This transcript is from a meeting of the **Bloomington Planning Commission**. While the list provided primarily covers the City Council and Department Directors, the transcript contains specific names of Planning Commissioners and staff members associated with the Planning Division. Based on the context of the dialogue, here is the formatted transcript: *** **[00:00:00] Chair Kirkton:** GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THIS JANUARY 12TH MEETING OF THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADVISES THE CITY COUNCIL ON DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, LONG RANGE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION ISSUES. THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS COMPRISED OF SEVEN VOLUNTEER RESIDENTS OF THE CITY BLOOMINGTON. WE HAVE FOUR HERE THIS EVENING SO WE DO HAVE A QUORUM AS WE BEGIN THIS EVENING I'LL ASK EVERYONE IN THE CHAMBERS TO PLEASE RISE FOR 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 IN WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. THIS EVENING WE HAVE FIVE ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA AND SOME THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MAKE THE FINAL DECISION WHILE ON OTHER ITEMS SOMETIMES THE CITY COUNCIL MAKES THE FINAL DECISION. WE HAVE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS TONIGHT. THE PUBLIC IS ENCOURAGED TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY AT PUBLIC HEARINGS. YOU CAN DO THAT HERE AT CITY HALL OR YOU CAN ALSO DO THAT VIRTUALLY. MR. MARKEGARD, COULD YOU PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON TESTIMONY? **[00:01:15] Glen Markegard (Planning Manager):** SURE, CHAIR. THANK YOU. WE HAVE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS THIS EVENING AND YOU CAN TESTIFY HERE IN THE CHAMBERS OR IF YOU'RE WATCHING FROM HOME CALL IN TO TESTIFY. WHAT YOU WOULD DO IS CALL THE NUMBER THE SCREEN AND THEN ENTER IN THE ACCESS CODE AND THEN YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THE ITEMS TONIGHT AND WE WILL HAVE THIS NUMBER ON THE SCREEN DURING THE VARIOUS PUBLIC HEARINGS TONIGHT. **[00:01:40] Chair Kirkton:** VERY WELL. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER ONE THIS EVENING IS FROM HEALTH SCIENCES UNIVERSITY FOR A PRIVATELY INITIATED CODE AMENDMENT. MS. O'DAY, YOU HAVE THE STAFF REPORT. **[00:01:50] Ms. O’Day (Staff):** I DO THANK YOU CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. ITEM ONE IS FOR A PRIVATELY INITIATED CODE AMENDMENT TO CREATE TWO USE DEFINITIONS AND ALLOW THEM AS PERMITTED USES IN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT. A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE APPLICANT: NORTHWESTERN HEALTH SCIENCES UNIVERSITY IS LOCATED AT 2501 WEST 84TH STREET. IT'S A PRIVATE UNIVERSITY FOCUSING ON ALTERNATIVE HEALTH CARE EDUCATION AND THEY OFFER PROGRAMS SUCH AS CHIROPRACTIC MASSAGE THERAPY, CHINESE MEDICINE ETC. THE TOTAL CAMPUS SIZE IS 264,739 SQUARE FEET. AND THEN AS A NOTE I JUST WANT TO MENTION THAT THE MEDICAL OFFICE AND THE RETAIL USES ALREADY EXIST TODAY ON CAMPUS. I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE CITY CODE DEFINITION ACCESSORY USE BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT IN THIS APPLICATION. I HIGHLIGHTED TWO IMPORTANT COMPONENTS OF THE DEFINITION. THE FIRST IS THAT THE ACCESSORY USE CANNOT EXCEED 10% OF THE PRINCIPAL FLOOR AREA AND THE SECOND IS THAT THE ACCESSORY USE CANNOT ATTRACT CUSTOMERS INDEPENDENTLY OF THE PRINCIPAL USE. THE DEFINITION OF THIS ACCESSORY USE LIMITS THE MEDICAL