This transcript is from a **Bloomington Planning Commission** meeting. While the prompt provided City Council members, the speakers here are Planning Commissioners and specific city staff mentioned in the text. [00:00] **Chair:** GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE NOVEMBER 3RD MEETING OF THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS MADE UP OF SEVEN VOLUNTEER BLOOMINGTON RESIDENTS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE FOUR WHICH IS A QUORUM. THE COMMISSION ADVISES THE CITY COUNCIL ON DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, LONG-RANGE PLANNING, AND TRANSPORTATION ISSUES. OUR WORK IS INFORMED BY THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, VARIOUS DISTRICT PLANS, AND THE CITY CODE. FOR SOME ITEMS, THE COMMISSION MAKES A RECOMMENDATION WITH THE CITY COUNCIL HAVING THE FINAL DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY. IN OTHER CASES, THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN APPROVE OR DENY AN APPLICATION SUBJECT TO APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. FOR EACH ACTION ITEM, THERE WILL BE A STAFF REPORT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPLICANT TO PRESENT, AND THEN FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY. OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS TONIGHT IS THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PLEASE STAND AS YOU ARE ABLE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. WE'LL BEGIN WITH ASKING PLANNING MANAGER MARK MCGARRY TO SHARE INFORMATION AND CALL-IN INFO FOR TESTIMONY. [01:30] **Mark McGarry:** YES, CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS. WE HAVE ONE PUBLIC HEARING THIS EVENING AND WE WILL TAKE TESTIMONY HERE AT THE CHAMBERS IN PERSON, OR IF YOU ARE AT HOME AND WISH TO TESTIFY, YOU CAN CALL IN AND TESTIFY REMOTELY. WHAT YOU WOULD DO IS CALL THE NUMBER ON THE SCREEN AND THEN ENTER IN THE ACCESS CODE AND YOU WILL BE LIVE AT THAT TIME. WE'LL HAVE THIS NUMBER SHOWN ON THE SCREEN THROUGHOUT THE MEETING. THANK YOU. [01:55] **Chair:** THE FIRST ITEM IS A PUBLIC HEARING WITH SEVERAL COMPONENTS. IT INCLUDES A REZONING, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS, AND A REPLAT AT THE FINAL PLAT. PLANNER CENTENARIO HAS THE PRESENTATION ON THIS ONE. [02:10] **Planner Centenario:** THANK YOU, CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS. THE PUBLIC HEARING, AS YOU MENTIONED, IS FOR A NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS FOR YOUR ACROPOLIS RESTAURANT THAT WE'RE PROBABLY ALL PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH. THAT INCLUDES A REZONING TO APPLY THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY TO THE SITE. ALONG WITH THAT OVERLAY COMES THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS—THE ACTUAL SITE PLAN FOR THE SITE—A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BECAUSE THERE IS AN OUTDOOR PATIO PROPOSED, AND, WHAT IS OFTEN THE CASE WITH EXPANSIONS AND REDEVELOPMENTS, THERE ARE SOME LOT LINES THAT NEED TO BE ADJUSTED, SO A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT TO COMBINE TWO SITES AND THEN A LITTLE SLIVER OF LAND FROM AN ADJACENT PROPERTY. SO HERE WE HAVE THE EXISTING CONDITIONS. ACROPOLIS IS WITHIN THIS RED OUTLINE, BUT IT'S THE WEST BUILDING. THE EAST BUILDING IS A VACANT GAS STATION THAT'S BEEN VACANT FOR SOME TIME AND DETERIORATING. WE'RE AT THE 90TH AND PENN COMMERCIAL NODE AND, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, THIS HAS BEEN A RESTAURANT SITE FOR SEVERAL DECADES AND HAS LARGELY STAYED THE SAME OVER THAT PERIOD OF TIME. JUST TO TOUCH ON THE EXISTING ZONING: THE SITE IS B4, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, AND THAT COMES WITH A WHOLE SET OF STANDARDS THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM HOW THIS SITE WAS DEVELOPED ORIGINALLY—WHICH WAS MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT THE SITE USED TO BE ZONED, B2, WHICH IS A GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION TO OCCUR, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY TO ALLOW THE CITY TO CONSIDER FLEXIBILITY TO A NUMBER OF STANDARDS, BUT THE BASE ZONING, THE B4 DISTRICT, WOULD NOT CHANGE. JUST A FEW IMAGES FROM THE SITE AS IT EXISTS TODAY: YOU CAN SEE ACROPOLIS IN THE FOREGROUND, THOSE IMAGES FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER ALONG 90TH, AND SEE THE SIGN ALONG THE STREET AND THEN THE VACANT CONVENIENCE STORE TO THE EAST. ANOTHER IMAGE, THIS TIME ALONG PENN: YOU CAN SEE THAT I'M STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK AT THIS MOMENT, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF CURB CUTS BETWEEN THESE TWO SITES, AND I'LL SHOW IN A MOMENT HOW THE SITE PLAN WOULD MODIFY THAT. YOU CAN SEE IN THIS IMAGE HOW THERE'S ASPHALT THAT GOES RIGHT UP TO