDS THAT CHARACTERIZE THESE DISTRICTS BUT THEY'RE ALSO CITED IN AREAS WHERE WE EXPECT MORE URBAN STYLE DEVELOPMENT TOO. SO THEY ARE THEY ARE MATCHING
CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CITIES THAT WE'RE OR WE'RE TRYING TO DEVELOP CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS WITHIN THE CITY BASED ON OUR YOU KNOW, LONG TERM PLANS THAT WE'VE YOU KNOW, THAT WE HAVE IN OUR IN OUR GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS.
SO THAT SHOULD HOPEFULLY GIVE SOME CONTEXT OF WHAT THOSE ARE IN DISTRICTS ARE THAT THEY ARE MULTIFAMILY AND THEY ARE CONSIDERED TO BE HIGH DENSITY . IS IT FAIR TO QUALIFY THEM AND I GUESS THIS IS NOT ACROSS THE
BOARD BUT LIKE IN RESIDENTIAL TYPE NEIGHBORHOODS BUT PERHAPS AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF BUSY STREETS BUT NOT SO DENSE WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SOUTH LOOP. I DON'T EVEN THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PENN AND
AMERICAN. I DON'T THINK THAT'S OUR ROOM . SORRY, MR. JOHNSON. ONLY ITEM 100 IS OKAY AND THAT'S VERY DENSE. R 100 IS VERY DENSE. OKAY. BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
GENERALLY DEVELOPMENTS THAT WOULD BE SURROUNDED BY OTHER RESIDENTIAL USES BUT IN A MORE DENSE SENSE WE'RE NOT TALKING IT'S ON THE MIDDLE OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREA. IT'S MORE LIKE THE
INTERSECTIONS OF BUSY STREETS ARE COMMERCIAL LIKE NEAR COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS THAT TYPE OF THING. CHAIR THAT THAT IS CORRECT THAT THAT'S ABOUT THE SITING STANDARDS.
OKAY. OKAY. MR. COMMISSIONER. MR.. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. IF I COULD ASK JUST A FOLLOW UP QUESTION THAT I THOUGHT OF BASED ON COMMISSIONER
WHITE'S QUESTION DO WE HAVE PARK IMPACT FEES FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT? YES, SIR. OKAY CHAIR COMMISSIONER MUNSTER WE DO NOT THE ONLY
PARK DEDICATION FEE THAT WE COLLECT THAT'S AUTHORIZED UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTE IS THROUGH PLATS THROUGH THE PLANNING PROCESS IS THE ONLY WAY WE'RE COLLECTING FEES THAT ARE USED TO SUPPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARKS. OKAY.
THANK YOU. I HAD SOME OF THE SAME SWIRLING THOUGHTS AS YOU, COMMISSIONER WHITE ABOUT THE WHOLE IDEA OF PROXIMITY TO A
PARK AND LIKE OFF THE CUFF I WANT TO SAY NO THAT'S THAT'S TERRIBLE. THAT'S THAT'S CHEATING. LIKE WE'RE GOING TO START HAVING PREFERENTIAL TREATMENTS AND WHAT'S A PARK AND WHAT ISN'T AND IT'S GOING TO BECOME
A MESS FOR STAFF. BUT THEN I ALSO OTHER THINGS LIKE WELL WE ARE TRYING TO DENSIFY HERE AND IS THAT ACTUALLY A REALLY CLEVER IN THAT IF YOU'RE LET'S JUST SAY THE MOST AGGRESSIVE SCENARIO YOU'RE RIGHT ACROSS
THE STREET FROM A PARK WHY CAN'T THEY USE THAT AS THEIR THEIR GREEN SPACE IT'S YOU KNOW THEN YOU GET MORE DENSE DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS ALSO A BENEFIT AND SO I'M KIND
OF 5050 ON THAT ONE I THINK IF NOTHING ELSE I THINK IT'S A MESS FOR STAFF TO HAVE TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S A PARK, WHAT'S PROXIMITY AND THEN SOMEBODY SAID NOT ALL OUR PARKS ARE OF EQUAL QUALITY AND
SO THERE COULD BE SOME SOME INEQUITY ISSUES IF WE HAVE OLDER PARKS OR WHATEVER. AND SO I THINK THERE COULD BE SOME ISSUES WITH THAT AS WELL ALTHOUGH I DO THINK THERE'S A FORMAL QUESTION ON THAT COMING
UP SO I'LL SAVE IT. CHAIR IF I MAY PLEASE IF WE WERE GUIDE OR IF WE WERE DIRECTED TO EXPLORE THAT AS AN OPTION FOR USABLE OPEN SPACE, OPEN SPACE FLEXIBILITY WE
WOULD DO THAT IN IN COLLABORATION WITH OUR PARKS AND REC DEPARTMENT JUST TO GET THEIR FEEDBACK ON THE WHAT IS AN APPROPRIATE GREEN SPACE OR
RECREATIONAL SPACE OR LEISURE SPACE THAT WOULD COUNT TOWARD THAT. WE WOULD WANT TO GET THEIR INPUT AS WELL AND WE WOULD DO, YOU KNOW, RESEARCH ON OTHER COMMUNITIES THAT GRANT THAT
SORT OF CREDITING FOR PROXIMITY TO A TO AN OPEN SPACE LIKE THAT. SO WE WE WOULD HAVE I MEAN I CAN WE WILL DEFINITELY RESEARCH LIKE WHAT QUALIFIES
AND WHAT DOESN'T IT AND YOU KNOW YOU KNOW IN CLOSE COLLABORATION WITH ALL THESE DEVELOPMENTS WE HAVE A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS SO I THINK WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PINPOINT THAT EARLY WITHIN THE CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT QUALIFIES AND
APOLOGIES IF YOU DON'T KNOW THIS OFFHAND BUT ARE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES ALLOWING THAT? CHAIR I IF YOU DON'T KNOW I
DON'T KNOW. THIS WAS AN IDEA THAT I HONESTLY HAD AND I JUST WANTED TO EXPLORE IT AND IT'S IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT OTHER
COMMUNITIES HAVE DONE BUT I WON'T SPEAK OUT OF TURN FOR THAT. WELL IT WAS CERTAINLY PROVOCATIVE. WE WERE HAPPY TO PROVOKE ANY OTHER COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER LISA YEAH.
THANK YOU CHAIR NOW THAT WE'RE STILL ON THIS TOPIC I JUST WANTED TO THROW IN THERE THAT I DO THINK IT'S GOOD TO TRY IT AT LEAST BECAUSE IT'S NOT LIKE
IT WOULD DECREASE HOUSING STOCK AND INCENTIVIZE HAVING SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY MAKE IT MORE FLEXIBLE FOR HOUSING DEVELOPERS TO DEVELOP HOUSING TO INCREASE.
SO I DON'T SEE NEGATIVES SO I THINK IT'S WORTH EXPLORING AND IT'S SUPER CREATIVE. SO YEAH, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS, MR. MUNSTER AND I WOULD JUST ADD
AND NOT TO CERTAINLY THROW ANY WATER ON THAT BECAUSE I THINK IT WOULD BE WORTH EXPLORING BUT JUST AS A QUESTION HOW MUCH LAND ARE WE REALLY TALKING ABOUT HERE THAT THAT'S
ACTUALLY DEVELOPABLE RIGHT NOW AND DESIGNATED WITH THESE ZONING DESIGNATIONS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? BECAUSE I'M JUST I'M LOOKING
AT THE ZONING MAP AND THERE'S SOME BUT THERE'S NOT A HUGE AMOUNT. SO JUST AS AS WE'RE LOOKING AT WHERE TO SORT OF BALANCE STAFF TIME AND EXPLORING THESE
QUESTIONS IS IT IS IT WORTH SORT OF DIGGING IN OR IS IT WORTH GIVING IT A TRY AND SEEING HOW IT WORKS OUT IF I COULD RESPOND TO THAT AND I'LL ASK MR. JOHNSON FOR
VERIFICATION WHAT I HAVE TYPICALLY SEEN ON THIS IS WHEN WE SEE A DEVELOPMENT COME FORWARD THEY ASK FOR A REASON AS PART OF A DENSE DEVELOPMENT AND SO THEY'RE REZONING UP TO THIS TYPE OF THING. SO WHAT YOU SEE ON THE MAP IS NOT NECESSARILY WHERE FUTURE
ONES WILL BE. BUT MR. JOHNSON, DO YOUR THOUGHTS ON THERE? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. SO THANK YOU, CHAIR. I HEAR YOU COMMISSIONER LESTER I JUST EVEN IF THAT'S THE CASE
IT WOULDN'T HURT TO HAVE IT HAVE THAT OPTION TO DO IT VERSUS JUST SAYING I DON'T WANT TO SEE IT. THAT'S THAT'S ONE THANK YOU. THANK YOU OTHER THAT'S MR.
JOHNSON SOMETHING GOOD CAN I ADD TO THAT THAT SO I'VE HEARD YOU STUDY PROXIMITY TO PARKLAND AND GET FEEDBACK FROM THE PARK DIVISION OR PARK DEPARTMENT SO WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. I ALSO HEARD A COMMENT ABOUT
POTENTIALLY A PAYMENT IN LIEU OF OPEN SPACE. I'D HAVE TO STUDY THAT WITH OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT RUNNING AFOUL OF STATE STATUTE. BUT THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN
LOOK INTO CERTAINLY ON SOME CONSTRAINED SITES. YOU KNOW, SOMETHING LIKE THAT MIGHT MAKE SENSE AND COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE CITY'S PARK SYSTEM. MR. WHITE AND JUST THANK YOU CHAIR JUST TO BE CLEAR THAT IF
IT WAS PAYMENT IN LIEU THOSE HAD BETTER BE DEDICATED PARK IMPROVEMENT FUNDS YEAH. THANK YOU. OTHER THOUGHTS MR..
AND WE'RE ALSO WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATION DO YOU STILL WANT TO GO THROUGH YOUR QUESTIONS WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT FOR I BENEFIT YOU DON'T WANT TO MISS ANYTHING SO YEAH EXACTLY WELL HERE YOUR
GUIDANCE ON THE STREET SIDE SETBACKS WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT STORAGE UNITS AND USABLE OPEN SPACE BUT SO INTERESTING IN YOUR FEEDBACK ON WHAT'S
STAFF IS SUPPORTING IF YOU THINK WE SHOULD MAINTAIN THE 40 FOOT SETBACK OR TO 20FT WE'RE EVEN OPEN TO ACTUALLY EVEN CONSIDERING SOMETHING LESS THAN 10 OR 20FT.
SO IF JUST INTERESTED IN YOUR FEEDBACK ON THAT YEAH, I'LL START HERE. I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THIS. IF ANYTHING I WOULD BE OPEN TO EXPLORING EVEN MORE THAN 20FT ESPECIALLY FOR ROOM 50. I MEAN THAT'S STILL A PRETTY
DENSE DEVELOPMENT AND TO REQUIRE A 40 FOOT SETBACK SEEMS LIKE TOO MUCH. IT DOESN'T SEEM TO FIT THE CHARACTER OF EVEN THAT MASSING OF A STRUCTURE BEING SET SO FAR BACK. IT IT DOESN'T REALLY ADD ADD
UP TO ME. I LIKE BUILDINGS CLOSE TO THE STREET. I THINK EVEN IN LOW DENSITY AREAS I THINK THAT ADDS A PERCEIVED SAFETY CHARACTER TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I THINK I THINK HAVING THESE HUGE SETBACKS IS JUST LIVING BACK IN THE 1960S AND THAT'S WHY LYNDALE LOOKS LIKE IT DOES . IT HAS A PARKING LOT IN FRONT OF EVERY SINGLE BUILDING IS BECAUSE OF ALL THESE ENORMOUS
SETBACKS WE HAD FROM DECADES PRIOR AND I'M A HUGE SUPPORTER OF GETTING BUILDINGS BACK CLOSE TO THE STREET AND SO I'M IN FAVOR OF THE 20FT AND WOULD BE OPEN TO GOING EVEN MORE AGGRESSIVE.