OFFICE RETAIL USES THEREFORE THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CREATE TWO NEW USE DEFINITIONS. THE FIRST IS FOR A RETAIL COMPLEMENTARY TO A COLLEGE UNIVERSITY AND I'LL READ THE DEFINITION BEFORE YOU IT SAYS COMPLEMENTARY RETAIL SALES USE IS AFFILIATED WITH A COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY THAT DO NOT EXCEED 5% OF THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF THE BUILDING IN WHICH THEY ARE LOCATED OR 5000 SQUARE FEET IN FLOOR WHICHEVER IS LESS. THE RETAIL ALREADY EXISTS AS I SAID AND THEY ARE NOT INTENDING TO EXPAND THE AREA. THE STORE SIZE IS 4300 SQUARE FEET WHICH IS 0.6% OF THE TOTAL CAMPUS AREA. THE SIZE COMPLIES WITH THEIR PROPOSED DEFINITION AND THE STORE THEY WOULD PRIMARILY SELL WELLNESS RELATED PRODUCTS SUCH AS VITAMIN SUPPLEMENTS, WELLNESS GIFTS ETC. AND THEN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC, THE AMENDMENT WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR A STANDALONE RETAIL USE IN R-1; SO THIS RETAIL MUST BE COMPLEMENTARY TO OR ASSOCIATED TO A COLLEGE UNIVERSITY ONSITE. THEY WOULD LIKELY HAVE AN EXTERIOR SIGN SO A SIGN PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO VERIFY A CODE OF COMPLIANCE. AND THEN THE SECOND DEFINITION RELATES TO MEDICAL. AS MENTIONED EARLIER, ACCESSORY USES ARE LIMITED TO 10% OF THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA AND UPON REVIEW OF THEIR FLOOR PLANS THE MEDICAL OFFICE OR THEIR PUBLIC CLINICS THEY EXCEED 10% OF THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA. SO THEY CURRENTLY HAVE SEPARATE CLINICS TOTALING A COMBINED AREA OF 29,577 SQUARE FEET WHICH COMES A TOTAL OF 11% OF THE TOTAL CAMPUSES. AGAIN SIMILAR TO THE OTHER DEFINITION THE MEDICAL OFFICE MUST BE ASSOCIATED WITH A COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY AND THEN THIS WOULD ADD THOSE TWO USES TO OUR USE TABLE IN OUR CITY CODE. SO YOU CAN SEE THERE THAT I'VE ADDED THEM AS PERMITTED AND OUR USE TABLE IN R-1. AND THEN LASTLY WE DID RECEIVE A PIECE OF CORRESPONDENCE WHICH I PROVIDED TO YOU IN AN EMAIL AND THAT SHOULD BE BEFORE YOU AT YOUR SEATS AND THEN THE APPLICANT IS IN ATTENDANCE TONIGHT SHOULD THERE BE QUESTIONS AND THEN I PROVIDED THE MOTION AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. THANK YOU. **[00:05:10] Chair Kirkton:** QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER GOLTZMAN. **[00:05:15] Commissioner Goltzman:** THANK YOU CHAIR. ONE QUESTION THAT I HAD WAS ARE THERE OTHER COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON THAT COULD POTENTIALLY UTILIZE THIS CHANGE IN CONDITIONAL USE? **[00:05:25] Ms. O’Day (Staff):** YEAH. THANK YOU CHAIR, COMMISSIONER GOLTZMAN FOR ASKING THAT. I MEANT TO TOUCH ON THAT DURING MY PRESENTATION SO I'M GLAD YOU ASKED. THE ONES THAT COME TO MIND AT THE TOP OF MY HEAD ARE NORMANDALE COLLEGE AND BETHANY COLLEGE. THOSE ARE THE TWO THAT COME TO MY MIND THAT ARE EXISTING COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN BLOOMINGTON AND THEY COULD HAVE BUSINESSES AS WELL AS LONG AS THEY MEET THE SIZE. **[00:05:45] Commissioner Goltzman:** GO AHEAD AND THANK YOU. AS A FOLLOW UP, HOW ABOUT TECHNICAL TYPE TRAINING? SO THINKING ABOUT AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE I THINK THERE'S A BEAUTY SCHOOL ON LYNDALE AND 96TH STREET. WOULD THAT NOT BE ALL UNDER THE COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY OR IS THAT A DIFFERENT TYPE OF USE? **[00:06:00] Ms. O’Day (Staff):** CHAIR, COMMISSIONER GOLTZMAN, AND GLEN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I THINK THAT