THE SIDEWALK, WHICH GOES UP TO THE STREET. IT REALLY IS NOT A COMFORTABLE WALKING ENVIRONMENT FOR PEDESTRIANS RIGHT NOW. THIS AREA TAKING AN IMAGE MORE OR LESS IN THE MIDDLE BETWEEN THE CONVENIENCE STORE AND THE RESTAURANT: THERE ARE SOME PARKING STALLS AND THEN THERE'S SOME BROKEN-UP CONCRETE OR ASPHALT AND GRAVEL WHICH, FOR THOSE OF US WHO HAVE BEEN THERE AT LUNCH, SOMETIMES IT CAN BE A LITTLE BIT OF A FREE-FOR-ALL IN TERMS OF PARKING WHERE PEOPLE ARE PARKING GIVEN THAT THEY'RE PUTTING THEIR CARS AND TRUCKS JUST WHERE THERE'S SPACE AS OPPOSED TO WHERE THERE'S A STALL. GOING ON TO THE SITE PLAN: THIS IS THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING BUILDING, AND I'LL ZOOM IN MOMENTARILY, BUT THE BUILDING IS ABOUT 1,370 SQUARE FEET AND THE PROPOSED EXPANSION IS ACTUALLY TO THE WEST AND TO THE EAST. THERE WILL BE A 685 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO THE WEST WHICH WOULD ENTAIL A TRASH ROOM AND SOME ADDITIONAL STORAGE SPACE, AND THEN ON THE EAST SIDE, ABOUT 1,700 PLUS SQUARE FEET THAT'S MAINLY DINING SPACE AND THEN A SIGNIFICANT 58-SEAT OUTDOOR PATIO BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE PARKING LOT TO THE EAST. ONE THING I'LL NOTE ON THIS PARTICULAR GRAPHIC: YOU CAN SEE THE SOLID SIDEWALK THAT'S BOTH ALONG WEST 90TH AND PENN AVENUE SOUTH. WE THINK THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT FEATURE WITH THIS EXPANSION BECAUSE NOT ONLY DOES THE SIDEWALK NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT ON THE SITE CURRENTLY, IT'S ALSO RIGHT UP AGAINST THE STREET IN A LOT OF AREAS. AGAIN, MORE ALONG PENN THAN 90TH, BUT WHAT'S PROPOSED IS COMPLYING AT EIGHT FEET WIDE, SO SIGNIFICANTLY WIDER, AND ESTABLISHING AT LEAST SOME BOULEVARD BETWEEN THE CURB AND THE SIDEWALK, WHILE ALSO INCLUDING A LANDSCAPE BUFFER BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE PARKING LOT. SO THIS WOULD BE A REALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT FROM THE EXISTING CONDITIONS. THIS IS JUST ZOOMING IN A LITTLE BIT ON THE PROPOSED. YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE IS A PICKUP WINDOW ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. WE LIKE TO REFER TO IT AS A DRIVE-THRU, BUT WE WERE CORRECTED BY THE APPLICANT. THIS IS NOT A DRIVE-THRU WINDOW; THIS IS A PICKUP WINDOW. THAT'S AN ORGANIZATIONAL THING THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO MANAGE, BUT IF IT WERE A DRIVE-THRU, THEN IT WOULD NOT MEET THE STACKING SPACES AS WE SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, ESPECIALLY WITH COFFEE. THIS WOULD BE TOTALLY INADEQUATE FOR A COFFEE SHOP, FOR EXAMPLE, BUT FOR PICKUP, THE APPLICANT IS VERY CONFIDENT THAT THE STACKING SHOWN HERE WOULD WORK, AND IT MIGHT SERVE TO SLIGHTLY REDUCE THE NEED FOR SURFACE PARKING IF FOLKS ARE JUST TRYING TO PICK UP OUT OF THE PICKUP WINDOW. THIS IMAGE IDENTIFIES THE THREE CURB CUTS THAT WOULD BE FILLED IN. THE FORMER GAS STATION SITE HAS THREE ACCESS POINTS WHICH REALLY MAKES CONFLICT MORE LIKELY BETWEEN PEDESTRIANS AND VEHICLES OR BETWEEN VEHICLES. ALL THREE OF THESE THAT ARE HIGHLIGHTED HERE WOULD BE FILLED IN, CURBS WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED, AND PERVIOUS SOD PLACED BETWEEN THE CURB AND THE SIDEWALK. GOING INTO THE LANDSCAPING PLAN: IT'S REALLY COMMON THAT LANDSCAPE PLANS HAVE TO BE MODIFIED BETWEEN THE ENTITLEMENT PROCESS AND THE PERMIT, AND THIS IS NO DIFFERENT. BUT THAT SAID, THERE ARE A LOT OF COMPELLING ELEMENTS TO THIS PLAN—THE SHRUB QUANTITY AS WELL AS THE LANDSCAPING BUFFER. WE'D LIKE TO HAVE A THREE-FOOT SCREEN ALONG PARKING LOTS BETWEEN PARKING AREAS AND STREETS SO IF YOU'RE WALKING THERE ISN'T A HEADLIGHT IN YOUR FACE OR THE DRIVING PUBLIC ISN'T DISTRACTED BY HEADLIGHTS INTO THE STREET, AND SO THAT'S CERTAINLY A GOOD FEATURE. THERE ARE ALSO PARKING ISLANDS THAT WOULD BE ADDED WITH LANDSCAPING, AS WELL AS A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF LANDSCAPING ALONG THE BUILDING FRONTAGE. THIS IS JUST A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ON THE PATIO THAT'S BEING PROPOSED. THEY HAVE SOME SHADE SAILS THAT ARE SHOWN IN THIS GRAPHIC; THAT'S SOMETHING THAT OFTEN GETS MODIFIED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PROCESS. BUT NONETHELESS, WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE IS WHAT WOULD BE A VERY ATTRACTIVE BRICK PATIO WITH LANDSCAPING, AND THEY'RE EVEN SHOWING A GARDEN. SO HOPEFULLY THAT WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR KITCHEN. FLOOR PLAN: HERE YOU CAN SEE THE EXPANSION TO THE WEST WHERE YOU HAVE STORAGE, FREEZER SPACE, AND THE TRASH ROOM. THE KITCHEN WOULD BE EXPANDED, ALTHOUGH I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE HOOD SYSTEMS OR THE COOKING SYSTEMS WOULD BE EXPANDED SIGNIFICANTLY, BUT THEN ALSO SUBSTANTIAL INDOOR SPACE—BATHROOMS, A