AND GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THIS AUGUST 7TH MEETING OF THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADVISES THE CITY COUNCIL ON DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, LONG RANGE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION ISSUES. ON SOME ITEMS THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS FINAL DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY WELL AND OTHER ITEMS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ACT IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY AND THE CITY COUNCIL WILL MAKE THE FINAL DECISION. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF PUBLIC HEARINGS THIS EVENING. IN FACT OUR FIRST FOUR ITEMS ARE PUBLIC HEARINGS THIS EVENING WHEN WE HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING THE PUBLIC IS ENCOURAGED TO TESTIFY. YOU CAN DO THAT HERE AT CITY HALL IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS. YOU CAN ALSO DO SO ONLINE BY FOLLOWING THE INSTRUCTIONS THAT ARE ON THE BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN. WE CURRENTLY HAVE SEVEN COMMISSIONERS PRESENT. SIX OF US HERE ARE IN THE CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL AND ONE IS VIRTUAL. WE DO HAVE A QUORUM THIS EVENING. AS WE BEGIN I'M GOING TO ASK EVERYONE IN THE CHAMBERS TO PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL . THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING HAS SIX ITEMS AND AGAIN THE FIRST FOUR ITEMS WILL BE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON VARIOUS ITEMS. SO THE WAY THIS IS GOING TO WORK HERE IS EACH ITEM WILL BE KEPT SEPARATE AND WE'LL START WITH THESE STAFF REPORTS. THIS IS A BIT OF A UNIQUE ITEM IN EACH MEETING RATHER IN THAT THE FIRST THREE ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA ARE CONTINUED FROM OUR LAST MEETING AND SO IT'LL BE A BIT OF AN ABBREVIATED STAFF REPORT FOR US BUT THEY'LL GO THROUGH ENOUGH DETAIL TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE IS UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THAT PARTICULAR ITEM AFTER STAFF HAS HAD A CHANCE TO PRESENT THE ITEM TO US, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF. WE WILL THEN ALLOW THE APPLICANT A CHANCE TO SPEAK AFTER THE APPLICANT HAS HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK. WE WILL THEN CONTINUE WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT WE HAVE OPEN FROM OUR LAST OUR LAST MEETING. ONCE WE HAVE HEARD ALL PUBLIC TESTIMONY WHICH WILL GO INTO GREATER DETAIL ON PUBLIC TESTIMONY WHEN WE GET THERE AFTER WE'VE HEARD ALL OUR PUBLIC TESTIMONY WE WILL SEEK A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ONCE CLOSED WE WILL THEN MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION AND ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THERE IS ONE ADDITIONAL COMMENT I WANTED TO MAKE THIS EVENING AS FOLKS ARE CONSIDERING PUBLIC TESTIMONY BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A REFLECTION ON ANYTHING WE'VE HEARD IN PARTICULAR BUT IT'S MORE OF A JUST A GENERAL COMMENT OF THINGS WE COMMONLY HEAR ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE PROBABLY NEW TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CEILING AND SO IT'S HELPFUL FOR US TO JUST BE TRANSPARENT ABOUT WHAT OUR ROLE IS AND HOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS COMPRISED. SO IF YOU'RE UNFAMILIAR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION WE'RE DIFFERENT IN FOUR DIFFERENT THAN THE CITY COUNCIL IN THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS MADE UP OF SEVEN VOLUNTEER RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON. NONE OF US WORK FOR THE CITY. NONE OF US ARE PAID BY THE CITY. WE ARE ALL RESIDENTS HERE IN A VOLUNTEER CAPACITY AND WITH THAT THAT MEANS WE ARE NOT DEVELOPING THESE APPLICATIONS. SO IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR US TO HEAR DURING PUBLIC TESTIMONY WELL YOU GUYS ARE DOING THIS OR YOU GUYS WANT TO DO THIS OR YOU GUYS THIS. THAT'S NOT THE CASE HERE. WE DO NOT DEVELOP THESE APPLICATIONS. WE ARE A REVIEW PANEL OF THE APPLICATIONS SO WE ARE HERE TO TAKE THE APPLICATION THAT'S PRESENTED BEFORE US AND SEE HOW THAT CONFORMS TO CITY CODE AND OTHER CODES THAT WE ARE HERE TO ENSURE ARE BEING FOLLOWED. SO THAT IS THE ROLE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO WITH THAT I THINK THAT'S ENOUGH WITH THE FRONT END DISCUSSION. WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN WITH ITEM NUMBER ONE WHICH THE CITY OF THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON RATHER IS THE APPLICANT FOR ST MARK'S CHURCH AND IT'S A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AT 8630 XERXES AVENUE. >> MISS O'DAY, YOU HAVE A STAFF REPORT FOR US. YES. THANK YOU, CHAIR. GOOD EVENING. ITEM ONE IS FOR A COMP PLAN AMENDMENT AT ST MARK'S CHURCH TO ORIENT YOU THIS IS AT 8630 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH SURROUNDING LAND USES INCLUDE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL THE EXISTING ZONING FOR 8630 XERXES AVENUE IS OUR ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND THE EXISTING DESIGNATION UNDER THE COMP PLAN IS QUASI PUBLIC AN EXISTING USE IS A PLACE OF ASSEMBLY ST MARK'S CHURCH SO WHAT THIS IS IS A REQUEST TO RE GUIDE THE PROPERTY FROM QUASI PUBLIC TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. YOU CAN SEE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SCREEN IS THE QUASI PUBLIC DESIGNATION AND THEN THE PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON THE RIGHT SIDE . SO BIT OF BACKGROUND ST MARK'S WOULD SELL THE LAND TO OUR BLOOMINGTON HRA AND THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT IS REQUIRED TO FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND AND SUBDIVIDE THE LOT INTO 13 LOTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS LOWER THAT THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION ALLOWANCE ALLOWS FOR A SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY HOMES UP TO 12 UNITS AN ACRE AND THE PROPOSED DENSITY FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS AROUND FOUR UNITS AN ACRE WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD BIT OF STAFF ANALYSIS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS AND STRATEGIES IN THE COMP PLAN. I WENT OVER THAT AND A LITTLE MORE DETAIL IN THE LAST MEETING THERE IS ADEQUATE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE OR CAPACITY AND NEARBY SCHOOLS AND PARKS AND THEN JUST TO NOTE THAT A TYPE THREE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPLICATION WOULD FOLLOW SHOULD THIS BE APPROVED. SO WITH THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND I BELIEVE MR. PALERMO FROM HRA IS ALSO ONLINE. SHOULD THERE BE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU MR. DE BEFORE WE GET TO THE APPLICANT I'D LIKE TO ASK IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AS DE I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION. SO CAN YOU JUST CLARIFY AGAIN FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHAT IS BEFORE US IS IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THIS IS PART OF TWO SEPARATE APPLICATIONS. THERE WILL BE AN EVENTUAL APPLICATION THAT IS FOR THE ACTUAL BUILD OUT OF NEW HOMES BUT TODAY WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT A RE PLAT OR A RE GUIDING IS THAT CORRECT? YES. CHAIR JUST FOR RE GUIDING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT WHAT A FOLLOW BUT THIS COMP PLAN AMENDMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE APPROVED TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT. VERY WELL THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ? SEE NONE. THANK YOU MS. O'DAY. MR. PALERMO ARE YOU ONLINE AND WISH TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT? OH CHAIR COMMISSIONERS OF OF CLAREMONT WITH THE BLOOMINGTON EATERY OF THE SPEAK BRIEFLY HERE I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING IN PERSON I GOT A FAMILY MATTER THAT HAPPENED BUT I'LL JUST SPEAK HIGHLY OF THE PROJECT WAS DID A GOOD JOB EXPLAIN WE WOULD BE SUBDIVIDING THIS AND THE SINGLE AND A FEW TWO FAMILY HOMES TO KIND OF MATCH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THIS SITE THAT'S CURRENTLY OCCUPIED BY THE THE CHURCH THE CHURCH JUST DECIDED TO SELL THE PROPERTY. SO WE SAW THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADD TO OUR BLOOMINGTON AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP PROGRAM WHICH HAVE A GOAL OF DEVELOPING 27 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE NEXT THREE YEARS WITH THAT WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL AT THE LAST MEETING BUT I CAN ENTERTAIN ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT HAVE COME UP SINCE THAT PREVIOUS MEETING. >> THANK YOU MR. PLAYER WELL ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SEE NONE. THANK YOU, MR. PALERMO. WITH THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL REMAIN OPEN AND I WILL ASK IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY ON THIS APPLICATION WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER ONE FOR ST MARK'S CHURCH . MISS BROWN, IS THERE ANYONE ONLINE WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY ON ITEM NUMBER ONE ALL PARTICIPANTS ONLINE OUR STAFF THANK YOU MS. BROWN. LAST CALL FOR FOLKS IN THE CHAMBERS HERE TO TESTIFY IN ITEM NUMBER ONE. SEE NO ONE COMING FORWARD. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SO MOVED. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER ONE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR WE WILL DO BY A ROLL CALL. SO THAT IS A BIT OF A UNIQUE THING FOR US THIS EVENING BECAUSE WE HAVE A REMOTE PARTICIPANT. WE'RE GOING TO DO A ROLL CALL VOTE. SO MR. BROWN, COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL COOK DAN I CUNNINGHAM HI HE SAY I WAIT I LANNY I SUMMARIZE IN MONSTER I THE MOTION PASSES SEVEN ZERO THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED AND WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION. MR. CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU CHAIR I THINK THAT THIS IS A GOOD USE OF CITY RESOURCES AND THE OVERALL GOALS OF THE HRA. I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS THIS ITEM . THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM . I TOO AM SUPPORTIVE OF THIS. YOU KNOW IT'S ALWAYS A BIT TRICKY WHEN YOU'RE GOING INTO A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE WANT TO BE SENSITIVE TO THAT. I THINK WHAT IS BEING PRESENTED HERE MEETS THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IS A VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD PRESENTATION AND WHAT WE'RE ASKED TO DO IS TO MAKE SURE THIS IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS WHAT WE'RE REALLY DOING HERE. AND WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CALLS FOR THINGS LIKE HIGHEST AND BEST LAND USES AND AND A VARIETY OF OTHER THINGS THE CREATION OF NEW HOUSING IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT THAT. AND SO I THINK THIS IS IN LINE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND I ALSO AM IN SUPPORT OF IT . COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU CHAIR. JUST ONE THING TO ADD I LIVE ABOUT TWO HOUSES OUTSIDE OF THE 500 FOOT BUFFER OF THIS PROJECT AND I'M I'M REALLY EXCITED FOR THIS HIRE HIGHEST AND BEST LAND USE. I AGREE IF THERE'S NO FURTHER COMMENTS I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM IN CASE PL 202500084I MOVE TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO RE GUIDE 8630 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH FROM QUASI PUBLIC TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR A FUTURE 13 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MRS. BROWN COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL COOK DUNN I CUNNINGHAM I E C I WHITE I LENNY I SUMMERS I IN MUNSTER I THEIR MOTION PASSES SEVEN ZERO THIS WILL NOW MOVE TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL DECISION ON AUGUST 25TH 2025. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL THEN MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER TWO. THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON IS AGAIN THE APPLICANT AND ITEM NUMBER TWO IS FOR THE COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER, A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REZONING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLATS AS WELL MR. SENT SCENARIO YOU HAVE THE STAFF REPORT FOR US . I THINK WE MOVED A LITTLE FASTER THAN YOU EXPECTED. ITEM NUMBER ONE WE'RE GOING TO GIVE HIM JUST A SECOND TO GET HIS SHOE TIED AND CONDITIONS ARE SO I WAS GIVING. GOOD EVENING MR. CENTENARIO NICE TO SEE YOU. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS THANK YOU. CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS OF SO AS YOU MENTIONED RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING THE MEETING WE INTRODUCED THE COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER AT OUR LAST MEETING AND DUE TO SOME NOTICING CHALLENGES WE HAD TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING SO WE DID WE COULD GET A LOT OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THAT LAST MEETING AND WE WILL BE ASKING YOU TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THIS EVENING. SO I WANTED TO STILL TOUCH ON A NUMBER OF FACTORS RELATED TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT. BUT I YOU KNOW, I WON'T GO INTO AS MUCH DETAIL AS WE DID THE LAST MEETING BUT ON THE SCREEN HERE WE HAVE THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR PDP FOR THE COMMUNITY CENTER AND THAT'S WHERE YOU SEE THE FULL BUILD OUT IF YOU WILL. AND 99% OF THE BUILDING THAT'S PROPOSED IS WITH WITHIN THE FIRST PHASE A SMALL PHASE TWO WOULD BE A THIRD GYM SPACE OR A THIRD BASKETBALL COURT. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT IN THE YOU KNOW, IN THE ELSE THAT'S RECTANGLE ON THE SCREEN AND OBVIOUSLY THERE'S A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF DETAIL ON THIS GRAPHIC THIS IS THE FLOOR PLAN AND YOU CAN SEE THE VARIOUS DIFFERENT SPACES FROM THE NATATORIUM, THE BASKETBALL COURTS, MULTIPURPOSE ROOMS. THE PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT WOULD BE OCCUPYING A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF SPACE HERE AND A FUTURE CAFE. SO THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT A LOT OF DIFFERENT USES, A LOT OF DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES THAT WOULD BE TAKING PLACE WITHIN THE BUILDING. AND THE SECOND FLOOR IS THIS A TWO STORY BUILDING WOULD BE DEDICATED TO FITNESS AND CARDIO. SO YOU SEE IT'S A MUCH SMALLER SPACE BUT YOU HAVE CARDIO EQUIPMENT, FITNESS ROOMS AND AN INDOOR TRACK. >> SO GOING TO THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR FTTP THAT'S THE PORTION THAT IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE BUILT AND WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY 106 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AND I THE I'LL GET INTO SOME MINOR SITE PLAN CHANGES IN A MINUTE BUT THE PROPOSAL IS FOR 321 PARKING STALLS ALL SURFACE PARKING STALLS THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY POTENTIAL STREET STALLS THAT WOULD BE ALONG NEWTON THAT WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO THE 321 STALLS. AND IN TERMS OF THE FLEXIBILITY OR DEVIATIONS FROM CITY CODE THAT ARE PROPOSED THERE, THEY'RE ACTUALLY QUITE MINOR. ONE RELATES TO OF REDUCING THE NUMBER OF PARKING ISLANDS THAT ARE THAT WOULD NORMALLY BE REQUIRED AS AN ALTERNATIVE A CENTRAL GREEN SPINE IN THE PARKING LOT IS PROPOSED THAT WOULD BE A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FEATURE AND WOULD BE HEAVILY LANDSCAPED. SO WE'VE ACTUALLY FELT THIS WAS AN IMPROVEMENT OVER JUST THE BASELINE CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS AND WE ARE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THAT DEVIATION. THE OTHER THE OTHER DEVIATION OR FLEXIBILITY FROM CITY CODE IS RELATED TO PARKING AND THE CITY CODE AND HAS INCORPORATED A PROCESS BY WHICH WE CAN CONSIDER REDUCTIONS IN PARKING SUPPLY. SO IT IS VERY MUCH INGRAINED IN THE CITY CODE THAT WE CAN GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND PARKING OUR TRAFFIC AND PARKING STUDY WAS COMPLETED IN FOUND THAT WHAT'S PROPOSED WOULD BE MORE THAN ENOUGH SUPPLY FOR THE ANTICIPATED DEMAND. AND SO AGAIN WHAT WE SHOWED AT THE LAST MEETING YOU CAN SEE THIS IS THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 323 STALLS AND YOU CAN SEE ON THIS PLAN THERE WERE TWO ACCESS POINTS OF TWO PENN AND TWO ACCESS POINTS TO NEWTON. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ON PENN AVENUE THAT IS A KIND OF A COUNTY ROAD AND WHETHER OR NOT HENNEPIN COUNTY WOULD GRANT ACCESS TO PENN AVENUE. WE'LL TOUCH ON THAT IN A MOMENT. BUT THERE'S BEEN SOME SLIGHT MODIFICATIONS OF THIS BASED ON BASED ON THE BECOMING FEEDBACK AS WELL AS A VARIETY OF OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. AND SO YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE CONCERN THAT THE CITY WOULD NOT BE GIVEN ACCESS TO PENN AVENUE AND YOU KNOW, AS PART OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS WE NEED TO ENGAGE WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND HENNEPIN COUNTY IS A STAKEHOLDER BECAUSE PENDING AVENUE IS A IS A COUNTY ROAD. SO I CAN'T READ THE DATE BUT A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO WE STARTED ENGAGING WITH THE COUNTY. SO YOU KNOW, MEETING WITH THEM, TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT ACCESS OPTIONS AND THEY'VE EFFECTIVELY TOLD US TO TOLD THE CITY THAT THEY WERE NOT SUPPORTIVE OF TWO ACCESS POINTS ON PENN AVENUE AND THE GRAPHIC ON THE RIGHT IS JUST A MARKED UP PLAN THEY PROVIDED TO THE CITY SHOWING WHAT THEY THOUGHT WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT. AND YOU SEE THESE X'S ON THE SCREEN THEY PROPOSED REMOVING THAT NORTHERN PENN AVENUE ACCESS ALTOGETHER AND THEN DISCONNECTING THE SOUTHERN ACCESS RIGHT NOW FROM IVY YOU CAN EITHER GO NORTH TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER AS IT IS TODAY OR YOU CAN GO SOUTH IN THE PRESS HOLES. THAT CONNECTION WOULD BE REMOVED. ALTERNATIVELY THERE WOULD BE A ACCESS POINT ROUGHLY IN THE MIDDLE THAT WOULD BE MORE OR LESS A STRAIGHT EAST WEST DRIVEWAY BETWEEN PERMANENT PENN AVENUE AND THE MAIN PARKING LOT. >> SO THAT'S THAT'S IN MOMENT YOU'LL SEE WHAT THAT BUT THAT'S THE APPROACH THAT THE CITY IS TAKING OR THE DESIGN TEAM IS TAKING AND WE DID GET COMMENTARY BACK FROM THE COUNTY YESTERDAY AND THEY ARE SUPPORTIVE OF A SINGLE ACCESS TO PENN AVENUE. SO ONE OF THE JUST IDENTIFIED THAT SPECIFICALLY THAT THE CONCERN THAT THE CITY WOULD NOT BE GRANTED ANY ACCESS TO PENN AVENUE IF THAT'S NOT THE CASE AND SO THE DESIGN TEAM WAS ABLE TO PUT TOGETHER A REVISED SITE PLAN AND I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT JUST A MINUTE . IT DID LOSE TWO PARKING STALLS. SO THE TOTAL PROPOSED WENT FROM 323 TO 321 AGAIN SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN WHAT WAS MODELED TO BE THE DEMAND. AND YOU CAN SEE THESE LINES HERE JUST TO EXPLAIN ARE TO ENSURE THAT FIRE TRUCKS CAN NAVIGATE THE SITE. SO THAT'S ANOTHER FACTOR THAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER AND IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE FIRE ACCESS AS WELL AS TRASH PICKUP, THERE WAS THIS APPENDAGE AND A TURN AROUND SO A FIRE TRUCK CAN AGAIN MANEUVER THE SITE, GET ACCESS TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION AND THE TRASH FACILITIES ARE LOCATED ON THAT SIDE OF THE BUILDING TOO. SO IT IS A SLIGHT MODIFICATION OF THE PLAN BUT THE BUILDING RELATIVE TO PROPERTY BOUNDARIES THE OF THE OVERALL CONFIGURATION OF THE SITE, THE SIZE OF THE FACILITY, ALL OF THAT HAS REMAINED THE SAME . >> AND SIMILARLY THIS THIS IS A GRAPHIC THAT IDENTIFIES A FIRE HYDRANT COVERED SO PLEASE EXCUSE THE GRAY CIRCLES BUT YOU CAN JUST SEE HOW THAT ACCESS ALONG PENN AGAIN ALONG PENN HERE MY CURSOR IS HOW THAT RELATES TO THE REMAINDER OF THE SITE. ONE BENEFIT OF THIS CHANGE DOES IT DOES CREATE A MORE I CALL IT OBVIOUS ACCESS FROM PENN AND IT ALSO HAS THE BENEFIT OF CREATING MORE SPACE FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. SO THERE IS THERE ARE A FEW BENEFITS TO THAT MODIFICATION . THERE'S WAY TOO MUCH TEXT AND THE NEXT COUPLE OF SLIDES TO READ OUT BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT AS PART OF THE DEVELOPING REVIEW PROCESS WHEN IT COMES TO PRELIMINARY FINAL DEVELOPER PLANS IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO FINDINGS OR FINDINGS OF FACT AND THOSE WERE ADDRESSED IN THE STAFF REPORT. SO THIS CHART ON HERE RELATES TO WHAT OUR WHAT STAFF BELIEVES ARE THE FINDINGS FOR PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND THEN THE FINDINGS FOR WHAT ARE WHAT WE BELIEVE ARE THE FINDINGS FOR FINAL DEVELOPER PLANS. IN ALL CASES STAFF WAS ABLE TO MAKE THE FINDINGS SO AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENT I'M SORRY THE COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER BUT THERE ARE THREE MOTIONS FOR YOU TO CONSIDER TONIGHT. THE FIRST ONE RELATES TO THE REGAINING OF THE PROPERTY THE EXISTING COMMUNITY CENTER IS GATED FOR PUBLIC USES SO THAT IS VERY MUCH APPROPRIATE. THE OTHER TWO PARCELS THAT ARE ALREADY CITY OWNED ARE GUIDED FOR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. SO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT WOULD RE DESIGNATE THOSE PROPERTIES ALL TO PUBLIC FOR ALL FOR PUBLIC LAND USE. SIMILARLY THE ZONING DISTRICTS NEED TO BE MADE CONSISTENT SO THE SECOND MOTION FOR YOU RELATES TO REZONING THE PROPERTY SO THEY ARE ALL THE R-1 PLAN DEVELOPMENT ZONING DESIGNATION. AND THEN THE THIRD MOTION RELATES TO THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPER PLANS THAT RELATE TO THE FINDINGS THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED. SO WITH THAT I'M HAPPY TO ADDRESS QUESTIONS. THANK YOU MR. CENTENARIO QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE TODAY. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION. COULD YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT THE ACTUAL CONFIGURATION OF THAT SINGLE ACCESS POINT AND PAN WILL BE? WILL IT BE ONE LANE IN EACH DIRECTION OR WILL IT BE TWO LANES ON THE EXIT SIDE ALLOWING FOR A LEFT TURN LANE AND A RIGHT TURN LANE A CHAIR COMMISSIONER SO THE INTENT WOULD BE FOR FULL ACCESS. OKAY SO YOU KNOW FOLKS COULD GO NORTH OR SOUTHBOUND FROM THE COMMAND CENTER AND ENTER IN BUT JUST ONE LANE GOING IN AND ONE LANE GOES RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM. THANK YOU, CHAIR. MR. CENTENARIO A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. FIRST ONE RELATES TO THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ISLAND. CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT HOW THAT FEATURE I UNDERSTAND THAT IS IT'S A LARGE ISLAND TO HAVE STORMWATER IS THERE UNDERGROUND DETENTION TANKS UNDERNEATH IT INFILTRATION TANKS? IS IT PURELY A GREEN SPACE WITH INFILTRATING SOIL? IS THAT KNOWN YET? I KNOW THAT WE'RE HALFWAY THROUGH THE DESIGN OF THIS PROJECT. SURE CHAIR COMMISSIONER I DON'T KNOW ALL THE DETAILS ABOUT THE STORMWATER DESIGN. IT'S I WOULD SAY MOST PARKING ISLANDS OR NOT DO NOT HAVE LIKE A SWALE OR NOT IN LIKE A SWALE TYPE CONFIGURATION SO THERE'S NO DEPRESSION. I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE SOME UNDERGROUND TANKS THAT WOULD BE PROPOSED BUT I DEFER TO THE DESIGN TEAM ON THAT PRECISE STORMWATER DESIGN. PERFECT. AND THEN CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PARKING COUNTS FOR THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT? MY MAIN QUESTION IS THE CITY IS IS KIND OF DOING A DEMAND BASED PARKING ANALYSIS FOR THE SITE. IS THAT CORRECT? THE COMMISSIONERS YES, THAT'S CORRECT. SO THE WHEN WE HAVE A PROPOSAL THAT IS PROPOSING LESS STALLS THAN THE BASELINE CITY CODE REQUIREMENT THERE IS GETTING A QUALIFIED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER WILL DO AN ANALYSIS. THEY'LL IDENTIFY WHAT THE CITY CODE IS. THEY ALSO IDENTIFY WHAT THE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE BASED ON INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS. IT'S A SEPARATE SET OF STANDARDS AND THEN THEY'LL ALSO DO SOME ANALYSIS BASED ON WHAT THEY OBSERVE AT EXISTING COMMUNITY CENTERS AND ESSENTIALLY TRY TO MODEL THAT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SIZE AND THE SCOPE OF WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED IN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON. AND SO WHEN THEY DID THAT ANALYSIS, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT OTHER SOURCES OF STANDARDS AND THEN ALSO LOOKING AT COMPARABLE FACILITIES, THEIR MODEL FOUND THAT THE PARKING DEMAND WAS SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED AS SUPPLY HERE AND JUST TO BE CLEAR FOR EVERYONE WATCHING AT HOME AND EVERYONE IN THE ROOM, ANY APPLICANT IN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON CAN GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS IF THE PROJECT ALIGNS WITH CERTAIN PARAMETERS. IT'S NOT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE CITY THAT WE'RE PROVIDING LESS PARKING THAN CODE. COMMISSIONERS KNOW IT. IT'S IT'S A VERY COMMON TOOL THAT'S USED IN FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PARKING STUDY PROCESS IF YOU WILL. YOU KNOW IT'S IT'S SEVERAL TIMES A YEAR BUT WHEN WE HAVE LARGER SCALE REDEVELOPMENTS YOU KNOW OUR CITY CODE IS VERY CONSERVATIVE IN ITS PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND THAT IS WHY THE PLANNING DIVISION ON ITS 2025 WORK PLAN IS ACTUALLY LOOKING TO OVERHAUL THOSE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. THERE'S NO MAGIC BEHIND THOSE NUMBERS AND SO THEY DO NEED TO BE UPDATED FROM TIME TO TIME. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MUNSTER. >> THANK YOU. SORRY ABOUT THAT. >> JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON PARKING ACTUALLY AND THANK YOU FOR HAVING THIS IMAGE UP OOP IT WENT AWAY. >> OKAY. JUST ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE HEARD AT THE FIRST SESSION OF OUR PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS IS ABOUT THE REDUCTION IN GREENSPACE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. >> AND MY QUESTION IS IS WHETHER IT WAS CONSIDERED TO REMOVE THAT I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S THE SOUTHERNMOST OR IT'S THE LOWER LOWEST PARKING LOT THAT'S SHOWN ON THIS IMAGE TO RETAIN GREENSPACE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THAT AREA SINCE ESSENTIALLY WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS 87 PARKING SPACES MORE THAN EVEN THE STUDY HERE DEMANDS. >> SURE, CHUCK. ACTING COMMISSIONER YEAH, GREAT QUESTION. IT'S SOMETHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED HOWEVER, THE WHILE WE ARE VERY CONFIDENT THAT THE OVERALL SUPPLY IS GOING TO BE MORE THAN ADEQUATE, THERE WILL BE PERIODIC EVENTS THAT HAVE MORE THAN THE TYPICAL AMOUNT OF PARKING DEMAND. AND SO THE APPLICANT OR THE DESIGN TEAM FELT THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO KEEP THAT PARKING AS PART OF THE SITE FOR THOSE OCCASIONS WHERE THEY MIGHT HAVE MORE PARKING THAN ANTICIPATED OR THERE'S THE LARGER EVENTS THAT USE MULTIPURPOSE ROOMS THAT MIGHT CREATE A LARGER PARKING DEMAND. THANK YOU MR. CENTENARIO. THE REVISED ACCESS OFF OF PENN AVENUE DID THAT TRIGGER A REVISION TO THE PARKING? SORRY, THE TRAFFIC REPORT. I THINK COMMISSIONERS YOU KNOW IT IT'S SOMETHING THAT ISN'T ANALYZED BUT WE HAVEN'T HAD A REVISED REPORT PREPARED MAINLY BECAUSE THE REVISION WAS VERY RECENT. BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS SHARED WITH THE TRANSPORTATION TEAM AND THEY ARE PREPARED TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS ON THAT TONIGHT. I SEE A MEMBER OF OUR DESIGN TEAM, BRIAN NEIMAN IS HERE. WOULD YOU CARE TO SPEAK TO THAT OR THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I BELIEVE IT'S NEMETH EXCUSE ME. YEAH. NO, THANK YOU. YEAH. SO I GUESS I'M LAST MINUTE INFORMATION ON THIS ADDITIONAL ACCESS. SO PRIMARILY COMING FROM THE NORTH AND WEST. SO WEST ON 98TH STREET, NORTH ON PENN AVENUE. THAT'S THE TRAFFIC THAT'S TYPICALLY COMING FROM THE NORTH AND COMING INTO THE SITE ALONG PENN AVENUE. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE MORE OF THE TRAFFIC IS ACTUALLY USING NEWTON AVENUE BASED ON THE EXISTING SIGNAL THAT'S OUT THERE AND WHERE THE ACCESS TO COME IN AS A SOUTHBOUND LEFT IS FURTHER SOUTH AS THIS MOVES NORTH THAT ACTUALLY GETS TO BE A AN ACCESS THAT IS MORE USEFUL. IT'S AN INSTANT ACCESS WILL ACTUALLY INCREASE THE TRAFFIC A LITTLE BIT ON PENN AVENUE WITH A SLIGHT REDUCTION ON NEWTON AVENUE. RIGHT NOW IT'S PROBABLY A DIFFERENCE OF ESTIMATED RIGHT NOW WITHOUT RUNNING ALL THE MODELS WE'RE THINKING IT WOULD BE AROUND 150 VEHICLES CURRENTLY ON NEWTON OUR OBJECTING FOR IT 1480. REDUCTION OF ABOUT 150 VEHICLES BUT OVERALL 1480 OR 150 LESS YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO SEE THAT OVERALL A DIFFERENCE IN THAT IF YOU WERE TO SEE THAT ON THE ROADWAY RUNNING BY IT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER HUBLEY ETHAN EXCUSE ME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHAIR. SO A COUPLE QUESTIONS AND I GUESS A CLARIFICATION. SO THIS THE DRIVE IN OR DRIVE OUT ON PENN WOULD BE ONE LANE GOING BOTH WAY, ONE LANE IN AND OUT. IS THAT CORRECT OR CHECK IN COMMISSIONERS. THAT'S THAT'S THE CURRENT DESIGN. OKAY SO THEN AND THEN OVERALL THIS WOULD EASE THE TRAFFIC ON NEWTON BY 150 VEHICLES. CORRECT. ROUGHLY GIVE OR TAKE. YEAH, I'LL SPEAK TO THAT. YES, WE'RE ESTIMATING THAT AND THAT AGAIN THAT'S WITHOUT RUNNING ANY OF THE MODELS OR ANYTHING ELSE. SO THAT'S JUST MY OVERALL TRAFFIC ENGINEERING KNOWLEDGE AS THE NUMBERS YOU KNOW THAT WE END UP OUT OF THE MODEL WILL BE IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN 150 SO IT'S JUST AN APPROXIMATION AS FAR AS LIKE THE ACCESS ONE LANE IN ONE LANE OUT AGAIN WE HAVE AN ANALYZED IT TO WHAT IS NEEDED OUT THERE. OUR STUDY MAY SAY THAT ONE LANE OUT IS FINE OR MIGHT END UP IT INDICATING THAT YOU NEED A LEFT AND A RIGHT TURN LANE SEPARATE. OKAY. SO FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO THAT IS SO WHEN DO YOU THINK THAT MODEL WOULD BE COMPLETE BY WE JUST GOT THE INFORMATION TODAY SO IT'LL PROBABLY BE NEXT WEEK SOMETIME. OKAY. I GUESS ONE MORE ON THAT SAME TOPIC IF YOU DON'T MIND CHAIR PLEASE. SO YOU KNOW USUALLY I TRAVEL THAT ROAD A LOT GOING I TRAVEL DOWN 98 A LOT WHEN YOU'RE HEADING EAST. SOMETIMES THE TRAFFIC IS BACKED UP ESPECIALLY DURING TRAFFIC. RIGHT. AND SO IF THAT NEW ROAD DRIVE IN DRIVE OUT, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT I DON'T KNOW THE TECHNICAL TERMS BUT IS IS ON PENN DURING THOSE PEAK TIMES WOULDN'T WOULDN'T THAT INCREASE TRAFFIC AND LIKE LET'S SAY ARE TO TRY TO GO AROUND THAT AND I GO I KNEW IN THEY'RE GOING IF THEY'RE GOING THE SAME DIRECTION EITHER WEST OR EAST WE'RE IN THAT BE PROBLEMATIC OR NO IF IF YOU AS YOU'RE DRIVING THROUGH PENN AND 90TH STREET SO IF YOU'RE HEADING EASTBOUND OR WESTBOUND THAT'S CALLED SPLIT PHASE SIGNAL SO ONLY THE EASTBOUND GOES AT ONCE ONLY THE WESTBOUND. SO WHEN YOU'RE EASTBOUND IS GOING WHETHER YOU'RE TAKING A RIGHT OR GOING STRAIGHT THROUGH. IT'S REALLY UP TO YOU WHICH WAY YOU WANT TO GO. SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY ADVANTAGE TO ACTUALLY CUTTING THROUGH THE PARKING LOT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT BECAUSE THAT'LL SLOW YOU DOWN AND ACTUALLY TAKE QUITE A BIT LONGER AND THAT'S WHY MOST OF THAT TRAFFIC WE DO ANTICIPATE STILL WOULD STAY IN GO OVER TO NEWTON. THE BIGGEST CHANGE WE PROBABLY ANTICIPATE WOULD BE MORE OF THE EXITING TRAFFIC HEADING WEST ON 98TH BECAUSE NOW THERE'S AN IMPROVEMENT AND THERE'S A SHORTER DISTANCE TO GET AROUND THAT WAY. ALSO TRAFFIC COMING NORTH AND SOUTH AND PENN AVENUE. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. FISHER WAIT. YEAH. I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY. YOU MENTIONED A NEW OR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE STORM WATER FEATURE OVER ALONG PENN WITH THE NEW ENTRANCE. I'M JUST WONDERING FOR YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE CHANGES TO THAT AND WHETHER THERE'S ANY OPPORTUNITY THERE FOR INCREASED GREEN SPACE OR FOR RECREATIONAL SPACE THERE? >> YEAH, COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONER WHITE YOU KNOW I'M WONDERING IF OUR SOMEONE FROM THE DESIGN TEAM IF TIM ARNOLD IF YOU'RE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT QUESTION SO THE ARCHITECT PROBABLY WILL ADDRESS IT BETTER THAN I COULD . >> GOOD EVENING. IF YOU COULD PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF FOR US. YES. MY NAME IS TIM GUYETT, SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER WITH H.J.. COMMISSIONERS CHAIR THE STORMWATER FEATURE THAT IS BASICALLY TAKING OVER THE PAVEMENT THAT CURRENTLY SERVES CREEKSIDE. BY DOING THAT WE CAN ELIMINATE OUR UNDERGROUND STORAGE OF STORMWATER SO IT'S A BENEFIT TO THE PROJECT AND IT PUTS A LANDSCAPE FEATURE IN INTO INTO THE YOU KNOW ALONG PENN. HOWEVER IT WOULDN'T BE A SPACE TO PLAY ON IT BASICALLY A LANDSCAPED SPACE TO ABSORB THAT STORMWATER RESOURCE. THANK YOU CHAIR. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. I THINK AS I LOOK AT THE SURFACE PARKING LOTS ONE OF THE IN A WAY THAT NEIGHBORS HAVE BEEN WORRIED ABOUT THE GREEN SPACE AND I KNOW GREEN SPACE IS A PLACE TO PLAY BUT ALSO SURFACE LOTS OVER TIME CAN INCREASE HEAT IN NEIGHBORHOODS. SO I'M WONDERING ABOUT TREE COVER. CAN YOU TALK TO HOW THE TREES ARE NOW ON THIS LOT AND HOW THEY MIGHT CHANGE IN THIS PROJECT? YES, COMMISSIONER, FORGIVE ME. I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT TREE COVERAGE. I THINK THEY'RE PART OF THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION BUT THERE ARE REALLY A HANDFUL OF TREES ON THAT SITE. LET'S SAY A FEW DOZEN WITH THE DEVELOPMENT ALONG NEWTON THAT IS REALLY GOING TO BE A BOMBED STRUCTURE WITH NUMEROUS TREES PLANTED TO CREATE ALMOST A GREEN WALL TO TRY TO SHIELD THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM ANY HEADLIGHTS THAT ARE HAPPENING IN THE PARKING LOT. ADDITIONALLY FROM SOME OF THE RENDERINGS THAT WE'VE SHOWN RECENTLY AT CITY COUNCIL THERE WILL BE TREES UP AND PLANTINGS ALONG 98TH. WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO HAVE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE ON THIS SITE AS BUDGET WILL ALLOW BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE LANDING THIS ON A CURRENT PARK. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HARDY LISA. THANK YOU, CHAIR. NO WORRIES. SO FOR THE ACTUAL SITE ITSELF ,DO YOU KNOW HOW IT COMPARES TO OTHER IN TERMS OF LIKE SURFACE AREA AND THE WHOLE PROJECT? HOW COMPARES TO OTHER COMMUNITIES COMMUNITY CENTERS? I KNOW AN EXAMPLE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IN A PREVIOUS MEETING IN A PREVIOUS SLIDE AS WELL AS THE BROOKLYN CENTER AND EAGAN LOCATIONS I THINK IS A TYPICAL DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME SLIDE. BUT IF WE'RE TO COMPARE THOSE TWO OR REALLY LIKE EDEN PRAIRIE AND THE OTHER ONE, HOW DOES THIS PROJECT COMPARE IN TERMS OF SURFACE AREA SIZE AND MAYBE EVEN SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING? WELL I THINK THE FIRST IS MORE POINT YEAH, THAT'S MY QUESTION. THANK YOU. WHAT I'LL SAY IS THAT THE THE BOLTON MENKES PARKING REPORT WAS BENCHMARKING THE SIZE OF THIS FACILITY AGAINST OTHER COMMUNITY CENTERS OF SIMILAR SIZE AND SCOPE. I DO NOT HAVE A DATA OF THE YOU KNOW, THE PARKING LOT IN EAGAN COMPARED TO THE BUILDING SIZE IN EAGAN OR THOSE SORTS OF ITEMS IN YOU'LL CLARIFY A DO YOU KNOW THE PERCENTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING FOR THOSE SPACE IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE OVERALL PARCEL SIZE OR PERCENTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE BUILT AND PAVED WITH THE CURRENT REDESIGN OF THE OF THAT CUL DE SAC? IT'S SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN I THINK WHAT ARE THE ORIGINAL SUBMISSION WAS? I DO NOT HAVE THE EXACT RATIO OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. THANK YOU. FISHERIES. YEAH. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S A LITTLE MISUNDERSTANDING POTENTIALLY BUT MY QUESTION IS THE WHOLE ENTIRE SITE IF WE THE SQUARE OR THE ACRES SQUARE FOOTAGE WHATEVER IT IS RIGHT AND THEN WE TAKE THE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE SURFACE FOR I GUESS SURFACE AREA, RIGHT? AND WE COMPARE THAT TO LIKE FOR EXAMPLE BROOKLYN CENTER OR I THINK IT WAS EAGAN THAT WAS CITY'S EXAMPLE LAST TIME WITH THAT SAME EXACT METRIC. HOW THAT COMPARE IS MY QUESTION. CERTAINLY I DO NOT HAVE THE DATA OF THOSE FACILITIES. I BELIEVE THE FLOOR AREA RATIO IS I THINK THE TECHNICAL TERM THOUGH THAT WE WOULD HAVE THAT IN OUR STAFF REPORT FOR THIS SITE. I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE IT FOR THE BROOKLYN CENTER SITE. MR.. MR.. JOHNSON CHAIR COOK YOU KNOW WE WOULDN'T HAVE THE FLOOR RATIO FOR THOSE OTHER SITES THAT WERE ASKED ABOUT. I WOULD NOTE THAT THE FLOOR AIR RATIO OF THIS FACILITY IS .29 THE MAXIMUM ALLOWANCE ACCORDING TO OUR ZONING CODE IS .35 ALONG COLLECTOR AND ARTERIAL STREETS. SO IT IS BELOW THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED FOR NON RESIDENTIAL USES IN OUR ONE DISTRICT. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AND I WILL TRY AND FIND THAT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. LAST POINT HERE AS WE GO ALONG. THANK YOU PLANNING MANAGER JOHNSON AND THANK YOU CHAIR. BRIAN HANSON HAS ALREADY INDICATED TO ME THERE'S TOTAL SITE IS 9.49 ACRES WITH A 5.9 ACRES OF IMPERVIOUS ACCORDING TO THE STORMWATER REPORT. IS THAT CORRECT? RIGHT NOW ARE YOU. SO NINE ACRES TOTAL ALMOST SIX ACRES IMPERVIOUS. FISHERIES. THANK YOU, CHAIR. THIS IS A LITTLE BIT I THANK YOU FOR THAT. THAT WAS REALLY HELPFUL. I ASKED A QUESTION LAST MEETING AND IT WAS IF THE CITY HAS ANY DATA ON THERE WAS AN EXAMPLE THAT WAS USED COMPARE IT TO COMPARE IT TO NEW AND KNOWS 82ND AND PENN. AND I ASKED IF THERE WAS ANY DATA ON THE LENGTH OF OWNERSHIP ON THOSE FIRST THREE HOUSES THAT ARE AFFECTED BY MORE TRAFFIC. I THINK POTENTIALLY BUT YEAH, SO MY QUESTION IS THIS IS DOES THE CITY HAVE THAT CITY STAFF HAVE THAT DATA? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. COMMISSIONER ISSA WE DON'T HAVE THE DATA ON THE LENGTH OF OWNERSHIP FOR HOUSES ON ON 82ND STREET OR ADHD WAS AN EXAMPLE I USE VERSUS NEWTON AVENUE. WE DON'T HAVE ANY COMPARISON BETWEEN THOSE IN TERMS OF LENGTH OF OWNERSHIP AND THE OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF . OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THEN TO THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BEFORE WE HAVE FOLKS COME UP I JUST WANT TO WALK THROUGH A FEW THINGS IF YOU'RE NEW TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS TO HOW OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS WORK SO IF YOU TESTIFIED LAST TIME BEFORE US WE DO HAVE YOUR TESTIMONY WE'RE ALL TAKING NOTES UP HERE SO YOU DON'T FEEL YOU SHOULDN'T FEEL COMPELLED TO TESTIFY AGAIN. WE HAVE IT. WE HAVE YOUR NOTES. YOU MAY YOU MAY CHOOSE TO COME FORWARD AGAIN IF YOU WISH. BUT THAT'S NOT NECESSARY. WE HAVE YOUR TESTIMONY FROM LAST TIME. IT'S A CONTINUATION OF THAT PUBLIC HEARING. IT'S ALL ON THE RECORD IF YOU'RE NEW HERE, THIS IS A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND IT'S NOT A PUBLIC QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD AND WE DO THAT TO KEEP THINGS EFFICIENT. SOME OF YOU ALL MAY HAVE THE SAME QUESTIONS AMONG OTHER THINGS AND SO YOU ARE WELCOME TO ASK US QUESTIONS. WE JUST AREN'T GOING TO ANSWER THEM ON THE SPOT AFTER EVERYONE HAS HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK AND WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, WE WILL DIGEST THOSE QUESTIONS AND IF WE WANT TO FOLLOW UP WITH CITY STAFF OR ASK THOSE QUESTIONS OURSELVES, WE WILL DO SO. SO IT'S NOT THAT WE DIDN'T HEAR YOUR QUESTION. WE MAY JUST NOT ANSWER IT RIGHT AWAY BUT YOU ARE WELCOME TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS AND WE'LL GET TO IT IF WE SO CHOOSE LATER ON WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A SHOT CLOCK ON THE WALL. IT'S THREE MINUTES THIS EVENING IF YOU WANT TO COME UP AND TESTIFY WE'LL GIVE YOU THREE MINUTES. IF THREE MINUTES IS NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU, YOU ARE WELCOME TO COME BACK ONCE EVERYONE HAS HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK AND AS A POINT OF CLARITY WE ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK FOR A TOTAL OF SIX MINUTES THIS EVENING IF YOU SO NEED IT. THANK YOU FOR BEING RESPECTFUL OF THAT. THAT GIVES EVERYONE A CHANCE TO SPEAK THIS EVENING. ALL QUESTIONS AND TESTIMONY SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO ME. THE CHAIR AND MOST CERTAINLY I'M ASKING THAT WE DO NOT DIRECT ANY COMMENTS TOWARDS OTHER MEMBERS THAT ARE HERE IN ATTENDANCE TONIGHT. WE UNDERSTAND THESE THINGS CAN GET EMOTIONAL SOMETIMES WE HAVE DIFFERING OPINIONS. THAT'S OKAY. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. WE SUPPORT IT. BUT I DO NOT WANT ANY COMMENTARY ABOUT PREVIOUS SPEAKERS OR OTHER SPEAKERS IN THE ROOM. IT SHOULD BE ABOUT THE APPLICATION AT HAND AND IT SHOULD BE DIRECTED AT ME NOT OTHER PEOPLE IN THE ROOM. THANK YOU FOR THAT. I'M GOING TO ASK FOR NO SIGNS OF SUPPORT OR APPLAUSE AFTER A PARTICULAR SPEAKER SPEAKS THAT CAN KIND OF GET AWAY FROM US AND WE WANT TO GIVE EVERYBODY AN EQUAL FOOTING TO STAND ON. SO PLEASE LIMIT ANY APPLAUSE OR OTHER SIGNS OF SUPPORT IN THE CHAMBER. I MENTIONED IT LAST TIME I AM ASKING FOR A RESPECTFUL DISCORD THIS EVENING. I BELIEVE WE CAN DO THAT HERE IN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON. WE CAN RISE ABOVE OTHER SIGNS THAT WE SEE IN OTHER COMMUNITIES. WE CAN BE A RESPECTFUL ONE AND ALLOW OTHERS TO HAVE A RESPECTFUL AND DIFFERENT OPINION THAN OURS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. THE LAST THING I WANT TO STRESS HERE AND THIS IS IMPORTANT AS YOU'RE CONSIDERING YOUR PUBLIC TESTIMONY THIS EVENING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES NOT HAVE UNILATERAL AUTHORITY. WE ARE NOT ABLE TO WELL, LET'S PUT IT THIS WAY THERE ARE SOME THINGS WE CAN USE TO DECIDE WHETHER WE RECOMMEND THIS APPLICATION OR NOT AND THOSE ARE BASED ON FINDINGS OF FACT. IT WAS REFERENCED EARLIER THERE AND WE CAN PULL THEM BACK UP LATER IN THE IN THE EVENING HERE. BUT WE HAVE FINDINGS OF FACT WE NEED TO MAKE AND SO IF WE MEET THE FINDINGS OF FACT WE MUST APPROVE THE APPLICATION AND IF WE DO NOT MEET THE FINDINGS OF FACT WE CANNOT APPROVE THE APPLICATION. AND SO THIS ISN'T A MATTER OF WHETHER WE LIKE THE APPLICATION OR NOT OR WHETHER WE THINK IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE OR NOT OR WHETHER WE EVEN THINK IT'S IN THE RIGHT LOCATION OR NOT. THOSE ARE NOT FINDINGS OF FACT. THOSE ARE MATTERS OF OPINION AND THOSE ARE NOT GIVEN TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO MAKE OUR DECISION ON AND THAT'S FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC. IF WE WERE ABLE TO COME UP HERE AND MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT ON WHATEVER WE WANTED THAT WOULD BE TYRANNY. WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT. WE HAVE TO FIND THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND SO WE MAY EVEN AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT LOCATION OR COST OF THE PROJECT BUT THOSE ARE NOT FINDINGS OF FACT THAT WE CAN USE IN OUR DECISION MAKING THIS EVENING. SO AS YOU'RE CONSIDERING YOUR PUBLIC TESTIMONY ALTHOUGH WE HEAR YOU, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE CANNOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WE ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE CITY COUNCIL IN THAT WAY WE HAVE FINDINGS OF FACT TO BE MADE AND ONLY THOSE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE HOW WE CAN MAKE OUR DECISION AS TO WHETHER TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF THIS APPLICATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. WITH THAT WE WILL CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I WELCOME FOLKS TO STEP FORWARD AND PROVIDE TESTIMONY. WE DO HAVE A SIGN IN SHEET ON THE ON THE PODIUM THERE. I DO ASK YOU TO SIGN IN FOR THE MINUTES AND WE WILL GO FROM THERE. GOOD EVENING. ALL RIGHT. LET ME JUST SIGN IN FIRST . >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS BRIAN EMMERSON. I LIVE AT 9911 NEWTON. WE NEWTON AVENUE RESIDENTS ARE THE ONES WHO WILL SUFFER WHEN YOU MAKE YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL ON JULY 24TH YEAR TRAFFIC EXPERTS PRESENTED THEIR STUDY. WE WERE TOLD THAT TRAFFIC WILL OR MAY INCREASE TO 2500 CARS EVERY DAY ON OUR RESIDENTIAL STREET. AND IS THIS ACCEPTABLE? HOW IS THIS GOOD FOR ME OR MY NEIGHBORS? HERE'S WHAT'S REALLY GOING TO HAPPEN. DRIVERS EXITING ONTO NEWTON WE ARE TOLD WILL TURN NORTH AND USE THE BUSY UNREGULATED 98TH STREET. THAT'S NOT TRUE. THEY WILL SEE THE BACK UP AT 98TH STREET AND THEY WILL INSTEAD SPEED SOUTH ON NEWTON AVENUE TO FIND ORCHARD SHOCK ABBEY ROAD. THIS WILL QUICKLY BECOME THE PATTERN BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE CREATURES OF HABIT. I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I LIVE THERE. ON TOP OF THAT DRIVERS WILL SOON DISCOVER A NEW SHORTCUT TO PENN AVENUE THROUGH THE PRESBYTERIAN HOMES PARKING LOT AND THAT WILL BE THE NEW PENN AVENUE EXIT. WE WERE TOLD THAT HENNEPIN COUNTY HAD NO OBJECTION AT THE LAST MEETING TO TWO YEAR PLAN AND I SEE NOW THAT IT HAS BEEN CHANGED TO ONE ACCESS POINT. MY OTHER QUESTION IS IS NEWTON PARKING GOING TO BE ALLOWED? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT ANSWER IS. I'M ALSO IN THE MORTGAGE BUSINESS AND I UNDERSTAND PROPERTY VALUES. YOU WILL DESTROY THE VALUE OF MY HOME AND MY NEIGHBOR'S HOMES. WHO WILL BUY A HOME IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH 2500 CARS A DAY RUSHING PAST MY EXPERIENCED REALTOR FRIENDS OPINIONS ARE THAT WE WILL BE LUCKY TO SELL OUR HOMES FOR ONE HALF TO TWO THIRDS OF ITS PRESENT VALUE. HOW CAN HOW CAN IT BE JUSTIFIED THAT WIPING OUT THE EQUITY IN MY HOME AND DESTROY A LARGE PORTION OF OF MY RETIREMENT? I HEARD THAT THE VALLEY VIEW SITE MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS PROJECT BUT RESIDENTS THERE OBJECTED. SO YOU MOVED TO THIS UNSUITABLE SITE AND SHOEHORNED IT TO FIT. IT'S STILL TOO BIG A PROJECT AND TOO LITTLE LAND. AND WE RESIDENTS HERE TONIGHT OBJECT TO THIS SITE AND MANY FELLOW RESIDENTS ARE ALSO OBJECTING THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA . BUT I GUESS IT'S ALL JUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE OTHERS IN BLOOMINGTON NO MATTER WHAT THE EFFECT WILL BE ON US. NEWTON AVENUE FOLKS. HOW MANY DESTROYED OR ALTERED LIVES ARE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU? APPARENTLY WE ARE NEWTON ARE ACCEPTABLE COLLATERAL DAMAGE. YOU ARE EFFECTIVELY DESTROYING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE DESERVE TO BE TREATED FAIRLY. NOTHING THE COUNCIL HAS DONE HAS BEEN FAIR TO US. I SEE THREE ALTERNATIVES. OPTION ONE IS TO MOVE THIS PROJECT TO A MORE SUITABLE LOCATION OR OPTION TO BUY OUR HOMES TODAY AT FAIR MARKET VALUE AND I UNDERSTAND THAT'S NOT AN OPTION ON THE AGENDA. THERE'S $100 MILLION FOR THIS PLAN BUT NO MONEY TO BUY OUT THOSE WHO ARE SO GRIEVOUSLY HARMED. IF YOU CAN'T MOVE THE LOCATION OR BY YOURSELF THEN JUST DO THE RIGHT THING AND USE OPTION THREE WITHDRAW YOUR RECOMMENDATION. THE HUMAN COST TO THE US NEWTON RESIDENTS IS JUST PLAIN TOO HIGH. PLEASE DON'T MAKE US YOUR SACRIFICIAL LAMBS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU . GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING. SO MY NAME IS ELIZABETH CAMERON. I'M A RESIDENT ON NEWTON WHOSE GREEN SPACE WILL BE REPLACED BY A PARKING LOT LIGHTS AND POLLUTION FROM A PROJECTED 2500 CARS DAILY SEVEN DAYS A WEEK FROM 5:30 A.M. TO 10 P.M. OR LATER. I'M THE MOM TO MANY CHILDREN ONE OF THEM BEING A DEAF CHILD WHO WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO PLAY SAFELY PLAY IN HIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND WILL STRUGGLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH OTHERS IN HIS OWN YARD. THE TRAFFIC STUDY SUPPORTING THIS PROJECT IS DEEPLY FLAWED AND SHOULD BE DISCARDED. HERE'S WHY. FIRST IT IGNORES THE CRITICAL CONGESTING EXCUSE ME CONGESTION CONCERNS I RAISED IN APRIL TO THE CITY COUNCIL PARTICULARLY ABOUT RAILROAD CROSSINGS BLOCKING THE TWO MAIN ROUTES EAST OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THE STUDY FAILED TO ACCOUNT FOR ANY RAILROAD DELAYS WHICH SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT TRAFFIC FLOW. SECOND, AS COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM NOTED LAST WEEK, THE STUDY ADMITTED THE INTERSECTION OF OLD SHAKOPEE ROAD AND MORGAN AVENUE WHERE MULTIPLE PARKING LOTS AND ROADS BOTTLENECK NEAR A RAILROAD TRACK. THIS INTERSECTION IS KNOWN SHORTCUTS TO RESIDENTS. AND ONE OF THE MAIN WAYS OUT OF THE AREA YET IT WAS EXCLUDED WAS IT TO DOWNPLAY THE PROJECTED 2500 VEHICLES THAT WILL BE CONGESTED AT THIS INTERSECTION ON RESIDENT STREETS? ADDITIONALLY THE STUDY WAS CONDUCTED BY BOLTON AND MENKE WHO AT THE TIME EMPLOYED A SENIOR ENGINEER THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY HELD AT A HIGH RANKING POSITION IN BLOOMINGTON'S PUBLIC WORKS FROM 2007 TO 2024. THIS POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST UNDERMINES THE STUDY'S CREDIBILITY AND ANY RIGOROUS FIELD. THIS WOULD BE CONSIDERED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND COULD VIOLATE A BREACH OF CONFIDENTIALITY OR BE SEEN AS A TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION AND WHY DOESN'T THE CITY HOLD THEIR CONTRACTORS AND THEMSELVES TO THESE ETHICAL STANDARDS? LAST TIME WE WERE TOLD MUCH OF THE PARKING TRAFFIC WOULD DIVERT TO PENN AVENUE BUT HENNEPIN COUNTY REJECTED THAT PLAN. NOW OUR SMALL RESIDENTIAL STREET FACES THE FULL BURDEN OF THESE 2500 CARS DAILY. ISN'T IT INTERESTING THE COUNTY AVOIDS THIS TRAFFIC ON THEIR EQUIPPED ROADS? YET THE CITY DEEMS IT ACCEPTABLE FOR OUR SMALL RESIDENTIAL ROAD. THE PROPOSED MITIGATIONS LIKE SHRUBS AND CURB BUMP OUTS ARE INADEQUATE. THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH CONFIRMS VEGETATION DOESN'T EFFECTIVELY REDUCE NOISE OR LIGHT POLLUTION. WITHOUT THE HELP OF WALL BARRIERS. I CAN PROVIDE SOURCES IF YOU NEED THAT. THESE MITIGATIONS ONLY ADDRESS THE NOISE AND LIGHTS WITHIN THE PARKING LOT AND DO NOTHING TO ADDRESS THE 2500 CARS IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE PER DAY. FOR MONTHS I'VE TRIED ENGAGING WITH THE CITY FOR MEANINGFUL DIALOG TO FIND COMPROMISES BUT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. I URGE YOU TO RECOMMEND PAUSING THIS PROJECT UNTIL A NEW UNBIASED TRAFFIC STUDY IS DONE AND A SOLUTION IS FOUND TO PRESERVE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS LIVABILITY. PLEASE ENCOURAGE THE COUNCIL TO EITHER BUY OUR HOMES BEFORE THEY LOSE THEIR VALUE OR FIND A WAY TO PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU MISS CARVER . GOOD EVENING. HI. MY NAME IS SHANNON MAVIS AND I LIVE AT 8400 WEST 106TH STREET. THIS SITE WAS CHOSEN BECAUSE IT SEEMED EASY. HOWEVER, CIRCUMSTANCES SHOW THAT IT IS NONE OF THAT. THE LAND IS TOO SMALL AND POORLY CONFIGURED AND TRAFFIC WILL BE A NIGHTMARE AND THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD WILL BE OVERRUN. RECENT COMMISSION AND COUNCIL MEETINGS HAVE MADE IT PLAIN FOR ALL TO SEE THAT THE CITY AND CONSULTANTS ARE UNPREPARED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT. THE TRAFFIC STUDIES HAVE BEEN LATE AND INCOMPLETE AND JUST ANNOUNCED LESS THAN THREE MONTHS BEFORE A PLANNED CONSTRUCTION. THE COUNTY IS LIMITING ACCESS TO PENN. A DISCOVERY OF THAT MAGNITUDE THIS LATE IN THE PROCESS IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE CITY ALSO JUST DISCOVERED THAT THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SCORE WAS LOW AND INDICATED THAT THEY NEED TO ADDRESS THAT DURING THE MOST RECENT COUNCIL MEETING THE MAYOR DESCRIBED PENN AVENUE AS A MAJOR COUNTY ROAD. THE JUNE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT PENN HAS AN AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME OF 5600 DUE TO THE NEWLY DISCOVERED COUNTY'S STANCE ON ENTRANCES. NEWTON WILL NOW REFLECT THE MAY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND HAVE A TOTAL VOLUME OF 3800. THAT IS 70% PENN'S VOLUME. A FOUR LANE MAJOR ROAD HAPPENING ON A RESIDENTIAL STREET. WHAT IS MOST UPSETTING IS THE COMMENT BY COUNCIL MEMBER LOWMAN AT THE MOST RECENT COUNCIL MEETING. TO PARAPHRASE HIM, HE SAID THAT THE CITY HAS SPENT SO MUCH MONEY AT THIS POINT WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD, JUST MOVE FORWARD AND HOPE IT WORKS OUT. A FORGONE SENTIMENT LIKE THAT CALLS INTO QUESTION THE FINANCIAL PRIORITIES OF THIS CITY. ARE WE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A FLAWED PROJECT TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALL THE RESIDENTS OR ARE WE GOING TO DO THE RIGHT THING BY STEPPING BACK? BEING PLANFUL AND CONSIDERING OTHER LOCATIONS AND OPTIONS? UP TO AND INCLUDING ABANDONING THE ENTIRE SCHEME, I BELIEVE MOST RESIDENTS WOULD CHOOSE TO PAUSE AND RECONSIDER. ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTY WE ARE LIVING IN TODAY. THIS PROJECT IS NOT THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS MAVIS . GOOD EVENING. EVENING. AMIR JOHNSON, 35 YEAR RESIDENT OF BLOOMINGTON. MY COUSIN LIVES ON THAT STREET. MY GRANDFATHER LIVED ON THAT STREET BEFORE THEM. WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME IN THAT HOUSE. OUR WHOLE FAMILY BECAUSE WE GO THERE FOR CHRISTMAS, THANKSGIVING AND I BEFORE WE JUST WERE TALKING ABOUT EMERGENCY VEHICLES. AND MY QUESTION IS IF THERE'S ONLY ONE ENTRANCE FOR THE EMERGENCY VEHICLES TO GET IN OFF OF PENN AND THAT'S THE MAIN ENTRANCE THAT THE TRAFFIC IS SUPPOSED TO BE USING, WOULDN'T THE TRAFFIC BLOCK THE EMERGENCY VEHICLES AND AND ALSO MOST PEOPLE DON'T YOU DON'T THINK ABOUT LIKE THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW TRAFFIC SO THEY'RE GOING TO GO WHATEVER'S MOST CONVENIENT SO IF THE PARKING LOTS THERE AND THE EXITS RIGHT THERE THEY AREN'T NECESSARILY GOING TO DRIVE ALL THE WAY OVER TO THE PENN AVENUE ONE THEY MIGHT JUST GO OUT WHATEVER EXIT HAPPENS TO BE THE CLOSEST TO THEM BECAUSE IT'S CONVENIENT IN THEIR MIND AND AND THOSE ARE JUST A FEW THINGS THAT I NT TO POINT OUT. THANK YOU, MR. JOHNSON . MS. BROWN, IS THERE ANYONE ON LINE WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY THIS EVENING? ALL PARTICIPANTS ONLINE OUR STAFF. THANK YOU, MS. BROWN. GOOD EVENING. HELLO CHAIR. MY NAME IS ROBERT COLEMAN. I DO FEEL A LITTLE BIT AWKWARD COMING UP AFTER. AT THIS POINT I DO NOT NECESSARILY HAVE CONCERNS OVER THE TRAFFIC. A LOT OF ROAD I LIVE ON AT PENN AND 102ND. AND MY MAIN CONCERN WITH THIS SITE IS HOW TERRIBLE IT IS FOR PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO RIDE TRANSIT. I HAVE BROUGHT THIS UP MANY TIMES TO THE COUNCIL ABOUT HOW THE ALL OF THE TRANSIT IS ON PENN AND 98TH STREET. THE BUS STOP IS RIGHT THERE AT THE NORTHWEST OR CURRENTLY AT THE THE THE NORTHERN END OF THE SITE. AND IT IS ON THE EXACT OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE THE OF THE ENTRANCE TO THE SITE. EVEN IF IT WAS MOVED TO ONE OF THE CORNERS EITHER TO THE NEWTON CORNER OR TO 98TH STREET, IT WOULD STILL BE MULTIPLE MINUTES OF WALKING AND ESPECIALLY WHEN WE LIKE WE LIVE IN BLOOMINGTON AND A LOT OF DAYS OUT OF THE YEAR IT IS COLD, IT IS RAINY. AND COMPARED TO THE CURRENT SITE OF CREEKSIDE WHERE THE ENTRANCE IS RIGHT THERE LIKE YOU CAN BASICALLY STAND UNDER THE THE AWNING AND LOOK DOWN THE STREET TO SEE WHEN THE BUS IS COMING AND THEN, YOU KNOW, RUN OUT TO GET TO THE BUS STOP. THAT IS LIKE NOTHING THAT YOU CAN DO ON THAT SITE ON THIS SITE TO DO IT. I'M INCREDIBLY DISAPPOINTED THAT THAT PROOF OF PARKING THAT THAT PAID PARKING WAS NOT CONSIDERED IS NOT BEING A PART OF THE SITE. I THINK THAT IT IS A MITIGATION THAT COULD BE AS PART OF THE THE TRANSPORTATION STUDY BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME INDICATIONS. THE FACT THAT WE ARE PUT YOU HAVE TO INCENTIVE IF YOU WANT LESS PEOPLE DRIVING AND PARKING ON THE SITE, YOU HAVE TO INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO TAKE THINGS OTHER THAN A PERSONAL MOTOR VEHICLE. AND IN FACT THE THE LIKE THE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES ARE THE OPPOSITE WHERE EVEN IF YOU'RE SOMEONE LIKE ME WHO TAKES THE BUS OR YOU BIKE OR YOU WALK OR YOU TAKE A SENIOR SHUTTLE, EVERYONE PAYS FOR THE PARKING NO MATTER YOU'RE USING IT OR NOT. AND ESPECIALLY THAT IMPACTS THE PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE USING THOSE TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS ARE THE LOWER INCOME RESIDENTS OF BLOOMINGTON. AND THE FACT THAT WE COULD HAVE FEWER PARKING SPOTS ON THE SITE IF YOU ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO HEY, MAYBE WE'LL WALK RIGHT LIKE WE DON'T NEED TO DRIVE TWO BLOCKS WILL WALK OR HEY, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THE KIDS OUT WITH THE BIKES OR WE'RE NOT GOING TO YOU KNOW, WAIT UNTIL YOU COME HOME SO THAT WE CAN TAKE ONE CAR INSTEAD OF BOTH DRIVING TO IT INDIVIDUALLY. I THINK THAT THE FACT THAT WE'RE INCENTIVIZING PEOPLE TO DRIVE TO AND PARK AT THE SITE IS INCREASING THE TRAFFIC. I STILL THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE PLENTY OF NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS THAT HAVE A LOT OF TRAFFIC ON THEM AND I THINK THAT THE FACT THAT SO MANY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS ARE AT LIKE ZERO ZERO 1% UTILIZATION IS NOT A GOOD USE OF OUR RESOURCES. SO IT'S NOT THE END OF THE WORLD TO ME THAT MORE IS BEING SHIFTED ON TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS AND I LIVE IN THE AREA. THE MAIN ISSUE IS THAT THERE'S SO MANY INCENTIVES FOR DRIVING AND IT COULD SOLVE ALL OF THESE ISSUES IF WE SERIOUSLY LOOK AT PAID PARKING. YOU KNOW, EVEN IF IT'S LIKE IT'S YOU KNOW, $0.25 AN HOUR, THAT'S ENOUGH TO MAKE PEOPLE CONSIDER DOING OTHER CHOOSING OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORTATION. SO I REALLY HOPE THAT IN THE FUTURE PROJECTS ARE GIVEN ARE DEVELOPED WITH THAT IN MIND INSTEAD OF JUST ASSUMING THAT EVERYBODY IS GOING TO BE DRIVING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. COLEMAN. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE CHAMBERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY ON THIS ITEM ? SEEING NONE I WILL LOOK FOR A MOTION. WE'RE SURE NO ONE ELSE WANTS TO TESTIFY. LAST LAST CHANCE. OKAY. I WILL LOOK FOR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SO MOVED. SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I BY ROLL CALL MS.. BROWN. CAPTAIN I CUNNINGHAM I E C I WHITE I. LENNY I SUMMERS I IN MONSTER I THEIR MOTION PASSES SEVEN ZERO. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION. I'LL START WITH ASKING IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS IF THERE ARE ANY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BASED ON THE TESTIMONY WE'VE HEARD THIS EVENING. COMMISSIONER ISSA YEAH, I KNOW. CHAIR COOK THEN YOU CLARIFY THAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND MAKE FROM MY UNDERSTANDING YOU CAN'T FIRE ON OUR DECISION BASED OFF THE FINDINGS OF FACT. THAT'S RIGHT. MY QUESTION TO CITY STAFF IS IF WE WERE TO ABSTAIN FROM A VOTE IS THAT SIGNED BY CODE AND SECONDLY, IF THERE IS MORE ABSTENTIONS AND YESES THEN WOULD THAT NOT MOVE FORWARD THEN? MR. JOHNSON THANKS, CHAIR KIRKLAND THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. COMMISSIONER, YOU SAY IF THERE IS A FAILURE OF ENOUGH VOTES TO AFFIRM THE PROJECT OR DENY THE PROJECT ACCORDING TO THE FINDINGS OF FACT THE APPLICATION WOULD PROCEED OUT OF THE CITY COUNCIL WITH NO RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I LOOK TO ATTORNEY TO ASK YOU IF HE HAS ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT BUT I BELIEVE THAT'S SUMMARIZED. CHAIR COMMISSIONERS GENERALLY AN ABSTENTION OR JUST SILENCE IS CONSIDERED A YES VOTE PER ROBERT'S RULES. SO GENERALLY COMMISSIONERS SHOULD VOTE UNLESS THERE'S A CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR THEY FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE SOME SORT OF CONFLICT OR THEY CAN'T BE IMPARTIAL OR FAIR OR IMPARTIAL OR OBJECTIVE. THANK YOU, MR. TUSK. MR. CUNNINGHAM, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. THE FIRST ONE IS I'M NOT SURE WHICH MEMBER OF STAFF WOULDE THE RIGHT PERSON TO TALK ABOUT THIS. IT WAS BROUGHT UP DURING PUBLIC TESTIMONY THE KIND OF PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BOTH THE BANK AND THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON AND AN EMPLOYEE A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON GOING TO WORK FOR BOTH THE BANK AND CONCERN ABOUT THAT RELATIONSHIP AND SOMEONE HAD PLEASE ADDRESS KIND OF THE ENGINEER'S CODE OF ETHICS. MR. ROBERTS MR. CHAIRMAN. COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM SO AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND WHAT'S BEING PUT OUT THERE, THE WAY THE CITY HANDLES DEVELOPMENT STUDIES AND I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS BECAUSE I'M ACTUALLY PRETTY HAPPY WITH THE WAY THAT WE DO THIS AND I THINK IT LENDS ITSELF WELL TO TRANSPARENCY. SO NORMALLY WHEN I TRY TO TALK TO PEOPLE ABOUT THIS THEY SORT OF FALL ASLEEP SO JUST BEAR WITH ME AND I'LL GET THROUGH IT. THE WAY THESE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS OCCURS WHEN WE HAVE A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S THAT'S READY TO COME FORWARD WHETHER IT'S PRIVATE EXPANSION OF A BUSINESS OR A PUBLIC FACILITY LIKE THIS IS THAT WHEN IT'S THOUGHT THAT THERE COULD BE IMPACTS TO THE PUBLIC THAT NEED TO BE MITIGATED, IMPACTS TO THE COMMUNITY THAT NEED TO BE MITIGATED? WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CALL FOR SPECIAL STUDIES. THOSE ALWAYS TAKE PLACE AT ABOUT THIS POINT IN THE PROCESS. IT'S KIND OF AT THE TAIL END AFTER THE BUILDING'S BEEN ROUGHLY DESIGNED AND EVERYTHING ELSE HAS OCCURRED. WE HAVE A NEED FOR THIS STUDY SO THIS ONE DIDN'T COME LATE. IT'S ABOUT RIGHT WHERE IT IS IN THE PROCESS. IT'S ALWAYS KIND OF SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO GET DONE VERY QUICKLY TO NOT HOLD UP DEVELOPMENT. SO THE WAY THAT WE'VE DONE THAT IS WE ASSIGN CONTRACTS, WE ESTABLISH CONTRACTS ABOUT EVERY THREE YEARS WE'LL GO SOLICIT STANDING CONTRACTS WITH FIRMS AND THAT'S AN OPEN PROPOSAL. ANY FIRM THAT MEETS THE QUALIFICATIONS CAN PROPOSE. WE DO A SELECTION PROCESS BASED ON NOT THEY'RE NOT SO MUCH THEIR COST BUT THEIR THEIR SKILLS, THEIR ABILITY TO PERFORM THE WORK THAT WE'RE SEEKING. SO IN THIS CASE TRAFFIC STUDIES, THE VARIOUS STUDIES THAT THEY CAN PERFORM, THE STAFFING THAT THEY HAVE AS WELL AS THEIR ABILITY TO DO THESE FAIRLY QUICKLY, THEIR STAFF WORKLOAD THAT THEY CAN FIT THESE IN WHEN THEY NEED TO HAPPEN IN THIS CASE THE CONTRACTS WERE ESTABLISHED FOR THE TIME PERIOD 2023 TO 2025. THAT WAS THESE CONTRACTS WERE WRITTEN IN 2022 FOR THAT AND WE SELECTED FOUR FIRMS FROM THAT PROCESS. PORTLAND WEEK WAS ONE. THERE WERE THREE OTHERS THAT WERE ALSO ESTABLISHED WHEN A DEVELOPMENT COMES FORWARD. WE LOOK AT THE FIRMS THAT WE HAVE ON HAND WHICH ONES THAT WE FEEL ARE BEST TO DO THAT WORK AND WE PICK A FIRM. WE DEVELOP A SCOPE OF WORK. THIS IS DONE IN-HOUSE BY ENGINEERING STAFF. WE DEVELOP A SCOPE OF WORK WHAT WE WANT THEM TO LOOK AT AND SO IT'S DONE INDEPENDENT FROM THE APPLICANT. IN THIS CASE THE APPLICANT IS THE PARKS AND RECREATION AND THE STUDY IS HANDLED BY ENGINEERING. IF IT WERE A PRIVATE DEVELOPER OBVIOUSLY THAT WOULD BE THE CLIENT BUT WE DEVELOPED THE CONTRACT AND THE STUDY. WE PUT THAT OUT TO THE FIRM THAT WE FEEL IS BEST QUALIFIED FOR THAT. THEY SUBMIT A PROPOSAL. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ASK AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE IS THAT THEY LIST ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE AND THAT DOES HAPPEN IN THE ENGINEERING WORLD SOMETIMES PERHAPS. THEY ALSO WORK CLOSELY WITH A CONSTRUCTION FIRM THAT'S DOING SOME WORK FOR THE CITY OR THINGS LIKE THAT AND SO THEY JUST LIST OUT ANY KNOWN CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND SO THEN WE AGREE ON A SCOPE OF WORK, A PRICE AND WE MAKE SURE THAT OBVIOUSLY THEY CAN FIT THAT IN. THAT'S A BIG THING THESE FIRMS ARE BUSY. THEY HAVE OTHER THINGS TO DO. WHEN WE COME FORWARD WITH ONE OF THESE STUDIES IT HAS TO BE DONE ON A VERY STRICT TIMELINE. IT HAS TO BE DONE VERY QUICKLY AND OFTEN YOU KNOW, WE HAVE MEETINGS AND THINGS LIKE THIS NOT EVERY FIRM GIVEN THEIR WORKLOAD CAN DO THAT WHEN WE NEED. AND SO IF THAT'S THE CASE WE JUST MOVE TO THE NEXT FIRM THAT'S QUALIFIED TO DO THAT. SO THAT'S HOW WE DO THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S HANDLED INDEPENDENT WAY. THOSE CONTRACTS ALL OF THAT INFORMATION IS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. YOU CAN ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC CAN COME IN, SUBMIT A DATA PRACTICES REQUEST AND I WILL PROVIDE THEM ALL OF THOSE CONTRACTS, ALL OF THOSE SCOPES OF WORK AND SO THAT'S THE PROCESS THAT WE USE FOR THAT. I THINK THE INSINUATION WAS MADE THAT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY LEFT THE CITY AND NOW WORKS FOR BOLTON AND MAKE AND THAT IS NOT IN ITSELF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. EMPLOYEES WHETHER IT'S LAWYERS AND ENGINEERS CHANGE JOBS. THEY CHANGE FIRMS. THAT DOES NOT IMPLY A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. A CONFLICT OF INTEREST OCCURS WHEN THERE'S SOME FINANCIAL OBLIGATION. SO OR SOME IT WILL AFFECT THEIR WORK COULD HAVE EFFECTS ON THEIR PRIVATE LIFE. I THINK IS THE WAY THE STATE STATUTE SAYS THERE'S NO RELATIONSHIP HERE LIKE THAT. THE EMPLOYEE THAT LEFT THE CITY'S TENURE AND WENT TO WORK FOR BOLTON AND MAKE IS NOT A TRAFFIC ENGINEER. THEY DIDN'TELP DEVELOP THE INITIAL CONTRACTS THAT THE CITY ESTABLISHED IN 2022. THEY DIDN'T HELP DEVELOP THE SCOPE OF WORK FOR THIS STUDY. THEY DON'T DO TRAFFIC. THEY DIDN'T HAVE AN INVOLVEMENT IN THIS. SO THERE'S NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST THERE. SO THAT'S A PROCESS WE'VE PUT IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE OPEN AND VERY TRANSPARENT AND THAT SCOPE OF WORK THAT BOLTON PROVIDED DIDN'T LIST ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST THAT ARE KNOWN AND THAT'S TRUE. THE OTHER THING IS LICENSED ENGINEERS YOU'LL NOTICE ON THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WAS DONE IT WAS DONE BY KELSEY AND BRIAN NEMETH ASSISTED THERE BOTH LICENSED ENGINEERS UNDER THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. ONE OF THE ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS IS THAT YOU DO NOT ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS THAT HAVE INHERENT CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS AND THAT'S WHY WE MAKE SURE THAT'S PART OF OUR PROCESS BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO JEOPARDIZE THEIR LICENSE OR THAT'S THEIR CAREER, THAT'S THEIR LIVELIHOOD AND S YOU'VE GOT A COUPLE LEVELS OF INDEPENDENCE THERE. SO I HOPE THAT HELPED EXPLAIN THE PROCESS WE GO THROUGH. THANK YOU. MR. ROBERTS. I HAVE ONE OTHER TRAFFIC RELATED QUESTION KIND OF COMING UP FROM PUBLIC TESTIMONY THE AND THANK YOU FOR THE VERY THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF IT. YOU STAYED AWAKE AND I APPRECIATE THAT THE REVISION TO ONE ENTRY AND EXIT OFF OF PENN. DID THE COUNTY OR COUNCIL GIVE ANY INDICATION AS TO WHY THEY ARE GUIDING THIS DEVELOPMENT TOWARDS THAT THE ONE ENTRY INSTEAD OF THE OTHER? IS IT STACKING EFFECT AT THE INTERSECTION SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES, RIGHT. YEAH, THAT WAS A NEGOTIATION THAT TOOK PLACE AND THAT OFTEN HAPPENS BETWEEN PUBLIC AGENCIES. THE ENGINEERS FROM THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, MYSELF AND OTHERS AND THE PLANNERS THERE'S CRITERIA THAT HAVE TO BE MET. ONE OF THE THINGS ON THIS DRIVEWAY THAT WAS MOST IMPORTANT IS THAT IT NOT INTERFERE WITH THE QUEUED TRAFFIC FOR PENN AVENUE. SO THIS WOULD BE NORTHBOUND COULD TRAFFIC ESPECIALLY IN THE RUSH HOUR BOLTON MODELED HOW FAR BACK THAT TRAFFIC QUEUES NOT JUST FOR THE FOUR LANE CONFIGURATION ONE IMPORTANT PART TO NOTICE ABOUT PENN OR TO KNOW ABOUT IT IS THAT IN THE FUTURE WE HOPE TO CONVERT THAT TO A THREE LANE SECTION AND THAT THAT CAN SOMETIMES INCREASE THE QUEUE LENGTH THAT TRAFFIC SIGNALS WHEN YOU CAN ROAD CONVERT A ROAD TO FOUR LANES TO THREE IT'S FUNDAMENTALLY A SAFER ROADWAY AT THREE LANES BUT IT CAN SOMETIMES INCREASE QUEUES SOMEWHAT LOOMING. ALSO I HAD TO LOOK AT THAT AND IN THE FUTURE ARE THOSE QUEUES THOSE QUEUED TRAFFIC ARE WAITING VEHICLES. IS THAT GOING TO INTERFERE WITH THE DRIVEWAY? WE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE HAD THAT HAPPEN AND SO THERE WAS SOME DESIGN AND ENGINEERING EFFORT IN GETTING THAT DRIVEWAY APPROVAL ONCE WE COULD DEMONSTRATE TO THEM THAT ANY POSSIBLE FUTURE CONFIGURATION THAT DRIVEWAY IS NOT GOING TO CONFLICT WITH THAT QUEUE TRAFFIC AND THE COUNTY IS OKAY WITH THAT. WE ALSO HAD TO PROVIDE SOME SAFETY DATA AND JUST SOME GENERAL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND THAT'S PRETTY TYPICAL BETWEEN AGENCIES THE ENGINEERS WORK TOGETHER ON THINGS LIKE THAT ALL THE TIME SO WE'VE GOT THEIR COMFORT LEVEL UP AND THEY'RE OKAY WITH THAT DRIVEWAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CHAIR MR. ROBERTS, WILL YOU UP? I HAVE A COUPLE OF TRAFFIC QUESTIONS AND I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT TO ANSWER THERE WAS A PUBLIC COMMENT ABOUT INGRESS AND EGRESS OF EMERGENCY VEHICLES WITH THIS CHANGE TO ONE ONE DRIVEWAY. ARE WE STILL OKAY THERE WE ARE. WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS WITH OUR EMERGENCY SERVICE PERSONNEL AND THEY HAVE BLOWN UP ON THIS DESIGN. SO THAT'S THE WAY TO PUT THAT THE PEOPLE THAT RESPOND TO EMERGENCIES FIRE, AMBULANCE, POLICE ARE ON BOARD WITH THIS DESIGN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND CAN YOU CLARIFY THE PARKING ON NEWTON THAT IS A PART OF THIS APPLICATION? I'M GOING TO LOOK TO PLANNING MANAGER JOHNSON HERE. THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO ALLOW AT SOME POINT PARKING ON NEWTON AVENUE AND THIS SORT OF REFLECTS THE STRANGE HISTORY THAT THE CITY HAS WITH ON STREET PARKING. WE DON'T WE WE RESTRICTED IT IN THE PAST FOR REASONS THAT ARE NOT WELL UNDERSTOOD. WE RESTRICTED PARKING AROUND PARKS, WE RESTRICTED ON STREET PARKING AROUND MULTIFAMILY. WE HAVE EXTSIVE PARKING RESTRICTIONS IN THE CITY THAT NO ONE IS QUITE SURE WHY THEY'RE THERE. I THINK AROUND PARKS THE INITIAL ASSUMPTION WAS THAT KIDS WOULD RUN BETWEEN CARS AND THEY WOULD GET STRUCK. THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED IN THE HISTORY OF THE CITY AS FAR AS I KNOW. IT TURNS OUT THAT HAVING CARS PARKED ON A ROADWAY GETS YOU A GREAT TRAFFIC CALMING BENEFIT . IT REDUCES VEHICLE SPEEDS BY ABOUT TEN MILES AN HOUR. AND SO AT SOME POINT IF WE WANT TO MAKE SURE TRAFFIC IS OPERATING WELL ON NEWTON AVENUE, LET THE CARS PARKED THERE RIGHT NOW THERE IS SOME PARKING OCCURRING AT LEAST WHEN THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERS WENT OUT TO STUDY THE AREA THERE WERE CARS PARKED THERE AND SO PEOPLE ARE PARKING. THERE IS SOME DEMAND FOR IT. THE IDEA IS JUST OPEN THAT UP AND LEGITIMIZE THAT IT HAPPENS. IT'S SAFE. THE ROAD WAS DESIGNED FOR IT. IT'S GOT SUFFICIENT WIDTH, DOESN'T CREATE PROBLEMS. THAT DOESN'T NEED TO TAKE PLACE WITH THIS APPLICATION. IF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT WE'RE BRINGING FORTH REVISIONS TO THE PARKING POLICY IN GENERAL THERE WILL BE CITYWIDE ID IN THE NEXT YEAR. WE COULD ADDRESS THIS IN THE FUTURE WHEN WE HAVE TIME TO WORK WITH THOSE RESIDENTS. SO WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND AND I LOOK FOR CLARIFICATION FROM PLANNING MANAGER JOHNSON IF THAT'S A RECOMMENDATION AND THAT COULD BE WAIT, WE COULD WAIT ON THAT ONE UNTIL WE HAVE TIME TO REVISE THAT POLICY AND DISCUSS IT WITH THE COMMISSION. MR. JOHNSON YEAH. CHAIR COOKED IN MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I APPRECIATE KIRK'S COMMENT ABOUT MAKING A RECOMMENDATION IN TERMS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PERSPECTIVE ABOUT THAT. SO AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS THERE IS REQUIREMENTS FOR MITIGATION MEASURES RELATED TO THE LEVELS OF TRAFFIC ON A LOCAL ROAD IN THIS PROJECT. BUT THE ON STREET PARKING RECOMMENDATION IN TRAFFIC STUDY IS NOT THE ONLY RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURE. THERE ARE SEVERAL MITIGATION MEASURES SO IF THIS WAS THE ONLY ONE BEING CONSIDERED IN THE APPLICATION THEN IT WOULD BE MORE PROBLEMATIC OR KIND OF A HINGE POINT IN TERMS OF IT MOVING FORWARD FROM THE TRAFFIC PERSPECTIVE AS IT RELATES TO THE ZONING CODE. BUT IT'S NOT THERE ARE MULTIPLE MITIGATION MEASURES SO THE CITY COUNCIL IN EFFECT COULD IMPLEMENT A STRATEGY OF ALLOWING ON STREET PARKING TO SERVE AS TRAFFIC CALMING. THEY COULD CHOOSE NOT TO THEY COULD TAKE MORE PUBLIC INPUT ABOUT THAT. BUT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROVIDED THEIR PERSPECTIVE ABOUT THAT BECAUSE IT IS THE ADVISORY BOARD THAT DOES WEIGH IN ON TRANSPORTATION IN THE CITY. SO JUST SO I'M CLEAR WHAT'S IN THE APPLICATION TODAY AS FAR AS MITIGATION MEASURES TO ALLOW OR TO NOT ALLOW ON STREET PARKING ON NEWTON RIGHT NOW IT'S SILENT THE APPLICATION BECAUSE IT'S WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION THAT YOU'RE REVIEWING IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO THE PRIVATE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT DATA. YEP. I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION AND I'M NOT SURE WHO OF STAFF THIS IS FOR BUT WHAT WHAT INFLUENCE DO WE HAVE WITH OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH METRO TRANSIT AND THE MET COUNCIL AS FAR AS LIKE OKAY WE'RE SEEING IF THIS WERE TO BE SEEN AS A COMMUNITY ASSET AND WE WANTED TO HAVE A GREATER LEVEL OF BUS SHELTER OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT AT THE SPECIFIC SITE WHAT TYPE OF INFLUENCE WE HAVE TO PETITION FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. MR. CHAIRMAN, WE HAVE REACHED OUT TO METRO TRANSIT IN TERMS OF THEIR WHAT THEIR NEEDS ARE FOR THIS DESIGN. WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH METRO TRANSIT. IN FACT FOR A WHILE THEY USED THIS LOCATION AS A LAYOVER POINT. THAT'S A RESPITE FOR THEIR DRIVERS. IT'S SERVED BY TRANSIT. NOW CURRENTLY THERE'S TWO ROUTES. THERE'S ONES THAT RUN THERE'S ONE THAT RUNS NORTH ALONG PENN AVENUE AND THEN MAKES A RIGHT TURN AND HEADS DOWN 98 STREET TO THE BLOOMINGTON TRANSFER TRANSIT STATION AS WELL AS ANOTHER ROUTE THAT RUNS EAST AND WEST ALONG 98TH STREET. BOTH OF THOSE ROUTES HAVE 30 MINUTE SERVICE DURING THE PEAK HOURS AND ABOUT 60 MINUTES ON THE WEEKENDS SO IT IS SERVED BY TRANSIT LIKE A LOT OF BLOOMINGTON WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE BETTER TRANSIT IN TERMS OF A MANDIS THAT THAT'LL BE PART OF THE CONVERSATION. WHAT DOES TRANSIT NEED TO MAKE THIS QUALITY THIS SITE WORK? WELL WE EXPECT A LOT OF TRANSIT USAGE AT THIS SITE AND SO SHELTERS ARE CERTAINLY IN THE POSSIBILITY THAT WOULD BE A SMALL ADDITION IN THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S ONGOING WITH METRO TRANSIT RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU, MR. ROBERTS. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER LINNEY THIS IS JUST GOING BACK TO THE QUESTION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I'M WONDERING ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY TASK COULD YOU SHARE WITH US WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY HAS ANY COOLING OFF PERIODS OR REQUIREMENTS FOR CITY EMPLOYEES WHO THEN GO TO WORK FOR PRIVATE ENTITIES? >> CHAIR COMMISSIONERS NO, I DON'T THINK YOU. MR. CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU CHAIR I HAVE A FEW BLASTS FROM THE PAST FROM LAST WEEK'S MEETING. QUESTIONS ONE THING THAT CAME UP A LITTLE BIT TONIGHT AND MR. CENTENARIO I THINK YOU'RE THE RIGHT PERSON TO ANSWER THIS WAS SOME DISCUSSION RELATED TO SOME OF THE HOUSES BEING BOUGHT BY WHAT I ASSUME IS AN EMINENT DOMAIN STYLE VEHICLE. CAN YOU GIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE BACKGROUND ON THAT? I CAN TRY COMMISSIONER COOKSON OR A ACTING COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM YEAH THERE WAS THERE WAS SOME COMMENTARY THAT THE CITY WAS CONSIDERING EMINENT DOMAIN TO TAKE SOME HOMES ALONG NEWTON AND WE DISCUSSED THAT AS STAFF BECAUSE THAT WAS A SURPRISE TO US TO HEAR OF EMINENT DOMAIN AND SO WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS EVER PART OF OF ANY CONSIDERATION. I THINK IT WENT I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS EVEN ANY OFFERS TO PURCHASE HOMES FROM THE CITY TO RESIDENTS. SO I'M NOT SURE WHERE THAT CONTENTION CAME FROM. MR. JOHNSON AT YOUR CHARACTER AND IF I CAN ADD TO THAT TOO YOU KNOW, AS A COMMENT I MADE AT THE LAST MEETING IS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS AS IT WERE OF THE DESIGN PROCESS IS DEFINITELY A MATTER OF AND AS YOU KNOW THIS FACILITY HAS SHRUNK MULTIPLE TIMES AS THE DESIGN HAS CONTINUED TO PROCEED AND SO AT AN EARLIER PHASE OF THE PROJECT THEY WERE CONTEMPLATING NEEDED TO ADD MORE PARKING TO SERVE THE FACILITY WHEN IT WAS LARGER AND SO I BELIEVE THAT PORT AUTHORITY STAFF ON BEHALF OF PARKS AND RECREATION WAS IN COMMUNICATION WITH SOME NEARBY RESIDENTS ABOUT POTENTIAL PURCHASE OF THEIR HOMES. IT DIDN'T ADVANCE PAST THAT POINT AND SINCE THE DESIGN CHANGE THEN THOSE CONVERSATIONS EFFECTIVELY CEASED. THANK YOU. YEP. COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM SORRY COMMISSIONER COOK AND I HAD ONE OTHER CONCERN I THINK IT GOT ADDRESSED AT THE LAST MEETING. IT DID AND NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU CHAIR WELL LET'S MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION AND I THINK I'LL GET IT STARTED AND MR. MATERIAL, IF I COULD ASK YOU TO GET US OVER TO THE SLIDE OF THE FINDINGS PLEASE. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS A COUPLE OF TIMES AND AS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS THIS IS THIS IS OUR BREAD AND BUTTER. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DO IS TO FIND FINDINGS OF FACT OR TO NOT FIND FINDINGS OF FACT. WE DO NOT HAVE THE LITTLE UNILATERAL AUTHORITIES THAT WELL, WE JUST DON'T HAVE THEM. AND SO AS I WAS STUDYING THIS APPLICATION LAST EVENING AND HEARING ALL THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY TODAY THIS IS WHERE MY HEAD'S AT IS CAN I MAKE THE FINDINGS OR NOT? AND FOR ME I DON'T KNOW IF I'LL GO THROUGH ALL OF THESE. WE CERTAINLY CAN. THE ONE THAT'S THE THE STICKIEST FOR ME IS REQUIRED FINDING NUMBER SIX AND I'M JUST GOING TO GO AHEAD AND READ IT HERE THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD OR OTHERWISE HARM THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE. AND THERE CERTAINLY IS LISA FOR INTERPRETATION THERE. AND YOU KNOW WHAT DOES THE WORD INJURIOUS MEAN AND HARMING THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE. THERE IS SOME SOME GRAY AREA THERE AND SO YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT WELL, DO I THINK THIS IS INJURIOUS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR NOT? I DO BELIEVE THERE WILL BE IMPACTS ON SOME OF THE HOMES ON NEWTON AVENUE. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY QUESTION ABOUT IT. WE'RE HAVING A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN TRAFFIC. THOSE HOMES ARE GOING TO FEEL IT. I DON'T HAVE ANY DOUBT THAT LIFE WILL NOT NOT BE THE SAME ONCE THIS WAS THE CENTER IS BUILT THERE, IT'S GOING TO INCREASE. THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. THE QUESTION THOUGH IS IS IT DIFFERENT OR IS IT INJURIOUS? AND FOR THAT REASON I LOOKED AT OTHER LOCATIONS AROUND THE CITY. WE HAVE A LOT OF BUSY STREETS AND A LOT OF BUSY INTERSECTIONS AND FRANKLY A LOT OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON THOSE BUSY STREETS INTERSECTION. AND WHEN I LOOK AT THE TRAFFIC COUNTS FOR WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO SEE HERE EVEN AT ITS MOST AGGRESSIVE FORM, WE HAVE MANY LOCATIONS IN THE CITY THAT SEE A GREAT NUMBER MORE TRAFFIC THAN THAT AND FRANKLY YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK JUST DOWN THE STREET. THE 98TH STREET IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE TRAFFIC THAN NEWTON WILL EVER SEE AND WE HAVE LOTS OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE ON 98TH STREET. SO FOR THAT REASON I CAN'T FIND IT TO BE INJURIOUS TO I THINK IT'S AN IMPACT. I ABSOLUTELY THINK IT'S AN IMPACT. HOWEVER, I DON'T THINK IT'S INJURIOUS. FOR THAT REASON I AM ABLE TO MAKE REQUIRE FINDING NUMBER SIX. IS THIS MY FAVORITE APPLICATION IN THE WORLD? IT'S PROBABLY NOT. WE'VE NOT TALKED ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT ONE OF OUR FINDINGS BUT FRANKLY I'M REALLY DISAPPOINTED IN THE ESTHETICS OF THIS BUILDING WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE RENDERINGS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED TO THE PUBLIC WHEN WE VOTED ON THIS AS RESIDENTS AND THIS WHOLE TIME IT WASN'T UNTIL LAST WEEK OR TWO WEEKS AGO WHEN I REVIEWED THE FINAL BUILDING APPLICATION THAT THIS BUILDING LOOKS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT ON THE OUTSIDE THAN IT DID. AND THAT'S REALLY DISAPPOINTING FOR ME BECAUSE I THINK WHEN WE'RE PUTTING OUR NAME ON IT THIS IS THE BLOOMINGTON COMMUNITY CENTER. IT'S A REPRESENTATION OF US AND IT'S DISAPPOINTING THAT IN MY OPINION IT KIND OF LOOKS LIKE A WAREHOUSE AND THAT'S DISAPPOINTING. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO REFINED REQUIRED FINDING NUMBER SEVEN THAT SAYS DOES THIS LOOK AT AND SO AS MUCH AS I DON'T LIKE THE WAY IT LOOKS I DON'T HAVE ANY LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DENY THIS APPLICATION BASED ON THAT CRITERIA. AND SO BASED ON THE FINDINGS THAT I HAVE SEEN BEFORE ME I BELIEVE I'M ABLE TO MAKE ALL REQUIRED FINDINGS AND I'M SUPPORTING THIS APPLICATION BUT I'M STILL OPEN TO OTHER COMMENTARY OF MY FELLOW PLANNING COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONER SO YEAH, THANK YOU CHAIR. I COOKED AND I KIND OF HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE. SO IF WE LOOK AT THIS GRAPH ON THE SCREEN YOU HAVE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS AND WITH THE BLACK BACKGROUND AND ON THE LEFT RIGHT AND THEN I BELIEVE ON THE RIGHT WOULD BE WHAT STAFF BELIEVES THE OUTCOME IS AND IF THE FINDINGS WEREN'T MADE RIGHT I THINK WE I THINK SOME OF THESE AS YOU MENTIONED THERE'S GRAY AREAS AND IT'S SUBJECTIVE ON HOW WE AS A PLANNING COMMISSION INTERPRET SOME OF THESE THINGS RIGHT AND SO I WANT TO GIVE MY OVERALL TAKE AND SO I'LL START OUT WITH TWO THINGS I WAS A BIT DISAPPOINTED WITH. AND SO THESE TWO THINGS ARE I REALLY WANT TO SEE THE DATA ON THOSE THAT I BELIEVE WAS 82ND THOSE FEW HOUSES IF THERE IS ANYTHING AND I KIND OF DO MY OWN DATA AND I'LL GO OVER THAT MY OWN ANALYSIS I SHOULD SAY AND SECONDLY I WOULD LOVE TO I KNOW OBVIOUSLY CITY STAFF WORK EXTREMELY HARD ON THIS AND THERE WAS LAST MINUTE CHANGES BUT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE MODEL THE MODEL WHAT WHAT WHAT IT COULD LOOK LIKE ON THAT PEN EXIT ENTRANCE WHATEVER. RIGHT. AND SO I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE MAKING A DECISION ON SOMETHING WHEN I DON'T KNOW ALL THE FACTS. SO ALL THIS IS BASED OFF MY ANALYSIS, THIS IS WHAT I HAVE SO HOW DOES NEWTON AVENUE SO I SPEND THE SITE COMPARED TO OTHER COMMUNITY CENTERS, RIGHT? AND SO I TOOK TWO OF THE SAME EXAMPLES THAT THE CITY USED CITY STAFF USED ON THE THE TRAFFIC DATA SLIDE FROM LAST MEETING AND SO BROOKLYN CENTER I'LL START WITH BROOKLYN CENTER THE THE ROAD THAT SERVES AS BROOKLYN CENTERS SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AND ACCORDING TO THE AMENDED TRAFFIC DATA THERE IS THE TRAFFIC AND THIS IS 2024 IS DATA IS 11,429 CARS ARE EAGAN WHICH IS SERVICED BY CENTRAL PARKWAY THAT TURNS INTO TOWER VIEW IS SERVICED BY 7662 EDEN PRAIRIE IS ONE THAT I ADDED SINCE IT'S CLOSE TO HERE IT WASN'T ON THE CITY SLIDE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT OBJECTIVE AS POSSIBLE. THAT'S WHY I USED TWO OF THE CITIES EXAMPLE MY AUDIO FROM THE CITIES RIGHT IS THE SERVICE BY VALLEY VIEW ROAD AT 8280 CARS RIGHT. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THESE SITES COMMUNITY CENTER SITES MOST OF THEM HAVE PARKS ON THE SITE LIKE LITERALLY DIRECTLY RIGHT ACROSS LIKE EDEN PRAIRIE I BELIEVE IT'S I FORGET IT. BUT IF ANYBODY'S BEEN THERE JULY 4TH THEY HAVE THAT BIG JULY FOURTH STORY IS ROUNDLY CHRONIC. YEAH. SO THERE'S A HUGE LAKE THERE AND SKATE PARK AND EVERYTHING. SO BROOKLYN CENTER AND EAGAN I BELIEVE AND SO ARE I. I KNOW WE DON'T HAVE THE DATA ON HOW LARGE THIS SITE WE HAVE THAT ON BLOOMINGTON'S THIS SITE IS THIS NINE ACRES SOMEWHAT MISTAKEN WHICH WAS MENTIONED EARLIER I COULDN'T FIND BROOKLYN CENTER AS WELL AND I DID A DEEP DIVE EGAN'S IS AT 60 ACRES AND I THINK THAT INCLUDES A PARK POTENTIALLY BUT I JUST WANT TO THROW THAT OUT THERE RIGHT SECOND IS HOMES IN THAT AREA, RIGHT? THERE'S HIGH TRAFFIC. I MEAN HIGH TURNOVERS IN TERMS OF HOW SALES RIGHT AND SO I USE AGAIN THE CITIES EXAMPLE OF 82ND AND PENN YOU HAVE A HIGH VOLUME FARM. THERE'S OFFICE BUILDING RIGHT RIGHT ACROSS ARE RELATIVELY HIGH AND SO I'M GOING TO I WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE A MAP PULLED UP IF THAT'S POSSIBLE. BUT I COULD ALSO JUST GO OFF OF THE ADDRESS I THINK OF THE 82ND AND PENN IF THAT'S POSSIBLE THE ACCEPTABLE COMMISSION. WHAT DO YOU SEE THE VOLUME TO GO ? YEAH, PERFECT. OKAY. SO YEAH, SO IF WE START OUT THIS WAS LIKE AN EXAMPLE THAT WAS USED TO COMPARE TO NEW IN LAST WEEK SO IF WE START OUT AND WE TAKE A LOOK AT 82ND AND PENN THAT ADDRESSES CAN I SAY ADDRESSES THIS WINERY RIGHT NOW OH OKAY WELL THAT HOUSE INFORMATION OKAY OKAY. SO THAT HOUSE IS I LOOKED AT THE DATA OF WHEN IT WAS LAST SOLD. RIGHT. AND SO OH YEAH. SO YEAH SO THAT HOUSE IS THIS SEEMS LIKE A RENTAL PROPERTY WAS RELEASED FOR RENT 2019 2021 AND IF WE GO LEFT OR IN THIS CASE WEST THEN YOU HAVE THE NEXT PROPERTY OVER THAT WAS SOLD AND THAT'S THE PROPERTY THAT BY THE WAY IS LIKE THE CLOSEST TO THE TO THE ENTRY POINT TO THE OFFICES AND WITH THE DRIVEWAY FACING THAT WAY IT WAS LAST SOLD IN 2016 AND PREVIOUSLY 2010 AND THEN PREVIOUSLY 2005 AND THEN PREVIOUSLY 1996 AND THAT'S THAT IS THROUGH ZILLOW AND THEN IF WE GO WEST AGAIN THAT WAS LAST SOLD IN 2001 THAT DRIVEWAYS ON QUEEN AVENUE SOUTH AND IF WE GO TO MORE HOUSES SO IN ORDER IF WE GO SOUTH ON QUEEN AVENUE THAT THAT FIRST HOUSE SO THIS IS NOT AN ANY INTERSECTION WAS LAST SOLD IN 1987 SO YEAH PROBABLY PAID OFF HE'S CHILLIN OR HE OR SHE RIGHT AND THEN YOU HAVE THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR WAS LAST SOLD IN 2018 AND 2005 AND THEN THE THIRD HOUSE DOWN ON QUEEN AVENUE SOUTH WAS LAST SOLD I THINK IT WAS 1984 IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN IN THE 80S BASICALLY ALSO HE OR SHE'S CHILLIN SO MY OKAY AND SO MY LAST AND FINAL ANALYSIS IS BASED OFF SIMPLY WHAT I'M SEEING AND YES CITY RESIDENTS FOR THE MOST LIKE VOTED FOR FOR THIS PROJECT OVERALL NOT MAYBE NOT THE LOCATION BUT THERE WAS A VOTE RIGHT AND SO I JUST BELIEVE AS I BELIEVE THE DID THE DEBATE IS NOT MORE IF THIS IF BLOOMINGTON SHOULD HAVE A COMMUNITY CENTER OR ENHANCED COMMUNITY CENTER IT IS IF THIS LOCATION IS RIGHT. I KNOW THERE'S A FINDINGS OF FACTS BUT I NOTICE A MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE THAT TESTIFIED OR BASICALLY EVERYBODY THAT TESTIFIED TODAY ARE YOU KNOW, THEY GAVE THEY GAVE THEIR OPINIONS AND I DIDN'T SEE MANY PEOPLE IN SUPPORT HERE WHICH MEANS THE PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T SHOW UP ARE PROBABLY INDIFFERENT TO THIS. AGAIN, NOT THE PROJECT BUT NOT NOT THE PROJECT ITSELF BECAUSE THERE WAS A VOTE ON IT BUT THE LOCATION. AND SO OVERALL I KNOW THAT YOU KNOW, STAFF HAS WORKED TIRELESSLY ON THIS AND IT IS A BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY. I KNOW I HAD A LOT OF FRIENDS THAT YOU KNOW, TOOK DIFFERENT PATHS IN LIFE AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HELPED ME STAY ON TRACK WAS THE COMMUNITY CENTERS AND DAY PROGRAMS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO FIRSTHAND I KNOW HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS AND I'M ALL FOR IT. AND AND AGAIN I, I THINK STAFF DID A REALLY GOOD JOB ON THIS. RIGHT. BUT I WANT TO FINISH THIS WITH A ALMOST AN ANALOGY RIGHT? IF LET'S SAY ONE OF US OR JUST IMAGINE YOURSELF, RIGHT? YOU'RE DRIVING FOUR HOURS TO A DESTINATION BUT YOU REALIZE YOU YOU DON'T HAVE A GPS, YOU DON'T HAVE PHYSICAL MAP OR ANYTHING AND YOU EITHER HAVE TO TURN AROUND OR KEEP GOING AND HOPEFULLY 50% YOU MAKE IT 50% YOU DON'T YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING RIGHT? THE NEAREST SHOP IS FOUR HOURS BACK TO GET A MAP AND YOU CAN DECIDE THEN IN THERE SHOULD I GO BACK, GET A MAP AND NOW I KNOW GUARANTEE WHERE I'M GOING OR KEEP GOING RIGHT? I THINK MOST OF US WOULD GO BACK TO THE SHOP, GET A PHYSICAL MAP AND THEN MAKE SURE WE KNOW WHERE WE'RE GOING. AND I THINK THIS IS A GOOD ANALOGY FOR THIS WORKS AND WE WANT TO YOU WANT TO TELL YOURSELF HEY LIKE I TRAVELED FOUR HOURS ALREADY, I DID ALL THE WORK SO LET ME JUST KEEP GOING. THAT'S TOO BIG OF A GAMBLE IF YOU IF YOU'RE STUCK, YOU'RE STUCK. SO THAT'S JUST HOW I FEEL. WE SHOULD LOOK AT THIS. YES. THE CITY STAFF DID A LOT OF WORK THAT'S NO DOUBT. AND THEY HAVE GOOD INTENT OBVIOUSLY. YOU KNOW AND I'M ALL FOR THIS BUT IN MY OPINION I DON'T THINK SOME OF THESE FINDINGS ARE ARE I DON'T I DO AGREE WITH THEM TO BE HONEST AND SO I THINK WE COULD GO BACK TO A DRAWING TABLE AND THAT'S AND THAT'S FINE. SO THAT'S MY OVERALL TAKE. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. SO MR. CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU CHAIR. MR. SANTORO CAN YOU PULL THE FINDINGS BACK UP ? PERFECT. THANK YOU. I AGREE WITH A LOT OF THE COMMENTS MADE BY CHAIR COOKED IN ABOUT FINDING NUMBER SIX THE OTHER ONES I DON'T HAVE TOO MUCH OF A PROBLEM WITH IT FINDING THREE I GUESS YOU COULD HAVE A SLIGHT LEG TO STAND ON TO SAY HEY LET'S UPDATE THE TRAFFIC STUDY WITH THE NEW PENN AVENUE DEAL. BUT I THINK THAT OVERALL I AGREE WITH FINING SIX THAT IT WILL BE A CHANGE TO NEWTON AVENUE WILL BE A CHANGE TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD AND A CHANGE TO THE WELFARE OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M HAVING TROUBLE FINDING IT BEING INTEREST INJURIOUS PARDON ME. I THINK THAT THE LOCATION A LOT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOUT THE VALLEY VIEW PARK LOCATION. I THINK THAT HAVING A COMMUNITY CENTER IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE CIVIC CENTER THAT WE'RE SITTING IN RIGHT NOW IS AN OVERALL BENEFIT FOR THE CITY. I THINK IT LEADS TO A LOT OF SYNERGISTIC PROGRAMING NOT JUST FOR COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELLNESS BUT YOU KNOW THE THEATER IS IN THIS BUILDING. CIVIC ENGAGEMENT HAPPENS IN THIS BUILDING AND I THINK THAT DRIVING MORE RESIDENTS CLOSER TO WHERE THEY CAN BE INVOLVED IN THE CITY IS AN OVERALL GOOD THING. AND SO I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS THIS PROPOSAL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM, COMMISSIONER WILLIAM, I WANT TO THANK YOU CHAIRMAN. I FIRST WANT TO ECHO CHAIR COOKED AND I DO NOT DISPUTE THAT THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE LIFE FOR PEOPLE ON NEWTON AVENUE. I GREW UP IN SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS AND MY FIRST INTRODUCTION TO CIVIC ENGAGEMENT WAS WHEN THE MINNEAPOLIS AIRPORTS COMMISSION WAS GOING TO ADD A NEW RUNWAY OVER THE AIRPORT AND I WAS 11 YEARS OLD AND WE SPENT EVERY WEEKEND PROTEST MY FAMILY PROTESTING AND DOING EVERYTHING WE COULD TO TRY AND GET THAT RUNWAY NOT BUILT OVER SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS CONVINCED THAT IT WOULD REDUCE THE VALUES OF THE HOMES IN SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS. AND WHEN WE WEREN'T SUCCESSFUL IT WAS DEVASTATING TO ME AS AN 11 YEAR OLD AT THE TIME. SO I'M INCREDIBLY SYMPATHETIC . BUT I HAVE TO SAY I AM LEANING TOWARDS CONCURRING WITH MY COLLEAGUES THAT I'M NOT SURE I FIND IT INJURIOUS TO PUT THE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER THERE. I BELIEVE BUILDING ON NOT JUST THE CIVIC CENTER BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THE LOCATION ALONG 90TH STREET WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ICE GARDEN ARE CREATING AN AREA OVERALL FOR CIVIC ENGAGEMENT ALONG 90TH STREET THAT I THINK WILL HAVE BENEFITS LONG TERM TO BLOOMINGTON AND I LOOK AT THE PROPERTY VALUES IN SOME OF THE OTHER SUBURBS AROUND THE COMMUNITY CENTERS THAT THEY'VE BUILT AND I'M NOT POSITIVE THAT IT WILL HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT. I THINK THE CASE COULD BE MADE GOING FORWARD THAT THERE WILL BE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE ATTRACTED TO THE FACT THAT THERE IS A COMMUNITY CENTER ACROSS THE STREET FROM THEM. I DO HAVE I DO HAVE SLIGHT CONCERNS ABOUT THE TRAFFIC IMPLICATIONS. HOWEVER, AS IT RELATES TO COMING OUT BOTH SIDES, BOTH THE NEWTON SIDE AND PENN SIDE AND I'M HOPEFUL THAT IF THIS DOES MOVE FORWARD THAT THE CITY DOES TAKE VERY CLOSE LOOK AT THE IMPACT AND IS PREPARED TO RESPOND TO THE RESIDENTS CONCERN IF FINDINGS ARE FOUND THAT THE IMPACT OF THE TRAFFIC IS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN ORIGINALLY ESTIMATED OR NEW PLANS ARE DISCOVERED AS IT RELATES TO THE COUNTY FOR ROADS AND OR PUBLIC TRANSPORT. BUT I THINK IN GENERAL I THINK IT DOES RISE TO THE LEVEL ON MOST OF THE FINDINGS THAT I CAN SUPPORT. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER WHITNEY SO I SHOULD ADD TO MY FIRST POINT WHERE I WENT OVER THE TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON THOSE OTHER COMMUNITY CENTERS WHICH WAS AGAIN BROOKLYN CENTER EAGAN AND EDEN PRAIRIE BEGAN BROOKLYN CENTER 11,000 ROUGHLY. EAGAN 7000 ROUGHLY AND PRAIRIE 8200 I BELIEVE EARLIER YOU CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG PENN AVENUE IS CURRENTLY AROUND 5000 SOMETHING RIGHT? OKAY SO THEN AND THAT'S NOT THE DIRECT ROAD RIGHT ON THERE. WELL IT IS THE WAY WHATEVER WAY YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT AGAIN THOUGH, IF WE COMPARE THIS RELATIVE TO OTHER COMMUNITY CENTERS, THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST OF ITS KIND WITH THAT MUCH TRAFFIC VOLUME ON A ROAD. SO IN TERMS OF A COMMUNITY CENTER SO YEAH. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. SO COMMISSIONER SUMMERS I WANT THANK YOU CHAIR. I WANT TO CONCUR WITH A LOT OF WHAT MY COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID ABOUT THE FINDINGS. I THINK THAT I WANT TO ADD THAT WHEN I THINK ABOUT THE TRAFFIC MITIGATION MEASURES WE'RE NOT AT THE HIGHEST RATE OF MITIGATION. SO I HAVE A LOT OF CONFIDENCE THAT IF THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH CARS ON THAT ROAD THAT WE HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR MITIGATION. IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE STARTING AT THE MOST EXPENSIVE, MOST EXTREME MEASURES WE CAN TAKE BUT WE'RE STARTING WITH A FEW OPTIONS THAT HAVE WORKED WELL TO MITIGATE HIGH SPEED TRAFFIC TRAFFIC IN GENERAL. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SUMMERS COMMISSIONER LISA. QUESTION FOR STAFF SO FOR THE MOST FOR THE MOST PART I AGREE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN GENERAL BUT I WANT TO CLARIFY BECAUSE THIS IS MADE BEFORE MY TIME HERE YOU KNOW, DO WE HAVE FULL INPUT ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION? MR. JOHNSON CHAIR COMMISSIONER, YOU SAY YES, YOU CERTAINLY DO. IT'S YOUR DUTY TO INTERPRET THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS WELL AS REVIEW AMENDMENTS TO IT AND UPCOMING HERE IN THE NEXT CYCLE ADOPTING THE NEXT ITERATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THOSE AMENDMENTS YOU KNOW MY EXCUSE ME WHEN IT COMES TO AMENDMENTS HOUSER WHO WHO INITIATED THAT AMENDMENT ANSWERED YEAH. SO CHAIR COMMISSIONER YOU SAY AN AMENDMENT CAN BE INITIATED BY A PRIVATE ACTOR CAN BE INITIATED BY THE CITY, IT CAN BE INITIATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE CITY COUNCIL . IN THIS CASE IT WAS INITIATED BY THE CITY ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER. I'M NOT I MIGHT BE THINKING ABOUT WHERE YOU'RE GOING A LITTLE BIT WITH THIS QUESTION BUT WE DID ALSO PREPARE SOME A SLIDE ABOUT REVIEW OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS GOALS, STRATEGIES, ACTIONS AS IT RELATES TO THIS APPLICATION AS THOSE WERE NOT MATERIALS THAT WE PRESENTED IN THE FIRST MEETING. WE CERTAINLY COULD PRESENT THEM TO YOU IF YOU'D FIND IT HELPFUL BUT JUST OFFERING THAT I KNOW WORRIES YES I STUDIED IT PRETTY WELL SO I'M FROM THERE. LIKE I SAID I AGREE WITH FOR THE MOST PART IT'S JUST YOU KNOW YEAH LONG TERM I'D LIKE TO HAVE AS A COMMISSION I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS AGREE BUT MORE INPUT ON THAT HOWEVER WE'LL WE'LL TALK. THANK YOU. YEAH I'D LIKE TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT MR. JOHNSON I KNOW IT'S NOT GERMANE TO THIS APPLICATION THE NEXT ROUND OF COMPREHENSIVE PLANS WHICH I BELIEVE WOULD BE THE 2050 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. CAN YOU SPEAK TO WHETHER THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS A ROLE IN CREATING THE 2050 PLAN YOU DO? CHAIR SO THE NEXT PLANNING PROCESS IS GOING TO START LATER ON THIS YEAR STARTING WITH A MEET OF THINKING ABOUT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP AND OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT AS THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS OR AS THE CITY'S MAIN ADVISORY BOARD, THE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION MATTERS YOU HAVE A FRONT ROW SEAT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROCESS SO AKIN TO THE CITY COUNCIL YOU'RE THE MOST INVOLVED BOARD AND COMMISSION IN THAT PROCESS IN TERMS OF SHAPING THE OUTCOME OF IT AND IN TERMS OF THE FINAL ACTION YOU WOULD BE ADVISORY TO THE CITY COUNCIL SIMILAR TO MANY OF YOUR APPLICATIONS THAT ARE AT THAT LEVEL BUT YOU WILL HAVE AN ONGOING ROLE PROVIDING FEEDBACK AS THE PROCESS UNFOLDS. SURE. WHAT I THINK THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT TO ADD AT THIS POINT OTHER THAN TO SAY THAT YOU KNOW, I TOO AM I'M SYMPATHETIC TO THE COMMUNITY. I THINK ONE OF THE CHALLENGES FOR A CITY LIKE BLOOMINGTON IS THAT WE'RE WE'RE A BIT LANDLOCKED AND WHEN YOU HAVE A COMMUNITY CENTER AND YOU WANT TO PUT IT WHERE THE COMMUNITY IS, IT'S GOING TO HAVE IMPACT . AND SO I THINK THERE'S THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY IDEAL. HOWEVER, I THINK THAT IN TERMS OF OUR ROLE AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION, I THINK THE THE FINDINGS ARE NOT IDEAL BUT CLEAR. AND SO I WILL BE VOTING IN SUPPORT . SO I WASN'T SURE IF THAT WAS A HAND OR A STRETCH. OKAY. STRETCH COMMISSIONER MUNSTER WELL THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU SAID AT THE OUTSET OF OF THIS REGARDING FINDING NUMBER SIX THAT WHEN WE LOOK AT WHAT IS INJURIOUS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT REALLY IS A GRAY AREA THAT NEEDS TO BE CLOSELY ANALYZED. I AGREE WITH YOU. I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES IN THAT I DON'T THINK THAT THIS RISES TO THE LEVEL OF INJURIOUS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. >> HOWEVER, I DO WANT TO EXPRESS SOME DISAPPOINTMENT IN THE WAY THAT THE TRAFFIC CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS WERE TREATED WITH A LEVEL OF DISMISSAL. YOU KNOW, AS HAS BEEN STATED, THIS IS GOING TO BE A BIG CHANGE TO THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. >> BUT WHEN WE LOOK AT WHAT IS BEST FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE, IT DOESN'T RISE TO THE LEVEL OF OF US NOT BEING ABLE TO MAKE THIS REQUIRED FINDING . SO SO WITH THAT SAID AGAIN, I AM IN SUPPORT OF IT I THINK DUE TO THE FACT THAT WE ARE AS A COMMISSION HEMMED IN BY HAVING TO EITHER MAKE A FINDING OR NOT MAKE A FINDING WE CAN'T LET OUR PERSONAL OPINION OF A PROJECT REALLY YOU KNOW, REALLY GUIDE THAT THAT THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. MR. ONE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO ADD THAT WASN'T SPECIFICALLY ASKED OF US BUT I BROUGHT IT UP LAST TIME AND I'D LIKE TO BRING IT UP AGAIN IS I WISH WE WERE ACTUALLY PARKING LESS HERE. I KNOW THERE MAY BE SOME EVENTS WHERE WE HAVE A LOT OF PARKING THERE BUT I DON'T KNOW I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF ADDING A LOT OF ASPHALT AND JUST I WOULD HAVE RATHER SEEN PROOF OF PARKING HERE WE I THINK WE'RE OVER PARKS AND BLOOMINGTON HAS A LONG HISTORY OF OVER PARKING. I CAN COUNT ON ONE HAND THE NUMBER OF TIMES I'VE EVER NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND A PARKING SPOT SOMEWHERE IN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON. IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN. WE'RE WAY OVER PARKED AND SO I WISH THE CITY WAS TAKING A MORE AGGRESSIVE STANCE ON THIS AS A LEADER AND SAYING WE'RE GOING TO USE LESS MATERIAL, LESS IMPERVIOUS SERVICE AND BE A LITTLE MORE AGGRESSIVE WITH OUR PARKING COUNTS AND DO PROOF OF PARKING. AND IF WE FIND WE'RE UNDER PARKED THEN WE'LL BUILD A PARKING. BUT I THINK WE'RE PROVIDING TOO MUCH PARKING IN MY OPINION. COMMISSIONER WHITE THANK YOU CHAIR CORRECT. AND I WOULD ACTUALLY SECOND THAT OPINION AND I WOULD JUST ADD A COUPLE OF ENCOURAGEMENTS FOR THE CITY MOVING FORWARD TO LOOK FOR ANY OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH METRO TRANSIT AND WITH OTHER ENTITIES TO ENCOURAGE AND FACILITATE PEOPLE NOT DRIVING TO THIS SITE. I THINK THAT THAT'S IMPORTANT ACROSS THE CITY FOR ALL OF OUR SITES BUT I THINK IT'S PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT FOR THIS IT'S A HEALTH CENTER ISSUE YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S A LOT HEALTHIER NOT TO DRIVE THERE. SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE FOLKS FOR HEALTH REASONS, CLIMATE REASONS AND ANY OTHER NUMBER OF REASONS TO CONSIDER THAT AS AN IMPORTANT PRIORITY. AND I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE STAFF TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO LOOK FOR THE HIGHEST MITIGATION MEMBER MEASURES POSSIBLE. I THINK THAT WE HEARD SOME VERY, VERY GOOD COMMENTS TONIGHT FROM NEIGHBORS WHO KNOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND KNOW THE BEHAVIOR. I AGREE THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN FACED WITH TRAFFIC FOLKS ARE LIKE AUNTS AND WILL FOLLOW OUT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO FIND THE QUICKEST WAY TO WHERE THEY NEED TO GO. AND SO MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE PROTECTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE SHOULD BE A TOP PRIORITY MOVING FORWARD. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. WAIT. COMMISSIONER ISSA THANK YOU, CHAIR YEAH. I GUESS IN SUMMARY AFTER HEARING EVERYBODY I SEEMS LIKE I'M PROBABLY GOING TO BE THE ONLY ONE THAT VOTES CERTAIN WAY BUT AGAIN THAT HAPPENED WITH THE DWELL TIME SIGNAGE AND THIS I DID A SIMILAR ANALYSIS WHICH WAS LIKE SEEING HOW OTHER CITIES WHAT THEIR DWELL TIME IS WITH THAT. I KNOW THIS IS KIND OF A DIFFERENT TOPIC BUT WHEN I SAW LIKE A 200 300% DIFFERENCE I'M LIKE WHOA, WHY WHY WOULD WE MAKE IT ANY LESS? AND THEN YOU KNOW OBVIOUSLY WHAT I COMPARED THE POTENTIAL BENEFIT TO SMALL BUSINESSES WITH THAT AGAIN AND I'M GOING TO GO OFF TOPIC BUT I ONLY DO IT FOR SIGNS OF YEAH SUMMARIZE RIGHT SO IN GENERAL I WITH THIS I BELIEVE NUMBER FIVE AND SIX ARE NOT POTENTIALLY COULD NOT BE MET BECAUSE IT LIKE I SAID WITH THE EXAMPLES BEFORE IT IS UNCHARTED WATERS AND THAT'S WHY I'LL BE VOTING NOT FOR THIS THANK YOU COMMISSIONER LISA MR. JOHNSON I HAVE A QUESTION. SO WE DID HE GET A COUPLE OF FOLKS EXPRESSING A DESIRE FOR A PROOF OF PARKING INSTEAD OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S WITHIN OUR PURVIEW OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT GETS DOCUMENTED IN THE MINUTES AND THE COUNCIL COULD TAKE CARE OF THAT CHAIR COACH AND I WOULD SAY IT'S THE LATTER. YOU DO HAVE TO RENDER JUDGMENT ON THE APPLICATION BEFORE YOU UNLESS AN APPLICANT DEMANDS IT ON THE FLY WHICH YOU'VE SEEN FROM TIME TO TIME. I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE HERE BUT OF COURSE WE WILL CERTAINLY SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS AND SENTIMENTS AS IT SUPPORTS YOUR RECOMMENDATION WITH THE CITY COUNCIL THAT CAN INCLUDE TRANSIT FACILITIES THAT INCLUDE STREET PARKING. IT CERTAINLY CAN INCLUDE PROOF OF PARKING VERY WELL. COMMISSIONER MUNSTER. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. JUST TO BE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT ANSWER CORRECTLY, MR. JOHNSON BECAUSE THAT WAS ACTUALLY THE EXACT SAME QUESTION THAT I HAD WHEN I HAD MY HAND RAISED A MOMENT AGO IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION EMPOWERED OR TO ADD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOUND IN THE STAFF REPORT? CHAIR COMMISSIONER MUNSTER I WOULD SAY IT DEPENDS ON THE NATURE OF THE CONDITION. CERTAINLY IF IT FUNDAMENTALLY ALTERS THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION BEFORE YOU THEN YOU'RE PROBABLY EXCEEDING THE LINE POTENTIALLY. BUT IF THE CONDITION MEETS THE ESSENTIAL NEXUS TEST TO HELP YOU SUPPORT APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION THEN CERTAINLY YOU COULD ADD THAT CONDITION. I HOPE THAT RESPONSE WASN'T TOO VAGUE OR UH UH YEAH NO AND PERHAPS A MORE DIRECT QUESTION AND THEN MAYBE THIS IS BEST SUITED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY IF WE WANTED TO ADD IN A CONDITION OF APPROVAL REQUIRING PROOF OF PARKING WOULD THAT BE ALLOWABLE? MR. TUSK. CHAIR COMMISSIONER MUNSTER. SO THE APPLICATION BEFORE YOU DOES NOT INCLUDE PROOF OF PARKING. SO LET'S KEEP THAT IN MIND. THERE'S NO PROOF OF PARKING IN THERE RIGHT NOW. IT'S A LEVEL ABOVE OR USING FLEXIBILITY THROUGH THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS THROUGH THE REZONING. I WOULD ADVISE LIKE AN UP OR DOWN VOTE ON THE APPLICATION BEFORE YOU COULDN'T SAY WE RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION OR CONSIDER AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION WE COULD DO THAT. BUT WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU IS WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU. SO WE NEED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THAT RIGHT NOW OR SHORTLY. THANKS FOR THE DISCUSSION AND THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MUNSTER I WOULD SORT OF PUT IT AT THIS THE SAME THING WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ABOUT ALL NIGHT IS THAT THERE'S ONLY CERTAIN THINGS WE CONSIDER HERE AND CERTAIN THINGS WE CAN'T AND WE CAN'T ON ONE HAND SAY WELL WE CAN'T CONSIDER THAT BUT THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE WHEN WE WANT SOMETHING WE WE WE WE SLIP IT INTO THE APPLICATION. SO I THINK WE NEED TO BE FAIR HERE AND THAT WE CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. AND SO I THINK WHAT MR. TUSK SAID THERE WAS WAS APPROPRIATE WE COULD YOU 1ST MAY CHOOSE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT RECOMMENDS CONSIDERATION OF BUT WE WE MAY NOT PUT IT AS A CONDITION IS WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING. MR. JOHNSON I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD THAT THE REQUIRING PROOF OF PARKING WOULD ACTUALLY INCREASE THE PARKING DEVIATION THAT'S BEING SOUGHT AND SO IT DOES HAVE TO DO WITH THE ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL THAT THEY ARE SEEKING. YEAH. MR. JOHNSON AS YOU'RE BRINGING THIS FORWARD TO COUNCIL AND IF WE DON'T END UP DOING SOMETHING FORMALLY OR I THINK WHAT THE INTENT WE'RE TRYING TO GET ACROSS HERE IS REPLACING SOME OF THE FOR CERTAIN PARKING WITH A PROOF OF PARKING. I THINK WE CERTAINLY CAN COMMUNICATE THAT STRONGLY IF THAT'S THE CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD AND SEEING SOME HEAD NODS HERE AND ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO PROVIDE COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION. IF NOT I WOULD ENTERTAIN THE FIRST OF A SERIES OF MOTIONS. COMMISSIONER LENNY I HAVE NEVER ACTUALLY DONE THE MOTION BUT I MOVE THAT IN CASE PL 2025 DASH 85 I MOVE TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANT FUTURE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR 9841 PENN AVENUE SOUTH AND 9900 NEWTON AVENUE SOUTH FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PUBLIC. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND FOR MOTION IN A SECOND FOR THE FIRST MOTION OF RECOMMENDING A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MS. BROWN PLEASE CALL THE ROLL CAPTAIN. I CUNNINGHAM I E C NO WHITE I LENNY I SUMMERS I IN MONSTER I THE MOTION PASSES SIX ONE MR. CUNNINGHAM IN CASE PL 2025-85I MOVE TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING 9801 PENN AVENUE SOUTH FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-1 PD SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND REZONE 9841 PENN AVENUE SOUTH AND 9800 NEWTON AVENUE SOUTH FROM R M DASH 24 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R A PD SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT 9900 NEWTON I THINK JUST CLARIFY. 9990 900 NEWTON THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND I SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THE SECOND MOTION. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MS. BROWN KIRKTON I CUNNINGHAM I E C NO WAY I LENNY I SUMMERS I IN MONSTER I THEIR MOTION PASSES SIX ONE MR. CUNNINGHAM IN CASE PL 2025-85. HAVING BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS I MOVE TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 106,000 SQUARE FOOT AND COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER WITH A FUTURE GYM EXPANSION SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND CODE REQUIREMENTS ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMEND WE DISCUSS WITH THE CITY ABOUT PROOF OF PARKING AT THE SOUTHERNMOST PORTION OF THE LOT. KITCHEN AND COMMISH COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM AND IF YOU'RE OPEN TO A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD NEED TO BE REFLECTED IN THE ACTUAL MOTION. I THINK IT IS CAPTURED WITHIN THE MEETING I LOOKED. PERFECT. ASK YOU IF YOU WOULD AGREE WITH THAT ASSESSMENT ATTORNEY TO ASK YOU WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO RESTATE THAT FOR THE RECORD WITHOUT THE EXTRA ON THE END? YEAH. CHAIR IT CHAIR COMMISSIONER WHY DON'T YOU DO THAT WOULD BE GOOD. I APOLOGIZE. IN CASE PL 2025-85. HAVING BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS I MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 106,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER WITH A FUTURE GYM EXPANSION SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND CODE REQUIREMENTS ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT. WE HAVE A SECOND SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THIS MOTION. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION MISS BROWN CAPTAIN I CUNNINGHAM I YOU SAY NO WHITE I LET ME I. SUMMERS I IN MONSTER I THEIR MOTION PASSES SIX ONE IS THAT OUR FINAL MOTION MR. SCENARIO AS WE WRAP UP THIS ITEM I WANT TO THANK THE PUBLIC FOR COMING OUT. WE DO APPRECIATE YOUR TESTIMONY AND I'M PROUD TO SAY I WAS RESPECTFUL OF ONE ANOTHER AND A GOOD PERFORMANCE FOR THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON AND HOW WE CAN HAVE A HEALTHY DISAGREEMENT WITH EACH OTHER. THIS APPLICATION IS NOT FINAL. THIS WILL GO BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ON AUGUST 25TH, 2025. THEY WILL MAKE THE FINAL DECISION ON THIS APPLICATION AND I'M SURE THEY'D LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WILL ALLOW A COUPLE OF MINUTES HERE FOR THE CHAMBERS TO CLEAR OUT FOR THOSE WHO WISH. CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS, IF I MIGHT WE WILL INCLUDE I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR PLANNING STAFF BUT THE STAFF REPORT WILL INCLUDE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT PROOF OF PARKING SO THAT WILL BE COVERED AND WE WILL COVER THE KIND OF DISCUSSION YOU MADE ABOUT THAT AND MAKE SURE THAT GETS REFLECTED AT CITY COUNCIL. SO JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I HAVE A QUESTION WHAT WOULD BE INJURY SERIOUS WHAT? GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. I'M UNABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> YOU DON'T GIVE US A CHANCE TO ASK IT FOLKS AT HOME ARE JUST GOING TO GIVE ANOTHER MINUTE AS SOME FOLKS ARE MAKING THEIR WAY OUT OF THE CHAMBERS . >> ITEM NUMBER THREE THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO AND ONCE AGAIN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON IS THE APPLICANT IN THIS CASE IT'S FOR THE CITY CODE AMENDMENT FOR REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING ORDINANCE. I WILL BE RECUSING MYSELF FROM THIS ITEM DUE TO A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT IS NEW TO THE CALENDAR YEAR OF 2025. FISHER CUNNINGHAM WILL BE ACTING CHAIR FOR THIS ITEM. THANK YOU CHAIR GOOD RIGHT UNDER ITEM THREE MR. CENTENARIO THE STAFF REPORT PLEASE. THANK YOU. ACTING CHAIR COMMISSIONERS. SIMILAR TO THE LAST COUPLE ITEMS WE HAVE AN ITEM THAT WAS CONTINUED FROM YOUR LAST MEETING AND THIS THIS ITEM RELATES TO PROPOSED AIRPORT PARKING ORDINANCE SO THAT IS THAT ENCOMPASSES STANDARDS RELATED TO REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING AS WELL AS HOTEL AIRPORT PARKING AND THAT. THAT DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO USES OF IS IS IMPORTANT SO AGAIN GOING TO KEEP IT FAIRLY BRIEF LAST SEPTEMBER THERE WAS AN AIRPORT PARKING FACILITIES MORATORIUM THAT WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO ESSENTIALLY MAKE SPACE FOR STAFF TO STUDY THE ISSUE AND THEN COME UP WITH ALTERNATIVES AND EVENTUALLY AN ORDINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION. WE REALLY STARTED THE PROCESS IN EARNEST LAST NOVEMBER, SPENT THE WINTER AND SPRING DOING OUTREACH, COLLECTING INFORMATION. IN MAY AND JUNE WE HAD PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSIONS AND IN JULY AND NOW IN AUGUST WE ARE. BEFORE YOU AND WILL BE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. SO A LOT OF THE THE DESIRE TO STUDY THE ISSUE CAME OUT OF THE TWO MAIN REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING FACILITIES PARKING GO AND PARKING FLY AND IT'S NOT THE ONLY ISSUE BUT I WOULD SAY THAT. OR THEY OBVIOUSLY TAKE A LOT OF PHYSICAL SPACE AND A LOT OF DISCUSSION. AND SO JUST TO REMIND THE COMMISSION PARKING GO IS 12.5 ACRES ABOUT 5000 STALLS OF REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING AND HAS BEEN IN OPERATIONS IN 1982 THROUGH. TEMPORARY APPROVALS AND THERE THE IP HAD EXPIRED LAST YEAR BUT DUE TO THE MORATORIUM YOU KNOW THE CITY HAS NOT BEEN TAKING ANY ENFORCEMENT ACTION ON THAT EXPIRATION. SO WE COULD GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS THE OTHER REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING FACILITY. THE PARKING SPACE BY PARKING FLY. IT'S JUST A TINY BIT SMALLER 12.2 ACRES BUT IT DOES HAVE SLIGHTLY MORE PARKING STALLS BECAUSE THERE IS A PARKING STRUCTURE THAT'S ABOUT A THOUSAND STALLS AND THIS ONE IS A LITTLE OLDER THAN AN OPERATION SINCE 1988. AGAIN, THROUGH THESE TEMPORARY APPROVALS SO WHEN WE'RE THINKING ABOUT REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING AND THE STANDARDS THAT WE FELT WERE APPROPRIATE, YOU MAY REMEMBER JUST A MATRIX BASED ON YOU KNOW THAT INCLUDED ZONING ALTERNATIVES, YOU KNOW, IN RANGE OF. REGULATORY STRENGTH I GUESS YOU COULD CALL IT FROM ALLOWING IT AS A PERMITTED USE TO PROHIBITING IT SO THOSE TWO ENDS OF THE SPECTRUM ULTIMATELY THE RECOMMENDATIONS WE GOT OR THE FEEDBACK WE GOT WAS TO COME UP WITH A CONDITIONAL USE TYPE. WITH PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND THAT'S WHAT AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. SO THAT WOULD ESTABLISH REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING AS A CONDITIONAL USE SO WE CAN THINK OF IT ANOTHER WAY AS A PERMANENT USE NO LONGER THE FIVE YEAR INTERIM USE PERMIT PROCESS AND ONLY TWO. DISTRICTS THE C TWO DISTRICT AND THE H. S R DISTRICT. THE TWO FACILITIES ARE ON SITES THAT ARE ZONED HSR SO THAT WOULD REMAIN THE SAME AND THEN THE SIX TWO IS MOSTLY OCCUPIED BY THE MALL OF AMERICA CAMPUS WITH A COUPLE EXTRA PARCELS THAT ARE CURRENTLY CITY OWNED. AND SO IN TERMS OF. IF YOU WILL THE THE MEAT OF THE ORDINANCE ONCE AGAIN ALLOWING PERMANENT USE AND THEN THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS WOULD REQUIRE BY A DEADLINE THE END OF THE DECADE TO SET ASIDE THREE ACRES OF LAND FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. AND SO THIS THIS ORDINANCE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT BE DEVELOPED BUT IT DOES REQUIRE THE SET ASIDE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. IN TERMS OF STANDARDS FOR NEW FACILITIES MEANING REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING FACILITIES THAT DON'T CURRENTLY EXIST, THE AUDIENCE WOULD REQUIRE THAT THEY THEY ONLY TAKE PLACE WITHIN EXISTING PARKING STRUCTURES THAT ARE THAT CAN DEMONSTRATE EXCESS PARKING SUPPLY. SO AGAIN WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS FIND A REASONABLE APPROACH TO ALLOW THESE BUSINESSES TO CONTINUE. BUT THEN ALSO OF TRYING TO IMPLEMENT THE VISION OF THE SOUTH OF DISTRICT PLAN ALONG AMERICAN BOULEVARD. SO IN TERMS OF THE HOW WE IMPLEMENT IMPLEMENT THAT THROUGH THE ORDINANCE IT'S RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD IN THE IN THE CODE CHANGING THE USE ALLOWANCES BOTH IN THE AJAX OUR DISTRICT AND IN THE SIX TWO DISTRICT. AND THEN I JUST PROVIDED A COUPLE EXAMPLES OF OF OF APPROXIMATELY A THREE ACRE AREA OF FOR THE PARKING FLY AND THE PARKING CO SITE THIS IS PARKING FLY THIS THREE ACRE DEVELOPMENT SET ASIDE SITE VERY VERY CLOSELY MIRRORS PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT. THAT THAT PROPERTY OWNER WAS PURSUING SEVERAL YEARS AGO THAT ENDED UP. NOT MATERIALIZING THAT YOU KNOW I LOOKED AT THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND THAT WAS JUST UNDER THAT THREE ACRE MARK. AND SO WHAT ARE THE WHAT THE ORDINANCE WILL REQUIRE IS THAT THAT THREE ACRES BE VACATED OF AIRPORT PARKING BY DECEMBER 31ST, 2029 AND PROVIDE SOME LEVEL OF SCREENING SO THAT THERE IS A SEPARATION BETWEEN. WROTE AIRPORT PARKING AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SIMILAR GRAPHIC ON THE PARKING GO SITE APPROXIMATELY THREE ACRES AGAIN THE IDEA IS TO IMPLEMENT A HIGH DENSITY TRANSIT SUPPORTING PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT ALONG AMERICAN BOULEVARD AND TO ESSENTIALLY SET THAT AREA ASIDE BY THE END OF THE DECADE. SO AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, YOU KNOW THE THREE ACRES. YOU KNOW, IN PART WAS INFORMED BY DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS PROPOSED BY BOTH THESE PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE LEFT IS APPROXIMATELY THREE ACRE DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS VERY CLOSE TO BEING BUILT BUT DIDN'T MATERIALIZE AND ON THE RIGHT IS APPROXIMATELY A THREE ACRE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S IN CONCEPTUAL PHASE FOR THE PARKING CO SITE. SO WHAT'S SHOWN? YOU KNOW IN A GENERAL SENSE FOR EXAMPLE IN THE PARKING GO SITE WHAT'S SHOWN IS ROUGHLY IN LINE WITH H R H S OUR DISTRICT. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DO A FULL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OF THIS CONCEPT BUT IT JUST GOES TO SHOW YOU KNOW ON A CONCEPTUAL LEVEL WHAT COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED. ALONG AMERICA BOULEVARD IN THIS AREA AND THEN RELATED TO NEW FACILITIES AND EXISTING STRUCTURES YOU KNOW THE TWO IMAGES ON THE LEFT THOSE ARE TWO ENTITIES THAT ARE INTERESTED IN CREATING FACILITIES ONE BEING THE MALL OF AMERICA WOULD LIKE TO STABLISH REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING FACILITY IN THE EAST RAMP AND THEN THE. PARKING STRUCTURE THAT'S JUST EAST OF THE RIVERSIDE OFFICE TOWER. WE THERE'S AN ENTITY THAT WOULD LIKE TO ESTABLISH A SMALLER MOTOR PER PARKING FACILITY THERE AS WELL. AND SO AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF REMOTE PARKING FACILITIES. WE DON'T WANT TO SEE PROLIFERATION OF THESE TYPES OF FACILITIES BUT WE DID WANT TO TAKE WHAT WE FELT WAS A REASONABLE APPROACH. INTO FINDING A MIDDLE GROUND THAT WE FEEL WOULD BE SUCCESSFUL. YOU KNOW, HOTEL AIRPORT PARKING WAS I WOULD SAY A LITTLE MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD IN TERMS OF OUR ANALYSIS AND CONSIDERATION IN THE CITY SESSIONS WHAT WE HEARD IS TO ALLOW IT AS A PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE MEANING THAT HOTELS WOULD NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PROCESS OR ZONING REVIEW. TO OPERATE ESSENTIALLY THE WAY THEY'RE ALREADY OPERATING. WE KNOW THAT MOST HOTELS IN BLOOMINGTON HAVE SOME SORT OF AIRPORT PARKING OPTION WHERE YOU STAY A NIGHT OR TWO AND THEN YOU GET A CERTAIN NUMBER OF DAYS TO PARK YOUR CAR. THIS WOULD JUST MAKE THAT A PERMITTED USE. THAT SAID, WE DO WANT IT TO BE ACCESSORY MEANING THAT HOTEL SITES ARE OPERATED AS HOTELS AND NOT AS REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING FACILITIES. AND SO AGAIN THE PROPOSAL IS TO ALLOW THIS AS A PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE MUST INCLUDE AN OVERNIGHT STAY BECAUSE IF THERE ISN'T AN OVERNIGHT STAY THERE'S THEN IT BECOMES A REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING FACILITY AND THEN THAT. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT TO SEE. WE HAVE 49 HOTELS IN BLOOMINGTON AND THAT I THINK COULD LEAD TO A PROLIFERATION OF THIS TYPE OF USE. WE ALSO WANTED THERE TO BE SOME THOUGHT FROM THE HOTELS AND HOW THEY WOULD OPERATE THIS THIS TYPE OF USE. THEY ALREADY DO. BUT MAYBE IN A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A DELIBERATE MANNER WHERE THE THE PARKING OCCURS AND DESIGNATED PARKING AREAS. WE DON'T WANT TO SEE PARKING ON GRASS OR IN FIRE LANES OR IN OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY. AND THEN LASTLY, YOU KNOW, REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING OR HOTEL OR PER PARKING IS IS A POTENTIALLY A LUCRATIVE BUSINESS. AND SO WHAT WE DO NOT WE DO NOT WANT TO SEE IS HOTELS EXPANDING PARKING FOR THE SAKE OF EXPANDING THEIR HOTEL AIRPORT PARKING OPERATIONS. SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE CREATE A CAP ON HOTEL. PARKING AND IT'S IT'S PRETTY GENEROUS I DON'T KNOW OF A SINGLE HOTEL THAT HAS 120% OF THE CODE REQUIREMENTS. SO IT IS A YOU KNOW, IT IS A PRETTY GENEROUS STANDARD. BUT WE DID FEEL LIKE IT WAS IMPORTANT TO CREATE A CAP JUST SO WE'RE NOT SEEING SUBSTANTIAL PARKING LOT EXPANSIONS FOR PARKED VEHICLES . AND WITH THAT I'M SURE THERE'S QUESTIONS BUT WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND I HAVE THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU OR THE MOTION FOR THE AUDIENCE BEFORE YOU. THANK YOU. PLANNING SUPERVISOR CENTENARIO THANK YOU. I'LL LEAD US OFF WITH QUESTIONS. ONE QUESTION I HAD RELATES TO THE TWO ENTITIES THAT ARE OPERATING ON THE INTERIM CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THE PARKING GO PARKING FLY SETTING ASIDE THREE ACRES IS THERE ANYTHING PREVENTING THOSE COMPANIES FROM BUILDING STRUCTURED PARKING ON THE REMAINING ACREAGE OF THEIR PARCELS? AS CHAIR CUNNINGHAM THE SO WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AGAIN PERMANENT RIGHTS TO OPERATE REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING AND THERE'S NOTHING IN THE ORDINANCE THAT WOULD PRECLUDE THEM FROM EXPANDING. SO WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE DEVELOPMENT SET ASIDE WOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF STALLS FOR REMOTE PARKING SURFACE STALLS BUT THERE'S NOTHING TO SAY THAT THEY COULDN'T PROPOSE PARKING STRUCTURES. ACTUALLY HAVE MORE AIRPORT PARKING THAN THEY HAVE TODAY. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS COMMISSIONER LYNCH THANK YOU CHAIR NOT SO MUCH A QUESTION MORE A STATEMENT THAT I MAY HAVE MADE LAST TIME ALSO WHICH IS JUST TO ENSURE THAT WHEN THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN THAT IT IMPLIES OR THAT IT CLEARLY STATES. THREE CONTIGUOUS ACRES SO THAT WE DON'T END UP IN A SITUATION WHERE IT'S ONE ACRE ON ONE CORNER, ONE ACRE ON ANOTHER CORNER AND ONE ACRE ON A THIRD CORNER THEREBY MAKING DEVELOPMENT INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT. THANK YOU FOR THAT SUGGESTION. SHOULD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ? BUT ACTUALLY I HAVE A SECOND QUESTION THAT IS PARTICULARLY WITH THE 3601 AMERICAN BOULEVARD THAT'S WEST AMERICAN BOULEVARD RIGHT EAST OF EAST. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY CONCERNS THAT. I BELIEVE I ASKED AT THE LAST TIME WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO EITHER SELL OR ALLOW SOMEONE ELSE TO OPERATE THE PARKING RAMP? IS THERE ANY RISK BY ALLOWING SOMEONE ELSE TO OPERATE IT THAT IT WOULD HINDER REDEVELOPMENT OR LIMIT LEASING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE OFFICE SPACE THAT'S ADJACENT TO IT? >> SURE IT'S CORRECT AND COMMERCIAL AND THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. WE YOU KNOW, WHENEVER YOU HAVE LEASES THAT COULD ENCUMBER FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND SO WE'RE WE'RE MINDFUL OF THAT IN TERMS OF LIMITING OCCUPYING LIKE THE OFFICE BUILDING FOR EXAMPLE BECAUSE IT'S ALL ONE POOL OF PARKING AND IT GOES TO A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT USERS AND THAT'S WHY WE WANTED TO ENSURE THAT THERE WAS SOME ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE TO LOOK AT WELL WHAT IS WHAT IS THE EXCESS CAPACITY. FOR A PARKING STRUCTURE AND NOT JUST BASED ON THE CURRENT CONDITIONS BECAUSE SOME OFFICE BUILDINGS ARE MOSTLY EMPTY BUT ACTUALLY A COMMON TRY TO MODEL WHAT THAT DEMAND WOULD BE IF THOSE BUILDINGS WERE FULLY OCCUPIED. AND SO IT'S IT'S A MODEL IT'S NOT GOING TO BE PERFECT BUT IT SHOULD GIVE US A PRETTY GOOD IDEA OF WHAT THE ACTUAL ACCESS IS THAT COULD BE USED FOR A PARKING FACILITY. GREAT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? FIRST STAFF ALL RIGHT. NOW COMMISSIONER, IS IT ALL THAT QUESTION A COMMENT? OH, EXCUSE ME PLEASE WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR COMMENT. THANK YOU. THE CITY IS THE APPLICANT IN THIS CASE SO WITH THAT I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE IN CHAMBERS OR ONLINE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM ? CHAIR CUNNINGHAM BUT BEFORE JUST TO CLARIFY ARE YOU PLANNING TO USE THE SAME PROCEDURES AS THE PREVIOUS TWO ITEMS FOR CORRECT? YES. WE'LL BE INSTITUTING A THREE MINUTE SHOT CLOCK AND A SECOND THREE MINUTES IF REQUIRED AFTER EVERY EVERYONE GETS A CHANCE TO SPEAK IN THE INTEREST OF EVERYONE'S TIME THIS EVENING. THANK YOU. THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION. OKAY. HI. HI. I WANT TO THANK THE COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS KRISTEN MIRA. I REPRESENT ROSA DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS THE PARKING FLY OPERATION AND MY FATHER ROBERT MARRIED ABOUT A LONG TIME AGO ALONG WITH THE EMBASSY SUITES AND THE HILTON HOTEL AND RETAINED THE PARKING FLY IN THE MIDDLE. WE HAVE OPERATED A VIABLE BUSINESS IN BLOOMINGTON FOR OVER 36 YEARS EMPLOYING PEOPLE AND PROVIDING AFFORDABLE PARKING FOR THE AIRPORT. WE'VE SUPPORTED THE AIRPORT AND NOTHING NEGATIVE OR UNUSUAL IS HAPPENING HERE. THE MORATORIUM STARTED LAST YEAR AS A GOAL AND THE GOAL WAS TO FIND A PERMANENT SOLUTION FOR THE EXISTING OPERATORS. I WAS VERY HOPEFUL WE COULD COME TO AN AGREEMENT. I HOPE TO PROVIDE DATA FROM THE 42 OTHER PARKING SPOT OPERATIONS AND BLOOMINGTON OUT OF 42 OTHER OPERATORS SITES AROUND THE COUNTRY IS THE ONLY OUTLIER THAT TREATS THIS USE AS TEMPORARY. EVEN NEARBY EAGAN AND ST PAUL HAVE SIMILAR LONG STANDING BUSINESSES THAT HAVE BEEN GRANDFATHERED RIGHTS BY A C U P. THERE IS NOW A CLEAR AND POSITIVE SOLUTION FOR HOTELS AND NEW OPERATORS BUT THE EXISTING BUSINESSES ARE STILL LEFT WITH A TEMPORARY NEGATIVE SOLUTION IF THIS USES FINALLY BEING ACCEPTED AND ALLOWED THE EXISTING BUSINESSES SHOULD BE FIRST IN LINE TO BE RECOGNIZED THERE NEEDS TO BE UNIVERSAL EQUALITY HERE. YOU CAN'T HAVE HOTELS AND NEW OPERATORS GETTING A POSITIVE OUTCOME IN THE MATRIX WHERE EXISTING BUSINESSES RECEIVE A NEGATIVE ONE. WHY ARE WE BEING PUNISHED? AFTER ATTENDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IN THE STUDY SESSION THE STAFF PRESENTED THE OPTIONS FROM THESE COLORFUL MATRIXES. THEY WERE EXTREMELY VAGUE AND VERY CONFUSING. THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS WERE NEVER CLEARLY STATED OR DEFINED. STAFF WAS AGGRESSIVELY PUSHING FOR OPTION FOUR WITHOUT ACTUALLY EXPLAINING WHAT THESE PERFORMANCES STANDARDS ENTAILED. I DON'T FEEL LIKE HONESTLY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE COUNCIL WILL NECESSARILY ALL ON BOARD. YOU CAN GO BACK AND LISTEN TO ALL THE MINUTES. THE FEEDBACK I HEARD WAS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT FOR THE LONG STANDING LONG STANDING. EXISTING BUSINESSES THERE WAS A NEED AND THE USE IS FINALLY BEING ACCEPTED AND ACCEPTED IN CERTAIN AREAS. THE GRANDFATHERING CONCEPT WAS MENTIONED THEY DIDN'T WANT THE USE TO PROLIFERATE AND THERE WAS TALK ABOUT INCENTIVIZING DEVELOPMENT. THERE WAS NEVER ANY MENTION OR ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT TAKING THREE ACRES OF OUR LAND. THAT CAME COMPLETELY OUT OF LEFT FIELD. THERE'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INCENTIVIZING AND MANDATING THE ORDINANCE IS BASICALLY A LEAN ON MY PROPERTY. IT STEPS AWAY OVER THE LINE OF INCENTIVIZE IN DEVELOPMENT . WHEN I SAW THAT READ OUTLINE I ABOUT FELL OVER. THIS FEELS EXACTLY LIKE A REGULATORY TAKING. THIS IS NOT INCENTIVIZING DEVELOPMENT IT IS NOW ENTERING EMINENT DOMAIN TERRITORY. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN MY HOPE TO COME TO A WORKABLE SOLUTION WITH THE CITY. THE CLEAR PATH IS SIMPLY ISSUING A COPY WITHOUT THESE RESTRICTIONS IT MAKES IT MESSY WHICH IS ACTUALLY OPTION THREE ON THE MATRIX WHICH I THINK HONESTLY MOST OF THE FEEDBACK WAS SUPPORTING THIS MAYOR IF YOU COULD. OH SORRY. WELL THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. THAT'S THREE MINUTES GOES QUICKLY AND I'M GOING TO SIGN IT AND YOU'RE GOING TO RUN THE CLOCK WHILE I SIGN AND I WON'T SAY THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YEAH SURE. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. AND IF YOU COULD PULL UP THAT SLIDE THAT WE'RE GOING TO USE. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS BILL GRIFFITH REPRESENTING PARK AND FLY ROSE A DEVELOPMENT AND I JUST WANT TO REITERATE SOME OF THE COMMENTS OF MY CLIENT BUT REALLY HIT ONE OF THE KEY ISSUES HERE. SO A LOT OF TIME HAS BEEN SPENT ON THE MORATORIUM STUDIES. STAFF HAS DONE A VERY GOOD JOB OF LOOKING AROUND THE COUNTRY AT HOW OTHERS IN LARGE METROPOLITAN AREAS WITH HUB AIRPORTS DEAL WITH THIS USE AGAIN NOBODY ELSE TIME RESTRICTS THIS USE. WHY? BECAUSE YOU'RE PART OF AN AIRPORT ENVIRONMENT I WORKED ON. ALONG WITH SIDE THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON ON THE EFFORT TO RETAIN THE AIRPORT AND THAT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO THIS COMMUNITY AND WITH THAT COMES AIRPORT RELATED SERVICES. SO LET ME GET TO THE ORDINANCE. THE ORDINANCE IS UNWORKABLE. IT'S UNWORKABLE FOR MY CLIENT FOR TWO REASONS. NUMBER ONE, IT TAKES. THIS PROPERTY THAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN AND AND NOT ONLY SETS IT ASIDE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT BUT IT SAYS YOU CAN'T HAVE EXISTING OPERATIONS THERE. THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT POINT IN FOUR YEARS WE'RE KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD AGAIN. IN FOUR YEARS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER BATTLE OVER WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? YOU MEAN WE HAVE TO CEASE OPERATIONS? I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S STATED IN THE ORDINANCE BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN HERE BECAUSE THESE ARE LONG TERM VIABLE USES. THEY'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR 30 MY CLIENT'S BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR 36 YEARS SERVING THE AIRPORT COMMUNITY. SO THEY'RE NOT GOING AWAY. THE SECOND POINT AND PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT THAT YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND IS THE CITY DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY IN 1988 TO TIME BIND THIS USE. THEY ISSUED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THEY PUT THE WORD TEMPORARY BEFORE IT THEY DIDN'T HAVE AUTHORITY UNDER STATE STATUTE TO DO THAT. THE LEGISLATURE PROVIDED THAT AUTHORITY. SUBSEQUENTLY AFTER THIS USE WAS ESTABLISHED IN 2029 THE CITY STARTED USING THE INTERIM USE PERMIT BUT THAT DOESN'T WAIVE THE ORIGINAL RIGHTS TO A LONG TERM USE UNDER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. SO WHEN YOU START FROM THAT PROPOSITION THAT THIS IS A LONG TERM USE, IT'S BEEN THERE FOR 36 YEARS. SERVING THE AIRPORT COMMUNITY IF YOU NOW WANT TO SAY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SET ASIDE THREE ACRES OF LAND THAT IS A REGULATORY TAKING. THE OTHER THING THAT IS A REGULATORY TAKING IS SAYING TO MY CLIENT AND IN THOSE FOUR YEARS YOU WILL BE FACED WITH THE PROPOSITION OF TEARING UP THAT SITE. PUTTING IN UNDERGROUND STORMWATER PARKING PARKING ISLANDS TREES IT SAYS THAT ALL OF THESE SITES HAVE TO COME TO FULL COMPLIANCE AS IF THEY WERE NEW DEVELOPMENTS NOW I'M GOING TO TELL YOU ABOUT ONE TIME WHEN THE CITY CAME UP WITH A VERY GOOD SOLUTION VERY SIMILAR TO THIS WITH MY 36 SECONDS. IS WHAT THE AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIPS THEY'RE THE SAME CONCERN ABOUT THEM PROLIFERATING WITH SURFACE PARKING. BUT WHAT THEY SAID IS YOU CAN GRANDFATHERED THE EXISTING RIGHTS AND WHEN YOU COME IN TO REDEVELOP YOU'VE HAD CASES LIKE THAT YOU WILL DO IT UNDER THE NEW STANDARDS. IT'S IT'S THE PROPERTY OWNERS ELECTION TO COME IN AND DEVELOP OR REDEVELOP THE SITE UNDER THE NEW STANDARDS. SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO DO. AS RECOMMENDED DELETING THOSE TWO CONDITIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE OTHERWISE IT'S UNWORKABLE AND WE'RE STILL IN CONFLICT WITH THE CITY. MY CLIENT HAS WORKED FOR 36 YEARS TO STAY IN COMPLIANCE. THEY'D LIKE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE BUT THEY CAN'T DO IT UNDER THIS ORDINANCE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. GRIFFITH. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN CHAMBERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? HELLO. PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS ROBERT COLEMAN. BLOOMINGTON IS FACING MULTIPLE CRISES RIGHT NOW AND TO REVERSE DECADES OF CITY POLICY TO THROW US BACK TO THE NINETY'S IS GOING TO EXACERBATE ALL OF THIS WE WILL NOT ALLOW WE CANNOT ALLOW THESE 25 ACRES OF PRIME SOUTH TO PLAN TO POTENTIALLY NEVER REDEVELOP. THIS ISN'T WHAT THIS COMMISSION SAID THAT THEY WANTED AND JUST A FEW MINUTES A FEW MONTHS AGO YOU WERE SO DISAPPOINTED IN WHAT THE SOUTH LOOP HAD BECOME. INSTEAD THESE CHANGES WILL SIGNIFICANTLY WORSEN EVERY ISSUE THAT THE SOUTH OF HAS AND IT WILL BE PERMANENT IF ONLY THREE ACRES OF LAND IS DEVELOPED PER SITE THAT IS A FLOOR AREA RATIO OF 0.37 ADJACENT TO LIGHT RAIL. THE OPERATORS HAVE SAID AND EVEN TODAY THAT THEY HAVE ZERO INTENTIONS TO REDEVELOP ANYTIME SOON WITH PARKING FLIERS STATING THAT THEY WANT TO NEVER REDEVELOP AND PARKING GO SAYING THAT THEY WANT TO WAIT FOR SOMETHING SPECIAL TO COME ALONG WHICH IS SO VAGUE AND ARBITRARY THAT IT COULD TAKE DECADES. SUCH A WEAK CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WOULD BE PERMANENT. THEY MERELY NEED TO SET ASIDE LAND. THEY DO NOT NEED TO DO ANYTHING ELSE INDEFINITELY REFUSE TO REDEVELOP INDEFINITELY OPERATE INDEFINITELY AND THERE WILL BE NOTHING THAT THE FUTURE LEADERS OF BLOOMINGTON WILL BE ABLE TO DO TO REVERSE SUCH A TERRIBLE MISTAKE. THIS. THESE CHANGES SPIT IN THE FACE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THE SOUTH LOOP DISTRICT PLAN AND THE PURPOSE STATEMENT OF THE H. S R DISTRICT THE LAST OF WHICH SAYS THAT THESE SITES MUST MAXIMIZE RETURN ON PUBLIC UTILITY AND TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS BY REQUIRING HIGH INTENSITY DEVELOPMENT. THIS WILL MAKE IT HARDER FOR THE SMALL BUSINESSES THAT ARE ANCHORED ON THE LIGHT RAIL THAT KEEP GOING OUT OF BUSINESS. OUR CITY IS IN A HOUSING CRISIS AND WE THE PEOPLE AND THE RETAIL AND HOSPITALITY WORKERS WHO ARE THE BACKBONE OF THE CITY AND THE SOUTH LOOP DISTRICT ARE BEING PRICED OUT. WE NEED MORE HOUSING EVERYWHERE BUT ESPECIALLY ALONG ARTERIALS WITH HIGH QUALITY TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE THAT CAN ALLOW RESIDENTS TO LIVE CAR FREE A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN THE COST OF LIVING FOR SITES IN WALKING DISTANCE TO LIGHT RAIL THEY SHOULD BE AS DENSE AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE WE AREN'T GETTING MORE LAND. THESE SITES ARE 91% OF THE UNDEVELOPED LAND EAST OF THE RUNWAY CLEAR ZONE. THE SECOND CRISIS THIS THESE CHANGES EXACERBATE IS THE CLIMATE CRISIS OUR PLANET IS BURNING AND THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS AREN'T COMING TO SAVE US. THERE'S HUGE IMPACTS ON THE CARBON OUTPUT THAT OUR CITIES PRODUCE BUT ONLY THE CITY CAN CONTROL. WE NEED HIGH DENSITY HOUSING WITH SHARED WALLS THAT GREATLY IMPROVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO ZERO CARBON TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS TO SQUANDER THE VERY SMALL AMOUNT OF LAND WE HAVE NEXT TO LIGHT RAIL SHOULD BE COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE TO US THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY LIVE IN BLOOMINGTON. IT'S ALSO NO WONDER WE'RE IN A BUDGET CRISIS WHEN TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS PER YEAR IN PROPERTY TAXES HAVE BEEN LOST DUE TO WATERED DOWN REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS. DELAYS OF TWO DECADES OF DELAY AT THESE SITES. OF RATIO EXEMPTIONS AND TIFF FOR LACKLUSTER PROJECTS AT SOUTHTOWN AND THE REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING FACILITIES ALONE WE LOSE $17 MILLION A YEAR IN PROPERTY TAX REVENUE THAT'S AN INCREASE TO EVERY SINGLE RESIDENT'S TAX BILL. IT'S NO WONDER THAT THE NORTH CENTRAL SANITARY SEWER PROJECT REPEATEDLY FAILS TO RECEIVE STATE FUNDING AND FEDERAL EARMARKS. BECAUSE DECISION MAKERS SEE THAT PARKING LOTS BIG BOX RETAILERS AND BRAND NEW CAR DEALERSHIPS QUALIFY AS TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT IN THE EYES OF THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON ALL COME BACK FOR ANOTHER THREE. MIKE, COULD YOU PLEASE PUT THE PICTURE THAT HAS OUR DRAWING ON IT PLEASE? SO THIS PROJECTION JUST. HELLO. MY NAME IS DAN WILLIAMSON. I'M WITH THE PARK AND GO IF YOU LOOK AT THIS DRAWING THAT'S UP HERE RIGHT NOW ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, THAT PARTICULAR THREE ACRE DEVELOPMENT IS PREDICATED ON OFF AIRPORT PARKING BEING A PART OF THAT DEVELOPMENT. IT'S ACTUALLY THE ENGINE THAT FINANCES THAT PROJECT WITHOUT IT. THE LAND VALUES ARE TOO HIGH AND THE RETURN ON THE DEVELOPMENT IS NOT ENOUGH TO FRANKLY BE WORTH YOUR CAPITAL INVESTMENT. IT'S JUST IT'S TOO MUCH MONEY AND YOU JUST DON'T GET ENOUGH BACK. THAT IS ALSO THE PRIMARY PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT I'VE TALKED TO NICK AND MIKE JUST RECENTLY ON FRIDAY. THAT IS THE PART THAT YOU REALLY WANT TO SEE DEVELOPMENT OCCUR BECAUSE THAT'S THE LIGHT RAIL ACCESS POINT. THAT'S AMERICAN BOULEVARDS 34TH. SO I SENT A LITTLE LETTER THAT YOU HAVE A SIMPLE COUPLE PARAGRAPHS SUGGESTING WE MAKE SOME MODIFICATION TO THIS. NUMBER ONE, I DON'T THINK MILESTONES IS REALLY GOING TO BE THE BEST SOLUTION TO THIS BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE RIGHT BACK HERE LIKE IT'S BEEN MENTIONED DISCUSSING THIS THING IN FOUR YEARS. SO I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THERE'S NOT A MILESTONE. I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT WE IDENTIFY THE PRIMARY PIECES OF PROPERTY THAT YOU REALLY WANT TO SEE DEVELOPMENT ON THIS IS THIS THREE ACRE CONCEPT THAT REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING BE A PART OF THAT ZONING SO WE CAN BUILD IT INTO THE HIGH DENSITY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AND MAKE IT ACTUALLY WORK FINANCIALLY. AND THAT REALLY IS THE GOAL WE HAVE FOR 2030 THAT THAT THREE ACRES BE IDENTIFIED AND IT'S THERE AND WHEN THE MARKET DRIVES IT BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER SOLUTIONS THERE THAT MIGHT BE GOOD TO NOT JUST 90 OR 30 UNITS PER ACRE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING. THERE ARE OTHER KINDS OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT COULD BE VERY PRODUCTIVE FOR THE LOCAL BLOOMINGTON COMMUNITY. SO THAT'S THE MODIFICATIONS I'M ASKING YOU GUYS TO LOOK AT. DON'T ABANDON THE PIECE OF PROPERTY. LEAVE IT BLANK BECAUSE IF THE MONEY ISN'T THERE TO MAKE IT WORK IT WILL BE THREE ACRES OF GRASS PROBABLY PLOWED DOWN PUT SOME TIMOTHY CLOVER AND ALFALFA AND PUT TWO KALKA FOUR UNITS OUT THERE BLACK ANGUS. I MEAN I'M BEING A LITTLE SILLY HERE BUT YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING? IF IT DOESN'T WORK IT DOESN'T WORK. WE WOULDN'T END UP WITH JUST THREE ACRES OF PROPERTY WITH NO TAX REVENUES, NO BUSINESS RUNNING ON THAT PROPERTY AND EVEN IF WE STARTED TOMORROW BUILDING THAT RAMP ON THE BACK HALF TO REPLACE WHAT WE WOULD LOSE ON THE FRONT HALF WE WOULD HAVE A TOUGH TIME GETTING ALL THAT DONE BY 2030. SO THAT'S WHAT MY LETTER IS TRYING TO SUGGEST THAT MAYBE THERE'S A LITTLE COMPROMISE HERE. I STILL HAVE 34 SECONDS. I'M DOING PRETTY GOOD. IT'S KIND OF LIKE A HOCKEY GAME. IT'S THE SHOT CLOCK RIGHT? SO THAT'S WHAT I'M SUGGESTING THAT MAYBE WE BACK OFF OF THAT RIGHT BACK WHERE WE WERE BEFORE BECAUSE THAT'S THE PROBLEM WE'RE GOING RIGHT BACK FOR A PIECE OF LAND IS BEING PULLED OUT AND IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY AND SO IT'S EASY TO TALK ABOUT DOING THINGS BUT SOMEBODY'S GOT TO BE ABLE TO FINANCE AND MAKE IT HAPPEN. SO THERE YOU GO. AND I'M OPEN TO QUESTIONS IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY. THANK YOU. MR. WILLIAMSON THANK YOU. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS CARL KADING AND DEVELOPMENT BEEN FRONT BEFORE WE HAVE THE CROWNE PLAZA, THE AIR APARTMENTS, THE NEW ART ON THE BLUFFS. WE'RE CURRENTLY WORKING WITH STAFF ON AN AFFORDABLE PROJECT OVER ON THIS CORNER SO I'M SPEAKING TO YOU FROM A POSITION OF. DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR INVESTMENT. DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST ONE OF THE MOST VESTED ON THIS CORNER AND I JUST WANTED TO COME UP AND SAY THAT WE ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THE MEASURE IN THE FORM IN WHICH IT'S PROPOSED TODAY SO KEEP IT SHORT, KEEP IT SWEET AND APPRECIATE EVERYTHING YOU GUYS DO. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER OR MISS BROWN, IS ANYONE ONLINE? ALL PARTICIPANTS ON THE RIGHT STAFF. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT HAS PREVIOUSLY SPOKEN TONIGHT THAT WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE SPEAKING FOR ANOTHER THREE MINUTE SEGMENT? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. BACK TO THE IT'S NO WONDER THAT THE NORTH CENTRAL SANITARY SEWER PROJECT REPEATEDLY FAILS TO RECEIVE STATE BONDING AND FEDERAL EARMARKS BECAUSE THE DECISION MAKERS SEE THAT PARKING LOTS, BIG BOX RETAILERS AND BRAND NEW CAR DEALERSHIPS QUALIFY AS TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT IN THE EYES OF THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON AND THEY RIGHTLY DECIDE THAT BLOOMINGTON US IS UNWORTHY. IT'S HUMILIATING AND IT'S SELF-INFLICTED. HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYERS WHO SPENT ALL THIS MONEY ON A TRANSFORMATIONAL HIGH CAPACITY ALL ELECTRIC LIGHT RAIL LINE WE CANNOT SQUANDER THAT POTENTIAL TO PROTECT THE PROFITS OF TWO PARKING LOT MAGNATES WHO THREW A TANTRUM TO AVOID FULFILLING THEIR END OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT THEY SIGNED AND AGREED TO. IT'S CRUCIAL THAT REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING BE CONDITIONAL TO HIGH INTENSITY DEVELOPMENT USE THE H. S R TOOLBOX DON'T COMPLETELY CIRCUMVENT IT AND WE CAN HAVE BOTH REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING AND HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. THEY MUST HIT A HIGHER FLOOR AREA RATIO MINIMUM TO ACCOUNT FOR THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS THAT REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING HAS HAD ON THE CITY AND ITS RESIDENTS AND THE DEFINITION OF REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING SHOULD BE WRITTEN TO BAN THEM FROM USING THE SHUTTLES TO SUBVERT TRANSIT. WHAT'S THE POINT OF HAVING REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO TRANSIT IF EVERYONE JUST USES A SHUTTLE FOR WALKS IT ISN'T 100FT AS THESE CHANGES APPLY EVERYWHERE WITHIN THE TEN MINUTE WALK SHOULD SHOULD BE TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE TO MAXIMIZE DENSITY LIKE THE CODE SAYS IF REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING MUST EXIST IN BLOOMINGTON THEN 30TH AVENUE PARKING RIGHT IS RIGHT THERE. IT'S A 600 SPOT RAMP AT 6% CAPACITY AND CRUCIALLY IT'S WITHIN THE RUNWAY CLEAR ZONE WHICH BANS RESIDENTIAL AND HAS THE HEIGHT LIMIT SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN THESE SITES. IF HOTELS HAVE EXCESSIVE PARKING SUPPLY THEN THEY SHOULD BE ADDING RESTAURANTS, NEW ROOMS, MORE EVENT SPACES AND OR PASSING OFF LOTS AND NOT OPERATING PARKING AS A BUSINESS THESE 25 ACRES AND PARTICULARLY MUST BE REDEVELOPED. THESE OPERATORS HAVE USED EXCUSES FOR DECADES AND TODAY IS NO DIFFERENT. FOR LONGER THAN I HAVE BEEN ALIVE FROM BEFORE THE BUSINESSES HAVE EVEN EXISTED THE BUSINESSES CONSENTED THAT THE ONLY REASON THAT THEY EXIST IS TO USE THE MONEY FROM THE PARKING TO FUND REDEVELOPMENT AND THEY'VE BEEN POCKETING THAT MONEY AND RUNNING. MR. CHAIR, A YEAR AGO MR. WILLIAMSON SAID THE PARKING WAS SO PROFITABLE THAT THEY WOULD OPERATE IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW TO AVOID FULFILLING THE CONTRACT THAT THEY MADE WITH US THE RESIDENTS OF BLOOMINGTON. BUT YOU GUYS DON'T REPRESENT CORPORATE INTERESTS AS PHIL COOKED AND ALWAYS SAYS YOU ARE THE CLOSEST LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT TO THE PEOPLE. TO APPROVE THESE CHANGES WILL CONTINUE THE CITY DOWN A SLIPPERY THAT RESULTS IN LARGE LANDOWNERS BEING ABLE TO REQUEST WHATEVER THEY WANT A PRECEDENT THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS ARE VOIDABLE EVEN IF IT HURTS PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY LIVE HERE. PLEASE DON'T LET THIS BE THE LEGACY THAT YOU HAVE ON THIS COMMISSION. CONSIDER THE GRAVE CONSEQUENCES IT WILL HAVE TO THE PEOPLE OF BLOOMINGTON AND THE CITY'S FINANCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND DENY THESE CHANGES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. COLEMAN. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO TESTIFY FOR AN ADDITIONAL THREE MINUTES? YES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. IN LIGHT OF SOME OF THE COMMENTS YOU'VE HEARD AND THE LONG HISTORY, I WANT TO MAKE SURE AGAIN, BILL GRIFFITH, THAT THE NEWER COMMISSIONERS UNDERSTAND HOW LONG MY CLIENT IS ATTEMPTED TO WORK WITH THE CITY ON THESE SITES IN. SO THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN 1988. IT WAS TEMPORARY. THERE WAS NOT LEGAL AUTHORITY TO TIME BIND THE PERMIT NOTWITHSTANDING THAT IN 1 IN 2009 THEY CAME IN FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT. WHY? BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO WORK WITH THE CITY. THEY WANTED TO SEE WHAT THAT MEANT. THE CITY HAD JUST ADOPTED THAT PROVISION IN THE CODE. AND LET'S GIVE IT A RUN. LET'S SEE IF WE CAN WORK THIS OUT WITH THE CITY ALWAYS IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS IN 2019 THE CITY RATCHETED UP THE PRESSURE TO TURN THESE SITES OVER. WHY? BECAUSE THEY WANT TO SEE THESE SITES DEVELOP AS SOMETHING HIGHER AND MORE DENSE. FINE. WE LOOKED AT THAT OPPORTUNITY . WE LOOKED AT FURTHER MILESTONE CONDITIONS. GUESS WHAT THE MARKET IS THE MARKET YOU CAN'T TIME IT. IT'S NOT GOING TO RESPOND TO A MILESTONE. SOME OF YOU COMMISSIONERS HAVE BEEN HERE. WE'VE HAD TO COME BACK. WE'VE HAD TO ALTER MILESTONES. ULTIMATELY THE STAFF DECIDED IT WAS UNWORKABLE. RIGHT. AND THERE WAS A MORATORIUM TO TRY AND FIND SOMETHING THAT IS WORKABLE. MY CLIENT SPENT $2.5 MILLION TO TRY AND BUILD A FIRST CLASS APARTMENT BUILDING ON THAT THREE ACRES. A LOT OF BLOOD, SWEAT AND TEARS WENT INTO THAT AND A LOT OF HER TIME AND A LOT OF RESOURCES FROM HER INVESTORS. IT DIDN'T WORK. IT WASN'T FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE. WE WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF COVID . PRICES WENT UP. INTEREST RATES CHANGE. IT PROVES THE POINT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE. YOU CANNOT THE MARKET CANNOT BE FORCED. YOU CANNOT MANDATE THE MARKET FOR THESE PROPERTIES. SO WHAT HAPPENS AGAINST PERMANENT RIGHTS WHICH I'VE TOLD THREE CITY ATTORNEYS OVER 35 YEARS. YOU KNOW, YOU DIDN'T HAVE AUTHORITY TO DO WHAT YOU DID BUT WE'RE GOING TO TRY AND WORK WITH YOU. THAT'S 35 YEARS THREE THREE DIFFERENT CITY ATTORNEYS HAVE HEARD THAT FROM ME. YOU DIDN'T HAVE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT. BUT WE'RE GOING TO TRY AND WORK WITH YOU. SO I JUST WANT. PARTICULARLY THE NEWER COMMISSIONERS UNDERSTAND THIS CLIENT OF MINE HAS WORKED FOR 35 YEARS TO WORK WITH THE CITY ON A COOPERATIVE APPROACH THAT MAKES SENSE. THIS ORDINANCE DOES NOT SOLVE THAT PROBLEM AFTER 35 YEARS. WE WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. GRIFFITH. ANYONE ELSE? MR. WILLIAMSON? MR. CUNNINGHAM. COUNCIL MEMBERS OR PLANNERS? FIRST OF ALL, I FORGOT TO THANK THE STAFF FOR ALL THE WORK THEY'VE BEEN DOING ON THIS. I'VE BEEN MEETING WITH THEM. I FORGOT TO DO THAT. THANK YOU GUYS. YOU'VE WORKED HARD ON IT IN PART AND GO. WE'RE WE'RE GENERALLY IN SUPPORT OF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO HERE AND I LIKE I SAY I'VE JUST MADE THAT SUGGESTION WE MAKE SOME MODIFICATIONS TO IT TO GIVE US A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU AND. HI, IT'S ME. OH SORRY. HI, CHRISTINE MERRIGAN. I JUST HAD ONE ADDITIONAL THING BECAUSE THERE'S THIS COMES UP A LOT IN DIFFERENT MEETINGS AND EVERYONE KEEPS ASKING ME WELL YOU KNOW, WE'D LOVE TO SEE YOUR APARTMENT PROJECT. WHY DIDN'T IT WORK? WHAT? THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IDEOLOGY AND REALITY HERE IS NUMBER ONE, THIS SITE IS INCREDIBLY NOISY. YOU'RE NEXT TO 494. YOU HAVE A LOT OF AIRCRAFT NOISE AND PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO PAY A LOT OF RENT TO LIVE IN A HECTIC NOISY SITUATION. YOU HAVE TO YOU HAVE TO BUILD. AND I DID A LOT OF RESEARCH. I WAS THE STAFF WILL AGREE TO THIS. I REALLY YOU KNOW, I HIRED ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS AND IF IT WAS A GREAT DEAL I WOULD HAVE DONE IT HONESTLY. BUT YOU. THE RENTS THAT YOU CAN GET AND I HAVE MARKET STUDIES TO BACK THIS UP AND ARE NOT SUFFICIENT FOR HOW YOU HAVE TO BUILD THE BUILDING YOU HAVE TO BUILD THE BUILDING IN A SOUNDPROOFED WAY WITH THICK GLASS AND VERY SOLID SO THAT YOU ARE NOT GOING TO JUST BE CONSTANTLY RATTLING AROUND AND GETTING BUZZED BY. AIRPORT AND HIGHWAY NOISE AND THE AIRPORTS NOT GOING ANYWHERE. THE HIGHWAYS NOT GOING ANYWHERE. THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY DIFFERENT IN 2029 AND BASICALLY THAT THAT'S WHY IT DIDN'T WORK. I COULDN'T GET THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION LIKE YOU AS SOLID AS IT NEEDED TO BE, WE'RE NOT THERE BY THE RENTS AND SO I COULDN'T GET A LOAN AND IT WASN'T IT JUST WASN'T GOING TO WORK. SO. IN MY OPINION THIS IS NOT A GREAT HOUSING SITE. THERE'S OTHER USES POSSIBLY BUT I DON'T THINK THAT DUE TO MOSTLY THE NOISE AND HOW HECTIC IT IS AND THE CAP ON RENTS THAT IT IS A GREAT HOUSING SITE SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I THINK EVERYONE'S GOTTEN THEIR ALLOTTED TO THREE MINUTE CHUNKS SO WITH THAT I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SO. SECONDED AS A MOTION TO THE SECOND ANY DISCUSSION MR. BROWN COULD YOU CALL THE ROLL PLEASE? CUNNINGHAM I E C I WHITE I LANAI HI SUMMERS I AND MONSTER I ALL RIGHT DISCUSSION I MEAN I WOULD LIKE TO LEAD US OFF AGAIN I'M SORRY TO BE A. AGGRESSIVE CHAIR ACTING CHAIR MR. CENTENARIO COULD YOU BRING THAT MATRIX UP AGAIN WITH THE FIVE OPTIONS TO THE FOR THE FOR THE NEWER COMMISSIONERS COULD YOU QUICKLY RUN THROUGH THE THIS MATRIX KIND OF AS IT PERTAINS TO THE PRESENTATION YOU GAVE TO US ON MAY 22ND OF THIS YEAR? YES. I DARE COMMISSIONERS. SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE. ON THE TOP OF THE CHART WHAT WE'RE REFERRING TO IS GENERALLY SPEAKING ZONING ALTERNATIVES LIKE DIFFERENT REGULATORY APPROACHES FOR REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING AND LESS ARE YOU YOU SEE PERMITTED USE. SO MORE OR LESS WHAT THE OWNER OF PARKING PLAN WOULD LIKE IS IT TO BE EITHER PERMITTED OR GRANDFATHERED OR SOME OR SOME SORT OF ALLOWANCE. TO CONTINUE OPERATION AS THEY HAVE BEEN IN PERPETUITY. UM WE DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THAT WAS AN ACCEPTABLE APPROACH. THE NUMBER TWO INTERIM USE THAT'S REALLY A CONTINUATION OF WHAT THE CURRENT SYSTEM HAS BEEN TO CONSIDER INTERIM USE PERMITS A MAXIMUM AND INTERVIEWS PERMITS CAN BE APPROVED FOR A MAXIMUM OF FIVE YEARS FOR REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING. SO HE'S BEEN DOING THIS FOR WELL OVER 30 YEARS AND THESE HAVE ALWAYS INTENDED TO BE TEMPORARY FROM THE BEGINNING THE INTENT WAS ALWAYS FOR PERMANENT DEVELOPMENT. WHAT THAT DEVELOPMENT LOOK LIKE HAS EVOLVED OVER THE YEARS BUT IT'S ALWAYS BEEN NOT FOR CAR STORAGE. THAT APPROACH HASN'T WORKED. THE THIRD WAS A CONDITIONAL USE WITH SOME THREE AND FOUR ARE PRETTY SIMILAR BUT JUST A CONDITIONAL USE AND THEN CONSIDER DIFFERENT CONDITIONS OR LIMITATIONS BASED ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS WE FELT AND THE POLICY MAKERS CONFIRMED THAT THEY ARE SUPPORTIVE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH SOME LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. GETTING TO THE LEVEL OF DETAIL AND WHAT THOSE PERFORMANCE DINNERS WOULD BE IS VERY CHALLENGING AND SO ULTIMATELY WE USED THE FEEDBACK THAT WE HEARD AND TRY TO INTERPRET THAT INTO WHAT WE FELT WAS A REASONABLE ORDINANCE. AND THAT'S WHAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT AND NUMBER FIVE IS JUST PROHIBITED THE. YOU KNOW NO NO MORE INTERVIEWS PERMITS IT'S JUST IT'S NOT A USE OF PERMITTED ANYMORE AND THAT WAS VIEWED AS A REASONABLE APPROACH EITHER GIVEN THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THESE BUSINESSES HAVE IN OPERATION FOR FOR QUITE SOME TIME. THEY WANT TO CONTINUE AND YOU KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO FIND A REASONABLE. HAPPY MEDIUM OR MAYBE UNHAPPY MEDIUM. MR. JOHNSON YEAH. CHAIR KIND OF IF I CAN ADD THAT JUST KIND OF BUILDING UP SOME OF THE TESTIMONY I RECOGNIZE THE CHALLENGE OF DISCUSSING A VERY NUANCED TOPIC AND ALL THESE DIFFERENT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS THAT WE DISCUSSED IN A GRANULAR WAY. OF COURSE AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AS WELL. I DO JUST WANT TO NOTE IN THE RECORD THAT AS PART OF THE STUDY SESSIONS WE DID TALK ABOUT THE FOLLOWING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AS PART OF STAFF'S REPORT AND PRESENTATION WE TALKED ABOUT PARKING STRUCTURE LOCATIONS. WE TALKED ABOUT MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT AREA WHICH AT THAT TIME WAS RECOMMENDED AT A 50% OF THE TOTAL SITE AREA WHICH IS LARGER THAN THE. WHAT HAS BEEN PUT FORTH BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING WE TALKED ABOUT FULL LIMITATIONS ON SURFACE PARKING AGAIN CONNECTING THAT TO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING WE TALKED ABOUT ENHANCED EXTERIOR DESIGN STANDARDS FOR PARKING STRUCTURES. WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW REQUIREMENTS OF DEMONSTRATION OF ADEQUATE PARKING SUPPLY AND PARKING STRUCTURES IN ADDITION TO THAT WE TALKED ABOUT MORE INTENSE AIR. WE TALKED ABOUT PROXIMITY TO THE AIRPORT. WE TALKED ABOUT ENHANCED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND LANDSCAPING. SO I JUST WANT TO NOTED IN THE RECORD THAT WE DID PROVIDE GENERAL IDEAS AROUND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS IN OUR PRESENTATIONS AND THE STUDY SESSIONS. I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS A LOT OF GRANULARITY AND TECHNICAL NUANCE TO SOME OF THESE THINGS BUT I JUST WANT TO NOTED. THANK YOU MR. JOHNSON. MR. SANTORO YOU LOOK TO GET SOME TO ADD TO THAT. YEAH. YOU KNOW I THINK IT'S WORTH NOTING ACTING CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS UNTIL THE STUDY WAS UNDERWAY AND STAFF DID A LOT OF WORK IN RESEARCH AND MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL. SO FOR DECADES THE CITY'S ADOPTED POLICY WAS THERE SHOULD BE NO REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING EVENTUALLY. SO IT GOES FROM THIS 25 ACRES TO NOTHING AND THAT HAS BEEN THE CITY'S APPROACH UNTIL NOW. AND SO IT'S REALLY A VERY DIFFERENT. WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS A VERY DIFFERENT REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT FROM WHAT THE CITY HAD ENVISIONED FOR DECADES AND WE FEEL LIKE THAT IS THAT COULD BE SUCCESSFUL AND ULTIMATELY UNLESS THERE IS IF THERE IS NO REGULATORY REGIME ESTABLISHED, I DO NOT. THE OWNERS HAVE NOT SHOWN ANY TRUE INTEREST IN DEVELOPING THE PROPERTIES. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER LISA YEAH, THANK YOU CHAIR ACTING CHAIR I HAVE A QUESTION. SO DO OTHER PARKING LOT OUTSIDE OF BLOOMINGTON. DO THEY HAVE ANY TIME RESTRICTIONS? BECAUSE I THINK THAT WAS MENTIONED IN TERMS OF THE TIME CONSTRAINTS I GUESS. SURE. YOU'RE COMING ON COMMISSIONERS. YEAH, IN MOST CASES THERE IS SOME SORT OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT'S BEEN ESTABLISHED OR IN SOME CASES THEY'RE JUST PERMITTED USES IN CERTAIN DIFFERENT DISTRICTS. SO THE THE IP APPROACH. AS MR. GRIFFITH SAID IT IS BLOOMINGTON IS UNIQUE IN THAT REGARD. OKAY. SO MOST OF THEM ARE PERMITTED LIKE FOR EXAMPLE EAGAN I GUESS MAYBE SO THE FARM ACTING CHAIR COMMISSIONERS IN EAGAN AND IN THE CASE OF ST PAUL THERE WAS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT WAS APPROVED BY THOSE COMMUNITIES. IN THE CASE OF EAGAN. THAT'S NOT THAT FACILITY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO EXPAND GIVEN THE CURRENT REGULATIONS IN PLACE BUT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WAS ESTABLISHED AS A PERMANENT USE AND THEY CAN OPERATE AS THEY HAVE BEEN SIMILARLY IN SIMPLE. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. YEAH. IF I CAN JUST ADD A LITTLE BIT OF DETAIL TO THAT. THE FACILITY IN EAGAN WAS APPROVED IN THE 1980S VIA A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THEY SINCE HAVE NOT ALLOWED ANY EXPANSION OR NEW USES TO BE ESTABLISHED IN THE CITY OF EAGAN. AS OUR AS OUR STUDY OF THEIR REGULATORY RESTRICTIONS . ANY FURTHERHOUGHTS COMMISSIONER? WHAT I JUST HAD A QUESTION I WANT TO CLARIFY. I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY SO YOU KNOW IF I MISSED IT PLEASE CORRECT ME. I WAS LOOKING THROUGH THE DRAFT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE AND ONE OF THE THE COMMENTS BROUGHT UP. THE NEED FOR THE EXISTING FACILITIES TO HAVE TO BE UP TO CODE BY 2029. I DIDN'T ACTUALLY SEE THAT LANGUAGE. I SAW THE NEED FOR SCREENING IN THERE BUT I DON'T I DIDN'T SEE LANGUAGE AND I JUST WANT TO TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER THAT IS A REQUIREMENT OR WHETHER THAT IS IN THE IN THE LANGUAGE OR NOT. YEAH. CHAIR CHAIR COMMISSIONER WHITE THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. I APPRECIATE THAT QUESTION AND IT'S BEEN AN ONGOING DISCUSSION WITH PLANNING STAFF ABOUT THIS VERY QUESTION. SO AS PART OF ANY TYPICAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS IT DOES REQUIRE FULL CODE COMPLIANCE. SO ABSENT ANY ADDED LANGUAGE TO THIS. THE EXPECTATION WOULD BE IS THAT LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS WOULD MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY CODE. WE AS STAFF AS YOU CAN TELL WE'VE BEEN STUDYING ALL OF THE STANDARDS RECOMMENDED WITHIN THIS ORDINANCE IN TERMS OF THEIR IMPACT TO EXISTING OPERATIONS OF THESE FACILITIES AS WELL AS TRYING TO ACHIEVE THE CITY'S LONG TERM LAND USE GOALS IN THE AREA. OBVIOUSLY WE'RE TRYING TO STRIKE A DELICATE BALANCE HERE. BUT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE NEED TO UPGRADE THE SITES AS PEOPLE CURRENTLY WHAT IS PROPOSED IN THE ORDINANCE IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FELT THAT WAS INAPPROPRIATE ON THE BASIS OF THE IMPACT OF THAT. CERTAINLY THERE COULD BE ADDITIONAL STANDARDS ADDED TO FOR IN EFFECT ALLOW THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION AND DESIGN OF THESE FACILITIES TO CONTINUE. OBVIOUSLY THAT COMES WITH ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS OF NOT ADDING ADDITIONAL TREES AND YOU KNOW THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS AND SUSTAINABILITY BENEFITS THAT THEY PROVIDE. SO THERE'S A THERE'S A BALANCE TO BE HAD AND IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE CONSIDERED OR THOUGHT ABOUT A STAFF. THANK YOU MR. JOHNSON COMMISSIONER YOU SIR. YEAH. I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT I FORGOT WHICH ONE IS EXACT OWN OUR DEVELOPER DID IS IT TRUE THAT THEY ATTEMPTED TO DEVELOP TO FOLLOW THAT AND DEVELOP IT DURING COVID? I BELIEVE I'LL LET MIKE SPEAK TO THE HIS OR TIED INTO THE. SURE I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO BE COMMISSIONERS YEAH THE THE PARKING FLY OWNER ROSA DEVELOPMENT THEY WENT THROUGH THE DEVELOPER REVIEW PROCESS AND THEY ESTABLISHED THEIR DEVELOP PLAN THAT SHOWED MULTIPLE PHASES IN THEIR FIRST PHASE WAS FOR AN APARTMENT BUILDING ALONG AMERICAN BOULEVARD PRETTY MUCH MORE OR LESS IN THAT. RECTANGLE THAT I SHOWED YOU ON THE SCREEN AND THEY WERE GOING THROUGH THE PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS AND WE'RE QUITE CLOSE TO PROCURING A BUILDING PERMIT AND YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THE WHOLE STORY BECAUSE IT WAS ON THE DEVELOPER SIDE BUT IT WAS A DIFFICULT ENVIRONMENT AND THEY DIDN'T THEY DIDN'T MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU FOR THAT. APPRECIATE IT. ANY ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS I'D LIKE TO GET SOME THOUGHTS ON THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE PROPOSED. WE'VE BEEN ASKING A LOT OF QUESTIONS. I AGREE WITH A LOT OF THE TESTIMONY TONIGHT THAT THE CITY, YOU KNOW, CAN GUIDE LAND USE AND THAT THE CITY SHOULD PUSH FOR THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE LAND AND THE. WITHIN THE CITY, HOWEVER, THE MARKET CAN REMAIN IRRATIONAL LONGER THAN THE CITY CAN AND IT'S I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO BE BURDENING EXISTING BUSINESSES AND PROPERTY OWNERS SPECIFICALLY THOSE THAT FEED IT A CRITICAL EMPLOYER AND A CRITICAL PIECE OF INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE REGION THAT IS THE MSP AIRPORT AND. HAVING TROUBLE PULLING UP THE MINUTES FROM MAY 22ND I'M HOPEFUL THAT I WAS IN FAVOR OF OPTION THREE. I PROBABLY WAS TEETER TOTTER IN BETWEEN 3 AND 4 AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE I STAND. I'D REALLY VALUE OTHER COMMISSIONERS OPINIONS ON YOUR THOUGHTS SPECIFICALLY RELATING TO THREE ACRES JUST TO GET THIS ON THE RECORD I AM IN FAVOR OF ALL THE ORDINANCES OR ALL THE LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE. OTHER H S H S R ZONING AND SEEKS TO AND SEEKS TO YOU KNOW, ZONING BEING PERMITTED OR CONDITIONAL USE. I'M IN FAVOR OF HAVING OUR HOTEL INDUSTRY BE ABLE TO USE THIS LEGALLY INSTEAD OF KIND OF IN THE SHADOWS OF HOW THEY'RE OPERATING RIGHT NOW. I THINK THAT THAT'S REALLY GOOD STEPS BUT I'D BE INTERESTED TO HEAR EVERYONE ELSE'S THOUGHTS ON THE THREE ACRES AND I'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER LINNEY. GREAT. THANK YOU. ACTING CHAIR LIKE YOU I AM OF TWO MINDS ON THIS. I THINK FOR ME WHAT THE REAL RUB IS THE FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM THE ORIGINAL SIN IN ISSUING THE TEMPORARY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WAY BACK WHEN DO I LIKE REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING? NO THERE'S NO ASPECT OF IT. I DON'T LIKE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. I DON'T LIKE THAT PEOPLE DRIVE PARK. VERSUS TAKING TAXIS OR UBER. I DON'T THINK IT'S A GREAT USE OF SPACE. HAVING SAID THAT, I DO RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT THE CITY HAS ALLOWED THIS TO GO ON FOR SUCH A LONG TIME AND COMMITTED WHERE I WOULD BELIEVE WHAT I CONSIDER SORT OF A TYPE OF ORIGINAL SIN. AND SO I. MY PERSONAL INCLINATION IS TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF OPTION THREE ALTHOUGH I KNOW THAT DOES DRAMATICALLY LIMIT THE CITY'S OPTIONS FOR WHAT TO DO WITH THAT LAND. I WOULD HOPE AND I WILL MAKE A PERSONAL PLEA IF THAT IS ALLOWED TO THE TWO OWNERS THAT WHEN CONSIDERING IN YOUR LEGACY PLANNING AND WHATNOT IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. THAT YOU'RE MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC BENEFIT TO HAVE THIS LAND SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC BENEFIT OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT PARK THERE BUT THERE'S ALSO BEEN SIGNIFICANT TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS SINCE THOSE LOTS WERE FIRST APPROVED AND IT MAKES ME VERY SAD EVERY TIME I DRIVE PAST TO SEE THAT USE OF LAND WHEN WE ARE HAVING A HOUSING CRISIS. HAVING SAID THAT, MY INCLINATION IS TO LEAN TOWARDS SUPPORTING CONDITIONAL USE WITH LIMITED TO NO RESTRICTIONS WHICH I KNOW IS NOT WHAT THE THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF IS. AND BEFORE WE GET TO YOU, COMMISSIONER, MR. TUSKY I'M STILL HAVING TROUBLE LOOKING AT THE PACKET. IT'S LOADED EARLIER. IT'S JUST MY IPAD IS CRASHING WITH KIND OF OUR ACTION TONIGHT. ARE WE ABLE TO STRIKE CERTAIN CONDITIONS FROM THE PROPOSED. CASE IN FRONT OF US? SURE YOU CAN DO THAT. AND CHAIR COMMISSIONER, JUST A NOTE ON SOME OF THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS THERE MIGHT BE OUT THERE. THEY MR. GRIFFITH BROUGHT UP THE MOTOR VEHICLE SALES. OKAY. AND I WN'T HERE AT THE TIME THAT WAS PUT FORWARD BUT IT ALLOWED THOSE MOTOR VEHICLE SALES TO KEEP IN BUSINESS AS THEY WERE AND IF THEY REDEVELOP THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME UP TO THE CURRENT STANDARDS SO THEY COULD CONTINUE OPERATING. ALL OF THAT RELATED TO FLOOR AREA RATIO I BELIEVE, RIGHT, NICK? OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT THE OTHER OPTION IS TO JUST EXPRESS LEE GRANT THEM LEGAL NONCONFORMING STATUS WHICH IS OTHERWISE KNOWN AS GRANDFATHERED AND WE DID THAT WITH BILLBOARDS ABOUT 15 YEARS AGO. SO THE BILLBOARDS THAT WERE IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME WERE EXPRESSLY ALLOWED TO CONTINUE AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE CODE IT ACTUALLY SAYS THEY ARE GRANTED NOT LEGAL NONCONFORMING STATUS . SO NO MORE BILLBOARDS WOULD BE ALLOWED AND THE ONES THAT DO COULD REMAIN. BUT THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS ON EXPANSION. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WITH LEGAL NON CONFORMING AS YOU CAN'T EXPAND THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN EXPAND IS TO COME UP TO WHAT CODE SAYS NOW SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE OPTIONS THAT ARE OUT THERE AS FAR AS MORE LIMITED INTERVENTION I WOULD SAY INTO THE. THE CURRENT BUSINESSES BUT SO YOU COULD YOU KNOW DENY OR RECOMMEND COUNCIL ON THAT OR RECOMMEND THAT THE ORDINANCE NOT GO FORWARD WITH SUGGESTIONS FOR WHEN IT DOES IT WOULD COUNCIL TO ADD THIS OR ADD THIS OR THIS OR TAKE A DIFFERENT APPROACH AND THEN STAFF WOULD YOU KNOW, TAKE THAT TO COUNCIL, MODIFY THE ORDINANCE ACCORDINGLY AND BRING THAT TO COUNCIL. THANK YOU AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE COMMISSIONER YOU SO YEAH NO WORRIES. THANK YOU CHAIR MY OVERALL TAKE IS AND I ASKED THAT QUESTION EARLIER ABOUT OTHER CITIES I WANTED TO GAUGE WHERE THEY SIT ON THIS THIS I GUESS ISSUE FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD AND I AM LEANING MORE TO THE LEFT OF THIS CHART CLOSER TO NUMBER ONE TO BE HONEST. ONLY BECAUSE YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR A REALLY LONG TIME. RIGHT. AND OTHER CITIES FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND LEAN MORE TOWARDS THAT END AS WELL. AND I DON'T LIKE SEEING IT'S A PRIVATE PROPERTY AT THE END OF THE DAY YOU KNOW AND THEY HAD ATTEMPTED TO. FROM WHAT WAS SPOKEN TODAY DEVELOP YOU KNOW AND YEAH AND THERE'S THE CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOAL IS IMPORTANT YES IT'S IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT AND I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THE YOU KNOW FOR THE MOST PART I JUST THINK THAT IN THIS SITUATION ESPECIALLY BECAUSE YOU KNOW THEY'VE EXISTED BEFORE EVEN THAT PROBABLY WAS DEVELOPED. THEY'LL CALL ME ON THAT BUT YEAH I'M I'M LEANING MORE TOWARDS THE PERMITTED USE NUMBER ONE SO THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT THAT UP. AND THEN FINALLY I KNOW YEAH THEY WOULD IT WOULD BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR HOUSING IN GENERAL MIGHT BE BETTER ESPECIALLY ON AMERICAN AVENUE THERE AMERICAN BOULEVARD SCUSE ME. BUT ALSO REMEMBER THAT THESE LOTS DO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE PARKING. I SAW. YEAH, THAT'S EVERYTHING. THANK YOU. AND I APOLOGIZE BEING THE ACTING CHAIR I FEEL LIKE I'VE DERAILED THE CONVERSATION THAT THE ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF US TONIGHT IS THAT MR. SENSENBRENNER, COULD YOU PULL THAT SIDE BACK UP? YOU KNOW THE I DON'T I BELIEVE YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO ACT ON WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US LIKE WE JUST WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE. THE COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER AND SO YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY WE EITHER HAVE TO SAY YES, WE WANT THIS OR NO WE DO NOT. WE CAN'T SAY WE CAN'T ALA CARTE THIS AND SAY OH WE WANT PERMITTED USE OR WE WANT PROHIBITED USE OR LEGAL NONCONFORMING. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT I UNDERSTOOD FROM WHAT KEVIN SAID. BUT THAT CHAIR IF I IF I CAN MAKE ONE CAVEAT TO THAT AS YOU CERTAINLY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO STRIKE OR ADD SPECIFIC PROVISIONS TO THE ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF YOU AND AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS LONG AS IT IS CORRECTLY CAPTURED IN THE RECORD OBVIOUSLY THERE IS A LINE OR A LIMIT TO HOW MANY CHANGES LIKELY SHOULD BE MADE FROM THE DAIS BUT IF THERE ARE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS THAT YOU FEEL ARE NOT APPROPRIATE. AS PART OF THE SPECIFIC ORDINANCE THEN PLEASE LET US KNOW WHAT THOSE ARE SO THEY CAN BE ACCURATELY CAPTURED IN THE PUBLIC RECORD AND THEN THAT SHOULD CONNECT TO WHATEVER MOTION YOU MAKE. CERTAINLY. BUT YOU ALSO WOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO EITHER SUPPORT THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED OR RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. SHOULD YOU DO THAT I RECOMMEND YOU LIST THE SPECIFIC REASONS WHY YOU DO NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE. THANK YOU AND I'M STILL HAVING TROUBLE WITH MY I BET. DO YOU HAVE A COPY? IS THAT A PRINTED COPY OF THE OR DO MIKE DO YOU HAVE THE ORDINANCE ON EXTRA SLIDES? THAT WOULD BE THAT'D BE VERY HELPFUL. I DON'T I CERTAINLY CAN THINK I HAVE A COPY I CAN SHARE MY SCREEN OR DO WE STILL HAVE THE LITTLE THE PROMPTER THING THAT WE CAN PUT IT UP ON SO WE HAVE TO GET ON TO THE INTERNET FIRST. IT DOESN'T DO IT AND WE'LL GET IT HERE. THANK YOU. AND GET OUT OF OUR TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES FOR ONE MOMENT TO GUIDE TO GUIDE SOME DISCUSSION. I THINK A LOT OF WHAT THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND A LOT OF THE DISCUSSION HAS BEEN RELATED TO THE. THANK YOU, MR. SUCH SCENARIO HAS BEEN RELATED TO THE EITHER THE SIZE OF THE PARCEL TO BE SET ASIDE OR THE TIMING AND SO I'D BE INTERESTED TO HEAR SOME OF OTHER COMMISSIONERS THOUGHTS ON ON THE THE I GUESS IT'S JUST OVER FOUR YEARS OF TIMING OR OR EXCUSE ME. 5 A.M. ON THE SPOT HERE BUT 20 THE 31ST OF DECEMBER 2029 FOR THE TIMING AND THEN ALSO FOR THE YOU KNOW ESSENTIALLY 25% OF THESE PARCELS, THREE ACRES OF THESE PARCELS BEING SET ASIDE. MR.. SO I THINK THANK YOU CHAIR. ACTING CHAIR I THINK THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE OPERATING AS IS SIMILAR TO OTHER CITIES. SO NO TIME LIMIT MY OPINION. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SUMMERS I THINK WHEN I HEAR THE THREE ACRES TALKED ABOUT THE THOUGHT OF PUTTING IT ASIDE SEEMS TO BE WHAT IS CREATING THE INCENTIVE TO REDEVELOP IT AND THAT TO ME DOESN'T FEEL LIKE WHERE THE CITY IS GOING TO GET THE OUTCOME THAT ACTUALLY ALIGNS WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. OVER TIME BECAUSE THAT IN AND OF ITSELF I DON'T KNOW IF THAT I WOULD AGREE THAT THAT IS AN INCENTIVE THAT WE'RE SAYING YOU MUST PUT THIS ASIDE. SO FOR ME THAT IS THE PART OF IT THAT FEELS OUT OF LINE WITH THE OUTCOME OF GETTING THESE PARCELS INTO LINE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN A WAY THAT FEELS LIKE WE'RE WALKING FORWARD TOGETHER . ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER AND I THANK YOU. I WOULD JUST ECHO WHAT WAS JUST SAID IN THAT I DON'T THINK THE I THINK THE THREE ACRES IS KIND OF AN ARBITRARY NUMBER AND I WHAT MY CONCERN IS HAVING BOTH THE ACREAGE AND THE TIME STAMP IT'S NOT GOING TO ACTUALLY ACHIEVE THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR PARTICULARLY IF WHAT IT MEANS IS. BY GETTING THERE BY A CERTAIN DATE YOUR YOU'RE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE YOUR BUSINESS GOING FORWARD. I THINK THAT'S AN INCENTIVE TO GET WHATEVER YOU CAN GET DONE BY THAT DATE WITHIN THOSE PARAMETERS AND I'M NOT SURE IT'S NECESSARILY GOING TO RESULT IN THE BEST ULTIMATE LONG RANGE PLAN FOR THAT SPOT THOSE SPOTS. COMMISSIONER IS A THANK YOU. I WOULD JUST I GUESS MAYBE THE ASKING MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ARE WHERE DO YOU GUYS SEE THIS SPECIFICALLY ALIGNING WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS IT AFFORDABLE HOUSING HOUSING IN GENERAL? WHICH PART WOULD YOU GUYS SAY ALIGNS WITH THAT? I JUST. TO START A DISCUSSION THAT'D BE INTERESTING TO KNOW. YEAH THAT THE RISK OF HAVING ANY CITY EMPLOYEES STATE THEIR OPINION I WOULD SAY THAT IT ALIGNS WITH THE OVERALL ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT GOALS OF THE CITY. IT ALIGNS WITH THESE HEALTHY DEVELOPMENT OR HEALTH OF DISTRICT PLAN AND THE OVERALL REGIONAL PLAN OF. THE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT KIND OF TRANSIT ORIENTED HOUSING IS WHAT I WOULD ASSUME SOMEONE WITH AN OPINION THAT THE CITY THAT'S PROBABLY NOT SUPPOSED TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE WOULD SAY A COMMISSIONER YOU SAY WOULD YOU MIND JUST REPHRASING THE QUESTION OR COMMUNICATING THE QUESTION ONE MORE TIME OR STATEMENT JUST THAT I'M CLEAR ON? YEAH I DON'T WANT ANYTHING WRONG SO I'LL JUST WANT TO SO MY QUESTION DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ANSWERED IF IT'S YOU KNOW IS SPECIFICALLY WHAT ASPECT DO FELLOW COMMISSIONERS I BELIEVE THE POTENTIAL THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR YOU KNOW THE OWNERS TO BUILD THREE ACRE. WHERE THAT SPECIFICALLY WOULD ALIGN WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SPECIFICALLY INTERESTED IF I CAN PROVIDE I MEAN I WELCOME MIKE'S VIEW TO AS THE THE PRIMARY AUTHOR BUT THE THE INTENT OF A THREE ACRE DEVELOPMENT SET ASIDE AND WITH RESPECT TO THE SIZE OF IT IT WAS BASED ON NOT ONLY AT THESE SITES BUT. BLOOMINGTON HAS DONE A LOT OF MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS. WE HAVE A GOOD SENSE OF WHAT IS REALISTIC AND ACHIEVABLE IN TERMS OF MINIMUM SITE AREA WHERE YOU CAN GET SOME LEVEL OF INTENSITY OR DENSITY AND SO THAT IS WHAT INFORMS THE DEVELOPMENT SET ASIDE AREA. JUST FOR THE RECORD, CERTAINLY AS I MENTIONED BEFORE WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO STRIKE A DELICATE BALANCE OF FURTHERING THE GOALS OF THE CITY'S LAND USE POLICIES AND PLANS SPECIFICALLY THE SOUTH LOOP DISTRICT PLAN TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES WHILE ALSO RESPECTING THE EXISTING BUSINESSES THAT OPERATE THERE AND GIVE THEM A MORE PERMANENT PATH. AND RESOLUTION TO THIS POLICY QUESTION MOVING FORWARD. SO THAT'S WHAT STAFF'S MOTIVATIONS ARE. THAT'S WHAT OUR INTENT IS IN TERMS OF AIRPORT PARKING USE. BIG PICTURE I THINK WE WERE PRETTY CLEAR AT THE STUDY SESSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE VIEW IT, HOW WE VIEW IT IN TERMS OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMP PLAN AND DISTRICT PLAN OVERALL. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SUMMERS BUT THEN I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT GRANDFATHERED IN ZONING OR RULES OR RESTRICTIONS IN THAT. IS THAT ON THE BUSINESS OR THE OWNERSHIP? SO IF A BUSINESS WAS GRANDFATHERED IN, IS THAT IN PERPETUITY FOR ANYONE WHO OWNS THAT BUSINESS OR IF THAT BUSINESS WERE TO BE BOUGHT AND SOLD? DOES THAT PUT UP FOR DEBATE THAT ENTIRE CONVERSATION AGAIN, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER SUMMERS IT'S IT'S NOT UNIQUE TO THE OWNER SO IT CAN BE SOLD AND CONTINUED. IT HAPPENS OFTEN SO THE BUSINESS COULD BE SOLD OR EVEN THE PROPERTY COULD BE OWNED. THEY'RE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE THAT OPERATION NOW THEY CAN'T EXPAND. THEY CAN MAINTAIN. REPAIR THINGS KIND OF YOU KNOW, KEEP THINGS AS THEY ARE BUT NOT EXPANSION. SO THAT'S AND THAT'S A STATE LAW FOR NONCONFORMITY. SO BUT IT'S NOT UNIQUE TO ANY SPECIFIC OWNER. IT'S UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY AND ACTUALLY THE USE OF THE PROPERTY. SO JUST TO CLARIFY THAT I HAVE THINGS RIGHT IF THERE IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WERE TO SAY LET'S. GRANDFATHER IN AS IS STICK WITH THIS THAT WOULD MEAN THAT THESE BUSINESSES COULD LOOK EXACTLY THE SAME IN PERPETUITY YOU KNOW CHAIR COMMISSIONER SUMMERS YES THEY COULD CONTINUE IN PERPETUITY AS AS THEY ARE RIGHT NOW. YEAH. AND NOW THERE ARE SOME RESTRICTIONS ON DESTRUCTION AND DISCONTINUANCE AND THINGS LIKE THAT IN THE STATUTE. BUT ASSUMING THOSE THINGS DON'T HAPPEN, YES, THEY COULD CONTINUE AT A. TO KIND OF BRING THIS BACK TO THE THE ORDINANCE AND THE THE PROPOSED ITEM HERE I HAVING BEEN ABLE TO REREAD THIS AND STILL NOT ACCESS MY NOTES I WOULD BE IN FAVOR I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION, YOU KNOW, LATER ON OBVIOUSLY ONCE DISCUSSION IS COMPLETE. CHANGING THE COMPLAINTS TO DECEMBER 31ST OF 2013 FOR A DEVELOPMENT CYCLES OR 7 TO 10 YEARS AND SO I THINK THAT EXTEND THAT TIMELINE TO THE POINT WHERE A MARKET WOULD BE YOU KNOW THE MARKET AT LARGE WOULD BE MORE FAVORABLE TO A DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA MIGHT BE A BETTER HAPPY MEDIUM FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED AS OPPOSED TO A STRICTER TIMELINE THAT'S A LITTLE MORE AGGRESSIVE THAT COULD. PROVE UNFAVORABLE FOR THESE PROPERTY OWNERS. MR. ISA YEAH. JUST WANTED TO I GUESS SUMMARIZE AND JUST CLARIFY, YOU KNOW, OTHER CITIES IT SEEMS ARE THERE AIRPORT PARKING BUSINESSES ARE GRANDFATHERED IN PER SE. RIGHT. AND SO I JUST THINK IT'S A BIT UNFAIR FOR. IT'S ONE THING EMINENT DOMAIN IS OBVIOUSLY CONSTITUTIONAL AND THIS DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT. BUT LIKE FOR FOR THE CITY TO COME IN AND SAY YOU HAVE TO BUILD THIS AFTER YOU KNOW BECAUSE IT TO ALIGN WITH YOU KNOW THE ECONOMIC PLAN WHICH I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH FOR THE MOST PART, YOU KNOW AND I FEEL LIKE IF ANY OF US HAD SOMEONE COME IN AND SAY HEY. ON YOUR LOT YOU HAVE TO ADD LIKE EDU OR SOMETHING BECAUSE YOU KNOW NOW WE TRYING TO TRYING TO INCREASE DENSITY AND SINGLE FAMILIES OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE I THINK IT'S UNFAIR AND IF THEY'VE BEEN IN OPERATIONS FOR A LONG TIME AND HAVEN'T HAD MUCH ISSUES TRY TO. LIKE AGAIN I SAID TRY TO LIKE MAKE A DEVELOPMENT HAPPEN AND LASTLY OTHER CITIES HAVE IT WHERE YOU KNOW THEY COULD CONTINUE WITH THAT CONDITIONAL USE. I JUST THINK WE SHOULD DO WE SHOULD DO THE SAME HERE. AND SO AGAIN I'M LEANING MORE TOWARDS NUMBER ONE ON THAT CHART. MR.. WOOD THANK YOU. SO I THINK YOU KNOW, THIS IS A STRUGGLE FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS AND AND AS IT HAS BEEN SAID, I THINK THERE'S. I THINK WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH 90% OF WHAT'S IN HERE AND I THINK THE THE CONTROVERSY IS WHAT TO DO WITH THESE TWO EXISTING GOOD ACTOR BUSINESSES IN THE COMMUNITY. I THINK THE DIFFERENT I I UNDERSTAND COMMISSIONER HE SAYS POINT ABOUT IT FEELS UNFAIR TO ASK YOU KNOW REQUIRE A BUSINESS TO DO SOMETHING BUT I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT SITUATION IN THAT THESE BUSINESSES WERE WERE GRANTED PERMISSION TO OPERATE. ALWAYS KNOWING THAT IT WAS NOT A USE THAT THE CITY WANTED TO HAVE IN PERPETUITY AND ALTHOUGH IT'S TAKEN A LOT LONGER TO GET TO THIS POINT THAN I THINK ANYONE EXPECTED IN 1988 OR 1996, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT IT'S IT'S ALWAYS BEEN IN THE BACKGROUND AND I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN SOME OF THE OTHER OTHER POTENTIAL SITUATIONS I DO LIKE THE IDEA OF EXTEND. THE TIMELINE I THINK THAT THAT ALTHOUGH IT'S ON ONE HAND KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD A BIT I THINK IT ALSO IS A MUCH MORE REALISTIC TIMELINE FOR CONSIDERING AND EXPLORING DEVELOPMENT. I TEND TO TRUST THE STAFF ON WHETHER YOU KNOW THE THE ACREAGE IN THE THE THE THE SIZE AND THE POSITIONING OF THE. THE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENT IS IS IN THE RIGHT PLACE I THINK THAT YOU KNOW IT'S IN LINE WITH WHAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED AS A COMMUNITY IS WHAT WE WANT FROM THAT PART OF OUR COMMUNITY HOW WE WANT THAT PART OF OUR COMMUNITY TO DEVELOP AND UNFORTUNATELY THESE ARE THE PAINS THAT COME ALONG WITH MAKING THOSE CHANGES AND AND MAKING IT. IT GROW AND CHANGE IN THE WAY THAT WE WANT IT TO. I DON'T WANT TO PUNISH THE PARK AND THE TWO PARK AND GO AND I'M SORRY TOO MANY PARKS PARK AND FLY AND PARK AND GO I KNOW THAT THEY HAVE BEEN ACTING IN GOOD FAITH AND I WANT TO ENCOURAGE THE THE STAFF TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THEM IN THAT RESPECT. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY OUR HOPE IS THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO FIND. DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS AND AND A DEVELOPMENT PATHWAY THAT SATISFIES EVERYONE'S NEED. I DON'T WANT TO JUST SHUT IT DOWN. I'M NOT INCLINED TO DO THAT. I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF THE AIRPORT HAVING A MONOPOLY ON AIRPORT PARKING FOR ONE THING AND SO THAT'S WHY I SUPPORT THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE IN THIS IN THIS AS WELL. BUT I DO THINK THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE SOME TOUGH DECISIONS ABOUT HOW WE WANT. THIS PART OF OUR COMMUNITY TO TO OPERATE AND MEET THE NEEDS AND UNFORTUNATELY GIANT PARKING LOTS ARE NOT WHAT WE NEED FROM THIS PART OF OUR COMMUNITY. SO I THINK CONTINUING TO WORK WITH THESE BUSINESSES TO TRY AND FIND THE RIGHT PATH FORWARD AND I'M AFRAID IF WE DON'T ACT SOMEWHAT FORCEFULLY THERE'S NOT A LOT OF INCENTIVE TO. TO CONTINUE TO TRY. SO I'LL GET TO YOU IN JUST A SECOND, COMMISSIONER HE SO SO COMMISSIONER, WHY JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT YOU JUST SAID YOU WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE OR THE ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF US THE AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE. CITY CODE AMENDMENT A MODIFYING SECTION B SUBSECTION FOUR TO HAVE THE COMPLIANCE DATE READ THE 31ST OF DECEMBER 2030 FOR I WILL TRUST YOU THAT THAT'S THE RIGHT TIMELINE. BUT I DO THINK GIVING THEM MORE TIME I THINK THAT SOUNDS LIKE A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME TO ME. >> OKAY. FISHERIES YEAH. YEAH I WOULD RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE. I UNDERSTAND YOUR PERSPECTIVE OF COURSE COMMISSIONER I AND I'LL GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF YOU KNOW TIMES WE'VE THE CITY HAS MADE LEEWAY COMMISSION HOWEVER YOU WANT TO PUT IT IS I THINK IT WAS THE LAST MEETING WHEN THE PARKING ORDINANCE WAS BEING DISCUSSED. THERE WAS AN EXAMPLE WHERE, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE PARKING IN HOTELS ANYWAYS SO IT WAS LIKE HEY WHY NOT MAKE IT? PERMITTED SINCE THEY'RE DOING IT ANYWAYS I DON'T SEE HOW THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM THIS. YOU KNOW THEY'RE OPERATING THEIR BUSINESS ANYWAYS AND THEY ARE THAT. DOES IT SEEM TO CAUSE A NUISANCE? I KNOW THERE'S CONCERNS ABOUT YOU KNOW MAYBE IT'D BE BETTER TO HAVE AFFORDABLE OR A HOUSING THERE AND DOES ALIGN OBJECTIVELY WITH YOU KNOW THE CITY'S ECONOMIC GOAL BUT I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK AT THIS. I THINK THIS IS UNIQUE I GUESS AND IT WOULD PROVIDE FROM MY UNDERSTANDING CHEAPER PARKING THAN THE AIRPORT FOR EXAMPLE. AND YEAH, I JUST THINK OVERALL IF WE'VE DONE IT BEFORE WHERE WE LOOKED AT SOMETHING AND WE SAID HEY, YOU KNOW IT DOES IT CAUSE A NUISANCE? PEOPLE ARE PARKING WITH THE YOU KNOW THE HOTEL PARKING ORDINANCE. I DON'T SEE HOW THIS IS ANY DIFFERENT SO THAT WOULD BE KIND OF MY YEAH TAKE ON THAT. COMMISSION OR EXCUSE ME PLANNING MANAGER JOHNSON NO THANK YOU CHAIR AND THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. >> YOU SAY FOR THOSE THOUGHTS JUST FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE AGAIN AS THE PRIMARY AUTHORS OF THE ORDINANCE I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ONE THING WITH RESPECT TO WHAT WE VIEW ARE AS THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HOTEL . AIRPORT PARKING AND REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING AS PRIMARY USES THAT HOTEL AIRPORT PARKING IT IS NOT IS NOT THE PRIVATE COMPONENT PRIMARY COMPONENT OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT. THEY ARE OPERATING A HOTEL WHICH IS INTENSE DEVELOPMENT AND DOES HAVE OTHER BENEFITS AND SERVICES FOR COMMUNITY. BEYOND THE PARKING COMPONENT. SO I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE THAT CLARIFICATION AS TO HOW IT RELATES TO THE DIFFERENCES IN TERMS OF THE REGULATORY RATE RECOMMENDATIONS. COMMISSIONER MUNSTER I AM SORRY IF YOU HAVE HAD THAT HAND UP FOR 15 MINUTES. >> NO, NO NOT AT ALL. I ACTUALLY JUST PUT IT UP NOW I JUST I JUST WANTED TO CHIME IN TO SAY THAT I AM I AM NOT SUPPORTIVE OF CHANGING THE COMPLIANCE DATE TO 2034. I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE INCLINATION TO PROVIDE MORE TIME. I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT ANOTHER FIVE YEARS WILL HELP. THIS HAS BEEN DRAGGING ON AS A SAGA INVOLVING THE 4005 YEARS APPARENTLY AND IN 35 YEARS THE MAGIC DEVELOPMENT TO YOU KNOW REPLACE THESE NON TEMPER AIRY LOTS WITH A PERMANENT COMPLIANT DEVELOPMENT HAS NOT OCCURRED AND THERE'S NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT IF WE WAIT, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER YEAR, ANOTHER DECADE, IT'S GOING TO CHANGE. I THINK THIS ORDINANCE IS THE BEST THAT WE CAN HOPE FOR GIVEN THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK THAT WE'RE WORKING UNDER PARTICULARLY YOU KNOW, MY PERSONAL OPINION IF THE STATE ALLOWED US TO DO SO. AMORTIZATION OF THESE LOTS WOULD BE IDEAL. THAT'S NOT AN OPTION. SO YOU KNOW, I THINK ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO MOVE THIS BALL FORWARD WE NEED TO DO AND PROVIDING MORE TIME WHILE AGAIN I APPRECIATE AND CAN SYMPATHIZE WITH THE MARKET FORCES WE NEED TO MOVE AND WE NEED TO TO TO GET THIS THING HAPPEN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM ? MR. CENTENARIO CAN YOU PULL THE MOTION WITH THE REQUESTED ACTION? BACK UP PLEASE AND I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION A MOTION AT ALL . COMMISSIONER MUNSTER NO PROBLEM. >> IN CASE PL 2025 DASH 89 I MOVE TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE USE ALLOWANCES AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING AND HOTEL AIRPORT PARKING USES THEREBY AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE CITY CODE. WE HAVE A MOTION DO WE HAVE A SECOND ITEM OF MOTION IN THE SECOND? ANY DISCUSSION MS. BROWN THE ROLL PLEASE. CUNNINGHAM NAY. ISSA NAY. WHITE I JUST MY NAME SOMER'S NAME IN MONSTER I YOU MOTION FAILS 42422224324 EXCUSE ME. YEAH. POINT OF ORDER. QUESTION MY ALLOWED TO JUST KEEP THIS ON THE RECORD SO THAT MOTION FAILS. BUT THIS ITEM STAY MOVES FORWARD OR WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP HERE? CHAIR CUNNINGHAM YOU CERTAINLY HAVE IT WITHIN YOUR AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE DELIBERATING AND MAKE ADDITIONAL MOTIONS. IF YOU THINK THAT THE ORDINANCE SHOULD BE AMENDED IN SOME WAY, YOU CAN PRESENT THAT MOTION IF YOU FEEL THAT THE ORDINANCE SHOULD BE RECOMMENDED FOR UP OR DOWN AS IS THE CASE BECAUSE UP HAS ALREADY TRIED THAT'S WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW AS WELL SO YOU CAN CONTINUE WORKING THROUGH IT AND I'LL GET TO YOU IN JUST A SECOND. I JUST WANT TO GO ON RECORD AND SAY THAT IF WE EXTEND THE SECTION B SUBSECTION FOUR COMPLIANCE DATE I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION. COMMISSIONER SO YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP AS WELL? YEAH. THANK YOU. I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF OPTION ONE SIMILAR TO OTHER CITIES. YEAH. COMMISSIONER, I THINK YOU WHAT I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST WAS I WOULD I'M WONDERING IF WE COULD SEPARATE THE TWO SO THAT WE COULD VOTE ON THE HOTEL AIRPORT PARKING. THEY SEEM TO BE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT IN THE CHANGES TO IT BECAUSE THE SET ASIDE AND THE TIME REQUIREMENT WHICH SEEMED TO BE THE SPECIFIC STICKING POINTS ON THE REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING ARE UNIQUE TO THE REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING CORRECT OR MY MIS UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU'RE COMING. CUNNINGHAM COMMISSIONER LAND I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND PARSING OUT THE COMPONENTS OF THE ORDINANCE IF YOU WANT TO RECOMMEND SPECIFIC CHANGES TO IT AND THEN VOTE ON THAT. THAT CERTAINLY IS WELCOMED. BUT AND I WELCOME FOR YOUR ATTORNEY TO ASK HIS VIEW ON IT IF HE AGREES WITH THAT GUIDANCE. CHAIR COMMISSIONERS. YEAH. I DO. I THINK THAT'S FINE. I THINK WHAT YOU HAVE NOW IS NO RECOMMENDATION AT ALL SO I CAN KEEP GOING AND RECOMMEND SOMETHING POSITIVE OR RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THE MOTION OR THE ORDINANCE AS IT IS. SURE HE SAID YEAH FOR THAT ASPECT OF MOST OR IF SOME COMMISSIONERS ARE IN FAVOR OF LENGTHENING THAT TO THE DATE OR THE YEAR THAT THEY HAVE TO DO IT, I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR WHAT YOU'RE THEY WOULD WANT TO HEAR WANT TO SEE THAT BY AND A POINT OF ORDER QUESTION WITH THAT AM I ALLOWED TO MAKE THE MOTION? YOU SURE? OKAY IN CASE PL 2025-89I MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE MODIFYING USE ALLOWANCES AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR A MOTOR FOR PARKING IN HOTEL AIRPORT PARKING USES THEREBY AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE CITY CODE MODIFYING SECTION 21.302.41 SECTION B SUBSECTION FOUR TO CHANGE THE COMPLIANCE DATE FROM DECEMBER 31ST 2029 TO DECEMBER 31ST 2024 2330 31ST 2034. THANK YOU. I CAN RESTART IT IF YOU NEED ME TO, MR. TUSK. THAT'S GOOD. THANK YOU. SECOND IF EMOTIONALLY SECOND ANY DISCUSSION. ALL RIGHT, MR. BROWN. THE ROLL, PLEASE. CUNNINGHAM I IS A NAY WHITE I LANI NAY SUMMERS I AM MONSTER I THAT MOTION PASSES 4 TO 2 ON THAT ITEM WILL CONTINUE ON TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE AUGUST 25TH 2025 MEETING. THANK YOU. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS BEFORE WE GET ON TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR SINCE WE'VE BEEN GOING FOR THREE HOURS BATHROOM BREAK AND THANK YOU ALL . OKAY, WE'RE BACK AND I AM BACK IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS TO RESUME MY CHAIR DUTIES AS WE MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR WHICH IS BLOOMINGTON, LINCOLN MERCURY. THEY'RE HERE AT 701 DUPONT AVENUE SEEKING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE PARKING LOT AND FREESTANDING SIGN SETBACKS. MISS O'DAY, YOU HAVE A STAFF REPORT FOR US. I DO. THANK YOU, CHAIR. SEE HOW THIS IS FOR A COUPLE VARIANCES FOR BLOOMINGTON LINCOLN AND AUTO DEALERSHIP AND IN BLOOMINGTON. SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 78 ON DUPONT AVENUE SURROUNDING LAND USES THIS AREA TO THE EAST AN AUTO REPAIR SHOP TO THE SOUTH AND HOME FURNITURE TO THE WEST AND THEN I FOR 94 TO THE TO THE NORTH. SO HERE'S A COUPLE BEFORE AND AFTER PHOTOS OF THE I FOR 94 PROJECT ON THE LEFT SIDE YOU CAN SEE THAT CLOVER DRIVE WAS IN EXISTENCE IN 2022 AND THEN FOLLOWING THE 494 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT CLOVER DRIVE WAS REQUIRED TO BE REMOVED SO THE PHOTO ON THE RIGHT IS IN 2024 SHOWING THE SITE CONSTRUCTION REMOVING CLOVER DRIVE. SO THE REASON FOR THE VARIANCES IS TO REDUCE THE LANDSCAPE YARD AND PARKING SETBACK. CLOVER DRIVE WAS THE PRIMARY ACCESS POINT AND THEN FROM CLOVER DRIVE VEHICLES HAD A ONE WAY TRAFFIC AND THEN INCLUDE CUSTOMER PARKING IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING WITH THE NORTHERN PART OF THE BUILDING AS THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO THE BUILDING. NOW THE PRIMARY VEHICLE ACCESS POINT IS FROM DUPONT AVENUE AND I HAVE A LITTLE ANIMATION THAT SHOWS JUST TO SHOW YOU KIND OF THE PATH OF VEHICLES THAT THAT THEY TOOK IN THE EXISTING CONFIGURATION. SO THE CITY CODE REQUIRES A 20 FOOT PARKING IN LANDSCAPE YARD SETBACK FROM PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY JUST TO NOTE THAT INTERSTATE 494 VEHICLE LANE IS APPROXIMATELY 100FT AWAY WHAT THE BLOOMINGTON LINCOLN IS PROPOSING AS A SETBACK IS FOUR FEET AND THIS REDUCED YARD AREA STILL ALLOWS FOR SPACE FOR LANDSCAPING AND SITE LIGHTING AND THEN GETTING INTO THE FREESTANDING SIGN SETBACK REQUEST. THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SCREEN IS WHERE THE CURRENT FREESTANDING SIGN IS LOCATED. AND THEN IN ORDER FOR THEM TO CONSTRUCT THE NEW ACCESS OFF OF DUPONT AVENUE, THE SITE WOULD BE RELOCATED TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND A PARKING ISLAND. AND AGAIN THE CITY CODE REQUIRES A 20 FOOT SETBACK FOR THAT FREESTANDING SIGN ALONG A STREET AND THE STREET BEING FOR 94. SO WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS A REDUCTION DOWN TO TWO FEET WITH THE PREVIOUS REQUEST OF THE LANDSCAPER DOWN TO FOUR FEET. THE SIGN IS ALSO KIND OF FORCED TO HAVE A REDUCED SETBACK AS WELL. AND THEN JUST TO NOTE THAT INTERSTATE 494 VEHICLE LANE IS APPROXIMATELY 100FT AWAY. THIS FREESTANDING SIGN ALLOWS FOR FREEWAY VISIBILITY WHICH IS IMPORTANT FOR AUTO DEALERSHIPS. AND THEN JUST TO NOTE THAT THE EXISTING SIGN IS KIND OF CODE COMPLYING AND HEIGHT AND SIZE . >> SO JUST A COUPLE REVISIONS AND CONDITIONS OF THE APPLICATION AND ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT MUST BE REVIEWED BY THE ENGINEERING DIVISION PRIOR TO PERMIT FOR THE PARKING AND SIGN LOCATED WITHIN EASEMENTS . AND THEN JUST A NOTE ABOUT THE FIRE HYDRANT LOCATION THAT MUST BE RELOCATED BECAUSE IT IS JUST BEHIND THE FREESTANDING SIGN SO THAT MUST BE RELOCATED ELSEWHERE ON THE PROPERTY. AND THEN A FINAL SIGN BUILDING PLAN APPLICATION WOULD BE REQUIRED AND THAT'S REVIEWED ADMINISTRATIVELY IF CODE COMPLYING. AND THEN JUST A COUPLE OF REVISIONS THAT HAVE TO BE INCLUDED WITH THAT APPLICATION. PARKING ISLAND IS REQUIRED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE NORTHERN PARKING ROW AND THEN ALSO A TREE IS REQUIRED IN EACH PARKING ISLAND AND THEN A SIGN PERMIT IS REQUIRED. AND WITH THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. THIS IS A VARIANCE THAT IS A FINAL DECISION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THAT IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT BECAUSE BEFORE IT WAS THE CITY COUNCIL BUT NOW IT IS A FINAL DECISION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNLESS AN APPEAL IS RECEIVED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. AND YEAH, THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU MR. DAY. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER WAIT JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION. THEY'RE JUST TAKING THE EXISTING SIGN THAT MEETS ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS AND MOVING IT. IT'S NOT A NEW SIGN OR A BIGGER SIGN OR A CHANGING SIGN. CHAIR COMMISSIONER WHITE THAT'S CORRECT. THEY'RE RELOCATING THE EXISTING SIGN. THANK YOU. MR. DE IS THE APPLICANT HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK. WELCOME. HI. >> GOOD EVENING MEGAN ROGERS I'M BEHALF OF LURKING HOFMAN AND I MY NAME'S REINVENTING FOR LINCOLN OF BLOOMINGTON AND SO WE ARE HERE THIS EVENING THE APPLICATION BEFORE YOU THIS TONIGHT AND IS REALLY DICTATED BY THE CHANGES TO 494 AND THE CHANGE IN TERMS OF THE ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY AND SO THE REDUCTION IN SAP SETBACK WILL SPECIFICALLY FACILITATE TWO WAY TRAFFIC AND WILL ALSO ALLOW AND ENSURE THAT CUSTOMERS TO THE DEALERSHIP DO NOT HAVE TO DRIVE AROUND ALMOST THE ENTIRE DEALERSHIP IN ORDER TO ACCESS THE SERVICE BAYS AND TO ACCESS THE FRONT ENTRANCE. AND RYAN CAN SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THE SORT OF PRACTICAL IMPACTS OF WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING TONIGHT. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A TEMPORARY ENTRANCE THAT WAS PUT IN WHICH IS WHERE IT WAS DRAWN ON THAT MAP WHERE IT WAS KIND OF DEMONSTRATED THAT TEMPORARY ENTRANCE IS KIND OF WHERE WE'RE HOPING TO PUT A PERMANENT ENTRANCE. BUT IN ORDER TO MAKE IT SAFE TO HAVE TWO WAY TRAFFIC, WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME MORE SPACE BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND WHERE THE CURB IS WHICH IS WHY WE'RE ACTUALLY ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL SPACE TO BE ABLE TO PUSH THE PARKING OUT. I THINK IT'S AN ADDITIONAL 15 16FT JUST SO THAT IT ACCOMMODATES THAT DOUBLE DRIVE. AND LASTLY, AS PLANNER O'DAY MENTIONED, ONE OF THE UNIQUE FACTORS OF THE RECONSTRUCTION AND THE LOSS OF CLOVER DRIVE IS THERE'S ACTUALLY A VERY LARGE RETENTION POND THAT'S GOING TO BE RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE DEALERSHIP AND MR. BENNING SUGGESTED SOME VEHICLE RACING OR SOME REMOTE REMOTE BOAT RACING THAT COULD BE POTENTIALLY ACCOMPLISHED ON A SATURDAY AFTERNOON. YOU KNOW, YOU WIN THE RACE, YOU GET A DOLLAR OFF THE CAR BUT THERE STILL IS A REALLY SIGNIFICANT SPACING BETWEEN THE ROADWAY AND THE ACTUAL ACCESS POINTS FOR THE DEALERSHIP FROM A PRACTICAL PERSPECTIVE AS WELL. AND WE STAND READY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE ABOUT OUR PROJECT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SENIOR IF I COULD MAKE SURE YOU SIGN IN FOR US PLEASE AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY THIS EVENING. I WILL THEN OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE CHAMBERS WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY SEEING NOBODY. MRS. BROWN DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ON LINE WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY? ALL PARTICIPANTS ONLINE OUR STAFF VERY WELL. I WILL LOOK FOR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SO MOVED HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MISS BROWN CAPTAIN I CUNNINGHAM I E SAY I WAIT I NAME I SUMMERS I IN MONSTER I OUR MOTION PASSES SEVEN ZERO THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION MR. CUNNINGHAM THIS SEEMS LIKE A VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD REQUEST AND I THINK THAT IT'S I'M THANKFUL TO STAFF AND THE APPLICANT FOR WORKING TOGETHER TO BRING THIS FORWARD. I'M VOTING I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS. I TOO WILL BE IN FAVOR OF THIS . THIS IS AN UNDUE BURDEN PUT UPON THE DEALERSHIP HERE THAT IS NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN AND THAT'S THAT'S A GOOD TIME TO GIVE A VARIANCE WHEN IT'S NO NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. SO I WILL ALSO BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO COMMISSIONER WHITE IN CASE NUMBER02500093. HAVING BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS, I MOVED TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE FRONT LANDSCAPE YARD AND PARKING SETBACK FROM 20FT TO 4FT AND A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 20FT TO 2FT FOR A FREESTANDING SIGN AT AN EXISTING MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP LOCATED AT 7801 DUPONT AVENUE SOUTH SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND CODE REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN THE RESOLUTION. THERE ARE A SECOND SECOND I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE MOTION BEFORE US. ANY FINAL DISCUSSION? MISS BROWN PLEASE CALL THE ROLL CAPTAIN I CUNNINGHAM I E C I Y I LONNIE I SUMMARIZE I IN MONSTER I THEIR MOTION PASSES SEVEN ZERO THIS IS A FINAL DECISION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNLESS AN APPEAL HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE CITY BY AUGUST 12TH AT 4:30 P.M.. THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. WE WILL THEN MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE THIS EVENING WHICH IS CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSIONS FOR DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR JULY 24TH OF 2025 . IS THERE A MOTION TO MR. CUNNINGHAM? I MOVE TO APPROVE THE JULY 24TH 2025 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OR SYNOPSIS SO A SECOND SECOND MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 20TH 4TH OR 2025. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION MISS BROWN COOKTOWN I CUNNINGHAM I ESSAY I WAIT I LANNY I SUMMARIZE I AND MONSTER I NOW MOTION PASSES SEVEN ZERO WE WILL MOVE THEN TO ITEM NUMBER SIX WHICH IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY AND ISSUES UPDATE MR. JOHNSON THANK YOU CHAIR COOKTOWN AT THE UPCOMING MEETING IS JUST A SNAPSHOT AUGUST 14TH AUGUST 28TH AND SEPTEMBER 4TH ON THE AUGUST 14TH MEETING WILL BE HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SOUTH LOOP DISTRICT PLAN UPDATE THAT DOES INVOLVE A MODEST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO ADOPT THOSE CHANGES. SECOND ITEM PLANNED FOR THAT AGENDA WOULD BE A STUDY ITEM FOCUSED ON THE PHASE TWO OF THE SMALL BUSINESS CODES AND PROCESSES ORDINANCE FOR THE MEMBERS FURTHER LONGER ON THE BOARD YOU RECALL THAT WE DID NOT INCLUDE REFUSE AND RECYCLING STORAGE IN THE FIRST PHASE SO WE'LL BRING SOME ADDITIONAL STUDY WITH SOME CONCEPT ORDINANCES BACK TO YOU THERE FOR YOUR FEEDBACK. THE THIRD ITEM ON AUGUST 14TH WOULD BE THE ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE. I WOULD STATE THAT THAT PACKET THIS PACKET HAS BEEN PUBLISHED AS OF TODAY JUST LATE THIS AFTERNOON AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING A FEW CHANGES TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND YOU'LL CERTAINLY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS, MAKE OTHER AMENDMENTS AND KEEP THE RULES AS SUCH BUT WE'LL PRESENT THAT TO YOU AND THEN FINALLY THAT'S THE ALSO THE ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING WHERE WE DO THE ELECTION OF OFFICERS TO SERVE OUT THE REMAINDER OF THE YEAR TERM THROUGH UP UNTIL NEXT AUGUST OF 2026. SO A ONE YEAR TERM ELECTION OF A CHAIR AND A VICE CHAIR. I'LL HAVE ANOTHER NOTE ABOUT THAT HERE AT THE END AT THE AUGUST 28TH MEETING WE'RE LOOKING AT THREE STUDY ITEMS CURRENTLY. ONE IS AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO INCENTIVIZING MORE ART AND PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT AND ART IN PUBLIC SPACES. SO SOME CHANGES TO THE ZONING CODE, THEIR COMMERCIAL VEHICLE STANDARDS, COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. WE HAVE A STUDY ITEM THAT'S ANOTHER WORK PLAN. OUR PROJECT AND THEN FINALLY A STUDY ITEM ON PHASE TWO OF THE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING PROJECT LOOKING AT STANDARDS FOR TRIPLEXES QUADS, MULTIPLEXES, OTHER RESIDENTIAL USES THAT ARE IN THE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING BUCKET. AND THEN ON SEPTEMBER 4TH WE CURRENTLY HAVE NO ITEMS TRACKING TO THE SEPTEMBER 4TH MEETING. SO ABSENT SOME NEW INFORMATION IT'S A POTENTIAL FOR CANCELLATION ON SEPTEMBER THE 4TH. I'LL CERTAINLY BE IN TOUCH WITH YOU AS THAT PROGRESSES WHEN WE KNOW MORE INFORMATION ON. SO THAT'S WHAT'S COMING UP ON THE UPCOMING MEETINGS. I'LL CIRCLE BACK TO THE ELECTION OF OFFICERS HERE AT THE END BUT JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE THE COMMUNITY A QUICK UPDATE ABOUT TRANSIT OPERATIONS BY METRO TRANSIT. THEY'RE OFFERING A NEW SERVICE IN BLOOMINGTON CALLED METRO MICRO SO IT'S MOSTLY IN THE SOUTHERN AND SOUTHWESTERN PORTION OF THE COMMUNITY WHERE THERE'S LESS TRANSIT SERVICE AVAILABLE CURRENTLY AND THAT SERVICE IS SET TO BEGIN ON AUGUST 16TH. SO IT CERTAINLY FUNCTIONS ITS APP BASED. IT'S SIMILAR TO A RIDESHARE BUT YOU CAN CALL FOR A RIDE AND GET A CONNECTION TO ANOTHER TRANSIT STOP OR STATION TO CATCH A RIDE SO IF YOU'RE INTERESTED THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION ON METRO TRANSIT'S WEBSITE ABOUT METRO MICRO IN BLOOMINGTON I BELIEVE WE'RE THE THIRD COMMUNITY TO OFFER THIS SERVICE AND IT'S VERY EXCITING. FINALLY I WOULD JUST STATE ABOUT THE ELECTION OF OFFICERS SO TYPICALLY THE MEETING BEFORE WE DO THE ELECTION OF OFFICERS WE GIVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THEIR INTENTIONS CLEAR IF THEY WANT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR AN OFFICER POSITION. AGAIN, THE TWO POSITIONS ARE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR. WE'LL HAVE MORE INFORMATION FOR YOU WHEN WE ACTUALLY CONDUCT THE ITEM BUT THAT'S IT'S CONDUCTED BY SECRET BALLOT. FIRST WE VOTE ON THE CHAIR POSITION AND THE REMAINING MEMBERS WHO WISH TO BE CONSIDERED FOR VICE CHAIR. THEN THERE'S A SECRET BALLOT VOTE ON THAT AS WELL. WE'LL HAVE ONE OR MORE ROUNDS OF VOTING DEPENDING ON HOW MANY ROUNDS IT TAKES. BUT AGAIN TYPICALLY AT THE MEETING BEFORE THAT MEETING WE GIVE MEMBERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS THEIR INTEREST IN SERVING AS AN OFFICER. SO WITH THAT I WOULD OPEN IT UP TO CHAIR COOKED IN AND YOU ALL FOR ANY POTENTIAL DISCUSSION YOU WANT TO HAVE IN THAT REGARD. YEAH THANK YOU MR. JOHNSON I GUESS I'LL FIRST START WITH CHAIR AND ASK AND THIS IS NOT A HARD COMMITMENT IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE YOUR MIND BY NEXT WEEK THAT'S CERTAINLY FINE BUT IT'S HELPFUL FOR OTHER COMMISSIONERS JUST TO KNOW WHO THEY SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT OVER THE NEXT WEEK THAT THEY WANT TO VOTE ON FOR CHAIR AND SO I'LL START WITH CHAIR. I WILL SAY FOR MYSELF I WOULD BE FINE BEING CHAIR FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE YEAR BUT I'M OPEN TO OTHER PEOPLE IF THEY SO DESIRE VERY WELL THEN WE WILL ASK THE SAME QUESTION OF VICE CHAIR DOES ANYONE WANT TO TENTATIVELY THROW THEIR HAT IN THE RING FOR VICE CHAIR I WILL TENTATIVELY THROW MY HAT IN THE RING FOR VICE CHAIR VERY WELL. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO TENTATIVELY THROW THEIR HAT IN THE RING FOR VICE CHAIR AGAIN THESE ARE NOT VOTING WE ARE JUST DOING SOME PRELIMINARY WORK HERE SO IF YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND OVER THE NEXT WEEK BY ALL MEANS I WILL GIVE YOU ANOTHER CHANCE TO EXPRESS YOUR DESIRE TO BE EITHER CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR NEXT WEEK. JERRY COOKSON IF I CAN MAKE ONE CLARIFICATION AS YOU PLEASE THE TERM WOULD RUN THROUGH THE FOLLOWING AUGUST AND AUGUST OF 2026. YES. JUST TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THE COMMITMENT THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR ANY ITEMS THAT WERE NOT ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING? SEE NONE. THAT CONCLUDES THIS AUGUST 7TH MEETING OF THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION. GOODNIGHT