TERESA THANK YOU CHAIR I DEFINITELY AGREE WITH YOUR POINTS THERE. I THINK ONE IMPORTANT THING THAT I KIND OF SOCCER NOTED IS
THAT CITIES ARE ALREADY AT OR WE'RE ALREADY AT THIS YOU KNOW, WE'RE ON THE EXTREME AND SO RELATIVE TO THAT TO OTHER CITIES WHERE ON THE EXTREME
OF COURSE IF YOU LOOK AT AS WE'VE NEVER HAD THIS BEFORE THEN IT MAY SEEM LIKE IT'S A CHANGE THAT'S EXTREME. ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU KNOW SO AND YEAH IT'LL MAKE IT EASIER
TO DEVELOP WHICH WILL HAVE INCREASED HOUSING STOCK WHICH WILL SUPPLY BASIC SUPPLY AND DEMAND MORE HOUSING MORE IT AFFORDABILITY FOR AND OPTIONS
FOR RESIDENTS. AND SO I THINK IT'S IT'S A NO BRAINER. ME PERSONALLY THAT'S WHAT I THINK AND I ALSO THINK THAT IF IF EVEN DECREASING IT WOULD BE
FURTHER IT WOULD BE COOL TOO. I LIKE THAT POINT BUT YEAH THAT'S THAT'S MY TAKE. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER MUST THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
I WOULD JUST HOLD AND JUMP ON THAT SAME BANDWAGON BUT WHILE WE'RE EXPLORING REDUCING THIS AND AGAIN MAYBE IT'S NOT RIGHT FOR ARM 24 BECAUSE MAYBE JUST THE CONTEXT OF WHERE THAT IS
BUT ROOM 50 CERTAINLY SHOULD GO LESS AS A QUESTION WHAT IS THE SETBACK REQUIRED FOR OUR AND 100 CHAIR COMMISSIONER IT'S TEN FEET SO PERHAPS THAT MAYBE THE SORT OF LINE 50 UP
WITH 100 IN TERMS OF THE SETBACKS AND OTHER THOUGHTS ON SETBACKS. COMMISSIONER WHITE THANK YOU CHAIR.
I'M GENERALLY I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. I'M YOU KNOW ONE OF THE THE TRICKS OF ZONING IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE CREATING SOMETHING
THAT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE FIT FOR EVERYTHING AND THERE'S ALWAYS YOU KNOW, THANK GOODNESS FOR VARIANCES I GUESS BUT THE VARIANCE PROCESS BUT YOU KNOW BECAUSE I DO WORRY THAT FOR SOME OF THE SMALLER
THE ARM 24 AND THE SMALLER DEVELOPMENTS AGAIN THAT KIND OF CONVERSATION ABOUT GREEN SPACE AND CHARACTER COMES INTO PLAY FOR ME. SO IF YOU'VE GOT BUILDINGS
RIGHT UP TO THE STREET WHERE WHERE IS THE GREEN SPACE? WHERE'S THE LANDSCAPING, WHERE'S THE WHERE ARE THE THINGS THAT SOFTEN IT AND ALSO PROVIDE THE BENEFIT THE
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT OF SOME OF THE MORE NATURAL SETTINGS? OKAY.
THANK YOU. MR.. AND WE'RE ALSO WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT ONE FOR YOU. YEAH. WE MIGHT HAVE TALKED ABOUT USABLE OPEN SPACE ENOUGH BUT
WE CAN STILL GO BACK OR GO TO IT STORAGE UNITS SO OF THE THREE THAT YOU SEE PRESENTED AGAIN ELIMINATING THE REQUIREMENT ALTOGETHER, LOWERING THE OR JUST
MAINTAINING ONE VOLUME STANDARD AND THEN LOWERING THE RATIO OF OF ONLY HALF THE UNITS BEING REPRESENTED WITHIN THAT STORAGE UNIT COUNT.
SO THERE WOULD ONLY BE YOU KNOW 200 UNIT BUILDING. YOU'D ONLY NEED 100 STORAGE UNITS AND THEN OPTION THREE IS SIMILAR TO THAT OPTION BUT LOWERING THAT STORAGE UNIT
VOLUME EVEN MORE TO 54 CUBIC FEET. SO UH, WHICH ONE DO YOU SUPPORT OR IT CAN BE YOU KNOW I DON'T KNOW. I GUESS YOU COULD TAKE BITS AND PIECES EITHER ONE EXCEPT
THE FIRST ONE THAT ONES IT'S GONE BUT HOWEVER YOU FEEL ABOUT THE THE NEXT TWO OPTIONS AND MIXING UP THE THE PARTS OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS I'M
WILLING TO TAKE THAT FEEDBACK BUT THEN YEAH AND THEN SO THAT'S ALSO RESPONSE TO QUESTION TWO SO HAPPY TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK. GROCERIES I HAVE A QUESTION DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR
COMMENT? PLEASE GO AHEAD THEN WAIT WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY NUMBER ONE IS GONE? OH JUST WELL I MEAN ELIMINATING THE STORAGE UNITS SO IT'S NOT A MATTER OF LIKE MIXING AND MATCHING THE VARIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS.
I MEAN JUST WE'RE GETTING RID OF THE STORAGE UNITS SO YOU CAN'T HAVE POINT FIVE A STORAGE UNIT WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE RESTITUTE OKAY. I'M SORRY I STATED THAT CONFUSINGLY SO I APOLOGIZE. I HAVE A QUESTION MR. RAY ELSE
AND SO IN ITS CURRENT FORM ARE OUR LANDLORDS ALLOWED TO CHARGE FOR THE STORAGE UNITS THEY BUILD A CHAIR I YES I
BELIEVE THEY ARE YEAH. SO I MEAN THEY ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THEM BUT THEN WHAT THEY DO WITH THEM AFTER IS UP TO THEIR DISCRETION. CHAIR COOKING THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THAT IS FOR
OPPORTUNITY HOUSING UNITS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE CHARGE FEES FOR PARKING OR FOR STORAGE. YEAH. SO TO ME IF IF THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO BE FREE TO EVERY UNIT THEN IT'S KIND OF LIKE
WHAT'S THE POINT I CAN YOU YOU'RE STILL THE THE LANDLORD THEN IS STILL RELYING ON THE MARKET TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH THEY'RE BEING USED OR NOT. IF THEY'RE ALLOWED TO CHARGE FOR THEM.
SO IF THAT'S THE CASE THEN WHY ARE WE REQUIRING THEM TO BUILD THEM? TO ME THIS IS A CASE WHERE I WOULD JUST I WOULD GO WITH NUMBER ONE AND JUST LET THE MARKET TAKE CARE OF THIS. I LIKE THE CONCEPT BUT IF
THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO BE FREE THEN I DON'T LIKE THE CONCEPT ANYMORE. >> MR. WHITE THANK YOU CHAIR YEAH, I GENERALLY AGREE WITH THAT. I MEAN I'M I'M SOMEWHAT
ALARMED AT THE FACT THAT I FEEL LIKE EVERY TIME I TURN AROUND I'M SEEING A NEW STORAGE FACILITY BUILDING CROP UP WHICH IS A BIGGER PROBABLY
SOCIETAL PROBLEM THAN THAN STORAGE UNITS AND MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. BUT I DO AGREE THAT IF IT'S NOT BEING REQUIRED AS AN AMENITY THAT COMES WITH HER AN
APARTMENT OR A CONDO, I ASSUME THAT ALL OF THESE THINGS WOULD APPLY REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S RENTED OR OWNED THAT IT DOESN'T SEEM TO FIT THE THE
APPROACH WE WANT TO TAKE TO REQUIREMENTS IN THE CITY AND A CHAIR COMMISSIONER IF I MAY SO THESE STORAGE UNIT REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN WITH US SINCE THE 60S OR 70S I CAN'T
REMEMBER BETWEEN RIGHT BUT WASN'T ABLE TO DISCOVER BETWEEN 60 AND 75 WHEN IT CAME INTO CITY CODE. BUT SO STORAGE UNITS HAVE ALREADY BEEN HAVE BEEN BUILT EVEN WITH THIS STORE OR I'M
SORRY STORAGE BUILDINGS SELF SELF-STORAGE BUILDINGS HAVE ALREADY BEEN BUILT EVEN WITH THE STORAGE UNIT REQUIREMENTS . SO I'M NOT I'M NOT TOTALLY SURE WHAT IF THERE IS SOLID
CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO BUT I DON'T KNOW I MEAN THAT IS I MEAN THAT IS SOMETHING TO STILL CONSIDER. MR. SUMMERS THANK YOU CHAIR.
I SHARED THE CONCERN THAT COMMISSIONER WHITE HAD ABOUT ARE WE CREATING A MARKET FOR STORAGE FACILITIES AND IS THAT
SOMETHING WE'RE LOOKING FOR MORE OF THOSE BUSINESSES IN BLOOMINGTON COMPARED TO OTHER I DON'T KNOW A THREE BY THREE BY SIX STORAGE SPACE
DOESN'T EVEN FEEL I'VE HAD A STORAGE SPACE THAT LARGE AND YOU COULD WE IT WAS WE BOUGHT A STORAGE SPACE AT A STORAGE
FACILITY AS A RENTER SO IT'S REALLY DOESN'T SEEM EFFECTIVE TO ME. NUMBER THREE I THINK THAT HAVING NOT FOUND ANY OTHER
MUNICIPALITIES THAT ARE REQUIRING THIS BRINGS ME TO A SPACE WHERE I'M THINKING ELIMINATING IT MAKES SENSE.
UM BECAUSE IF THEY HAD HAD LOTS OF ISSUES WITH IT THEY WOULD HAVE BROUGHT IT BACK AS A PRACTICE. I THINK. YEAH.
SO I'M IN FAVOR OF NUMBERNE. OKAY. YEAH. I ALSO AGREE WITH MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU CHAIR BY THE WAY ON
THEIR POINTS I THINK ELIMINATING IT WOULD OPEN THE MARKET AND LET THE MARKET DECIDE. THERE MAY BE A LOT OF TIMES IN THE PAST THAT THERE MIGHT
HAVE BEEN A LOT OF TIMES IN THE PAST WHERE DEVELOPERS MAY HAVE ANALYZED A POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BUT COULDN'T BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T PENCIL OUT JUST BECAUSE OF THAT FOR
EXAMPLE. SO MY MY WHAT I I GUESS OVERALL WHAT I BELIEVE IS THAT WILL MEET AND SHOULD HAVE MORE HOUSING STOCK AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS IMPORTANT.
SO I THINK THAT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO UH YEAH TO CREATE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND THEN SECONDLY I THINK IT WAS FELT COMMISSIONER BROUGHT
IT UP EARLIER A POTENTIAL CONCERN ABOUT STORAGE AND SO AND SO I WANT TO SAY THERE'S A GOOD ANECDOTAL WAY OF SEEING IF THE PROPERTIES THAT DID
HAVE THAT OR OTHER INCENTIVES ARE IF IT IS A CONCERN FOR RESIDENCES LIKE IF YOU GO ON THOSE FIVE GO ON LIKE THE GOOGLE REVIEWS AND THEN IF YOU SEE A LOT OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT
THE LACK OF STORAGE, THAT MAY BE A GOOD WAY OF LIKE ANECDOTALLY A LEASING THAT'S A PROBLEM BUT YEAH THANK YOU THANK YOU COMMISSIONER YOU SO I'LL JUST A COUPLE MORE PIECES
OF CONTEXT FOR THIS OVER MY SIX YEARS ON THE COMMISSION I THINK A VERY COMMON REQUEST WE'VE SEEN FROM NEW APARTMENT DEVELOPMENTS IS A REQUEST FOR DEVIATION ON THE STORAGE AND
IT SEEMS LIKE AN ABOVE AVERAGE AMOUNT AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR BIG DEVIATIONS AND I BUY THAT THE MARKET IS OVERSATURATED WITH THIS ONE STORAGE I, I THINK THE I THINK THEY'RE
BEING HONEST ABOUT THAT. SO THAT GIVES ME COMFORT IN REDUCING THIS DOWN OR OR ELIMINATING IT. THE OTHER THING IT WAS JUST BROUGHT UP HERE ABOUT WILL THIS HAVE A NEGATIVE SIDE
EFFECT IN POTENTIALLY CREATING A HIGHER DEMAND FOR SELF-STORAGE FACILITIES? ONE OF THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL APPLICATIONS WE'VE EVER HAD BEFORE THIS COMMISSION ON MY
SIX YEARS WAS A A REQUEST LIKE A CODE AMENDMENT TO EFFECTIVELY ELIMINATE SELF-STORAGE FACILITIES AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON.