VARIETY OF SEATING, AND THEN A LARGER SPACE FOR THE SERVING LINE. THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING AT CHANGING THE EXTERIOR MATERIALS, AND SO THE LIGHT SURFACE THAT YOU SEE ON THE RENDERING IS A STUCCO MATERIAL; THE WOOD LOOK PANELING WOULD ACTUALLY BE METAL PANELS. THOSE CAN BE A VERY DURABLE PRODUCT. AND THEN THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF GLASS. WE THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS A REALLY ATTRACTIVE DESIGN THAT HAS A VARIETY OF MATERIALS, HEIGHT, AND VARIATION AND WOULD REALLY ADD A BIT TO THE CORRIDOR IMAGE. IMAGE OF THE PATIO: THE PATIO WOULD LIKELY NOT LOOK EXACTLY LIKE THIS—THIS IS THE ARCHITECT'S DEPICTION—BUT YOU GET THE IDEA OF THE SIZE OF THE PATIO AND HOW IT RELATES TO THE BUILDING. ANOTHER IMAGE OF THE NORTH ELEVATION THAT WOULD BE ALONG 90TH, AND THEN HERE IS THE PICKUP WINDOW. ONE THING WE NOTED IN OUR REVIEW IS THAT THEY WOULD PAINT THE EXISTING BRICK FACADE, AND THAT'S PERMITTED, SO LIKELY WHAT THEY COULD DO IS JUST LEAVE THE BRICK AS IT IS. IT'S A BRICK BUILDING; THERE'S NO NEED TO PAINT IT. IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S IN GOOD CONDITION. IF THEY DID WANT TO CHANGE THE COLOR SCHEME, IT COULD BE A STUCCO OR THEY COULD FIND SOME OTHER COMPELLING MATERIAL AS OPPOSED TO PAINTING. THEN, IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT WOULD BE COMBINING TWO PIECES OF PROPERTY THEY OWN AND THEN ALSO A SMALL STRIP OF LAND. I'LL SHOW YOU IN A MOMENT, THERE'S A LOT GOING ON IN THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT DOCUMENT. BY GOING TO THE FINAL PLAT: NORTH IS UP HERE. THEY'RE JUST SORT OF ACQUIRING AN 11-FOOT BY 106-FOOT WIDE STRIP FROM THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH WHERE BURGER KING AND CSL PLASMA ARE, AND THAT WOULD ACCOMMODATE A MORE RECTANGULAR SITE AND NEGATE THE NEED FOR AN ACCESS EASEMENT THAT OCCUPIES THAT SPACE. SO WE DO HAVE FOUR MOTIONS. WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND CODE REQUIREMENTS ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT. I HAVE TWO OF THE MOTIONS ON THIS SLIDE, TWO ON THE NEXT SLIDE. BEFORE WE GET TO THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. [10:45] **Chair:** THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER GOTTESMAN. [10:50] **Commissioner Gottesman:** THANKS, CHAIR. I ACTUALLY HAVE FOUR QUESTIONS. IF WE GO BACK TO THE EXISTING CONDITIONS, JUST ONE QUESTION I HAVE: THE PINK SQUARE IN THE OVERHEAD, WAS THAT AN EXISTING PREVIOUS BUILDING OR AN AWNING? [11:05] **Planner Centenario:** CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, I'M PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT WAS AN OLD CANOPY. [11:10] **Commissioner Gottesman:** MY SECOND QUESTION IS AROUND SIGNAGE. DOES THE APPLICANT PROPOSE TO KEEP THE FRONT SIGN, OR ARE THERE CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO THE SIGNAGE THAT'S ON THE BOULEVARD BETWEEN THE PARKING LOT AND THE SIDEWALK? [11:25] **Planner Centenario:** CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER, THE SITE PLAN DEPICTS THEM MOVING THE SIGN OR INSTALLING A BRAND NEW SIGN. THE SITE PLAN SHOWS A FREE-STANDING SIGN IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE NEAR THE INTERSECTION. THEY MIGHT LOOK TO SLIGHTLY MODIFY THAT LOCATION, BUT WE DO HAVE HEIGHT LIMITS, SIZE LIMITS, AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. FOR THIS SITE PLAN, THERE'S NOT A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF AREA THAT WOULD BE COMPLYING, BUT HAVING A SIGN SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, HEIGHT, AND AREA, THEY'RE SHOWING THIS NEAR THE INTERSECTION. [12:05] **Commissioner Gottesman:** GOOD, THANK YOU. SO THE EXISTING MONUMENT GOES AWAY? THAT'S WHAT THE SITE PLAN IS SHOWING FOR ME. THE THIRD QUESTION IS ON THE TRASH CONDITION. TODAY I SEE THAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO INDOOR TRASH, AND I BELIEVE THE TRASH IS OUTSIDE TODAY. IS THAT COMPLYING WITH CITY STANDARDS BASED ON THE REQUIREMENTS? [12:25] **Planner Centenario:** CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, I BELIEVE THERE'S A SMALL ENCLOSURE SPACE TODAY. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE IS AN INDOOR TRASH FACILITY IN THE BUILDING TODAY. OFTENTIMES, EVEN IF THERE ARE DUMPSTERS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE IN AN ENCLOSURE, THEY OFTEN FIND THEIR WAY OUTSIDE THAT ENCLOSURE IN PARKING SPACES. ONE OF THE BENEFITS WITH THE PROPOSAL IS THAT THERE WOULD BE ADEQUATE INDOOR SPACE, EASILY ACCESSIBLE FOR A TRASH HAULER TO KEEP THOSE DUMPSTERS INSIDE. [13:05] **Commissioner Gottesman:** PERFECT. THANK YOU. AND MY LAST QUESTION IS AROUND THE PICKUP WINDOW. I'M LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN. THERE IS NO PROPOSED AWNING OVER THE PICKUP WINDOW. IS THAT AN ACCURATE STATEMENT? [13:15] **Planner Centenario:** THERE'S NO AWNING OVER THE WINDOW. CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS A DESIGN REASON FOR NOT HAVING AN AWNING OR IF THEY FEEL THAT JUST HAVING A WINDOW WITHOUT A COVERING WOULD BE ADEQUATE. [13:30] **Commissioner Rohman:** DO WE REQUIRE THAT? DO WE KNOW? I SAW IN THE COMMENT THAT THE PATIO WAS REFERRED TO AS BRICK. DO WE KNOW PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR WHAT TYPE OF SURFACE THAT IS, OR IS IT PERMEABLE OR IMPERMEABLE? [13:45] **Planner Centenario:** COMMISSIONER ROHMAN, WE DON'T HAVE A PERFORMANCE STANDARD ON THE SURFACE. I THINK THE BRICK THAT THEY'RE SHOWING ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS A DECORATIVE ELEMENT. THEY ARE SHOWING SOME PERMEABLE PAVEMENT WITHIN THE PARKING LOT BECAUSE THIS EXPANSION NECESSITATES SOME STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE BRICK PATIO CONTRIBUTED TO THAT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT; I THINK IT'S MORE OF A DECORATIVE THING. [14:15] **Chair:** OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER ALBRECHT. [14:20] **Commissioner Albrecht:** THANK YOU, CHAIR. MY QUESTION IS ALSO RELATED TO THE PICKUP WINDOW. CAN YOU JUST TELL US A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT YOUR CONVERSATION REGARDING THE PICKUP WINDOW VERSUS THE DRIVE-THRU AND HOW THOSE ARE DISTINGUISHED? [14:35] **Planner Centenario:** SURE, COMMISSIONER. DURING OUR REVIEW AND PRE-APPLICATION MEETINGS, WE TENDED TO REFER TO IT AS A DRIVE-THRU, AND THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED CONSISTENTLY THAT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE A DRIVE-THRU SERVICE. YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ORDER YOUR FOOD FROM THIS LANE AND THEN PICK IT UP SHORTLY THEREAFTER; YOU WOULD HAVE TO PRE-ORDER ON THE PHONE, ONLINE, OR VIA AN APP, AND THEN THE PICKUP WOULD BE IN THIS SPACE. OUR PREFERENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO HAVE THE PICKUP WINDOW FARTHER BACK. WHAT WE CAN SEE HAPPENING IS AN OPERATOR SEES THE SUCCESS OF A PICKUP WINDOW AND SAYS, "GEEZ, I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A DRIVE-THRU WINDOW," AND THEN WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH STACKING TO MEET THE CODE REQUIREMENT. IT'S SOMETHING WE DID DISCUSS, AND ULTIMATELY THE APPLICANT APPLIED FOR WHAT YOU'RE SEEING. [15:30] **Commissioner Albrecht:** DO WE HAVE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR PICKUP WINDOWS? I MEAN, I'M SEEING MORE AND MORE OF THOSE IN RESTAURANTS AROUND THE TWIN CITIES. [15:40] **Planner Centenario:** CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, WE DON'T HAVE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR PICKUP WINDOWS. IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA, THOUGH, ESPECIALLY AS IT'S BECOMING MUCH MORE COMMON. [15:55] **Commissioner Albrecht:** AND IF I MAY, THE LAST QUESTION I HAD: SO THIS IS A VEHICULAR PICKUP WINDOW, NOT FOR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS? [16:05] **Planner Centenario:** THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. YES, IT WOULD BE STRICTLY FOR VEHICLES. [16:10] **Commissioner Albrecht:** AND IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WOULD STOP SOMEONE FROM PUTTING IN AN ORDER BOARD? I ASSUME THEY WOULD NEED AN ELECTRICAL PERMIT. [16:20] **Planner Centenario:** CHAIR, FOR SIGNS WE HAVE A PERMIT PROCESS. NOT ONLY DO YOU HAVE TO GET A SIGN PERMIT, YOU ALSO NEED AN ELECTRICAL PERMIT. IN THIS CASE, IF WE WERE TO SEE A PERMIT FOR AN ORDER BOARD, THAT WOULD BE AN IMMEDIATE RED FLAG THAT THE INTENT WOULD BE TO HAVE MORE OF A DRIVE-THRU WINDOW WHICH WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN PART OF THE APPROVAL. [16:40] **Commissioner Albrecht:** SURE. AND SO I GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS THAT SAY I BUY PROPERTY IN TEN YEARS AND I APPLY FOR ONE—ADMINISTRATIVELY IT WOULD BE A LIKELY DENIAL BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET THE STACKING REQUIREMENTS? [16:50] **Planner Centenario:** THAT'S CORRECT. [16:55] **Chair:** OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO? GREAT. WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM AND COME FORWARD? INTRODUCE YOURSELF. [17:05] **Constantine Cancelos:** HI, MY NAME IS CONSTANTINE CANCELOS. I CAN SPEAK ON THE SUBJECT OF THE ORDER PICKUP WINDOW. THE REASON WE WENT WITH THE ONLINE ORDER PICKUP WINDOW IS THAT SINCE WE IMPLEMENTED THE SYSTEM OF ONLINE PICKUPS, WE FOUND THAT IT'S A SIGNIFICANT PART OF OUR BUSINESS. PEOPLE LOVE TO COME INTO THE RESTAURANT TO PICK UP THEIR ORDER, BUT IN CONSIDERATION OF LARGER FAMILIES, IT'S HARD TO MANAGE IN OUR BUSY SPACE. IT'S HARD FOR, FOR EXAMPLE, A MOTHER WITH A FEW KIDS TO GET