This is a transcription of the Bloomington Planning Commission meeting from November 17, 2022. Based on the context of the municipality and the phonetic content of the transcript, I have identified the speakers (including Planning Commissioners and City Staff) and corrected phonetic errors in their names (e.g., "Cooktown" to "Cookson," "Ramon" to "Rohman"). [00:00] **Chairman Rohman**: THE NOVEMBER 17TH MEETING OF THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS MADE UP OF SEVEN VOLUNTEER BLOOMINGTON RESIDENTS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. TONIGHT WE HAVE FIVE 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. WE HAVE THREE OF THOSE ITEMS TODAY. IN OTHER CASES THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN APPROVE OR DENY AN APPLICATION SUBJECT TO AN APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. FOR EACH ACTION ITEM THERE WILL BE A STAFF REPORT, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPLICANT TO PRESENT AT ANY TIME, AND FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY. OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS TODAY 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. THANK YOU. I WOULD ASK THE PLANNING MANAGER TO GO OVER INFORMATION FOR REMOTE TESTIMONY TO THE COMMISSIONERS. [00:02] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager)**: WE ARE HERE IN CITY HALL TONIGHT AND FOR OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS CAN TAKE TESTIMONY HERE. BUT IF SOMEBODY IS REMOTE AND WISHES TO TESTIFY YOU WOULD JUST CALL THIS NUMBER ON THE SCREEN AND ENTER THE ACCESS CODE AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO PATCH YOU IN. WE'LL HAVE THIS NUMBER DISPLAYED THROUGHOUT THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM TONIGHT. [00:03] **Chairman Rohman**: THANK YOU. TONIGHT OUR FIRST ITEM IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ANNUAL MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES ORDINANCE AND I BELIEVE PLANNER RICK BILLE HAS THE PRESENTATION WITH AN ASSIST FROM PLANNER DAY. [00:03] **Rick Bille (Planner)**: SO WHILE I GET STARTED OKAY... OH MY GOODNESS. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE EXCUSE THAT, GETTING TO IT EVENTUALLY. AS WELL, PLANNER RICK IS PULLING THAT UP, A REMINDER THAT WE DID HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC AT A STUDY MEETING ON OCTOBER THE 13TH SO THIS SHOULD MOSTLY BE FAMILIAR AND THEN WE'LL HEAR ABOUT ANY THINGS THAT HAVE CHANGED OR EVOLVED BASED ON THE FEEDBACK RECEIVED. HEY, I THINK THIS MIGHT DO IT. I FIGURED IT OUT AND ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SORRY ABOUT THAT. OKAY, SO WE ARE BACK WITH OUR MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES, NOVEMBER 2022. YOU ALL ARE FAMILIAR WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE WITH MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES BUT FOR THE VIEWERS AT HOME, AS A REMINDER, THIS IS PREPARED AS A PLANNING DIVISION TO COLLECT AND CONSIDER MANY SMALL CHANGES TO OUR CODE THAT BY THEIR OWN WOULD NOT MERIT THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING AND GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS. AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE TODAY WITH MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES. SO LET'S GET STARTED. SO HERE'S WHERE WE WERE. YOU MAY RECALL THAT IN OCTOBER 2022 WE CAME HERE FOR THE STUDY SESSION. WE HAVE SINCE PUT THE ORDINANCES TO LEGAL FOR REVIEW AND SO NOW WITH THIS SWEET ANIMATION YOU CAN SEE THAT WE ARE HERE FOR OUR PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN AFTER THIS WE WILL BE GOING TO CITY COUNCIL. SO WE DID REORGANIZE. FROM THE TIME THAT YOU'VE SEEN US LAST TILL NOW WE HAVE REORGANIZED OUR ORDINANCES INTO TWO CATEGORIES. THE CATEGORY THAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN WITH THE RED BOX INDICATES THAT IT IS CONSIDERED A CLEAN UP OR A HOUSEKEEPING NOTE AND THAT MEANS THAT IT IS EITHER A WORD CHANGE OR REMOVING A REFERENCE TO A SECTION OF CODE OR TO A PRINCIPLE USE THAT NO LONGER EXISTS. SO THOSE ARE KIND OF SMALLER CHANGES IN SCALE AND SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO OVER THOSE SPECIFICALLY THIS EVENING UNLESS YOU WOULD LIKE TO AND THEN WE CAN GO OVER THOSE INDIVIDUALLY. BUT WE WILL START WITH THE ITEMS A THROUGH J WHICH ARE THE MORE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES. I ADDED SOME ANIMATION THERE TOO. THE FIRST AMENDMENT HAS TO DO WITH CATERING BUSINESSES, ADDING THEM TO THE USE TABLE. CURRENTLY MAJOR CATERING BUSINESSES ARE PERMITTED IN I-2 AND I-3 BUT NOT IN B-2, AND CATERING BUSINESS IS SIMILAR TO A FOOD MANUFACTURING OR RESTAURANT USE WHICH IS AN ALLOWED USE IN THE B-2 ZONING DISTRICT. SO THIS WOULD BE JUST ADDING CATERING MAJOR BUSINESS AS A PERMITTED USE. THE NEXT ONE HAS TO DO WITH EXTERIOR STORAGE. THE CITY HAS SEEN ISSUES WITH BUSINESSES DISPLAYING OUTDOOR MERCHANDISE IMPROPERLY SUCH AS BLOCKING SIDEWALKS OR PUTTING THEM IN A PARKING SPACE. SO THIS WOULD OUTLINE STANDARDS FOR EXTERIOR STORAGE FOR