AND ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT IT IS STILL PERMITTED. IT'S LITERALLY ON LIKE THREE SITES LEFT IN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON AND SO YOU WILL NOT SEE ANOTHER SELF-STORAGE BUILDING GOING UP IN THIS
IN THE CITY. GO BACK AND WATCH THE YOUTUBE VIDEOS FOR THOSE FIREWORKS. THAT WAS SOMETHING. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON STORAGE UNITS?
OKAY. I CAN EVEN JUST GOING TO GLANCE AT THIS ONE TOO AND UM I THINK WE GOT ENOUGH FEEDBACK TO ADD TO THIS ITEM.
SORRY. YES IT WAS A LOVELY DISCUSSION BUT I WE I THINK WE GOT ENOUGH FEEDBACK ON THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY STAFF SO YEAH, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND OH
AND THIS PLEASE MR. COMMISSIONER MR. I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION ON THIS. UM IS THERE A REASON OTHER THAN JUST USING THE 25% REDUCTION STANDARD IS THERE
ANY REASON WE WERE TREATING OPEN SPACE FOR ARM 24 AND OUR 50 AND 100 DIFFERENTLY IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER AT THE END OF THE EQUATION? OH CHAIR COMMISSIONER THE 25%
THIS IS WHAT'S INTERESTING ABOUT THE SHOW IS THAT IT DOES PROVIDE LIKE AN INTERESTING TEST CASE FOR ARE THESE STANDARDS WORKABLE? DO THEY NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF OF THESE
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE TENANTS AND UM 25% SEEMS TO BE A VERY PALATABLE UM REDUCTION TO THAT REQUIREMENT AND IT STILL LEADS
TO A PLENTY OF OPEN SPACE FOR TENANTS ON SITE. SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY 25% WAS SELECTED IS BECAUSE IT ALMOST WE JUST SEE THAT THAT REQUEST IN MULTIPLE CASES AND
IT BEING GRANTED SO IT YOU KNOW IT GIVES STAFF SOME CONFIDENCE THAT IT'S A WORKABLE NUMBER AND THAT GLANCING AT OTHER COMMUNITY AND A FEW OTHER COMMUNITIES IT WAS BETWEEN LIKE 400 OR 200FT
FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT TO HAVE USABLE OPEN SPACE OR PER DWELLING UNIT TO TO GRANT OR TO REQUIRE 200 OR 400FT OF USABLE OPEN SPACE FOR DWELLING UNIT IN CERTAIN
COMMUNITIES. SO COMMISSION WAS JUST AS JUST A FOLLOW UP SORT OF WRAP UP COMMENT ON THAT QUESTION. ALL I WOULD SAY IS IF IF WE'RE LOOKING AT REDUCING IT, IT MAY BE BETTER TO PICK A NUMBER
THAT WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH AND SIMPLY APPLY THAT NUMBER TO THE MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS. OKAY. HEARING IT LIKE THAT AS A FOLLOW UP QUESTION RELATED TO THAT COMMISSIONER WAIT UNLESS YOU ALSO DID PLEASE NOT YOU GO
AHEAD COMMISSIONER. WAIT. SO THERE WAS A SLIDE THAT HAD THE CHART WITH THE INCENTIVE
NOT OH SORRY I DIDN'T REMEMBER WHAT SIDE BUT IT HAD SOMETHING ABOUT REMOVING INCENTIVE REQUIREMENTS. UH OH.
THIS ONE. OH, I'M SORRY. YEAH. APOLOGIES, COMMISSIONER. THANK YOU. I I WANTED TO JUST ASK A QUESTION ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW,
WITH THE PROPOSED OPEN SPACE REDUCTION, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY ELIMINATING THE IN INCENTIVES AND THE 51 TO 60 1 TO 50%.
AM I AND I'M JUST CURIOUS HOW OFTEN GOES THE INCENTIVES HAVE BEEN USED IN THOSE PARTICULAR AREAS AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER TONIGHT, THAT'S FINE BUT SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. I'D BE CONCERNED ABOUT MAKING
CHANGES THAT ELIMINATE OUR ABILITY TO INCENTIVIZE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THE OPPORTUNITY HOUSING ORDINANCE. SO I'M NOT SURE I'M COMFORTABLE WITH A COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF THOSE
REDUCTIONS AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE OPPORTUNITY HOUSING ORDINANCE IF I MAY. CHAIR COMMISSIONER, SO THIS WAS PRESENTED TO PORT AUTHORITY STAFF BECAUSE
THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ADMINISTER THE OH SHOW AND THEY WERE THIS I MEAN THIS TABLE ACTUALLY CAME FROM THEM AGAIN JUST TRYING TO ILLUSTRATE HOW THAT MIGHT
CONCEPTUALLY WORK IF THE OHV WAS AMENDED. SO THIS IS SOMETHING FROM THEM AND FROM WHAT I RECALL FROM THE CONVERSATION WITH THOSE STAFF IS THAT THEY'RE ACTIVELY
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT OR FORMULATE DIFFERENT WAYS OF INCENTIVIZING AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS INSTEAD OF CREATING A STANDARD THAT
NEEDS TO BE RELIEVED BY THE OH OH SO IT'S TRYING TO RETHINK THOSE THOSE INCENTIVES INSTEAD OF YOU KNOW, ERECTING AN
ARTIFICIAL CONSTRAINT AND THEN US GIVING THEM THE ABILITY TO REDUCE THAT CONSTRAINT THROUGHOUT AS LONG AS THEY PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THERE MIGHT BE OTHER MEANS FOR PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SO THEY WERE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS CHANGE BUT NONETHESS YOUR FEEDBACK IS IS WELL TAKEN AND I CAN CERTAINLY HAVE MORE CONVERSATIONS WITH PORT
AUTHORITY STAFF. SO THANK YOU CHAIR YEAH, JUST KIND OF A TWO TIERED QUESTION BUT MY FIRST QUESTION IS THAT WELL AND ASSUMING OUR
RECOMMENDATIONS ARE IMPLEMENTED THE INCENTIVES WOULD ALSO THERE WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR OR THE
INCENTIVES WOULD THEN CHANGE. GREAT. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. CHAIR COMMISSIONER CORRECT. YES. MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION IS THAT IF THAT'S THE CASE, WILL WE BE
PART OF THAT PROCESS TO HELP COME UP WITH IDEAS THE NEW OR CAN WE I GUESS I WOULD WANT TO BE YEAH YEAH YEAH. OH COMMISSIONER YEAH SO I MEAN THIS IS CERTAINLY THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE AN IDEA BUT WE THE THE STRUCTURE OF THIS WILL BE WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER STUDY SESSION WITH CITY COUNCIL TO GET THEIR FEEDBACK AND WE'LL PRESENT
SOME SOME PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND WE CAN CERTAINLY YOU KNOW DISCUSS THOSE AT THE TIME IT WOULD BE A PUBLIC HEARING SO IT WOULD BE IN THE YOU KNOW, AT THE TIME OF PUBLIC HEARING
UNLESS I GUESS I WOULD HAVE TO DISCUSS WITH SENIOR STAFF IF ANOTHER STUDY SESSION IS WARRANTED TO GO INTO MORE DEPTH WITH SOME AND GET MORE
COLLABORATIVE FEEDBACK ON WHAT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED SO UM BUT RIGHT NOW HOW IT'S SET UP IS TO HAVE ANOTHER STUDY SESSION WITH CITY COUNCIL AND THEN MOVE ON TO PUBLIC HEARINGS LATER THIS YEAR. THANK YOU.
I THINK IT'S ONLY RIGHT FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUST BECAUSE WE DO GET APPLICATIONS THAT ARE THAT INVOLVE O H O AND SO CERTAINLY YEAH SO THERE WOULD BE A PUBLIC HEARING
IN FRONT OF PLANNING COMMISSION. YES. I'M SORRY MAYBE THAT'S I SHOULD I JUST SAID THAT RIGHT AWAY SHORT SIMPLE THERE WOULD BE A PUBLIC HEARING IN FRONT OF PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL AS FOR IN FRONT OF TY COUNCIL. SO YOUR INPUT WOULD BE WOULD
BE WOULD BE INCORPORATED CERTAINLY FOR SURE. THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO FOLLOW UP AGAIN JUST ON THE FRAMEWORK OF THE TABLE THAT WAS PRESENTED ON
THIS SLIDE HERE AND SOME OF COMMISSIONER WHITE'S COMMENTS THE WAY I THINK I WOULD FRAME IT, COMMISSIONER WHITE IS THAT AND IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE'VE SEEN THE NUMBERS BUT WHEN WE USED TO GET LIKE AN ANNUAL UPDATE ON
HOW THE SHOW IS DOING AND WE WOULD WE WERE KNOCKING IT OUT OF THE PARK WITH THE 60% AM I STUFF WE WERE JUST CRUSHING OUR GOALS AND OF ALL OF THE 60% AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUT WE
JUST COULDN'T MAKE ANY TRACTION WHATSOEVER ON THE DEEPLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT 30% AMI OR OR YOU KNOW THOSE AREAS. AND SO I THINK WHAT THE STAFF'S INTENT HERE WAS IS
PARING BACK A FEW OF THE INCENTIVES FOR THE 60% AMI AND TRYING TO PUSH DEVELOPERS TOWARDS MORE OF THAT DEEPLY AFFORDABLE UNITS WHICH I'M SUPPORTIVE OF BECAUSE WE STILL
HAVE THE BACKDROP OF THERE'S A REQUIRED AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT NEEDS TO BE CREATED AND WHETHER THAT'S SOME PERCENT OF 60% AMI OR SOME OTHER PERCENT OR 30% AM I
WHATEVER THEY'RE STILL GOING HAVE TO DO SOMETHING AND SO IN MY OPINION I'M OKAY WITH GETTING RID OF YOU KNOW, WITH THIS FRAMEWORK OF GETTING RID
OF THE 60% AND THE 50% TO PUSH PEOPLE A LITTLE FURTHER CLOSER TOWARDS THAT DEEPLY AFFORDABLE 30% THAT WE'VE HAD A HARD TIME BUILDING. >> COMMISSIONER WHITE THANK YOU CHAIR THAT'S ACTUALLY
EXTREME HELPFUL AND I, I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS AND PLAN AROUND THE ALSTON'S COMMENTS BECAUSE I AGREE I THINK THAT IF IF THE IMPACT OF ELIMINATE ADDING THESE
THESE INCENTIVES WOULD ACTUALLY PUSH FOLKS TO THE 30% I WOULD BE 1,000% IN FAVOR OF IT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE'RE NOT IDVERTENTLY LOSING ANY AFFORDABLE ALLEGEDLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING. FAIR COMMENT. TO THAT END, MR. JOHNSON I THINK WE COULD THIS COMMISSION
COULD USE ANOTHER UPDATE ON THE SHOW AND JUST HOW OUR NUMBERS ARE DOING. WE USED TO GET THAT QUITE OFTEN IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S BEEN A WHILE SO MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE I'D LIKE TO SEE STAFF COME BACK WITH ANOTHER UPDATE ON HOW OUR NUMBERS ARE DOING
AND DO THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MR. WILSON.
MORE EXCITEMENT TO COME WITH ITEM NUMBER THREE WHICH IS A NOTHER STUDY ITEM FOR THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON. IT'S OUR MINOR POLICIES UPDATES FOR MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES.