MORE RELATES TO AN INSTRUCTIONAL CENTER WHICH IS A SEPARATE DEFINED CENTER IN CITY CODE SO THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HAVE A MEDICAL OFFICE OR THEY WOULDN'T FALL UNDER THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT. **[00:06:15] Commissioner Goltzman:** OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. **[00:06:20] Chair Kirkton:** OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THE APPLICANT IS HERE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION? IF YOU WOULD PLEASE STEP FORWARD, LET US KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE'VE MISSED OR YOU WANT US TO KNOW. IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME THAT WOULD BE GREAT AND AFTER YOU'RE FINISHED WE HAVE A SIGN IN SHEET THERE FOR YOU AS WELL. **[00:06:40] Mike Tennyson (Applicant):** JOHN SCOTT, CAN YOU HEAR ME? I THINK WE CAN. IT'S NOT LIT UP SO YEAH. OKAY. SOUNDS GOOD. MIKE TENNYSON, I AM THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR CLINICS AND RETAIL SERVICES AT NORTHWESTERN. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HAVING US HERE TODAY AND I'M JOINED BY OUR PRESIDENT AND CEO DEBORAH BUSHWAY. YOU KNOW I JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE. JUST A COUPLE OF POINTS OF CLARITY FOR THE GROUP: THE RETAIL STORE KIND OF CO-EXISTS AS A BOOKSTORE AS WELL, RIGHT? SO WE DO SELL A LOT OF TEXTBOOKS OUT OF THE STORE. IT SERVICES OUR LOCAL COMMUNITY AND ON CAMPUS WE HAVE A LOT OF ALUMNI THAT USE THE STORE BECAUSE IT'S EASY FOR THEM TO BUY FROM OUR STORE VERSUS HOUSING A LOT OF SUPPLEMENTS IN THEIR ACTUAL CLINICS, WHICH IS WHY YOU KNOW WE'VE OBVIOUSLY BEEN SELLING TO OUR ALUMNI. THE OTHER PIECE OF CLARITY I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT TOO IS ON THE CLINICS; THERE'S ACTUALLY FOUR CLINICS BUT ONE CLINIC IS KIND OF WITHIN A CLINIC BUT THE CLINICS SERVE A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT POPULATIONS. SOME OF THE CLINICS ACTUALLY ARE SERVING INTERNAL COMMUNITIES SO THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY SERVING THE EXTERNAL MARKET AND SOME OF THEM ARE SERVING THE EXTERNAL MARKET. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT A POINT OF CLARITY FOR PEOPLE IN CASE YOU'RE WONDERING ABOUT WHY WE HAVE SO MANY DIFFERENT SERVICES AND OFFERINGS. AND THEN ONE POINT OF CLARITY I JUST WANTED MAKE SURE IF YOU DID READ THROUGH THE DOCUMENT THAT CAME FROM THE CONCERNED CITIZEN ABOUT THE CASE—YOU KNOW IF YOU GO ON TO TARGET'S ACTUAL WEBSITE, THEIR AVERAGE STORE SIZE IS ABOUT 130,000 SQUARE FEET AND ABOUT 40,000 SQUARE FEET. SO TO SAY A POINT OF KIND OF REFERENCE, I DO SEE A POINT OF REFERENCE IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN ON OUR CAMPUS. **[00:08:45] Chair Kirkton:** QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND I WILL OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING NOW. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE CHAMBERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? I DON'T SEE ANYONE COMING FORWARD. MR. MARKEGARD, DO WE HAVE ANYONE ONLINE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? **[00:09:05] Glen Markegard (Planning Manager):** CHAIR, WE HAVE NOBODY ONLINE. **[00:09:10] Chair Kirkton:** VERY WELL. LOOK FOR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. **[00:09:12] Commissioner Albrecht:** SO MOVED. **[00:09:13] Commissioner McGovern:** SECOND. **[00:09:15] Chair Kirkton:** WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. (AYE). OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. WE