OUTDOOR MERCHANDISE AND THEY ARE SIMILAR TO OUR EXISTING STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL. SO IT IS BASICALLY COPYING AND PASTING THOSE STANDARDS FROM THE RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS TO THE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. ITEM C IS THE TENT CODE. THE DEFINITION OF TENT DID NOT SPECIFY THE COMPOSITE PARTS OF A TENT; IT JUST TALKED ABOUT THE STRUCTURE IN AND OF ITSELF, AND THIS HAS RESULTED IN SOME ENFORCEMENT ISSUES WHERE THE FRAME OF THE TENT WAS LEFT UP FOR LONGER THAN THE ALLOWED TIME. AND SO, WORKING WITH OUR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COLLEAGUES, WE HAVE UPDATED THE DEFINITION OF TENT TO INCLUDE THE COMPOSITE PARTS. SENIOR PARKING STANDARD FOR A PARTY ROOM: THIS ONE WE REMOVED THE PARTY ROOM PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SENIOR HOUSING MUCH LIKE WE DID FOR MULTIFAMILY, AS THAT WAS JUST KIND OF A HOLDOVER. WORK VEHICLE PARKING STORAGE: THIS ONE IS PUTTING IN CODE A PRACTICE THAT WE HAVE BEEN USING IN THE PLANNING DIVISION WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SITE DEVELOPMENT. IF THERE ARE SPACES FOR VEHICLES THAT ARE FOR THE ON-SITE BUSINESS, WE WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE PARKING FOR THOSE VEHICLES NOT BE PART OF THE REQUIRED PARKING THAT IS NEEDED. THE NEXT ONE: THE CITY CODE CURRENTLY DOES NOT HAVE AN EXCEPTION FOR TEMPORARY FENCES FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES AND THIS ISSUE CAN ARISE WHEN NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS SUCH AS FIRE STATIONS AND PARK STRUCTURES WHICH ARE IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS ARE CONSTRUCTED AND THEY WANT A TEMPORARY FENCE. SO THIS BASICALLY GIVES THEM ALLOWANCE TO HAVE A TEMPORARY FENCE FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. THE HOME BUSINESS PROHIBITION OF ON-SITE VEHICLE SALES: THIS WAS AN ISSUE COMMISSIONER COOKSON HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT IN TERMS OF IF YOU'RE SELLING A VEHICLE FOR A FAMILY MEMBER. WITH REVIEW WITH SOME OF OUR ENFORCEMENT WE LOOKED AT THIS; IT'S SPEAKING TO MORE OF A BUSINESS OPERATION WHERE PEOPLE ACQUIRE CARS FROM AUCTIONS AND THEN ARE SELLING MULTIPLE VEHICLES ON THEIR HOME LOT EFFECTIVELY RUNNING A COMMERCIAL OPERATION WHICH IS NOT THE INTENT. BUT IN TERMS OF IF THERE IS A FAMILY MEMBER OR A VEHICLE SALE THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN, I'VE TALKED WITH OUR COMPLIANCE AND THEY ARE WORKING WITH MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IF THERE WERE TO BE AN ISSUE. YOU COULD WORK WITH THE CITY STAFF MEMBER TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE HAVING THE TITLE TRANSFERRED OR FINDING SOME OTHER ARRANGEMENT. SO WE HAVE KEPT THE ORDINANCE AS PART OF MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES. AND THEN BODY ART: BODY ART IS PIERCING AND TATTOO PARLORS. LOOKING AT THE SPACES WHERE THIS USE TYPE WAS ALLOWED, IT SEEMED RESTRICTED IN A WAY THAT PERHAPS WAS BASED ON A STIGMATIZATION OF THIS FORM OF RETAIL. SO WE ARE PROPOSING THAT WE OPEN UP BODY ART TO BE MUCH LIKE ANY OTHER RETAIL SALES AND SERVICES. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADU) UTILITY HOOKUP REQUIREMENTS: THIS IS BASED OFF OF THE GUIDANCE FROM OUR CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ABOUT HOW SHOULD WE MANAGE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ADU USE FOR METERING AND HOOK UP FOR SANITARY SEWER. AND SO WITH THIS WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT FOR DETACHED UNITS—AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE ADDED SINCE THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE TO SPECIFY THAT WITH DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS—WE ARE REQUIRING TO BE SERVED BY MULTIPLE SEWER AND WATER EXCEPT WITH SPECIAL PERMISSION BY THE CITY ENGINEER. AND THEN BEGINS OUR J THROUGH S WHICH ARE THE CLEAN UP ITEMS... OH, I'M SORRY, I GOT A LITTLE CARRIED AWAY THERE. AND THEN OF COURSE THERE'S ITEM J: PLATTING EXCEPTION FOR GOVERNMENT AND PARK FACILITIES. THAT IS SAYING THAT WE DO NOT REQUIRE PLATTING OR WE WILL ALLOW FOR AN EXCEPTION OF PLATTING WHEN WE ARE CONSTRUCTING A PARK FACILITY THAT DOES NOT EXCEED A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET SUBJECT TO FINAL SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL. AND THEN BEGINS THE CLEANUP ITEMS AND I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK ABOUT THOSE IN GREATER DETAIL. BUT THE REQUESTED ACTION WE HAVE FOR YOU THIS EVENING IS TO RECOMMEND THESE ORDINANCES TO CITY COUNCIL. [00:10] **Chairman Rohman**: THANK YOU FOR THAT. ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU. THIS ITEM IS A PUBLIC HEARING SO WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE CHAMBERS WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THE MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES ORDINANCE ITEM? SEEING NONE, AND IT LOOKS LIKE ALL OF OUR ATTENDEES ONLINE ARE STAFF, SO I WILL TAKE THAT TO SEE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. [00:11] **Commissioner**: SO MOVED. [00:11] **Commissioner**: SECOND. [00:11] **Chairman Rohman**: THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. (AYE). OPPOSED? THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. ANY DISCUSSION ON THESE ITEMS? I THINK IT'S... THANK YOU FOR RESPONDING TO AND ACCOMMODATING THE THINGS THAT YOU HEARD FEEDBACK FROM AT THE STUDY SESSION, THAT'S APPRECIATED. ANY COMMENTS OR A MOTION ANYONE WOULD CARE TO MAKE? [00:12] **Commissioner Cookson**: MR. CHAIR, IN CASE PL2022-222, I MOVE TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES ORDINANCE ITEMS A THROUGH S AS ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT TO AMEND CHAPTERS 1, 19, 21 AND 22 OF THE CITY CODE. [00:12] **Commissioner**: SECOND. [00:12] **Chairman Rohman**: THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF THE MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES ORDINANCE. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. (AYE). OPPOSED? THE MOTION PASSES. THIS ITEM WILL MOVE ON WITH OUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON DECEMBER 19TH AS A PUBLIC HEARING. THE SECOND ITEM IS A STUDY ITEM WHICH IS OUR ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE CITY'S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) AND WE HAVE SENIOR PLANNER JOHNSON WITH THE STAFF REPORT. AND WE CAN'T HEAR YOU YET. [00:13] **Nick Johnson (Senior Planner)**: SORRY ABOUT THAT. THERE WE GO. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. THIS IS AN ANNUAL ACTIVITY THAT YOU DO, AND FOR COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN A NEWER ITEM, BUT FOR THE REST OF YOU AS YOU KNOW, STATE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT THE MUNICIPALITIES' PLANNING AGENCY—AND THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION IS DESIGNATED AS THE PLANNING AGENCY—IS REQUIRED TO REVIEW THE MUNICIPALITY'S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND SO THAT IS THE ACTION ITEM BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING IS TO REVIEW THE 2023 THROUGH 2032 CIP FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I WILL NOTE THAT LORI SCHOLER, WHO IS THE CITY'S CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, IS IN ATTENDANCE IN THE CHAMBERS TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE THAT ARE MORE DETAILED ABOUT THE CIP. BUT YEAH, LET'S JUST JUMP IN. I HAVE A VERY SHORT SLIDE DECK HERE. AS I MENTIONED, THIS ACTION BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. TEN-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS BY MUNICIPALITIES OUTLINE A WIDE VARIETY OF DIFFERENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RANGING FROM BUILDINGS TO TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE CITY AND ITS FACILITIES. THE DOCUMENT ITSELF IS AVAILABLE ONLINE. IT'S QUITE A LENGTHY DOCUMENT. I COUNTED THERE'S OVER 180 PROJECTS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE TEN-YEAR CIP THIS GO AROUND AND I WOULD NOTE THAT PLANNING STAFF DID GO THROUGH ITEM BY ITEM ON ALL OF THOSE PROJECTS PROPOSED. SO, THE WAY THE CIP BREAKS IT DOWN—SOME OF YOU HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS BEFORE—THEY BREAK IT DOWN INTO FIVE CATEGORIES: CITY FACILITIES, PARK DEVELOPMENT, SEWER WATER AND STORMWATER, SOUTH LOOP / PORT AUTHORITY PROJECTS, AND SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS. SOME OF THE MORE NOTABLE PROJECTS IN THIS TEN-YEAR CYCLE INCLUDE THE I-494 / 35W INTERCHANGE AND ASSOCIATED WITH THAT IS THE PORTLAND AVENUE BRIDGE. AS PART OF THE I-494 PROJECT, THERE ARE SOME CITY INVESTMENTS. THE COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER IS INCLUDED IN THE CIP, AS ARE MULTIPLE FIRE STATION PROJECTS INCLUDING NEW FIRE STATIONS AS WELL AS RENOVATION OF EXISTING FACILITIES. THERE IS A WHOLE FAIRLY LENGTHY LIST OF UPGRADES TO EXISTING CITY FACILITIES INCLUDING IMPROVEMENTS TO CIVIC PLAZA, AND THEN A WHOLE LIST OF PARK IMPROVEMENTS AND UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE AS WELL AS A VERY LONG LIST OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS. JUST TO NOTE, A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ISN'T GOING TO GET INTO THE GRANULAR LEVEL OF DETAIL DISCUSSING ALL THESE INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS. IT DOES TALK ABOUT CERTAIN LARGER PROJECTS LIKE THE COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER OR FIRE STATIONS, BUT MOST OF THESE 180 ITEMS ARE GOING TO BE VERY "IN THE WEEDS" AND DETAILED. SO JUST AS A REMINDER, THE MEANING OF COMPLIANCE IS THAT THE PROJECTS THEMSELVES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, STRATEGIES, AND THE TEXT OF THE PLAN. IN THE JUDGMENT OF PLANNING STAFF, AFTER REVIEWING THE LIST AND REVIEWING THOSE CHAPTERS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WE'RE CONFIDENT THAT THE PROJECTS IN THE CITY ARE CONSISTENT AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO WITH THAT I WOULD PRESENT A RECOMMENDED MOTION AND CERTAINLY I CAN STAND FOR QUESTIONS AND AS I NOTED THE CITY CFO IS IN ATTENDANCE AS WELL. [00:17] **Chairman Rohman**: THANK YOU FOR THAT. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM. COMMISSIONER COOKSON. [00:17] **Commissioner Cookson**: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MR. JOHNSON, CAN YOU INFORM THE FOLKS AT HOME AS TO WHY WE BREAK OUT SOUTH LOOP PROJECTS? [00:17] **Nick Johnson (Senior Planner)**: YEAH, CHAIR, COMMISSIONER COOKSON. CFO SCHOLER, HAVING SERVED ON THE CIP COMMITTEE, MIGHT EVEN HAVE A BETTER ANSWER, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT MORE SO HAS TO DO WITH A LOT OF THE FUNDING SOURCES FOR THOSE PROJECTS COMING FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES OF TAXATION THAT FUND A LOT OF IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SOUTH LOOP. THAT'S PROBABLY WHY IT'S BROKEN OUT AS A SEPARATE CATEGORY BUT I'D CERTAINLY WELCOME LORI'S GUIDANCE AND KNOWLEDGE IN THAT ARENA AS WELL IF SHE'S WILLING. [00:18] **Lori Scholer (CFO)**: CHAIRMAN ROHMAN, GOING BACK IN HISTORY, SOUTH LOOP WAS IDENTIFIED AS ONE OF THE CITY PEARLS BACK IN, I WOULD SAY, VERY EARLY 2000S. IT JUST STUCK IN THE CIP AS AN AREA BECAUSE IT HAD SO MUCH DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL THAT IT REALLY IDENTIFIED ALL THE PROJECTS IN THAT VERY SPECIFIC AREA FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. SO THANK YOU. [00:18] **Chairman Rohman**: THANK YOU. SENIOR PLANNER JOHNSON, COULD YOU TALK JUST A LITTLE BIT—THIS IS MORE FOR BOTH OUR OWN REMINDER AS WELL AS FOR THE PUBLIC—IN THE FIVE CATEGORIES YOU TALK ABOUT, ESPECIALLY CITY FACILITIES, PARKS, AND SURFACE TRANSPORTATION. TALK ABOUT HOW THE STAFF WORKS TOGETHER BOTH IN PLANNING AND ALSO WITH OUR COLLEAGUES IN THE CITY WHO LOOK AT ISSUES OF EQUITY AND PUBLIC HEALTH AND THOSE THINGS THAT ARE NOT ALWAYS INTENTIONAL BUT ARE A RESULT OF SOME OF THE DECISIONS WE DO OR DON'T MAKE IN THESE PROCESSES. [00:19] **Nick Johnson (Senior Planner)**: YEAH, CHAIRMAN, THANKS FOR THAT QUESTION. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. ONE THING I WOULD SAY AS IT RELATES TO EQUITY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, I THINK THE CIP COMMITTEE—ITS ROSTER AND WHO'S INVOLVED IN THAT CONVERSATION OF PRIORITIZATION AND WHAT PROJECTS GET ADDED—IS BROADER THAN IT'S EVER BEEN. SO THERE'S A LOT MORE PEOPLE AT THE TABLE WHO ARE DEBATING THE MERITS OF CERTAIN PROJECTS THROUGH DIFFERENT LENSES. ANOTHER THING I WOULD SAY RELATES TO COLLABORATION: WHILE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS INCREDIBLY BROAD, THE PLAN DOES REFERENCE ALL THESE VARIOUS SUB-PLANS LIKE THE ALTERNATE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, THE SEWER PLAN, THE PARK MASTER PLAN WHERE THERE'S A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF STAFF COLLABORATION. AND SO WHAT YOU SEE WITH THE CIP IS ACTUALLY THE IMPLEMENTATION TOOL TO ACTUALLY GET A LOT OF THE PROJECTS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED IN THESE SUB-PLANS DONE. FOR EXAMPLE, THE PARK MASTER PLAN PROCESS WAS LED BY PARK STAFF BUT INVOLVED A VERY WIDE RANGE OF STAFF FROM PUBLIC WORKS TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. IT REALLY DOES INVOLVE A VERY DIVERSE AND MULTIDISCIPLINARY STAFF IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT MISSING OPPORTUNITIES. [00:21] **Chairman Rohman**: THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND I JUST RAISE THAT FOR US TO THINK ABOUT BECAUSE WHEN WE WORKED ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND COMMISSIONER CARMAN WHO'S NOT HERE TONIGHT AND I WERE ON THAT COMMITTEE, WE DID TALK ABOUT SOME OF THOSE GOALS AROUND HELPING TO CLOSE GAPS AND WORK ON THOSE ISSUES. I THINK ONE OF THE AREAS WHERE WE CAN HAVE AN EYE ON THAT EVERY YEAR IS ASKING IF THERE ARE THINGS IN THE PLAN THAT WE FEEL COULD BE IMPROVED. I THINK WE'RE IN GOOD SHAPE FOR THIS YEAR BUT I THINK THAT'S AN AREA THAT I WOULD REMIND US TO THINK ABOUT. OTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION OR A WELL-INTENDED MOTION? [00:22] **Commissioner Abdi**: THANK YOU CHAIR. I CAN MAKE A MOTION. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION ATTACHED TO THE PACKET FINDING THAT THE COMBINED TEN YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2023 TO 2032 CIP IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE BLOOMINGTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. [00:22] **Commissioner**: SECOND. [00:22] **Chairman Rohman**: THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO FIND THE CIP IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMP PLAN. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER COOKSON. [00:23] **Commissioner Cookson**: THANK YOU CHAIR. MR. JOHNSON, DOES THIS GO TO CITY COUNCIL OR DOES THIS END WITH US? [00:23] **Nick Johnson (Senior Planner)**: IT GOES TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 5TH. THE ACTUAL CIP GOES TO THE COUNCIL ON THE FIFTH AS A PUBLIC HEARING. [00:23] **Chairman Rohman**: BUT THE MOTION DOES NOT "RECOMMEND" APPROVAL. IT "APPROVES" THE RESOLUTION. OUR RESOLUTION IS JUST TO FIND THAT THE CIP IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT PLAN, MUCH LIKE OUR NEXT ITEM. WE WILL NOT BE ASKED TO RECOMMEND OR NOT RECOMMEND THE ITEM; WE WILL BE ASKED TO FIND IF IT'S IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMP PLAN. VERY WELL. ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION? OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. (AYE). OPPOSED? THE MOTION PASSES. THE CIP WILL BE ON THE DECEMBER 5TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING AS A PUBLIC HEARING. THE THIRD ITEM IS A REVIEW OF A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF) PROPOSAL AND HRA ADMINISTRATOR ERICA COLEMAN HAS THE PRESENTATION AND STAFF REPORT. GOOD EVENING. [00:24] **Erica Coleman (HRA Administrator)**: HI. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ERICA COLEMAN. I AM THE HRA ADMINISTRATOR HERE AND THIS EVENING WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE YOU IS THAT THE CITY AND AUTHORITY ARE CONSIDERING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR 9000 PENN AVENUE SOUTH AND 2325 WEST 90TH STREET, BETTER KNOWN AS EUROPOLIS. ON THE NEXT SLIDE WHAT WE HAVE IS A MAP OF THE DISTRICT, THE PROJECT AREA THAT IS BEING PROPOSED. IT IS THE EUROPOLIS RESTAURANT EXPANSION. SO AGAIN IT WOULD BE 2325 WEST 90TH STREET AND 9000 PENN AVENUE SOUTH. WELL, THIS PROJECT IS PROPOSED TO BE ABOUT A 2,400 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT EXPANSION. THE WEST ADDITION WOULD INCLUDE AN ENLARGED KITCHEN, STORAGE, FREEZER SPACE, A NEW TRASH ROOM, AND THE EAST ADDITIONS WOULD INCLUDE 74 ADDITIONAL INDOOR SEATS. THERE WOULD ALSO BE AN OUTDOOR PATIO SEATING WITH 58 SEATS AND A NEW FACADE THAT INCLUDES STUCCO, METAL AND A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF GLASS. SO, THERE ARE STATUTORY FINDINGS NECESSARY TO APPROVE A TIF DISTRICT PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES. THE CITY THROUGH ITS PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL AND HRA NEEDS TO MAKE CERTAIN FINDINGS. THE AUTHORITY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION THIS EVENING IS TO DETERMINE IF THE PLAN CONFORMS TO GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY AS A WHOLE. SPECIFICALLY UNDER LAND USE GOAL NUMBER TWO: TO ENSURE REDEVELOPMENT IMPROVES LOCAL CONDITIONS; AND STRATEGY 2.2: THIS REDEVELOPMENT WOULD BE REPLACING INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES AND OR OUTDATED BUILDINGS. IN PARTICULAR, THERE IS A CURRENT BLIGHTED BUILDING ON ONE OF THOSE PARCELS THAT THIS WOULD BE REMOVING AND REDEVELOPING. AND THEN GOAL NUMBER FOUR: PROMOTE CONTINUED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CITY AND THE REGION. THERE ARE TWO STRATEGIES HERE IDENTIFIED WITH THIS PROPOSAL: STRATEGY 4.4 OF LEVERAGING PARTNERSHIPS AND FUNDING TOOLS TO FOSTER PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INVESTMENT; AND STRATEGY 4.6 OF FOSTERING ENTREPRENEURSHIP, JOB GROWTH, BUSINESS RETENTION AND EXPANSION. THIS PROJECT HAS LEVERAGED FUNDING FROM THE STATE DEED FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT AND THE REMOVAL OF THIS BLIGHTED BUILDING. SO WHAT IS THE PROCESS? WE ARE REQUESTING THAT YOU DETERMINE IF THIS PROPOSED TIF PLAN AND PROJECT AREA CONFORM TO THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THEN WE WOULD GO BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 5TH FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN THE HRA BOARD ON DECEMBER 13TH FOR REVIEW AND POSSIBLY APPROVAL OF THE TIF PLAN AND AGREEMENT. I CAN STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. [00:27] **Chairman Rohman**: THANK YOU FOR THAT. ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? [00:27] **Commissioner Abdi**: THANK YOU. JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION. THE PREVIOUS SLIDE THAT TALKED ABOUT THE PROCESS WHERE IT WOULD GO... BECAUSE YOU REPRESENT THE HRA COMMISSION LIST, DID YOUR COMMITTEE GET TO SEE THIS PROPOSAL FIRST? IS THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION THE FIRST BODY TO MAKE SURE THE LAND USE MEETS THOSE GOALS BEFORE A TIF IS PROPOSED? [00:28] **Erica Coleman (HRA Administrator)**: THANK YOU, CHAIR ROHMAN AND COMMISSIONER ABDI. TO CLARIFY, THE CITY IS ALLOCATED BY STATUTE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING AND WHAT THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON HAS CHOSEN TO DO IS TO ALLOCATE A PERCENTAGE TO THE PORT AUTHORITY AND A PERCENTAGE TO THE HRA. SO THE HRA BOARD HAS HEARD ABOUT THIS PROJECT; I PROVIDE THEM UPDATES. THEY ALSO WERE ON BOARD WHEN THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED TO DEED FOR THE GRANT FUNDING. EARLIER THIS WEEK I ACTUALLY DID HAVE A BOARD MEETING WHERE I UPDATED THEM TO LET THEM KNOW THE PROCESS: WE GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FIRST BECAUSE IT DOES NEED TO BE DETERMINED THAT IT CONFORMS WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS A WHOLE. THEN IT GOES TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE CREATION OF THE TIF DISTRICT, AND THEN IT GOES TO THE HRA BOARD TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE PLAN AND ENTER INTO THE TIF AGREEMENT. SO THEY KNOW ABOUT IT BUT THEY HAVE NOT RULED OR APPROVED ANYTHING YET. [00:29] **Commissioner Goltzman**: THANKS CHAIR. WE AS A COMMISSION HAVE APPROVED THIS REDEVELOPMENT FOR EUROPOLIS ALREADY, AND NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT HOW THEY'RE FINANCING IT. ONE OF THE THINGS I READ IN THE PACKET WAS TALKING THROUGH THIS OUTDATED, BLIGHTED BUILDING. ONE QUESTION I HAD IS REALLY AROUND THE EXISTING BUILDING THAT HAS BEEN VACANT FOR SOME TIME. COULD IT BE USED OR IS IT TRULY CONDEMNED IN THE SENSE THAT IT CAN'T BE REDEVELOPED? [00:30] **Erica Coleman (HRA Administrator)**: THANK YOU CHAIR ROHMAN AND COMMISSIONER GOLTZMAN. IN ORDER FOR THE DEED APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED, THERE HAD TO BE A REPORT COMPLETED. OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL DID DO AN INSPECTION AND DID CONFIRM THAT THE BUILDING IS ACTUALLY BLIGHTED AND CANNOT BE REDEVELOPED IN ITS CURRENT STATE. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED AND THE NEW BUILDING WOULD HAVE TO BE ERECTED. I DO BELIEVE THAT THE USE FOR THIS AREA CANNOT BE A GAS STATION AGAIN. WHAT CAME BEFORE YOU PREVIOUSLY WAS THE REPLATTING AND THE REZONING. WE NEEDED TO REZONE IT SO THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY ACTIVATE THAT AREA BECAUSE PREVIOUSLY HOUSING WOULD NOT WORK THERE. [00:31] **Commissioner Goltzman**: THANKS MR. CHAIR. ONE OF THE THINGS I LOOK AT FOR TIFS IS UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT TO OUR RESIDENTS FROM A DOLLARS AND CENTS PERSPECTIVE. COULD YOU EXPLAIN JUST SO I UNDERSTAND—FOR THE FIVE PEOPLE THAT MIGHT BE WATCHING—WHAT DOES A TIF DO AND HOW DOES IT IMPACT RESIDENTS FINANCIALLY FROM A TAX PERSPECTIVE? [00:32] **Erica Coleman (HRA Administrator)**: ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU CHAIR ROHMAN AND COMMISSIONER GOLTZMAN. SO IN VERY SIMPLE TERMS, WE ARE TAKING A STRUCTURE OR A PLOT OF LAND THAT HAS NO TAX BASE. IT'S NOT COLLECTING ANYTHING, IT'S NOT BRINGING ANY VALUE TO THE AREA, AND IT IS BLIGHTED. BY BEING ABLE TO OFFER A MECHANISM SUCH AS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING, WE ARE ALLOWING FOR REDEVELOPMENT TO HAPPEN WHICH OVERALL INCREASES THE TAX BASE THAT IS ABLE TO BE COLLECTED BETWEEN THE TAXING AGENCIES WHICH INCLUDE THE COUNTY, THE CITY, AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. IN VERY SIMPLE TERMS, IT HELPS TO INCREASE NOT JUST THE VALUE OF THAT PARTICULAR PARCEL BUT THE VALUE OF ALL THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA SO THAT PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF REAL ESTATE. [00:33] **Commissioner Cookson**: THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. MS. COLEMAN, TYPICALLY WHEN WE'RE APPROVING TIF DISTRICTS IT'S FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THIS IS FOR A PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. IS THERE PRECEDENT IN BLOOMINGTON FOR DOING THIS FOR PRIVATE ENTERPRISE? [00:33] **Erica Coleman (HRA Administrator)**: THANK YOU CHAIR ROHMAN AND COMMISSIONER COOKSON. FIRST, YOU'RE ONLY ASKED TO SEE THAT IT CONFORMS WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO ACTUALLY APPROVE THE TIF DISTRICT. THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT TIF DISTRICTS AVAILABLE: REDEVELOPMENT TIF DISTRICT AND HOUSING TIF DISTRICT. THIS PROJECT IN PARTICULAR IS USING A REDEVELOPMENT TIF. THERE HAS BEEN A PROJECT THAT HAS COME BEFORE YOU BEFORE, 8200 HUMBOLDT, WHICH WAS BUILDING HOUSING BUT WAS ALSO A REDEVELOPMENT TIF DISTRICT. BECAUSE THERE IS A BLIGHTED STRUCTURE, THAT IS ONE OF THE TRIGGERS TO HELP USE REDEVELOPMENT TIF. [00:34] **Commissioner Cookson**: WE'RE NOT BEING ASKED TO LOOK AT THAT TONIGHT? [00:34] **Erica Coleman (HRA Administrator)**: NO, YOU'RE NOT. THANK YOU. [00:34] **Chairman Rohman**: THANK YOU. THIS ITEM IS A STUDY ITEM, NOT A HEARING. IS THERE DISCUSSION ON THE FINDING? I KNOW THAT THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT WHEN IT WAS BEFORE US A COUPLE WEEKS AGO WASN'T ALL THAT WE HOPED IT WOULD BE AT THAT LOCATION. BUT AS FAR AS OUR FINDING TODAY, IT'S CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. [00:35] **Commissioner Cookson**: MR. CHAIR, I THINK YOU'RE CORRECT THAT OUR SCOPE IS LIMITED. WE ARE ASKED TO FIND THAT THE TIF DISTRICT PLANS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON. AND WHEN WE SAW THIS A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, THAT WAS MY HANGUP—I DIDN'T THINK THIS PROJECT MET THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THAT SITE IS ZONED B-4 AND THAT APPLICATION HAD A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE HAD TO SORT OF BEND ON TO MAKE IT WORK. IT DID NOT MEET THE B-4 DEFINITION IN TERMS OF FLOOR AREA RATIO, PARKING, AND PLACEMENT OF THE BUILDING. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS TO FIND THE HIGHEST AND BEST LAND USE FOR THE ZONING THAT YOU HAVE, AND I DON'T THINK THIS PROJECT ACCOMPLISHES THAT. THAT WAS THE REASON I DID NOT APPROVE THIS APPLICATION WHEN IT CAME BEFORE US TWO WEEKS AGO AND I'M NOT SURE I CAN FIND IT TONIGHT EITHER. IT'S NOT A REFLECTION ON THE TIF; IT'S A REFLECTION ON THE PROJECT ITSELF AND THE ZONE THAT IT'S IN. [00:36] **Commissioner Abdi**: SORRY, I MISSED THE LAST MEETING SO I CAN'T REALLY RECALL WHAT WAS DISCUSSED. BUT IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY ABOUT THE USE, IT'S ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT. COULD YOU MAYBE REFRESH WHAT OUR SCOPE OF LIMIT IS? DO WE GO BACK AND REFER TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED LAND USE APPLICATIONS OR DO WE LOOK AT WHAT IS BEFORE US RIGHT NOW? [00:37] **Erica Coleman (HRA Administrator)**: ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU CHAIR ROHMAN AND COMMISSIONER ABDI. WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THERE ARE A FEW AREAS THAT HAVE IDENTIFIED GOALS AND STRATEGIES. WHAT I HAVE BROUGHT BEFORE YOU TODAY IS THE AREA OF LAND USE. THIS PROJECT SPECIFICALLY ALIGNS WITH GOAL NUMBER TWO (STRATEGY 2.2) AND GOAL NUMBER FOUR (STRATEGIES 4.4 AND 4.6). THE ASK BEFORE YOU IS NOT ON THE REPLATTING OR REZONING; IT IS ON THIS ITEM ONLY: IS THIS TIF PLAN AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONFORMING WITH THE CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? THERE ARE GOALS HIGHLIGHTED HERE WHERE IT REFERS BACK TO DIRECTLY. [00:38] **Chairman Rohman**: I THINK I WAS FOLLOWING ON WHAT COMMISSIONER COOKSON TALKED ABOUT WITH ZONING. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOESN'T GET TO THAT LEVEL—THE QUESTION OF B-4 ZONING. I THINK WE ALL HAD A GENERAL SENSE IT WAS NOT EXACTLY WHAT WE HAD IN MIND, BUT THE COMP PLAN IS THE 35,000-FOOT PLAN. I'M JUST NOT SURE THAT SPECIFIC POINT CARRIES INTO THIS SCOPE. [00:39] **Commissioner Goltzman**: THANK YOU, CHAIR. JUST A QUICK CLARIFICATION: WE AS A BODY ARE LOOKING AT THESE GOALS AND IF WE FIND THAT EVEN ONE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN, IS THAT A SUFFICIENT DETERMINATION? [00:39] **Erica Coleman (HRA Administrator)**: THANK YOU CHAIR ROHMAN AND COMMISSIONER GOLTZMAN. THAT IS ACCURATE. THERE IS NOT A MINIMUM "FLOOR" THAT SAYS IT HAS TO MEET X NUMBER OF GOALS. AT LEAST ONE GOAL IDENTIFIED IN A PROJECT WOULD TECHNICALLY CONFORM WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. [00:40] **Chairman Rohman**: TRUE, BUT A PROJECT THAT BLATANTLY DID NOT CONFORM WOULD NOT CONFORM. [00:40] **Erica Coleman (HRA Administrator)**: EXACTLY. [00:40] **Chairman Rohman**: FAIR ENOUGH. ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. [00:41] **Commissioner Goltzman**: I MOVE TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE 9000 PENN AVENUE SOUTH AND 2325 WEST 90TH STREET REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TIF PLAN ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE BLOOMINGTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. [00:41] **Commissioner**: SECOND. [00:41] **Chairman Rohman**: THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION FINDING CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMP PLAN. ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION? SEEING THAT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. (AYE). OPPOSED? (NO). THE MOTION PASSES. THE TIF PLAN WILL BE ON THE DECEMBER 5TH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AS A PUBLIC HEARING AND THE DECEMBER 13TH HRA MEETING. THANK YOU. [00:42] **Chairman Rohman**: OUR NEXT ITEM IS TO CONSIDER SEVERAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SYNOPSES. I WANT TO GO THROUGH THEM INDIVIDUALLY BECAUSE WE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE THE RIGHT NUMBER TO APPROVE CERTAIN MEETINGS. ON SEPTEMBER 29TH ALL WERE PRESENT EXCEPT FOR COMMISSIONER ALBRECHT SO WE COULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. [00:42] **Commissioner Goltzman**: THANKS CHAIR. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE DRAFT SYNOPSIS FOR SEPTEMBER 29TH 2022. [00:43] **Commissioner**: SECOND. [00:43] **Chairman Rohman**: THANK YOU. A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. (AYE). OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. THE NEXT ITEM IS OCTOBER 13TH. PRESENT ON OCTOBER 13TH WERE MYSELF, COMMISSIONER COOKSON, COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN AND COMMISSIONER ALBRECHT WHO IS NOT HERE. WITH THREE WHO WERE PRESENT ARE WE ABLE TO APPROVE THAT? [00:43] **Staff**: YEAH, WITH THREE YES AND TWO ABSTAIN. [00:43] **Commissioner Cookson**: I MOVE TO APPROVE THE DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SYNOPSIS OF OCTOBER 13TH 2022. [00:43] **Commissioner**: SECOND. [00:43] **Chairman Rohman**: THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. (AYE). OPPOSED? ABSTENTIONS? (ABSTAIN). THANK YOU. THE MOTION PASSES. AND THE LAST ONE IS OCTOBER 27TH AND WE HAD MYSELF, COMMISSIONER COOKSON AND COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN. [00:44] **Commissioner McGovern**: MOTION TO APPROVE THE SYNOPSIS FOR OCTOBER 27TH, 2022. [00:44] **Commissioner**: SECOND. [00:44] **Chairman Rohman**: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. (AYE). OPPOSED? ABSTENTIONS? THANK YOU. THE MOTION PASSES. ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS TO REVIEW AND ADOPT THE PROPOSED 2023 SCHEDULE FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION. PLANNING MANAGER MARK JEROME [GLEN MARKEGARD]. [00:45] **Glen Markegard (Planning Manager)**: CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONERS, WE HAD A DISCUSSION AT YOUR LAST MEETING ABOUT THE 2023 SCHEDULE IN GENERAL AND SINCE THEN THE CITY COUNCIL ON MONDAY NIGHT DID ADOPT THEIR SCHEDULE FOR 2023. THE CHANGE THEY MADE WAS ADDING ONE ADDITIONAL MEETING VERSUS WHAT WE HAD DISCUSSED. THEY DO NOW HAVE 27 MEETINGS AND STAFF IS PROPOSING THE THURSDAYS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW TO BE THE 2023 MEETING DATES. I WOULD NOTE THAT THIS LAST YEAR IN 2022 THE COMMISSION HAD 28 MEETINGS (SIX OF THOSE WERE CANCELED). WE'RE PROPOSING 26 MEETINGS FOR 2023. AS WE'VE DISCUSSED, WE TRY TO AVOID ANY HOLIDAYS OR CONFERENCES AND SCHOOL BREAKS AND WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO GET 11 DAYS BETWEEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. FOR EXAMPLE, JANUARY 12TH WOULD FEED TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON JANUARY 23RD. THAT IS THE MOST EFFICIENT AND FASTEST WAY TO GET AN ITEM THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL. WE NOTE THAT A FEW OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS AND CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE UNFORTUNATELY IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE WE HAVE HOLIDAYS EITHER ON THURSDAYS OR MONDAYS. BUT MOST PROPOSED MEETING DATES HAVE 11 DAYS BETWEEN THEM. WE'RE LOOKING FOR YOUR FEEDBACK AND ULTIMATELY A MOTION. [00:47] **Chairman Rohman**: THANK YOU FOR THAT. IS THERE ANY FEEDBACK ON THIS CALENDAR OR ANY OTHER DATES POTENTIALLY TO AVOID BASED ON COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES OR OTHER OBSERVANCES? THERE IS A MOTION AT THE BOTTOM IF SOMEONE IS INTERESTED. [00:47] **Commissioner McGovern**: I MOVE TO ADOPT THE 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE AS ATTACHED IN THE MEETING PACKET. [00:47] **Commissioner**: SECOND. [00:47] **Chairman Rohman**: THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. (AYE). OPPOSED? THE SCHEDULE IS ADOPTED. ITEM SIX IS OUR POLICY AND ISSUE UPDATE. [00:48] **Glen Markegard (Planning Manager)**: LOOKING AHEAD TO YOUR NEXT MEETING WHICH IS DECEMBER 8TH—YOU GET A COUPLE OF WEEKS OFF BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING—WE HAVE JUST TWO ITEMS ON THAT AGENDA. ONE IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO REPAIR USE AT 1700 EAST OLD SHAKOPEE ROAD AND THE SECOND ITEM IS THE ORDINANCE TO UPDATE SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS THAT WOULD BE A PUBLIC HEARING. THEN LOOKING FORWARD TO DECEMBER 22ND, WE HAVE A VARIANCE AT 8609 LOGAN AVENUE SOUTH AND THEN DISCUSSION OF YOUR 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN, AND POTENTIALLY A STUDY ITEM DISCUSSION ON SIGN ORDINANCE REGULATIONS ALTHOUGH THAT'S A LITTLE UNCERTAIN AT THIS TIME. [00:48] **Chairman Rohman**: AND SIMILAR TO THE ITEM EARLIER WHEN I MADE A COMMENT ABOUT OUR ENGAGEMENT WITH OUR COLLEAGUES WORKING ON ISSUES OF EQUITY AND PUBLIC HEALTH: AT A WORKSHOP THAT WAS RECENTLY HELD FOR MEMBERS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UP WAS TO EVEN HAVE THINGS LIKE OUR WORK PLAN SHARED WITH THOSE OFFICES WITHIN THE CITY FOR THEIR THOUGHT ON WHERE WE CAN ALIGN. I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE YOU TO HAVE THAT ON YOUR RADAR. [00:49] **Glen Markegard (Planning Manager)**: IT IS VERY MUCH ON OUR RADAR. WE PLAN TO HAVE A PEER REVIEW BY A VARIETY OF DIVISIONS INCLUDING PUBLIC WORKS ALONG WITH SUSTAINABILITY, PUBLIC HEALTH AND RACIAL EQUITY. [00:49] **Chairman Rohman**: WONDERFUL. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER ITEMS THAT MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO RAISE DURING THIS TIME? [00:49] **Commissioner Cookson**: MR. CHAIR, WERE YOU REFERENCING THE MEETING THAT YOU ATTENDED WITH OTHER CHAIRS OF OTHER COMMISSIONS WITH THE MAYOR? [00:49] **Chairman Rohman**: NO, THAT MEETING IS COMING UP ON THE 6TH. THIS WAS A DIFFERENT ONE SPONSORED BY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. THERE WERE APPROXIMATELY 15–20 FOLKS WHO ATTENDED. IT WAS A WORKSHOP ON ISSUES OF EQUITY, SUSTAINABILITY, AND PUBLIC HEALTH, AND WAYS THAT WE MIGHT BETTER INCORPORATE THAT IN SOME OF OUR BODIES. SEPARATE FROM THAT, I WILL BE ATTENDING THE MEETING ON THE 6TH. [00:50] **Commissioner Cookson**: WOULD YOU CARE TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THAT AT OUR NEXT MEETING? [00:50] **Chairman Rohman**: I WOULD BE GLAD TO. ANY OTHER ITEMS? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS ADJOURNED UNTIL DECEMBER 8TH. THANK YOU.