MR. DAKOTA CASSIDY IS HERE WITH THE STAFF REPORT. YES. THANK YOU, CHAIR AND COMMISSION I MEAN MAY JUMP RIGHT IN. SO FOR THOSE THAT AREN'T AWARE AND JUST FOR THE PUBLIC'S BENEFIT EVERY YEAR STAFF
REVIEW THE ZONING CODE TO CORRECT ONE TO KIND OF CORRECT ANY GRAMMATICAL ERRORS OR MAKING SURE THAT DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE CODE ALIGN WITH ONE ANOTHER. AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ORDINANCE WE CALL THOSE
CLEANUP ITEMS AND THEN WE ALSO KIND OF REVIEW TO CLARIFY ANY POLICIES THAT STAFF KIND OF DEEM AS A SMALL SCALE CHANGE AND WE'D CALL THOSE
WITH MINOR POLICY UPDATES. SO WE'RE KIND OF FOCUSING ON THOSE MINOR POLICY UPDATES TONIGHT. BUT THEN REALLY AS AN EFFICIENCY MEASURE WHAT WE DO IS KIND OF COMPILE ALL OF THESE THINGS INTO ONE ORDINANCE FOR PLANNING
COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW VERSUS YOU KNOW POTENTIALLY HAVING TO GO 15 TIMES THROUGHOUT THE YEAR FOR PRETTY MINOR CLEANUPS IN THE CODE. AND SO THESE ITEMS THAT ARE
KIND OF MORE SMALLER SCALE CHANGES ARE THINGS THAT I'M KIND OF WORKING WITH STAFF WE KIND OF DETERMINED THAT DON'T NECESSARILY WARRANT A SEPARATE PROJECT ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLANNER INVOLVE A TON OF RESEARCH AND
ARE MORE JUST KIND OF MEMORIALIZING THINGS THAT HAVE KIND OF BEEN INTERPRETED IN CODE. AND SO THIS YEAR WE'RE LOOKING AT KIND OF CLEANUP ITEMS AND SIX MINOR POLICY UPDATES JUST
KIND OF FOR AWARENESS AND THE TIMELINE KIND OF OCTOBER THROUGH MARCH WE'RE WORKING TO COLLECT IDEAS THAT COME ACROSS FROM STAFF. SOME OF THAT COMES FROM ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, LEGAL AND WITHIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND THEN WE WORK WITH OUR LEGAL STAFF TO KIND OF FINALIZE THE THE LIST TO KIND OF SEE WHAT MAKES THE CUT FOR EACH YEAR AND THEN KIND OF DISCUSS LIKE WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED KIND
OF MINOR POLICY UPDATE AND WHAT'S A CLEANUP AND THEN WE WORK TO KIND OF DO SOME RESEARCH AND DRAFT THOSE CODE CONCEPTS AND THEN HERE WE ARE TONIGHT AT THE STUDY SESSION ON THOSE MINOR POLICY
UPDATES AGAIN LIKE I MENTIONED JUST HERE SOME EXAMPLES OF SOME CLEANUP ITEMS THAT WOULD BE ON THE ORDINANCE LATER THIS FALL LIKE CORRECTING AN INCORRECT CODE REFERENCE AND OUR HOME BUSINESS CODE SECTION KIND
OF A MINOR CLARIFICATION IN OUR LIMITED USE DEFINITION AND CLARIFYING LIGHTING COMPLIANCE. SO THOSE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF THINGS THAT WOULD BE TO COME LATER. BUT THEN TONIGHT IN THE STUDY
SESSION WE REALLY JUST FOCUS ON THE PROPOSED MINOR POLICY UPDATES. SO I'LL JUST KIND OF JUMP RIGHT IN AND BECAUSE THESE ARE KIND OF SIX RANDOM THINGS THAT ARE REALLY RELATED TO EACH OTHER, I'LL JUST TAKE THEM ONE
AT A TIME AND THEN AND KIND OF GO ON FROM THERE. SO THE FIRST ITEM IS LOOKING AT REQUIRING ODOR CONTROL STANDARDS FOR CANNABIS BUSINESSES. THE CITY HAS ADDED AN ODOR
MITIGATION CONDITION ON ALL CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR CANNABIS CULTIVATION AND MANUFACTURING USES THAT HAVE COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL AND THIS IS SIMILAR TO HOW WE'VE APPROACHED ODOR MITIGATION FOR
RESTAURANTS AND OTHER THINGS. SO WHILE ODOR CAN NEVER BE FULLY REMOVED WE DO TRY TO GET ODORS MITIGATED AS BEST AS THEY CAN. I MEAN JUST BECAUSE WE PUT THAT IN IS A PRETTY CONSISTENT
CONDITION STAFF KIND OF VIEW IT AS BEST PRACTICE TO JUST KIND OF MEMORIALIZE THAT IN CODE AND THEN THIS ALSO ALLOWS YOU KNOW, JUST FURTHER SUPPORT FOR THAT STANDARD AND
THEN IF USES WERE EVER TO CHANGE TO GO FROM A CONDITIONAL USE TO A PERMITTED USE, YOU'RE STILL KIND OF COVERING THOSE THOSE STANDARDS AND CODE. I MEAN SO THIS PROPOSED
AMENDMENT WOULD REQUIRE ODOR MITIGATION FOR ANY CANNABIS BUSINESS THAT'S WITHIN 150FT OF A PROPERTY THAT'S USED AND ZONED RESIDENTIALLY AND THIS
MIMICS THE RESTAURANT CHANGE THAT WE JUST MADE WITH THE SMALL BUSINESS CODES AND PROCESSES EARLIER THIS YEAR. AND THEN REALLY KIND OF THE
DISCUSSION QUESTION HERE THE STAFF KIND OF FELT WE COULD REALLY JUST REQUIRE THIS FOR CULTIVATION AND MANUFACTURING USES AS THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT TYPICALLY PERMIT MORE ODOR AND OUR RETAIL USE
DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE A TON OF ODOR OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING BUT THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN HERE IS JUST TO KIND OF COVER ALL CANNABIS BUSINESSES JUST FOR SIMPLICITY SAKE. BUT I THINK THE QUESTION MAYBE
FOR PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL'S SHOULD THAT ODOR MITIGATION STANDARD APPLY TO ALL CANNABIS BUSINESSES OR JUST THE CULTIVATION AND MANUFACTURING USES IN THIS
CASE WE HAVE A QUESTION OF FIRST. YEAH I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M THE FOLKS AT HOME ARE CLEAR ON
THIS. WE'RE NOT CHANGING. SO IF FOR ANYONE WHO'S BEEN A PART OF WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CANNABIS APPLICATIONS RECENTLY WE'RE NOT CHANGING WHAT'S REQUIRED OF THE
APPLICANT. WE'REIND OF JUST PUTTING IN A DIFFERENT PLACE. IS THAT IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH. CHAIR COOKED IN THERE? THAT IS CORRECT. SO IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A CONDITION ON OUR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMITS AND IF WE WOULD GO THIS DIRECTION OF MEMORIALIZE IT IN CODE I THINK OUR PRACTICE WOULD STILL BE TO ALSO ADD THAT AS A CONDITION ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. SO IT'S JUST ANOTHER LAYER THING THAT WE CAN KIND
OF POINT TO FOR ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES. I UNDERSTAND. OKAY. WELL I'LL GET IT STARTED HERE THEN WITH MY POSITION IS I'M FINE WITH 150FT FOR CANNABIS BUSINESSES BUT I WOULD EXCLUDE
FORGIVE ME WHAT THE WAS IT THE SALE OF CANNABIS OR WHATEVER I'M OKAY EXCLUDING THAT BUT FOR THE CULTIVATION ETC. I'M I'M GOOD WITH 150FT.
COMMISSIONER WHITE THANK YOU CHAIR YEAH I AGREE. I THINK THAT FOR OTHER USE OF OTHER CANNABIS BUSINESSES I'M STRETCHED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT WOULD BE BUT THAT ISN'T COVERED UNDER
CULTIVATION AND MANUFACTURING IF WE'RE IF WE'RE ESSENTIALLY EXEMPTING RETAIL BUT YEAH I AGREE I DON'T THINK THAT THAT IT MAKES SENSE FOR SALE. SURE.
COMMISSIONER MUNSTER. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I AGREE ENTIRELY. I DO JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION ARE THERE ANY OTHER CONDITIONS THAT WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY PUT
ON THOSE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVALS THAT WE COULD LUMP INTO A CANNABIS BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS SECTION? YEAH, BUT FOR THE PLANNING MANAGER JOHNSON THAT'S A
LITTLE MORE ON THE DEVELOPMENT SIDE THAN I AM NOW. IT IS, YEAH. THE CHAIR. COMMISSIONER MUNSTER THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. IT RELATES TO ODOR AGAIN BUT ONE CONDITION WE HAVE BEEN INCLUDING IN THOSE COOPS IS THAT A VERIFICATION THAT THE
SYSTEM IS WORKING PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE PROBABLY COULD BUILD INTO THIS CODE STANDARD IF IT WAS DESIRED. MM HMM. SEEING SOME HAD KNOWING
OF THAT. YEAH. PERFECT. OTHER THOUGHTS ON ORDINANCE Q SEEING NONE. ALL RIGHT. WONDERFUL.
OKAY. SO THEN THE NEXT ONE THIS IS LOOKING AT ESTABLISHING A USE ALLOWANCE AND A DEFINITION FOR CAR DETAILING SO CURRENTLY
UNDER OUR DEFINITIONS A CAR DETAILING BUSINESS IS ACTUALLY CONSIDERED A CAR WASH AND THEN CAR WASHES ARE CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED IN SOME COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS AND THEN IT'S ONLY A CONDITIONAL USE AND OUR I3
ZONING DISTRICT WENT ALONG A COLLECTOR AND ARTERIAL ROAD SO IT'S PRETTY LIMITED LOCATIONS WHERE A CAR WASH IS ALLOWED IN THE CITY KIND OF WITH THAT AND THERE HAVE BEEN CASES
WHERE SOMEONE HAS COME TO US WITH A CAR DEALING OR CAR DETAILING USE WHERE IT WAS NOT PERMITTED BECAUSE OF THERE'S PRETTY LIMITED LOCATIONS WHERE A CAR WASHES IS LOCATED AND
AND STAFF FELT LIKE IT PROBABLY COULD HAVE BEEN A PRETTY REASONABLE RE-USE OF A COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL SPACE MEAN SO THIS PROPOSAL WOULD
MAKE A DISTINCTION ON CAR DETAILING AND I WOULD SAY THE KEY DISTINCTIONS THERE ARE THAT THE THE COSMETIC CLEANING RESTORATION AND FINISHING IS DONE BY HAND AND THEN IS DONE
KIND OF A YOU KNOW, AS A LOW IMPACT AUTO USE AND THEN IS MORE APPOINTMENT BASED MORE A CAR WASH, YOU KNOW, IS REALLY MEANT TO BE KIND OF HIGH VEHICLE THROUGHPUT AUTOMATIC
WASHING YOU KNOW DRYERS AND ALL THE MECHANICALS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. A CAR DETAILING IS USUALLY KIND OF DONE WITHIN WITHIN THE SPACE AND THERE YOU KNOW SHAMPOOING THE INTERIOR OF THE VEHICLE AND KIND OF HAND
WASHING IN THERE AND SOMEONE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO JUST LIKE COME TO THE CAR DEALING BUSINESS TO LIKE DETAILING BUSINESS TO WASH THEIR WASH THEIR CAR. THIS WOULD BE DONE BY APPOINTMENT TYPICALLY SO THAT
THAT WAS KIND OF THE INTENT WITH THIS THIS DISTINCTION AND SO IF IF YOU WERE COMFORTABLE KIND OF MOVING FORWARD WITH A DISTINCTION OF CAR DETAILING
OUTSIDE OF CAR WASH, THEN THE OTHER QUESTION IS WHERE SHOULD THOSE THINGS BE PERMITTED? AND SO STAFF WOULD PROPOSE THAT THEY BE A PERMITTED USE IN THE B TO I1A2 AND A THREE
ZONING DISTRICT. SO THOSE ARE THE AREAS THAT I MAY JUST TRIED TO SHADE IN BLACK TO KIND OF GIVE YOU AN IDEA WHERE THEY ARE IN THE CITY. SO IN GENERAL THEY'RE THE INDUSTRIAL AREAS JUST NORTH
OF CIVIC PLAZA HERE AND ALONG I-35 W SOME INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL AREAS ALONG OR NEAR LYNDALE AND I DID NOTE THERE THOSE ARE OUTSIDE OF THE
PRIORITY NODES OF THE LYNDALE AVENUE SUBURBAN RETROFIT PLAN WHICH THOSE ARE BEFORE. SO WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO ALLOW DETAILING AND BEFORE AND THEN JUST A KIND OF HANDFUL
OF A FEW COMMERCIAL POCKETS ALONG AMERICAN BOULEVARD AND KIND OF WEST L CHUCK AP ROAD SO REALLY KIND OF AN OPEN DISCUSSION IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE SEPARATING OUT THE CAR DETAILING USE AND THEN IF
SO DO YOU FEEL THESE ARE THE APPROPRIATE ZONING DISTRICTS OR WHAT DO YOU FEEL IS APPROPRIATE FOR IT? THAT'S MYSTERIES. THANK YOU CHAIR TECHNICALLY
SOMEONE CAN DETAIL IN THEIR OWN PRIVATE LOT. I WOULD ASSUME THAT NOT ALLOWED CHAIR KICKED IN COMMISSIONER YOU SAY I THINK IF SOMEONE WAS DETAILING THEIR VEHICLE THEIR OWN
PERSONAL VEHICLE THEY COULD IF THEY'RE DOING IT AS A BUSINESS THEN I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S ALLOWED OR IF SO THEN THERE'S PRETTY STRICT THINGS AROUND OUR HOME BUSINESS STANDARDS. BUT COMMISSIONER PLANNING MANAGER JOHNSON I DON'T THINK
IT'S A PERMITTED HOME BUSINESS. CHAIR COMMISSIONER, YOU SAY WHERE I'M SEEING THIS POTENTIAL IS IT'S ACTUALLY MORE OF A MOBILE BUSINESS. I SEE PEOPLE GOING TO PEOPLE'S
HOMES TO DO THIS SO I KNOW TECHNICALLY ZONING CODES ARE NOT MEANT TO BE PERMISSIVE. DOCUMENTS ARE MORE PROHIBITIVE THE OTHER WAY AROUND BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT HASN'T CREATED A LOT OF NUISANCE
NUISANCE CHARACTERISTICS TO MY AWARENESS. SO I THINK IT'S JUST SOMETHING THE CODE IS CURRENTLY SILENT ON. THANK YOU.