WILL MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER GOLTZMAN. **[00:09:30] Commissioner Goltzman:** THANKS CHAIR. I THINK THIS APPLICATION IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND PRETTY FOCUSED ON A VERY SPECIFIC NEED. I SEE, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY HEALTH AND WELL-BEING IS IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMUNITY AND IT'S GREAT THAT WE HAVE THESE RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO OUR RESIDENTS. IT'S A LARGE CAMPUS AND I THINK THEY ARE, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO EXPAND THEIR OFFERINGS TO CLIENTS. I THINK THAT THE FACILITY HAS ENOUGH SPACE AND SIZE OF PARKING LOOKS FINE. I DON'T ANTICIPATE LOTS OF TRAFFIC SO IN ALL I THINK I'LL BE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE APPLICATION AS IT STANDS IN FRONT US. **[00:10:05] Chair Kirkton:** THANK YOU COMMISSIONER GOLTZMAN FOR THE COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER ALBRECHT. **[00:10:10] Commissioner Albrecht:** THANK YOU CHAIR. I JUST WANT TO ECHO COMMISSIONER GOLTZMAN’S REMARKS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION. AGAIN FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD, SEEMS AS THOUGH THIS IS BOTH A WIN FOR THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON AND A WIN FOR THE SPECIFIC UNIVERSITY. SO I AM IN SUPPORT OF IT. **[00:10:25] Chair Kirkton:** VERY WELL. FURTHER COMMENTS OR I'D LOOK FOR A MOTION. **[00:10:30] Commissioner McGovern:** I ALSO ECHO THE TWO AND THAT IT GIVES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR NORTHWESTERN TO EXPAND AND REACH OUT TO OTHERS THAT DO NEED THIS TYPE OF SERVICE. COMMISSIONER GOLTZMAN, IF I MAY? **[00:10:40] Commissioner Goltzman:** IN CASE FILE 2022-240, I MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A PRIVATELY INITIATED CODE AMENDMENT CREATING THE USE DEFINITION FOR COLLEGE UNIVERSITY COMPLEMENTARY RETAIL AND COLLEGE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL OFFICE AND ADDING THE USE AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT THEREBY AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTERS 19 AND 21. **[00:11:05] Commissioner Albrecht:** SECOND. **[00:11:10] Chair Kirkton:** WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A PRIVATELY INITIATED CITY AMENDMENT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. (AYE). OPPOSED? THE MOTION PASSES 4-0 AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT THEIR FEBRUARY 6TH MEETING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. WITH THAT WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER TWO. THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON IS THE APPLICANT. IT IS FOR A CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO CREATE A TRANSITIONAL INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT AND ALSO REZONING A NUMBER OF PARCELS. I BELIEVE THE NUMBER IS 28. MR. WILSON HAS OUR STAFF REPORT THIS EVENING. **[00:12:00] Staff (Mr. Morales/Wilson):** SECOND. APOLOGIES. COMPUTER DECIDED TO FREEZE UP ON ME. **[00:12:20] Chair Kirkton:** TAKE YOUR TIME. **[00:12:35] Staff (Mr. Morales/Wilson):** OKAY THANK YOU CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS A NEW ZONING DISTRICT IT'S ACTUALLY SPLIT UP INTO TWO PARTS. THE FIRST PART IS TO AMEND THE ZONING CODE SPECIFICALLY CHAPTERS 19 AND 21 TO ESTABLISH THE TI DISTRICT TO INCLUDE REFERENCES AND TO DESCRIBE ITS FEATURES AND STANDARDS. THE SECOND PART OF THE PROPOSAL IS TO REZONE 28 LOTS ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF LYNDALE SOUTH BETWEEN 86TH AND 92ND STREETS FROM GENERAL INDUSTRY (THE I-3 DISTRICT) TO THIS NEW ZONING DISTRICT, TRANSITIONAL INDUSTRIAL (THE TI DISTRICT). YOU'LL SEE AT THE BOTTOM THAT THE PROPOSAL WILL REQUIRE AMENDMENTS TO THE 2040 COMP PLAN AND BEING CONSIDERED AT THE FEBRUARY 6 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. JUST TO PROVIDE SOME BACKGROUND AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSAL... THIS IS A SNAPSHOT OF THE TIMELINE. THE PROJECT KICKED OFF FROM SEPTEMBER; THAT'S WHEN WE MET TOGETHER AS A GROUP AND DECIDED ON LEVEL OF CONSULTATION WITH THE RESIDENTS AND WE BEGAN WITH THAT IN MIND CREATING AN OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT PLAN THAT WE IMPLEMENTED IN EARLY OCTOBER. THAT MEANT DOOR-TO-DOOR KNOCKING ON ALL BUSINESSES WITHIN THE AREA THAT'S PROPOSED TO BE ZONED TO EXPLAIN THE PROJECT AND TO TALK TO THE BUSINESS OWNERS. OCTOBER 27TH, IF YOU REMEMBER, THERE WAS A STUDY WHERE WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DRAFT VERSION OF THIS NEW ZONING DISTRICT AND THE PROPOSAL TO REZONE THOSE 28 LOTS. THE NEXT MEETING WAS A SESSION WITH THE CITY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 14TH. TODAY WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING JUST TO HEAR ABOUT THE LAND USE ZONING DISTRICT AND THE REZONING AND THEN WE'LL BE BRINGING THIS TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 6TH FOR ADOPTION. ALTHOUGH IT STARTED MID-SEPTEMBER, THE LYNDALE AVENUE SUBDIVISION PLAN WAS ADOPTED IN 2021. AN ACTION THAT CAME OUT OF THAT PLANNING PROCESS WAS TO RECONSIDER THE ZONING AROUND 86TH STREET BECAUSE IT WAS IDENTIFIED AS A NODE WITHIN THE PLAN. SO THIS WAS AN OUTGROWTH OF THAT BECAUSE IT RECOGNIZED THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES THAT MIGHT COMPROMISE SOME OF THE REDEVELOPMENT THAT WAS PLANNED FOR. WITH THAT IN MIND WE RELIED A LOT ON THAT PLAN BECAUSE THERE WAS A GOOD AMOUNT ENGAGEMENT THAT CAME OUT OF IT. AS I SAID WE SELECTED AS THE APPROPRIATE PARTICIPATION LEVEL AND WE STARTED ENGAGING RESIDENTS GOING DOOR-TO-DOOR. WE ALSO DID DIRECT MAILINGS TO ALL THOSE BUSINESSES AND I SHOULD ALSO MENTION DID REACH OUT TO THOSE PROPERTIES THAT IMMEDIATELY ABUT THE AREA. WE ACTUALLY HANDED OUT MATERIAL TO EXPLAIN THE PROJECT AND THEN WE DID A MAILING TO THOSE PROPERTIES JUST TO FOLLOW UP TO ADVERTISE THE OPEN HOUSES. SO WE HAVE MADE EFFORTS TO ENGAGE THE RESIDENTS THAT OWN PROPERTY WITHIN THE AREA. AT THAT STUDY SESSION LATE OCTOBER, THE BIG ITEM THAT CAME OUT OF THAT DISCUSSION WAS CONSIDERATION OF WHAT PROPERTIES ARE INCLUDED WITHIN THIS NEW DISTRICT. THERE WAS AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SOME PROPERTIES AT 86TH AND LYNDALE THAT SEEMED SUITABLE TO ALSO BE INCLUDED AND SO THAT WAS THE TOTAL OF THREE PROPERTIES; THEY WERE ALL OWNED BY THE SAME OWNER AND SO THEY WERE BROUGHT IN—THAT RAISED THE AMOUNT OF LOTS FROM 25 TO 28. OTHERWISE I THINK THERE WAS A GENERAL CONSENSUS TO PROCEED DRAFTING THE ZONING DISTRICT. AT THE NOVEMBER 14TH CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION, IN ADDITION TO DISCUSSING THE NEW ZONING DISTRICT AND THE PROPOSED REZONING, THERE WAS A RESOLUTION THAT WAS ADOPTED TO INITIATE THE REZONING PROCESS. THE COUNCIL HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES WITHIN THIS NEW ZONING DISTRICT BECAUSE WE ARE PROPOSING TO ADD RESIDENTIAL TO THE AREA AS A CONDITIONAL USE. THERE WAS ALSO DISCUSSION AROUND THE DISTRICT'S IMPACTS ON THE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL IN THE AREA AND THEN