OUT OF HER VEHICLE, CROSS THE BUSY PARKING LOT, AND COME INTO THE RESTAURANT. SO WE THOUGHT WE COULD CREATE A CONVENIENCE FOR THE PEOPLE OF BLOOMINGTON. WE WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR ON THE ONLINE ORDERING SYSTEM THAT THERE IS NO ORDERING AT THE WINDOW. THE MAIN GOAL WAS TO MAKE THIS A DESTINATION FOR PEOPLE, EITHER BY CAR OR BIKE OR WALKING. THIS ONLINE ORDER PICKUP IS MAINLY A CONVENIENCE FOR PEOPLE THAT DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO COME INTO THE RESTAURANT AS EASILY. IT ALSO ALLOWED FOR A BETTER CONFIGURATION FROM OUR FOOD PRODUCTION LINE IN THE FRONT TO HAVE THE WINDOW WHERE IT'S AT FROM AN EFFICIENCY STANDPOINT. TO MEET THE STANDARD FOR A DRIVE-THRU AND THE DRIVE-THRU STACKING, WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO MOVE A LOT OF UTILITIES. WE FEEL THAT IT WILL BE SOMETHING TO LOOK FORWARD TO BY THE PEOPLE WHO NEED TO USE IT. [19:25] **Chair:** QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. GOTTESMAN. [19:30] **Commissioner Gottesman:** TWO QUESTIONS FOR YOU. ARE YOU PROPOSING TO RETAIN YOUR CURRENT OPERATING HOURS, OR ARE YOU LOOKING AT EXPANDING THE HOURS OF YOUR BUSINESS WITH THIS ADDITION? [19:40] **Constantine Cancelos:** WE'RE LOOKING AT EXPANDING THEM TO SOME DEGREE, BUT NOT SIGNIFICANTLY, BECAUSE WE'RE VERY COGNIZANT OF BEING A FAMILY RESTAURANT WHERE EVERYBODY GETS A MOMENT TO RECHARGE AND HAVE GUARANTEED DAYS OFF. WE FEEL THAT WE WILL RETAIN MODEST HOURS BUT IMPROVE THEM TO SOME DEGREE. YES. [20:10] **Commissioner Gottesman:** GREAT. IF I MAY, A SECOND QUESTION JUST ABOUT THE AWNING OVER THE PICKUP WINDOW. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU'VE THOUGHT ABOUT? [20:20] **Constantine Cancelos:** IT'S SOMETHING I'LL DISCUSS WITH THE ARCHITECT, BUT I FEEL THAT GIVEN THAT THERE WON'T BE ANY MONEY TRANSACTIONS TAKING PLACE, IT'S A QUICK HANDOFF TO THE CUSTOMER VERSUS HAVING TO DO AN EXCHANGE MONETARILY. [20:35] **Chair:** THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. THIS ITEM IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE ALLOW FOR 3 MINUTES FOR TESTIMONY. IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE COME FORWARD. I ASK YOU TO SIGN IN AT THE LECTERN AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN. [21:10] **Rex Me Rippy:** THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME COME TO SPEAK. MY NAME IS REX ME RIPPY. MY WIFE AND I OWN A GALLERY 100 FEET AWAY FROM ACROPOLIS. WE HAVE BEEN AT THE CORNER SINCE '05. WE DESIGNED AND BUILT THAT BUILDING AND I STAND BEFORE YOU OUT OF BOTH FRIENDSHIP AND SELF-INTEREST. I'M A BUSINESSMAN. ACROPOLIS IS A DESTINATION PLACE. WHAT'S GOOD FOR MY NEIGHBOR IS GOOD FOR ME, WHICH IS WHY I GIVE YOU MY 100% SUPPORT. WE HAPPEN TO BE A FIXTURE IN BLOOMINGTON. THIS CORNER IS A MAJOR ATTRACTIVE CORNER. IT'S A HEALTHY PLACE, A SAFE PLACE, A GREAT NEIGHBOR. HE HAPPENS TO BE A FRIEND BUT ALSO A YOUNG AND REALLY WISE BUSINESSMAN. IF WE LOSE HIM, BLOOMINGTON WILL BE LOSING A LOT. THAT'S WHY I GIVE MY VOTE FOR YOU TO SAY YES. THANK YOU. [22:45] **Chair:** THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN THE CHAMBER WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? NONE. DO WE HAVE ANYONE ONLINE ON THIS ITEM? [22:55] **Mark McGarry:** LOOKING AT THE CALLERS ONLINE, THEY'RE EITHER PART OF THE APPLICANT TEAM OR CITY STAFF, SO NOBODY TO TESTIFY. [23:05] **Chair:** ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. HAVING EXHAUSTED THAT, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. [23:10] **Commissioner Albrecht:** SO MOVED. [23:15] **Commissioner:** SECOND. [23:20] **Chair:** THANK YOU. WITH A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. (AYES). OPPOSED? THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM. COMMISSIONER ALBRECHT. [23:35] **Commissioner Albrecht:** THANK YOU, CHAIR. I'M GOING TO START BY SAYING I'M IN FULL SUPPORT. I THINK THAT THIS MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. I THINK KEEPING A BUSINESS LIKE THIS IN BLOOMINGTON IS VERY IMPORTANT, AND ADDING AN AMENITY LIKE AN OUTDOOR DINING FACILITY IS VERY HELPFUL FOR US TO KEEP BLOOMINGTON THAT PEDESTRIAN-LIVELY LOCATION THAT WE'RE TRYING TO HAVE. MY ONLY CONCERN IS THIS PICKUP WINDOW AND MY CONCERN IS THAT IT IS VEHICULAR-FOCUSED. I KNOW IN THE GUIDANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE ZONING IS TO REALLY MAKE THIS A MORE COMFORTABLE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT. HOWEVER, I KNOW THAT THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN A DRIVE-THRU, SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE STAFF TO HAVE ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT ABOUT HOW THIS ACTUALLY FUNCTIONS. [24:55] **Chair:** OTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER GOTTESMAN. [25:00] **Commissioner Gottesman:** THANKS, CHAIR. THE FIRST THING I HAVE TO SAY IS I LOVE YOUR PLACE; I'M THERE SOMETIMES ONCE A WEEK. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I STRUGGLED WITH IS THAT I LOOK AT THE ZONING OF B4 AND HOW WE WOULD ENVISION DEVELOPMENT. I WOULD HOPE TO SEE SOMETHING LIKE ACROPOLIS BUT THEN ALSO MORE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING. BUT I LOOK AT THAT GAS STATION EVERY DAY AND MY HEAD SHAKES. I THINK THIS IS GREAT PROGRESS, AND I WOULD LOVE TO SEE ACROPOLIS GROW AS A LOCAL BUSINESS. YOU CAN TELL THE EMPLOYEES ARE HAPPY. I ALSO LOOK AT THE LOCATION AND IT'S RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL FIELD. WHAT A GREAT AMENITY FOR FAMILIES. SO I THINK I'M IN SUPPORT. I STRUGGLE WITH THE AWNING—IT'S NOT A MAKE-OR-BREAK, BUT IF IT'S POURING RAIN, IT MIGHT JUST BE NICE. I WOULD ASK STAFF TO MAYBE START TO LOOK INTO PICKUP WINDOW STANDARDS AS WE KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE MORE OF A NEED AS WE MOVE FORWARD. [26:50] **Chair:** COMMISSIONER COX. [26:55] **Commissioner Cox:** THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. A QUESTION FOR STAFF. MR. CENTENARIO, WHERE ARE WE AT ON THE DISCRETION PYRAMID WITH THIS APPLICATION? [27:05] **Planner Centenario:** CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONER, IT'S CERTAINLY MORE DISCRETION THAN A SITE PLAN. BECAUSE IT'S A REZONING TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, THOSE ARE HIGHER LEVELS OF DISCRETION THAN A PLAT OR A CODE-COMPLYING SITE PLAN. [27:25] **Commissioner Cox:** OKAY, THANK YOU. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT HAVING DISCRETION, CAN THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS IN ITS CURRENT FORM BE SOMETHING WE CAN USE IN OUR DISCRETION, OR IS THAT NOT SOMETHING WE CAN USE? [27:40] **Planner Centenario:** COMMISSIONER, GLEN WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE MORE EXPERIENCE IN THIS ARENA, BUT GENERALLY, IN TERMS OF ANALYZING AN APPLICATION FOR A RESTAURANT, A RESTAURANT IS A RESTAURANT. WHETHER IT'S ACROPOLIS OR AN INTERNATIONAL CHAIN, IT'S A RESTAURANT. [28:05] **Chair:** THANK YOU. I HAVE A NUMBER OF THOUGHTS ON THIS. THE PROPOSAL, THE BUILDING, THE PATIO, THE SIDEWALKS—THESE ARE ALL THINGS THAT I AM IN FAVOR OF. I CAME AT THIS INITIALLY KNOWING THAT I AM NOT A FAN OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR A SINGLE PROJECT. I FEEL LIKE IT'S A TOOL THAT LETS US NOT FOLLOW OUR STANDARDS. I LOOK AT THIS INTERSECTION IN WHICH 13 YEARS AGO, FOLKS WHO CAME BEFORE US REZONED MOST OF IT FROM B2 TO B4, BUT NOT ALL OF IT. I LOOK SOUTH TO THE BURGER KING AND THE CSL BUILDING WHERE THEY CHOSE TO APPLY A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT IS NOT AT ALL B4. FOR THOSE REASONS, I AM LESS CONCERNED ABOUT THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PIECE. IS IT AN IMPROVEMENT OVER WHAT'S THERE? ABSOLUTELY. I CAN GO ALONG WITH THIS IN SPITE OF MY GENERAL DISLIKE OF SINGLE-PHASE PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS. COMMISSIONER ROHMAN. [29:55] **Commissioner Rohman:** THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I TOO AM TORN BECAUSE OF THE B4 ZONING. IN A VACUUM, THIS APPLICATION DOESN'T LOOK LIKE B4. IS PROGRESS BETTER THAN PERFECTION? I AM STRUGGLING WITH THAT AND THE PRECEDENT AS WELL. THE PUBLIC BENEFIT LARGELY IS THAT THERE WAS A VACANT GAS STATION THERE WE DON'T WANT. BUT IF WE BEND HERE, ARE WE GOING TO THEN BEND ON THE OTHER QUADRANTS AS WELL? AT THAT POINT, YOU'RE STARTING TO THROW AWAY THE VISION OF WHAT THIS INTERSECTION COULD BE. ONE OF OUR ROLES IS TO GUIDE THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR CITY, AND ARE WE SETTING A PRECEDENT THAT IS GUIDING OUR DEVELOPMENT IN A PLACE WE DON'T WANT? I'M NOT CERTAIN I CAN APPROVE THIS APPLICATION TODAY. [31:25] **Chair:** I WOULD BUILD ON WHAT YOU SAID. HAVING LIVED IN SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS AND ENJOYED THOSE NEIGHBORHOOD NODES, I THINK THIS IS MORE LIKE THAT. WE'RE NOT GOING TO NOT HAVE THE SUBURBAN AMOUNTS OF PARKING BECAUSE THE WHOLE CITY WON'T BE URBAN IN MY LIFETIME. FOR ME, I FALL ON BEING OKAY WITH GOING FORWARD BECAUSE OF THE PRECEDENT SET SOUTH OF HERE, WHICH IS DECIDEDLY NOT B4. [32:15] **Commissioner Cox:** MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION FOR STAFF. WHAT TYPE OF INTEREST HAVE WE SEEN IN THIS INTERSECTION AS A WHOLE? DOES IT LOOK LIKE SOMETHING THE CORPORATE WORLD HAS AN INTEREST IN REDEVELOPING? [32:35] **Planner Centenario:** CHAIR, COMMISSIONER, SINCE I'VE BEEN WITH THE CITY FOR EIGHT AND A HALF YEARS, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE CORNERS WE GET A LOT OF INTEREST IN. BUT IN MY EXPERIENCE, NONE OF THE CONVERSATIONS LED TO WHAT'S ENVISIONED IN THE B4 ZONING. A LOT OF