OH THAT'S GREAT. SURE MR.. THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. BUT THE COMMENT ABOUT THESE BEING ENVISIONED AS MORE OF A MOBILE BUSINESS VERSUS A FIXED LOCATION WILL COMPLICATES THIS
QUESTION. BUT I'M GUESSING THAT WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS FOR CAR WASHES FOR THE OIL WATER SEPARATION MECHANISMS. WOULD THAT BE REQUIRED FOR
SORT OF A FIXED LOCATION DETAILING PLACE AS WELL? YEAH. CHAIR KICKED IN? COMMISSIONER MUNSTER THAT'S CORRECT. AND SO EVEN IF IT WAS A PERMITTED USE, YOU KNOW IT MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY HAVE A ZONING APPLICATION THAT WOULD
COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IT WOULD STILL GO THROUGH BUILDING PERMITS LIKELY WOULD CHANGE THE OCCUPANCY OF THAT SPACE. SO THERE WOULD PROBABLY BE ADDITIONAL THINGS AROUND SPRINKLING AND OTHER THINGS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED AND
THEN LOOKING AT THAT KIND OF OIL SEPARATION AND IN KIND OF DRAINAGE OF DIFFERENT CLEANING PRODUCTS AND THINGS TO I, I HAD A HARD TIME
GETTING TOO EXCITED ABOUT THIS ONE FOR ME WAS IMPORTANT WAS PROTECTING THE LYNDALE AVENUE RETROFIT PLAN I'VE SAID A BUNCH OF TIMES I THINK THAT'S I'M MORE PROUD OF THAT THAN ALMOST ANYTHING WE'VE WORKED ON IN THIS COMMISSION IN A
LONG TIME. SO PROTECTING THAT WAS IMPORTANT TO ME. THE REST OF THIS FELT REASONABLE AND I COULD SUPPORT IT. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS?
SEEING NONE. OKAY. AND THEN THIS THIRD ONE IS TALKING ABOUT WINDOW REQUIREMENT EXCEPTIONS IN OUR MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICTS.
SO THIS WAS ACTUALLY KIND OF A RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION THROUGH THE ART INCENTIVE ORDINANCE TO JUST HAVE US TAKE A LOOK AGAIN AT THE THIS KIND OF WINDOW EXCEPTION. SO CURRENTLY IN CODE IT'S KIND
OF AN ALL OR NOTHING ALLOWANCE IF AN APPLICANT PROVIDES TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF ARTS THAT'S AN EQUIVALENT AREA OF WINDOWS
THEY CAN THEN KIND OF REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF TRANSPARENT WIOWS ON A PRIMARY OR SECONDARY FACADE AND SO STAFF DID LOOK AT THIS AND OUR PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO REQUIRE
THAT A PRIMARY FACADE HAS TO HAVE AT LEAST 25% TRANSPARENT WINDOWS THAT CANNOT BE EXEMPTED OR SUBSTITUTED WITH ART ENHANCEMENTS AND THEN THE SECONDARY FACADE WOULD KIND
OF REMAIN AS IT IS NOW AND COULD BE AN ALL OR NOTHING REDUCTION. SO CURRENTLY A PRIMARY FACADE IS REQUIRED TO HAVE AT LEAST 50% TRANSPARENT WINDOWS IN A
SECONDARY FACADE IT HAS TO HAVE 25%. SO ESSENTIALLY WITH THIS IF SOMEONE PROVIDED AN ART TO DIFFERENT KINDS OF ART THE PRIMARY FACADE WOULD STILL
HAVE TO HAVE 25%. BUT THEN IN THEORY THE SECONDARY FACADE COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE NO TRANSPARENT WINDOWS AS LONG AS YOU KNOW IT'S AN EQUIVALENT REPLACEMENT THERE.
SO NO LIKE SPECIFIC DISCUSSION QUESTION HERE MORE JUST DOES THAT SOUND GOOD? DO YOU WANT TO LEAVE IT AS IS YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT? ANY THOUGHTS IF YOU COULD CLARIFY?
MR. CASSIDY WHAT IS IT TODAY? YEP. SO IT'S AN ALL OR NOTHING APPROACH. SO AS LONG AS SOMEONE'S PROVIDING AT LEAST TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF ART
INSTALLMENTS THAT ARE OF AN EQUIVALENT AREA THEY CAN GET AN EXEMPTION FROM THOUGH THE WINDOW. SO IT'S KIND OF AN ALL OR NOTHING APPROACH. AND CAN YOU REMIND US JUST
IN GENERAL WHAT ZONES ARE LIKE WHAT WHERE IS WHERE IS THIS TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENT? YEAH. CHAIR CAPTAIN THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION. SO WE ARE CURRENTLY THIS IS
IN THREE ZONING DISTRICTS SO B FOR C FIVE AND THEN R ALEX THAT LIKE LINDAUER OR MIXED USE DISTRICTS AND PAN-AMERICAN.
SO FOR YEAH THAT'S OVER SO YEAH OKAY SOME NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL NODES ARE ZONED BEFORE AS WELL I'M NOT SURE I
CAN SUPPORT THIS ONE GOING DOWN TO I DON'T KNOW I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN DO 25%. I THINK I NEED MORE THAN THAT. THE POINT OF HAVING
TRANSPARENCY ON THE GROUND FLOOR OF THESE HAVE YOU KNOW HIGH DENSITY MIXED USE TYPE ZONES, NEIGHBORHOODS, WHATEVER PAN-AMERICAN SOUTH LOOP IS TO ACTIVATE THE STREET AND I LIKE
ART AS MUCH AS ANYBODY I DO AND I'M SUPPORTIVE OF HAVING SOME ALLOWANCE FOR ART TO COVER UP STORAGE SPACES OR KITCHENS OR JUST RESTROOMS WHATEVER. YOU DON'T WANT PEOPLEOOKING
INTO. BUT I DON'T I DON'T KNOW IF I LIKE GOING ALL THE WAY DOWN TO 25% EVEN 50 I'M NOT SURE I CAN GET TO I LIKE A LOT
OF TRANSPARENCY ON THE GROUND FLOOR OF THESE OF THESE BUILDINGS. THAT'S WHAT ACTIVATES THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S FUNNY I I'M IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO ONE OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS AND JUST I THINK IT WAS YESTERDAY OR THE DAY
BEFORE THERE WAS LIKE A GROUP OF PEOPLE DOING SOME WEIRD LIKE DANCE STUDIO THING IN THEIR APARTMENT BUILDING. IT WAS GREAT. IT WAS JUST LIKE TOTALLY ACTIVATING IT AND LIKE I COULD SEE IT AND IT WAS LIKE OH THIS IS FUN AND QUIRKY AND LIKE IT
JUST LIKE BRINGS US SORT OF ACTIVITY TO THESE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WE WANT. AND AGAIN, AS MUCH AS I LIKE ART, I DON'T THINK IT PROVIDES THE SAME LEVEL OF ACTIVATION
AND SO AGAIN I CAN GET THERE WITH MAYBE 75% YOU KNOW, A 25% REDUCTION BUT THIS IS PROPOSING A 75% ALLOWED REDUCTION AND I CAN'T GET THERE WITH THAT POINT.
A CHAIR A POINT OF CLARIFICATION THE EXISTING REQUIREMENT IS 50% TRANSPARENCY TODAY. SO WHAT YOU'RE CONTEMPLATING IS INCREASING THE REQUIREMENT. I JUST WANT TO BE I'M NOT I'M NOT NOW SAYING THAT'S BAD.
I'M SAYING I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT APPRECIATE THE CONTEXT. YEAH. YEAH I FEEL THE SAME I DO WANT TO POINT MAYBE DAKOTA
MENTIONED THIS FORGIVE ME IF HE DID BUT THIS WAS THIS ITEM ACTUALLY IT WAS INTENTIONALLY ADDED DOWNSTREAM FROM A PLANNING COMMISSION CONVERSATION THAT OCCURRED JUST I THINK IT WAS MY PLANNING COMMISSION CONVERSATION. SO YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN
TELLING US TO INCREASE THE INCREASE THE REQUIRE COMMISSION. MR.. THANK YOU. IF I MAY JUST ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION. I'M JUST I'M HAVING A HARD
TIME DECIPHERING THIS THIS SENTENCE A MINIMUM OF 25% TRANSPARENT WINDOWS SO OF ALL WINDOWS 25% OF THE TOTAL AREA OF GLASS MUST REMAIN TRANSPARENT.
YEAH. CHAIR HOW IS THIS HOW IS THIS CALCULATED AND APPLIED? NO, I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER THE IT'S BETWEEN IT'S ONLY TWO FEET AND TEN FEET AND SO IT'S
ONLY THE FIRST FLOOR AND AGAIN IT'S INTENDED TO DO THAT ACTIVATION AND SO IN SOME OF THESE DISTRICTS A DESIGNATION OF STREET IS COMPLETED AT THE SITE PLAN
REVIEW. SO WE HAVE PRIMARY STREETS, WE HAVE SECONDARY STREETS BASICALLY WE DICTATE TO THE DEVELOPMENT WHICH ONE WE WANT THE PRIMARY STREET TO BE. IN THE CASE OF PANAMERICAN DISTRICT IT'S 80TH AND A HALF STREET SERVES AS A PRIMARY
STREET SO THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE THEIR FRONT ELEVATION BETWEEN 2 AND 10FT IN HEIGHT TO BE 50% GLASS PLEASE. SO IF I CAN FOLLOW UP ON THAT.
YEAH. SO IF WE THEN TAKE THAT EIGHT FEET OF GLASS THE TOP THE FIRST THE BOTTOM SIX FEET OF IT COULD THEN BE OPAQUE WITH JUST THE VERY TOP TWO FEET BEING TRANSPARENT.
UH NO IT ALL HAS TO BE TRANSPARENT. UM, THE OTHER MAYBE I MISREAD YOUR QUESTION YOUR STATEMENT THERE BUT WITH THIS 25% 25%
OF WHAT 25% OF THE FIRST FLOOR. SO BETWEEN 2 AND 10FT OF THE BUILDING RIGHT NOW 50% OF THE PRIMARY FACADE. SO ALONG THE PRIMARY ROAD THAT
HAS TO BE TRANSPARENT GLASS THIS EXCEPTION IS BUILT IN HERE IN CASE IT'S MORE LIKE LOADING AREA BACK OF HOUSE THINGS THAT YOU TYPICALLY DON'T NEED GLASS ARE KIND
OF DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF HAVING THE TRANSPARENT GLASS. SO AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THAT IT ALLOWS SOMEONE TO PUT SOME ART LIKE ON THE WALL OR SOMETHING ON THE BUILDING TO
KIND OF MAKE UP FOR LOSING TRANSPARENT WINDOWS. BUT THIS ONLY FOCUSES ON THE FIRST FLOOR SO THE ANYTHING ABOVE THAT ISN'T A FACTOR HERE .
IT'S REALLY ABOUT THAT GROUND FLOOR ACTIVATION I THINK I GOT IT. SO OF THE FRONT FACADE BETWEEN 2FT AND 10FT.
YEP 25% OF THAT AREA HAS TO BE TRANSPARENT. YEP. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING WITH THIS CURRENTLY IT'S 50% WHAT THIS WOULD PROPOSE IS 25%
IF THEY PROVIDE THE ART TO KIND OF MAKE UP FOR THAT DIFFERENCE. YES, CORRECT. BUT THEY HAVE TO THEY HAVE TO CONFIRM OR THEY HAVE TO PROVE THAT IT'S NEEDED FOR CERTAIN REASONS. BACK OF HOUSE. YEAH.
ONE EXAMPLE THAT CAME UP WAS THAT WE HAD A PET CLINIC THAT THEY HAD A ROOM WHERE THEY EUTHANIZED ANIMALS AND SO FAMILIES WANTED MORE PRIVACY THERE AND THEY WERE ABLE TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT. I MEAN THAT'S KIND OF EXTREME
AND UNIQUE EXAMPLE I DON'T MEAN TO PEOPLE OUT BY SHARING THAT BUT I'M JUST SAYING LIKE THAT WAS A VERIFIABLE REASON WHY AN EXCEPTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED RIGHT? AND SO YEAH, I'VE NOT HEARD
THAT BEFORE SO THEY HAVE TO VERIFY THEY THERE'S A NEED FOR NON TRANSPARENCY. MM HMM. CORRECT. IF IT'S JUST SHOWING FOR SECURITY REASONS OR IT'S A COOLER SPACE THAT WAS NEEDED
AT FRESH TIME FOR SURE BECAUSE A COOLER SPACE. YEAH I GOT EXCITED FOR A SECOND BUT THEN I STILL THINK THAT LIKE YOU'RE NOT ENCOURAGING THE BUILDING OWNER TO PUT ACTIVATED USES AROUND
THE PERIMETER OF A WHICH IS WHAT I REALLY WANT AND SO YOU KNOW I YEAH I STILL FEEL THE
SAME WAY 25% NO NO FOR ME MR. SUMMERS THANK YOU CHAIR I THINK 25% INCLUDING THE
WINDOWS ON THE ENTRANCE FEELS LIKE TOO LITTLE TO ME AS WELL . I'M WONDERING DOES HAS THIS
CLAUSE IN THE PAST RESULTED IN A DECENT AMOUNT OF LOCAL ART BEING ON OUR BUILDINGS IN BLOOMINGTON?
ANOTHER EXAMPLE I CAN SHARE CHAIR COMMISSIONER SUMMERS IS HAZELWOOD RESTAURANT ALONG 24TH AVENUE THAT WAS A PRIMARY STREET AND THAT EXAMPLE AND SO
THAT'S THE BACK OF THE RESTAURANT AND SO AGAIN CLASSIC BACK OF HOUSE SITUATION THEY PUT UP ART THERE'S MULTIPLE FORMS OF ART ON THE BACK OF THAT BUILDING. SO YES, THERE HAS BEEN ART INSTALLED AS A RESULT OF THESE
STANDARDS. FIRST TIME WAS ANOTHER ONE. YOU KNOW BEAUTY'S IN THE E OF THE BEHOLDER AND WHETHER THEY THINK THAT ART IS WORTH THE TRADE. BUT I THINK WHAT THIS IS
REALLY GETTING AT IS LESS ABOUT MAKING SURE ABOUT THE CERTAIN TYPES OF ART AND THE QUALITY OF ART. I THINK WHAT IT'S A RECOGNITION OF IS THAT EACH SITE IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT AND THAT YOU NEED TO BUILD
IN SOME FLEXIBILITY AND WHEN YOU DEVELOP THESE SITES IN URBAN DISTRICTS BECAUSE THE FLOOR PLANS OF THESE DIFFERENT USES MIGHT NOT ALWAYS FIT NEATLY IN WHERE THE ACTIVATION WANTS TO BE IN THE CASE
OF HAZELWOOD IT'S YOU KNOW, FACING INTO A HOTEL DEVELOPMENT WITH THE PARKING. IT JUST SO HAPPENED THAT THE FLOOR PLAN OF THAT USE THE BACK OF HOUSE FACED 24TH AVENUE SO FOR BETTER OR FOR
WORSE. MR. SUMMERS THANK YOU CHAIR SO A CLARIFYING QUESTION WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS MAKING IT SO THAT A BUSINESS WOULD NOT NEED TO COME TO PLANNING
COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL TO SAY WE NEED THIS NOT TO BE A WINDOW NO CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER SUMMERS KNOW WHAT THIS IS DOING RIGHT NOW. IT'S AN ALL OR NOTHING THEY
HAVE TO HAVE 50% AND IF THEY DEEM THAT THEY CAN'T MEET THAT WHETHER IT'S ALL 50% OR SOMETHING LESS THEY HAVE TO REPLACE IT WITH ART. SO IT'S KIND OF AN ALL OR
NOTHING APPROACH RIGHT NOW. WHAT THIS PROPOSAL WOULD DO IS SAY NO MATTER WHAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST 25% THAT CANNOT BE EXEMPTED ON THE PRIMARY FACADE. SO IT'S NOT CHANGING WHO GETS
TO APPROVE THAT. IT'S JUST SAYING THAT WE'RE GOING TO SAY LIKE YOU HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST 25% NOW AND YOU CAN'T EXEMPT THAT AT ALL IF
THAT'S HELPFUL IMAGERY. SO YEAH. QUESTION DO IF SOMEONE WERE TO BE REQUIRED TO DO THE ART PORTION OF IT, DOES THE CITY LIKE DICTATE HOW THE ART LOOKS
LIKE AND SOMEONE BRING THEIR KIDS AND HAVE THEM PAY ALL OVER? NO, NO. THE CHAIR COMMISSIONER, YOU SAID WE DO REVIEW THE ART AND IT DOES HAVE TO MEET OUR KIND OF MINIMUM EXPECTATIONS.
I MEAN TYPICALLY THE WAY THAT THIS HAS BEEN EVALUATED IN THE PAST IS THROUGH FINAL STATE BUILDING PLANS FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS. THEY HAVE TO PRESENT WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO INSTALL AS PART OF THAT AND IT HAS TO MEET A MINIMUM STANDARD
EXPECTATION . COMMISSIONER WAIT I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS CLARIFIES THE EXEMPTIONS TO WINDOW
REQUIREMENTS FOR ME. I APPRECIATE THE EXPLANATIONS AND I. I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. I'M NOT SURE THIS DOES IT AND
I'M NOT SURE THAT WE WANT TO BECAUSE TO ME IT SETS A 25% MINIMUM, NOT A 50% MINIMUM AND IF THAT'S NOT WHAT ASSUMING I
MEAN BUT WHAT I THINK I'M HEARING IS THAT IT CREATES A 25% MINIMUM THAT YOU CAN'T GET AROUND NO MATTER WHAT. BUT THAT'S STILL A POTENTIALLY
A LOSS OF 25% AND SO I'M NOT REALLY COMFORTABLE YOU KNOW, I'M I GUESS I'M MORE COMFORTABLE WITH A CASE BY CASE BASIS THAN LOWERING THE STANDARD OVERALL BECAUSE I
THINK THAT THAT JUST PUTS A SLIPPERY OF NOT PROVIDING NECESSARILY ART OR TRANSPARENCY. >> COMMISSIONER.
MR. AND JUST IF I MAY ADD TO THAT, I THINK BY ALLOWING A REDUCTION TO THAT LEVEL IT DOES NOT INCENTIVIZE THE LANDLORDS THE ARCHITECTS, THE
INTERIOR DESIGNERS TO MAXIMIZE THE USE OF THE TRANSPARENCY. THEY'RE JUST GOING TO GIVE YOU A FLOOR PLAN THAT'S CHEAP AND EASY AND IF WE HAVE TO COVER SOME THINGS THAT SHOULD
HAVE BEEN GLASS BUT WELL THE CITY WILL LET US DO IT BECAUSE OUR FLOOR PLAN INDICATES THAT IT NEEDS TO BE DONE. SO I THINK KEEPING THAT NUMBER HIGHER DRIVES MORE CREATIVITY AND GETS US THE RESULT THAT
WE'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR. YEAH, I GUESS JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION CHAIR AND COMMISSION. SO I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS YOU WANT A FLOOR AND YOU THINK 25 IS TOO LOW. SO I WOULD JUST SAY RIGHT NOW
OR ARGUE THAT IN OUR CURRENT STANDARDS THERE'S NOT A FLOOR. SO THIS IS ESTABLISHED A FLOOR OF 25% THAT HAS TO BE THERE THAT CAN'T BE EXEMPTED. BUT I'M HEARING THAT'S TOO LOW
. SO I THINK I THINK WELL WE'LL WORK ON MAKING THAT 50% OR JUST RULE THIS ALL TOGETHER. SO YEAH, IT'S A QUESTION SO I
WOULD ASSUME THAT THIS WAS BROUGHT FORTH BECAUSE IT'S SOMETHING THAT CITY STAFF HAS NOTICED OR JUST IT WAS THIS WAS BROUGHT FORWARD BY A
PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF HAVEN'T RUN INTO ANY ISSUES WITH THIS. OKAY OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. YEAH. CHAIR IF I MAY, I MEAN I DON'T REMEMBER THE SPECIFICS OF THE THE CONTEXT OF THE
CONVERSATION BUT THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT TRANSPARENCY IN OUR MIX USE DISTRICT STANDARDS AND WE RAISED THE FACT THAT THERE IS AN ALLOWANCE OR A PATHWAY TO
REDUCE YOUR TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR BACK OF HOUSE AREAS VIA THE INSTALLATION OF THIS ART AND THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW THAT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED OR SHOULD BE SOME MINIMUM AMOUNT
OF GLAZING SHOULD BE PROVIDED ALONG PRIMARY. SO THAT'S WHY WE ADDED THIS ITEM TO MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES. WE'RE NOT MARRIED TO IT WHILE AS DAKOTA SAID, I THINK WHAT WE'RE GATHERING FROM YOU IS
THAT YOU DON'T LIKE THE FACT THAT AN EXCEPTION EXISTS TO BEGIN WITH AND THAT'S OKAY. THAT'S THAT'S A FAIR POLICY GUIDANCE IN THIS RESCT WE CAN PRESENT THAT TO THE CITY
COUNCIL IF YOU LIKE BUT WE WERE JUST TRYING TO REACT TO THE DISCUSSION WHICH WE FELT WE WERE GATHERING FROM YOU ALL WHILE WE'RE ON THE TOPIC.
CAN I BRING UP SOMETHING THAT'S TANGENTIAL TO THIS BUT NOT EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE ASKING . IT'S YOUR MEETING, OKAY? IT IS MY MEETING. WE HAD AN APPLICATION THAT
CAME BEFORE US IN A VERY DENSE NEIGHBORHOOD OF BLOOMINGTON AND THERE THE GROUND FLOOR THAT FACED THE PRIMARY STREET WAS PARKING. IT WAS STRUCTURED PARKING AND
THEY PUT THE GLAZING ON IT JUST LIKE THE REQUIREMENTS MADE THEM DO. BUT THE GLAZING LOOKED INTO THE PARKING RAMP AND THAT WAS A HUGE PROBLEM FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT LEAST THIS PLANNING COMMISSIONER.
BUT IF I RECALL WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY WAY WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY TO SAY NO TO THAT THEY MET THE LETTER OF THE LAW BUT THE INTENT OF PUTTING TRANSPARENCY ON THE GROUND FLOOR IS TO ACTIVATE THE STREET AND LOOKING AT A
PARKING LOT WHETHER IT'S STRUCTURED OR NOT DOESN'T ACTIVATE THE STREET. AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE THOUGHTS ON THAT BUT I WOULD LIKE STAFF TO
LOOK AT THAT ASPECT OF THIS AND THAT WOULD WE CONSIDER NOT ALLOWING PARKING TO BE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT GLASS OR
MR. JONES OR ANYTHING PERMITTED TO KIND OF REACT ON THE FLY AGAIN, WE HAVEN'T THOUGHT ABOUT THIS MORE THOROUGHLY BUT HAVING STRUCTURED PARKING IS A CHARACTER AS PART OF URBAN CHARACTER. SO TO ME THE WAY I WOULD REACT
TO KIND OF WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING HERE IS THAT MAYBE THE TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENT DOESN'T APPLY TO STRUCTURED PARKING WOULD BE MY REACTION TO THAT. YEAH IT DOESN'T COUNT TOWARDS
YOUR TOTAL LIKE I GET THAT COMMISSIONER WE MATH ASIDE AS A WOMAN WHO PARKS IN PARKING GARAGES FROM TIME TO TIME I APPRECIATE OPEN VISIBILITY AND
SIGHTLINES AND THE MORE PEOPLE ARE WATCHING ME WALK THROUGH THE PARKING LOT THE SAFER I FEEL. SO I DON'T THINK THAT ALTHOUGH MAY NOT BE ATTRACTIVE, THERE
MAY BE OTHER REASONS FOR WANTING VISIBILITY IF YOU'LL IF YOU'LL ALLOW ME CHAIRS PERHAPS WE CAN RAISE THIS QUESTION WITH THE CITY COUNCIL
WE CAN GATHER THEIR FEEDBACK. YOU'RE STILL GOING TO GET AN OPPORTUNITY THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS TO WEIGH IN ON THIS, RECOMMEND AGAINST IT, CHANGE IT, GET RID OF IT ALTOGETHER.