TIMES, THEY WANTED A MORE TRADITIONAL DRIVE-THRU, LIKE COFFEE SHOPS, WHICH WE JUST DIDN'T THINK WE COULD SUPPORT. GLEN, DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? [33:15] **Glen Markegard (Planning Manager):** YES, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER. THIS AREA WAS REZONED I BELIEVE IN 2009, AND SINCE THAT TIME, WE'VE NOT SEEN NEW DEVELOPMENT. THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST REAL PHYSICAL PROGRESS IN THE AREA. [33:50] **Commissioner Cox:** SO JUST MY THOUGHT FOR CONSIDERATION IS: IS THIS THE BEST WE ARE COMFORTABLE GOING? I'M NOT SURE. [33:55] **Commissioner Gleason:** THANKS, CHAIR. ONE OF THE THINGS I SEE AS A BENEFIT IS THAT I PERSONALLY LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS WALKABLE TO THIS AREA. I FIND THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT IS ACTUALLY MORE AMENABLE TO WALKING. I COULD SEE MYSELF WALKING TO THE PATIO WITH MY FAMILY. THE CURRENT BUILDING IS NOT AMENABLE TO THE WALK BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH SPACE. SO I'M JUST LOOKING AT IT FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE COIN. [34:35] **Chair:** IF I MAY, SO COMMISSIONER GLEASON, YOU ARE SEEING A PUBLIC BENEFIT IN THAT THE CHANGE FROM WHAT IT IS TODAY TO WHAT IT COULD BE IS A MORE WALKABLE, PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT? [34:45] **Commissioner Gleason:** ABSOLUTELY. ESPECIALLY WITH THE CHANGES OF THE SIDEWALK. I COULD SEE THIS TURNING INTO A DESTINATION FOR THE NEIGHBORS TO WALK TO FOR DINNER OR LUNCH. [35:05] **Chair:** FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, I WILL LOOK FOR A MOTION. COMMISSIONER GOTTESMAN. [35:15] **Commissioner Gottesman:** THANKS. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION IN CASE PL2022-183A: MOVE TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING 9000 PENN AVENUE SOUTH AND 2325 WEST 90TH STREET FROM B4 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO B4(PD) NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. [35:40] **Commissioner:** SECOND. [35:45] **Chair:** WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO RECOMMEND A REZONING. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. (AYES). OPPOSED? (NAY). THAT MOTION PASSES. [35:55] **Commissioner Gottesman:** CHAIR, IF I COULD MAKE A MOTION IN CASE PL2022-183: HAVING BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS, I MOVE TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXPAND AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AND ADD AN OUTDOOR PATIO AT 9000 PENN AVENUE SOUTH AND 2325 WEST 90TH STREET SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND CODE ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT. [36:20] **Commissioner:** SECOND. [36:25] **Chair:** MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. (AYES). OPPOSED? (NAY). MOTION PASSES. [36:35] **Commissioner Albrecht:** THANK YOU, CHAIR. IN CASE PL2022-183: HAVING BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS, I MOVE TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS TO EXPAND AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AND ADD AN OUTDOOR PATIO AT 9000 PENN AVENUE SOUTH AND 2325 WEST 90TH STREET SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT. [37:00] **Commissioner:** SECOND. [37:05] **Chair:** WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. (AYES). OPPOSED? (NAY). MOTION PASSES. [37:15] **Commissioner Gottesman:** IN CASE 2022-183: HAVING BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS, I MOVE TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLAT TO REPLAT 9000 PENN AVENUE SOUTH, 2325 WEST 90TH STREET, AND 9056 PENN AVENUE SOUTH FROM THREE LOTS TO TWO LOTS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT. [37:40] **Commissioner:** SECOND. [37:45] **Chair:** WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. (AYES). OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. THESE ITEMS WILL MOVE ON TO THE NOVEMBER 28TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING AS A PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER TWO IS A STUDY ITEM: REVIEW OF A PROPOSAL FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ANALYST PALERMO IS HERE. [38:15] **Analyst Palermo:** THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. TONIGHT'S ITEM IS TO REVIEW A TAX INCREMENT FINANCE (TIF) PLAN FOR THE OXBOW HEIGHTS HOUSING PROJECT AT 600 WEST 93RD STREET. ON OCTOBER 3RD, COUNCIL APPROVED THE OXBOW HEIGHTS SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. WHAT YOU'LL NOTICE HERE IS A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT AFFORDABLE UNIT MIX. THE APPLICANT WAS ABLE TO INCORPORATE MORE UNITS THAT ARE AFFORDABLE TO RESIDENTS AT 30% AREA MEDIAN INCOME (AMI). WITH THE TIF AND RESTRUCTURING, THEY WERE ABLE