I'M KIND OF SENSING THAT WE'RE A LITTLE BIT OF A STUCK POINT HERE IF YOU'LL PERMIT US, MAYBE WE'LL JUST TRY AND GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS ONE AND BRING IT BACK AND IF THE CITY COUNCIL LIKES THE CURRENT
STANDARD OR WANTS TO MAKE IT MORE RESTRICTIVE AS KIND OF YOUR DISCUSSION, WE CAN CERTAINLY SHARE THAT FEEDBACK WITH THEM. MAYBE THAT'LL POINT US IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION HERE SEEING SOME NODDING HEADS THERE.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT ONE IS JUST CLARIFYING THE APPLICABLE ITY OF OUR TREE PRESERVATION STANDARDS AND SINGLE FAMILY
ZONING DISTRICTS. SO CURRENTLY THIS REQUIREMENT COMES INTO PLAY WITH ANY PLATS RELATED TO SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS IN OUR R
ONE ARE WHEN A AND RC ONE ZONING DISTRICTS AND REALLY WHAT THIS PROPOSAL WOULD DO IS JUST TO FURTHER CLARIFY FOR MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING TYPES NOW THAT COTTAGE COURTS
DETACHED TOWNHOUSES AND TRIPLEXES OR THREE FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE EITHER PERMITTED OR CONDITIONAL AN R ONE JUST FURTHER CLARIFYING YOU KNOW BASED ON PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL FEEDBACK ON
THAT ORDINANCE TO TREAT THEM LIKE WE TREAT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND DUPLEXES IN OUR ONE THAT I'M JUST FURTHER CLARIFYING THAT IF THERE IS A PLAT ASSOCIATED WITH A THREE
FAMILY DWELLING A DETACHED TOWNHOUSE OR A COTTAGE COURT DWELLING IN R1R1ARS1 THAT THEY DO HAVE TO COMPLY WITH OUR
TREE PRESERVATION STANDARDS. BUT COMMISSIONER, WE YES, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. SO YOU HAD NOT FROM COMMISSIONER SALARIES AS WELL
AND COMMISSIONER YOU SAID OKAY PERFECT THEN THE NEXT ONE WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT WAS KIND OF REVIEWED AND KIND OF UNFORTUNATELY MISSED FROM
STAFF DURING THE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE ORDINANCE. SO WE'RE NOT OPENING THE CAN OF WORMS TO TALK ABOUT THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES AND THINGS BUT WITH THAT CHANGE IT WAS
STATED THAT TRAILERS COULD THEN ONLY BE PARKED ON A LEGAL DRIVEWAY OR OFF DRIVE PARKING AREA WHICH HISTORICALLY BEFORE THEY WERE ALLOWED TO BE PARKED IN A ON GRASS OR IN LIKE A CIDER PERIOD ON A HOME.
THE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE ORDINANCE GOT RID OF THAT AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH STAFF ARE REQUESTING THAT BE CORRECTED BACK TO THE ORIGINAL STANDARD JUST BECAUSE IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT OR REALLY LIMITS
WHERE SOMEONE CAN PARK A TRAILER AND JUST LEADS TO KIND OF MORE ENFORCEMENT ON THEIR END AND THEY DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE THE CAPACITY FOR AND SO THIS WOULD JUST GO BACK TO THE
ORIGINAL STANDARD KIND OF MATCH. OUR APPROACH TO RV'S WERE A TRAILER CAN BE PARKED IN A SIDE OR REAR YARD AS LONG AS IT MEETS KIND OF SETBACKS FROM FROM THE STREET OR FROM A
PROPERTY LINE. SO THIS IS JUST TAKEN FROM OUR RV HANDOUT JUST TO KIND OF SHOW THAT THIS IS WHERE THE TRAILER COULD BE ALLOWED ON EITHER LIKE A CORNER OR
INTERIOR LOT AS AN EXAMPLE AND THEN THEY CAN'T BE FURTHER THAN EIGHT FEET IN FRONT OF THE DWELLING.
BUT I DON'T I DON'T LIVE IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND SO PERHAPS I'M NOT THE MOST QUALIFIED TO SPEAK ON THIS. I DID GROW UP IN ONE SO I DON'T KNOW I TRY TO THINK ABOUT WHAT MY PARENTS WOULD
THINK ABOUT THIS BUT I GOT TO TELL YOU I THINK MY PARENTS WOULD BE SO ANNOYED IF LIKE THERE WAS AN RV PARK FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE IN THEIR NEIGHBORS BACKYARD.
SO I DON'T EVEN LIKE WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THE RVS WHICH I KNOW IS NOT WHAT STAFF WANTS ME TO SAY HERE. I DON'T I DON'T LIKE WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THE RVS MUCH LESS THE TRAILER. BUT I DON'T KNOW ALL THAT
OTHER COMMISSIONERS SPEAK TO IT. COMMISSIONER WHITE I THINK THAT THIS IS ALWAYS A TRICKY
THING BECAUSE THERE'S GOOD NEIGHBORS AND THEN THERE'S THIS IS MY LAND AND I SHOULD BE ABLE TO PUT MY STUFF ON IT WHERE I WANT. SO I THINK THAT'S THAT'S
ALWAYS TRICKY AND I SAY THAT AS SOMEBODY WHO HAS STRUGGLED WITH YOU KNOW, WHERE TO PARK THINGS ON MY OWN PROPERTY. AND SO YOU KNOW I THINK IT'S
IT'S REASONABLE TO GO BACK TO WHAT WAS WORKING BEFORE AND DIDN'T CREATE ANY AT LEAST FROM WHAT WE'RE BEING TOLD IT WASN'T CREATING ANY PARTICULAR
NUISANCES OR ANY PARTICULAR BURDEN ON ON STAFF OR NEIGHBORS BEFORE. I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO CLARIFY IT. I THINK GIVING FOLKS THAT FLEXIBILITY AS LONG AS IT'S
NOT ABUSED AND AS LONG AS IT'S NOT INTERFERING WITH THE THE OVERALL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I THINK
IT MAKES SENSE TO ME . MR. SUMMERS THANK YOU, CHAIR. I, I FEEL LIKE IT MAKES SENSE
TO LINE THEM UP WITH VIEWS. I THINK THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH TRAILERS ARE OPERATING FAMILY OWNED BUSINESSES AND IF
WE ALREADY HAVE CODING FOR THE RVS AND THE TRAILERS ARE AROUND THE SAME SIZE AND SHAPE THAT THIS MAKES SENSE. YEAH I TOTALLY AGREE ON THE
SENSIBILITY OF IT. I JUST DON'T LIKE IT BUT I SEE WHERE STAFF SCHOOL WITH THIS IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. RIGHT? OKAY. AND THEN JUST THE LAST ONE THAT I HAVE HERE AGAIN CITY
COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION HAVE MORE DISCRETION IN A REZONING APPLICATION COMPARED TO OTHER LAND USE APPLICATIONS AND SO WE'VE JUST HISTORICALLY HAD PRETTY LIMITED CONTENT
REQUIREMENTS IN OUR CODE. AND SO WITH THE PASSAGE OF MISSING MIDDLE THERE'S A POTENTIAL FOR MORE REZONING APPLICATIONS AND SO STAFF JUST
WANTED TO KIND OF FURTHER CLARIFY THE APPLICATION MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS JUST TO ENSURE KIND OF CLEAR EXPECTATIONS FOR STAFF APPLICANTS, PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL.
SO THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD JUST MAKE CLEAR THAT YOU KNOW, WE REQUIRE AN APPLICATION FORM THE FEE AND KIND OF A WRITTEN NARRATIVE AND THEN IF THE REZONING IS ASSOCIATED WITH A SITE OR
BUILDING PLAN APPLICATION THAT THEY HAVE TO MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS THERE. SO YOU KNOW A SITE PLAN, A FLOOR PLAN IT ALL GRADING AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS. SO THIS IS SOMETHING WE
ALREADY DO AND COMMUNICATE TO FOLKS IT'S JUST MAKING IT MORE CLEAR CAN POINT TO SOMETHING IN CODE VERSUS IT JUST KIND OF BEING KIND OF HEARSAY FROM STAFF TO WISH AWAY.
THANK YOU, CHAIR. I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. HOW OFTEN DO THESE TYPES OF REQUIREMENTS CHANGE? I SUPPORT I SUPPORT PUTTING
THEM IN AND IN CONCEPT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CHANGES FREQUENTLY WE THINK ABOUT THE WORDING AND AND DON'T PUT A BURDEN ON THE STAFF TO HAVE TO
KEEP AN EYE OPENING THE ORDINANCE UP TO UPDATE IT IS ADMINISTRATIVE COMPONENTS OF FINAL STATE BUILDING PLANS CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS THEY CHANGED A LITTLE BIT WITH
STREAMLINING DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WE WERE CHANGING WHAT BODIES HAD THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE WHICH APPLICATIONS. BUT IN TERMS OF THE APPLICATION CONTENT THEY DON'T CHANGE VERY MUCH. I WOULDN'T ANTICIPATE THIS NEEDING TO BE UPDATED AND
SOMETIME CURRENTLY WE JUST DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN THERE FOR SURE. MR.. THANK YOU. THIS IS JUST A QUESTION THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY GO TO THIS
WHICH I THINK IS GREAT. DO WE ALLOW SORT OF A SPECULATIVE REZONING THAT SOMEBODY WOULD COME IN WITH A VACANT PIECE OF LAND AND JUST SAY I WANT TO CHANGE THE ZONING BUT WITHOUT HAVING A
SITE PLAN? I'M JUST CURIOUS. YEAH. CHAIR COMMISSIONER MUNSTER THERE'S NOTHING IN CODE THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THAT BUT AS DAKOTA MENTIONED IT'S A HIGHLY
DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL. SO ABSENT THOSE DETAILS I WOULD BE SURPRISED IF THE CITY APPROVED THAT APPLICATION. THERE HAS TO BE SOME
INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSAL TO REACT AGAINST TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS BEING CONTEMPLATED AND THAT FOLLOWS THE PUBLIC RECORD AS WELL. TURN OFF. YEAH. THANK YOU.
OH THAT'S RIGHT. I'M SOMEWHAT OF A SOUNDS GOOD. ALL RIGHT. WELL YEAH THAT'S ALL I HAVE. NO LIKE I SAID, THIS WAS A STUDY SESSION SO APPRECIATE YOUR FEEDBACK AND WE'LL GO TO
COUNCIL AND THEN KIND OF BRING FORTH SOMETHING PROBABLY LATER THIS FALL IN OUR FORMAL ORDINANCE AND PUBLIC HEARING. THAT SOUNDS GREAT. THANK YOU, MR. RESNICK.
WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR, OUR FINAL ITEM THIS EVENING WHICH IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND ISSUES UPDATE. MR. JOHNSON THANK YOU CHAIR KIRKTON I'LL TRY AND BE BRIEF
HER THERE'S SOME CELEBRATING MAYBE AHEAD OF US HERE FOR SOMEONE'S TENURE. SO THE JULY 9TH MEETING UPCOMING IS THE FIRST ITEM IS THE OATH OF OFFICE FOR OUR NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONERS. CONGRATULATIONS TO THEM.