TO GET UP TO NINE UNITS AT THAT LEVEL. THEY ALSO INCREASED THE 50% AMI UNITS FROM 22 TO 25 UNITS. AS PLANNING COMMISSION, YOU MAKE THE DECISION ON WHETHER THIS TIF PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT QUALIFIES AS A HOUSING DISTRICT, AND IT MEETS THE "BUT-FOR" TEST—BUT FOR THIS TIF, THIS PROJECT WOULD NOT OCCUR AT THIS LEVEL. IT IS CONSISTENT WITH GOAL TWO TO PROVIDE A RANGE OF HOUSING CHOICES AND GOAL THREE TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THE CONSISTENCY REVIEW WILL GO TO CITY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 14TH. [41:15] **Chair:** THIS ITEM IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING AT OUR BODY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER GOTTESMAN. [41:20] **Commissioner Gottesman:** QUICK QUESTION ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS. THE TOTAL WENT DOWN BY 19 UNITS FOR THE 60% AMI LEVEL? [41:40] **Analyst Palermo:** I'LL CLARIFY. ALL OF THE UNITS WILL BE BELOW 70% AMI, BUT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ORDINANCE, WE CONSIDER IT "AFFORDABLE" AT 60% AMI. THAT TOTAL WENT DOWN, MEANING 19 MORE UNITS ARE NOW BETWEEN 60% AND 70% AMI. THAT HELPS WITH THE CASH FLOW. [42:30] **Commissioner Albrecht:** THANK YOU, CHAIR. I MOVE TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE 600 WEST 93RD STREET OXBOW HEIGHTS REDEVELOPMENT AND TIF PLAN ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE BLOOMINGTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. [42:45] **Commissioner:** SECOND. [42:50] **Chair:** ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. (AYES). OPPOSED? ITEM THREE IS TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 29TH PLANNING COMMISSION SYNOPSIS. COMMISSIONER ALBRECHT WAS NOT THERE. [43:05] **Commissioner Albrecht:** POINT OF ORDER: IF WE HAD SIX PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE AND ONLY THREE ARE HERE TONIGHT, ARE WE ABLE TO APPROVE THOSE? [43:15] **Glen Markegard:** LET ME TAKE A QUICK LOOK AT YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE. [43:40] **Chair:** YEAH, LOOKING AT YOUR RULES, THE MINUTES MAY BE ACTED UPON BY A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSIONERS PRESENT AT A GIVEN MEETING. SINCE WE DON'T HAVE A MAJORITY OF THOSE PRESENT THAT NIGHT, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM. [44:10] **Commissioner:** I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE ITEM NUMBER THREE TO A FUTURE MEETING. SECOND. (AYES). [44:25] **Chair:** ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY AND ISSUE UPDATE. [44:30] **Mark McGarry:** COMMISSIONERS, LOOKING FORWARD, WE HAVE THREE ITEMS ON THE NOVEMBER 17TH AGENDA: A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES ORDINANCE, THE ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, AND A REVIEW OF A TIF PLAN. ON DECEMBER 8TH, WE HAVE THE SINGLE-FAMILY AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING UPDATE. STAFF IS STARTING TO LOOK AT THE 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION CALENDAR. IN 2022, WE HAD 28 SCHEDULED MEETINGS AND SIX WERE CANCELED. WE HAVE THREE OPTIONS FOR 2023: 24 MEETINGS (TWO A MONTH), 26 MEETINGS (TO MATCH THE CITY COUNCIL), OR 28 MEETINGS. [45:50] **Commissioner Albrecht:** MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO STICK WITH TWO MEETINGS PER MONTH (24) AND THEN ADD IF NECESSARY. [46:10] **Commissioner Gottesman:** I'M NOT A HUGE FAN OF GOING DOWN TO 24. I PREFER 26. MATCHING THE NUMBER OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS MAKES SENSE SO PROPOSALS MOVE AT THE SAME RATE. [46:40] **Chair:** I LIKE THE SIMPLICITY OF 24, BUT I LEAN TOWARD MATCHING THE COUNCIL MEETINGS FOR PREDICTABILITY FOR APPLICANTS AND STAFF. [47:10] **Commissioner Cox:** I WOULD ACTUALLY PREFER 28. WE ARE HERE TO SERVE THE RESIDENTS, SO WE SHOULD GIVE THEM OPPORTUNITIES AND CAN ALWAYS CANCEL. [47:35] **Mark McGarry:** IS 26 A GOOD ENOUGH DIRECTION? [47:40] **Chair:** YEAH, IT SOUNDS LIKE 26 OR 28. I WOULD RECOMMEND LOOKING AT THE CALENDAR TO SEE HOW IT SHAKES OUT WITH HOLIDAYS. [47:55] **Commissioner Gottesman:** THANK YOU. I ALSO NOTICED THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE FALLS ON THE WEEKEND OF SPRING BREAK THIS YEAR IN PHILADELPHIA. JUST BE MINDFUL OF THAT. ALSO, GIVEN OUR HEARING TODAY, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT STAFF LOOK INTO STANDARDS FOR DRIVE-UP OR WALK-UP WINDOWS. I WAS AT THE GALLERIA THE OTHER DAY; THEY HAVE A WALK-UP FOR PEDESTRIANS. I THINK WE ARE GOING TO SEE MORE OF THAT. [48:40] **Chair:** I AGREE. WE SHOULD LOOK AT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS, SAFETY FOR STAFF DELIVERING TO CARS, AWNINGS, AND LIGHTING. ANY OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION? IF NOT, WE ARE ADJOURNED UNTIL THE 17TH.