SECOND ITEM IS A REZONING FINAL SAY AND BUILDING PLANS TYPE THREE PRIMARY AND FINAL PLAN TO REDEVELOP 6% OR EXCUSE ME SIX SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A 33 TOWNHOMES NEAR 86TH STREET AND 16TH AVENUE SOUTH
AND THEN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CANNABIS MANUFACTURING AT 300 WEST 83RD STREET. THE SECOND MEETING IN JULY IS JULY 16TH. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS AND NO LONG RANGE ITEMS
COMING TO THAT THAT ITEM THAT MEETING WILL BE CANCELED. THE JULY 23RD MEETING IS ALSO A POTENTIAL CANDIDATE FOR A CANCELLATION ON THE BASIS OF WHAT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS WE HAVE IN RIGHT NOW. SO JUST KEEP THAT IN YOUR RADAR SCREEN BUT I'LL
CERTAINLY CIRCLE BACK TO THAT AS WELL IF I MAY, I'M JUST GOING TO SHARE MY SCREEN VERY BRIEFLY HERE CHAIR FEEL COOKED
IN IS WRAPPING UP HIT BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION AS ITS CHAIR AGAIN PENDING OUR REAPPOINTMENT AT A FUTURE DATE APPARENTLY. BUT I WANT TO TAKE THIS TIME
TO ACKNOWLEDGE HIM FOR SEVERAL THINGS THAT HAVE STOOD OUT TO ME AND AS A BLOOMINGTON PLANNING DIVISION STAFF PERSON DURING MY TENURE FULLY ALIGNING WITH PHIL'S SO I JUST
WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THROUGHOUT HIS ENTIRE TENURE PHIL HAS BEEN A RELENTLESS ADVOCATE FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION. ITS DECISION MAKING PROCESS, ITS VALUE THAT IT ADDS TO THE COMMUNITY AND THE MANY WAYS
IN WHICH IT HELPS SUPPORT EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE FOR BLOOMINGTON. DURING HIS TIME HE SERVED AS CHAIR AND THEN VICE CHAIR AS WELL. SO HE'S BEEN A LEADER ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALWAYS
SUPPORTING OTHER MEMBERS AND PROVIDING MENTORSHIP. HE AUTHENTICALLY ENCOURAGES THE PUBLIC TO PARTICIPATE IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT WHICH I TRULY APPRECIATE. MANY PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, SAY
THEY WANT THE PUBLIC TO COME OUT TO MEETINGS AND PARTICIPATE. BUT PHIL IS CERTAINLY A PERSON OF HIS WORD IN THAT REGARD. HE'S BEEN VERY EFFECTIVE AT RUNNING PUBLIC MEETINGS, SOMETIMES VERY CONTENTIOUS
ONES OR WITH PACD CHAMBERS AND THAT'S NOT AN EASY TASK TO DO. SO I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE HIS EMPHASIS ON CIVILITY AND MAKING SURE THAT EVERYONE GETS
THEIR VOICE HEARD BUT RESPECTS ONE ANOTHER. SO I THINK THAT'S KIND OF A DYING ART THESE DAYS. I DO WANT TO MENTION THAT HE IS A PRODUCT OF THE BLOOMINGTON LEADERSHIP PROGRAM
AND I KNOW I'M A PROUD MEMBER OF THAT AND HAS SUPPORTED OTHER FOLKS ATTENDING THAT. SO THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THAT PROGRAM. PHIL I WANT TO NOTE THAT YOU ARE ONE OF THE STRONGEST ADVOCATES FOR THE SOUTH
OF DISTRICT THAT I KNOW OF AND CONTINUED TO PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO ITS DEVELOPMENT AND SUCCESS. I WANT TO POINT OUT OTHER WHY OTHER THAN THE SOUTH OF DISTRICT YOU'VE OFTEN BEEN AN ADVOCATE OF GOOD PUBLIC
POLICY THAT ONE EXAMPLE THAT STANDS OUT TO ME IS WALCZAK UP YOUR ROAD CONTINUING TO PUSH US AND THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TO TRY AND IMPROVE SAFETY ALONG THAT ROADWAY. WE'RE NOT THERE YET BUT CERTAINLY YOUR ADVOCACY HAS
BEEN NOTICED BY MANY AND I GUESS I WOULD JUST SAY THAT FILL IT EVERY TURN IS TAKEN OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME MORE EDUCATED AND EXPAND HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE PLANNING
PRACTICE, VISITING MANY OTHER CITIES, ATTENDING MANY CONFERENCES AND THEN FINALLY I JUST PUT THIS LAST PHOTO IN HERE IS THAT I THINK HE'S BEEN A CONSISTENT JUST CONNECTOR ON THE BOARD DURING HIS TIME HERE.
SO FOR ALL THESE THINGS OH HE DOES HAVE THE BEST ATTENDANCE RECORD OF ANY PLANNING COMMISSIONER I'VE EVER KNOWN. I CAN'T THINK OF MANY, MANY MEETINGS THAT HE HAS MISSED SO KUDOS FOR THAT.
BUT IN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ALL THOSE THINGS THAT I JUST MENTIONED I DO WANT TO PRESENT YOU WITH THIS PLAQUE THAT WE HAD CREATED FOR YOU FOR YOUR
TENURE AND THAT IN ADDITION OH, THIS PEN CHANT IS VERY EXCITED ABOUT THE PENN SO YOU GET THE PENN AND THEN FINALLY THE MAYOR OF BLOOMINGTON, TIM BUSSE ALSO WROTE YOU A
PERSONAL LETTER AND I'D LIKE TO PRESENT THAT TO YOU AS WELL DURING YOUR TENURE. SO WITH THAT THAT WRAPS UP MY REMARKS AND AGAIN JUST FROM STAFF, I JUST WANT TO THANK
YOU AGAIN FOR ALL THE KINDNESS AND POSITIVE IMPACTS THAT YOU'VE HAD IN WORKING WITH YOU. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU NICK THAT'S AWFULLY KIND AND THANK YOU TO AND
BUSSE AS WELL. THAT'S INCREDIBLE. IT WAS NOT EXPECTING THAT. I'D LIKE TO JUST SAY A COUPLE OF THINGS AS WELL. A LOT OF PEOPLE DO THINK IT'S
NO SECRET I WAS A PLANNING COMMISSION SUPER FAN BEFORE I GOT ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND I'M STILL A PLANNING COMMISSION SUPER FAN AS IT TURNS OUT. I THINK I HAVE TURNED MY PARENTS INTO PLANNING
COMMISSION SUPER FANS AS THEY ARE REGULAR VIEWERS OF OUR OF OUR MEETINGS. SO THANKS TO MY PARENTS AND MY FAMILY OF COURSE THERE'S A FEW PEOPLE THAT I LEARNED HOW TO
BE A PLANNING COMMISSIONER FROM COMMISSIONERS JOHN SILVER ,PAIGE ROHMAN, JOANNA GOLTZMAN, AUBREY ALBRECHT THOSE COMMISSIONERS ALTHOUGH NOT ALL THE COMMISSIONERS I'VE SERVED WITH MANY GREAT COMMISSIONERS THOSE FOUR COMMISSIONERS TAUGHT ME HOW TO
BE A PLANNING COMMISSIONER AND I OWE THEM A LOT FOR MENTORING ME OVER OVER SIX YEARS AND THANKS TO CITY STAFF AS WELL SECOND TO NONE.
NICK YOU'RE GREAT TO WORK WITH AND GLENMARK OCCURRED OUT THERE AS WELL. A LOT OF GREAT LEADERSHIP IN THE CITY AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THE LAST PERSON I'D LIKE TO THANK AND HE WAS TERRIBLY KIND ENOUGH TO JOIN US HERE IN THE
COMMISSION CHAMBERS THIS EVENING IS MR. TOM GOODRUM. I DON'T THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE REALIZE BUT I WAS GRACIOUS ENOUGH TO BE ASSIGNED A A PLANNING COMMISSION MENTOR
ONLY BECAUSE TOM AGREED TO DO IT AND WITHOUT HIS SUPPORT I WOULDN'T I WOULDN'T BE A VERY GOOD PLANNING COMMISSIONER WITHOUT HIM. HONESTLY HIS HIS ENCOURAGEMENT
OF ME AND GUIDANCE TO ME WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN IN HOW I APPROACHED THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT TOM TAUGHT ME THAT I'D
LIKE TO RELAY TO THE REST OF THE COMMISSION. THE FIRST THING HE TAUGHT ME AND THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR ANY NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONERS THAT MAY BE LISTENING TO TO
THIS TO THIS MESSAGE IS HE SAID IT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR ME TO COME IN TO MY VERY FIRST MEETING PREPARED TO BE A PLANNING COMMISSIONER. APPLICANTS DON'T CARE WHETHER IT'S YOUR FIRST PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING OR NOT. THEY'RE EXPECTING YOU TO BE ONE SEVENTH OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND YOU HAVE A DUTY TO UPHOLD TO THAT APPLICANT THAT YOU'RE PREPARED. SO BE PREPARED TO PARTICIPATE AND MAKE A MOTION IF IF YOU'RE
IF YOU FEEL COMPELLED. BUT THERE'S NO WARM UP PERIOD ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO I ENCOURAGE OUR NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO BE PREPARED AND READY TO COME IN FROM THEIR VERY FIRST MEETING TO BE AN ACTIVE
PARTICIPANT ON THIS BOARD. THE LAST THING HE TAUGHT ME AND THIS GOES FOR ALL OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS IS THAT YOU SHOULD NEVER BE AFRAID TO BE ON THE BACK END OF A 6 TO 1 VOTE AND THAT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT BECAUSE TOM AND I TALKED ABOUT THAT IF I FEEL A CERTAIN WAY ABOUT SOMETHING THEN ONE SEVENTH OF THE CITY PROBABLY FEELS THE SAME WAY THAT I DO AND THAT'S YOU KNOW,
THAT'S 13,000 PEOPLE. AND EVEN IF THE COMMISSION'S GOING A DIFFERENT WAY, IT'S IMPORTANT FOR ME AND IMPORTANT FOR ANY COMMISSIONER TO SPEAK THEIR MIND EVEN IF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS ALL SIX OF THEM EVEN SO DON'T FEEL THAT WAY
BECAUSE YOU NEED TO BE THE VOICE FOR THOSE 13,000 PEOPLE AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO DO THAT. AND SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU ALL AS YOU GO THROUGH YOUR REMAINING TENURE ON THIS
COMMISSION THAT EVEN IF THE COMMISSION'S GOING A DIFFERENT WAY, DON'T DON'T HESITATE TO SPEAK YOUR MIND AND TO SPEAK OUT AND TO SAY NO IF YOU DON'T LIKE SOMETHING AND TO QUESTION
WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IF IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO YOU OR FEEL RIGHT TO YOU. AND SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT. AND THE LAST THING I'LL SAY FOR ME IS THAT AND I THINK TONIGHT'S MEETING WAS A
PERFECT EXAMPLE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS A LONG HISTORY OF INTERNAL DISAGREEMENT AND I THINK THAT'S A POSITIVE OF DISAGREEING WITH EACH OTHER IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
REEVALUATE THE POSITIONS WE CAME INTO THIS ROOM WITH AND I THINK THAT'S THE MAGIC OF THIS COMMISSION IS THAT WE'RE ABLE TO HAVE RESPECTFUL DISAGREEMENTS WITH ONE ANOTHER, THAT WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE CAN DISAGREE, THAT WE CAN FEEL
DIFFERENTLY ABOUT AN APPLICATION AND WE'VE HAD A LONG HISTORY OF TAKING THOSE OPPORTUNITIES NOT AS A AS A CHANCE TO BE OFFENDED THAT SOMEONE DOESN'T AGREE WITH YOU BUT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
REEVALUATE HOW WE WERE CONSIDERING AN APPLICATION AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE THIS THIS BODY TO CONTINUE TO HAVE FRUITFUL DISCUSSIONS THAT ARE
THAT ARE WELL THOUGHT AND PREPARED AND WILLING TO DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHER FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF THE CITY. SO TO WRAP ALL THAT OUT, THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE I'M GRATEFUL FOR AND ESPECIALLY MR. MR. GOODMAN. I COULDN'T BE HERE WITHOUT
YOU. THANK YOU, TOM. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY AS I DEPART THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO
BRING UP ANYTHING THAT WAS NOT ON THIS EVENING'S AGENDA. AND SO I WILL NOW ASK IF THERE ARE ANY MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS FOR THIS EVENING SEEING NONE.
THAT CONCLUDES THIS JUNE 18TH MEETING OF THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION. GOOD