THERE WAS ALSO ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE PROS AND CONS OF THE REZONING APPROACH THAT WE'RE PROPOSING WHICH IS REZONING ALL 28 LOTS AS OPPOSED TO GOING LOT BY LOT. THERE'S ALREADY EVIDENCE OF RESIDENTIAL WITHIN THE AREA THAT'S PRETTY CLOSE BY THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET IN LYNDALE. AND THERE'S EVEN NEWER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT JUST SOUTH OF IT—THERE'S LYNDALE FLATS AND THEN WHAT WAS APPROVED OXBOW HEIGHTS—SO THERE IS ALREADY RESIDENTIAL ENCROACHING UPON THIS AREA. WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF THIS NEW ZONING DISTRICT THERE IS A VARIETY OF AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE. CHAPTER 19 HAS SOME SIMPLE REFERENCES TO ESTABLISH THAT TI DISTRICT. IN CHAPTER 21 DIVISION II IS WHERE WE ACTUALLY ESTABLISH THE NEW TRANSITIONAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. WE ALSO GET INTO DISTRICT SPECIFIC STANDARDS AND SOME OF THOSE STANDARDS YOU MIGHT BE FAMILIAR WITH BECAUSE THEY ARE BORROWED FROM OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED. ALL OF THIS IS AN EFFORT TO IMPLEMENT THE RETROFIT PLAN IN CREATING A PEDESTRIAN AREA AND THAT INVOLVES CERTAIN SITE STANDARDS AND BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS. IN DIVISION H, WHICH IS THE USES, WE BORROWED HEAVILY OR WE BASED THE USE LIST ON THE I-3 DISTRICT AND THEN JUST WITH SOME SLIGHT PERMUTATIONS ADDING USES, MODIFYING SOME OR REMOVING SOME TO DISTINGUISH THE TRANSITIONAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. SPEAKING A LITTLE BIT FURTHER ON THE USE TABLES, I ALREADY MENTIONED THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO INTRODUCE RESIDENTIAL BUT IN LIMITED FORMS—MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL IS THE INTENDED USE FOR THIS DISTRICT. WE'RE ALSO PROPOSING RETAIL, INDOOR RECREATION AND ENTERTAINMENT, CULTURAL AMENITIES, LIBRARIES, AND MUSEUMS. WITH WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING WE'RE NOT CREATING NONCONFORMITY SO ANY SORT OF USE THAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE I-3 IS BEING CARRIED OVER FOR THE TRANSITIONAL INDUSTRIAL THAT INCLUDES SELF-STORAGE AND I BELIEVE THERE'S ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITHIN THE AREA SO THOSE WILL REMAIN IN CONFORMITY. WE ALSO PROHIBIT ADDITIONAL SITES WITH USES THAT ARE NOT IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE RETROFIT PLAN VISION. THOSE ARE MORE AUTO-INTENSE USES THAT MIGHT AFFECT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DISTRICT. THIS TABLE COMPARES THE CURRENT I-3 DISTRICT WITH THE B-4 DISTRICT. AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY WE BORROWED A LOT OF STANDARDS FROM ALREADY ESTABLISHED DISTRICTS. WE'RE PROPOSING TO DOUBLE FAR (FLOOR AREA RATIO)—THAT SHOULD BE NOTED—SO AGAIN THAT'S TO FULFILL THE VISION OF THE PLAN WHICH SEES A MORE INTENSE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT ALONG LYNDALE. ON THIS SLIDE WE HAVE A COMPARISON OF THE SETBACKS ALSO BETWEEN THE I-3 DISTRICT AND B-4. ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CAME OUT OF THE RETROFIT PLAN WAS TO REZONE A LOT OF PROPERTIES ALONG LYNDALE TO B-4 SO IT'S JUST TO INTRODUCE THAT COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THE TI DISTRICT AND WHAT WILL EVENTUALLY BE THE B-4 DISTRICT IN SURROUNDING LOTS. AND IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED FOR ABUTTING LOTS THAT ARE USED IN RESIDENTIAL, THERE IS A DISTANCE REQUIREMENT BETWEEN THOSE NONRESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES. THIS IS MERELY TO ILLUSTRATE THE BUILDING CHARACTER THAT COULD MATERIALIZE ALONG LYNDALE. SOME OF THE FEATURES WE'RE PROPOSING ARE TO RESTRICT PARKING TO THE SIDE OR REAR, MEANING BUILDINGS CAN BE CLOSER TO THE STREET TO CREATE A MORE INTIMATE EXPERIENCE BETWEEN PEDESTRIANS AND THE GROUND FLOOR. WE'RE ALSO REQUIRING GROUND FLOOR TRANSPARENCY AND ACTIVATION—WE ARE ALLOWING WAREHOUSING WITHIN THE DISTRICT HOWEVER THOSE COME WITH REQUIREMENTS THAT 50% OF THE LINEAR LENGTH OF THOSE GROUND FLOORS BE ACTIVE CUSTOMER INTERACTION LOBBY OR RETAIL FRONT END. SO GETTING TO THE REZONING PROPOSAL, AS I MENTIONED IT'S 28 LOTS PROPOSED TO GO FROM I-3 TO TRANSITIONAL INDUSTRIAL. THERE'S ALREADY A MIX OF INDUSTRIAL, AUTOMOTIVE, WAREHOUSE, OFFICE AND RETAIL. WE WANT TO MAINTAIN THAT ECLECTIC MIX. IT'S ALSO WORTH MENTIONING THAT THIS IS IN LINE WITH THE ADOPTED 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WITHIN THAT DOCUMENT THERE WAS DISCUSSION OF INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGY THAT CAME FROM AN INDUSTRIAL OBSOLESCENCE STUDY THAT STAFF CARRIED OUT IN 2019. THOSE ARE CATEGORIZED AS EITHER PROTECTED OR TRANSITIONAL INDUSTRIAL AREAS. THESE PROPOSED REZONINGS AGAIN RELATE TO THAT 86TH STREET NODE. REZONING TO TRANSITIONAL INDUSTRIAL WILL AGAIN CREATE THAT COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS ALONG LYNDALE IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THE RETROFIT PLAN. BEFORE YOU ARE SOME MOTIONS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ESTABLISHING THE TI DISTRICT AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REZONING. I CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. **[00:23:45] Chair Kirkton:** YEAH. THANK YOU. AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO QUESTIONS AND I'LL GET US STARTED HERE. IN ONE OF YOUR SLIDES YOU HAD THE SORT OF CHARACTERISTICS COMPARISON OF THE NEW TI ZONE VERSUS SOME OF THE SIMILAR ZONES. MINIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO: TI WE APPEAR TO NOT BE SETTING ONE WHEREAS IN B-4 THERE'S A 0.2 MINIMUM. IS THERE A CONSIDERATION OF PUTTING A MINIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR TI? **[00:24:10] Staff (Mr. Morales/Wilson):** CHAIR KIRKTON, THE DISCUSSION AROUND FLOOR AREA DID PRIMARILY FOCUS ON THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA. WE CARRIED OVER THE SAME CONSIDERATION FOR THE MINIMUM FLOOR AREA FROM THE EXISTING I-3 DISTRICT. WE ASSUMED THAT THE MARKET AND BUILDING STANDARDS WE'RE PROPOSING WOULD SATISFY THE BUILDING AREA. BUT THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN CERTAINLY RECONSIDER AS WE'RE REVISING THE DISTRICT STANDARDS BASED ON YOUR FEEDBACK. **[00:24:45] Chair Kirkton:** DO YOU HAVE CONCERNS THAT ANY DEVELOPMENT COULD COME IN THERE THAT WOULD BE LESS THAN 0.2 OR IS THERE ENOUGH OTHER THINGS HAPPENING HERE WHERE THAT'S UNLIKELY? **[00:24:55] Staff (Mr. Morales/Wilson):** CHAIR KIRKTON, I THINK THE CONCERN IS ALLEVIATED BY THE DESIGN STANDARDS WE'RE PROPOSING. I CAN'T DO THE MATH IN MY HEAD ON THE SPOT BUT IF THIS FLOOR AREA RATIO IS MAINLY SPEAKING TO BULK, WE HAVE OTHER STANDARDS THAT REQUIRE BUILDING FLOOR AREA. **[00:25:20] Commissioner Goltzman:** THANKS CHAIR. IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND BRINGING UP THE NEXT SLIDE I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT SETBACKS. SO WE CURRENTLY HAVE A MINIMUM OF TEN FEET ALONG THE PUBLIC STREET BUT THE MAXIMUM IS 40. DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE 40 SAYING THAT THAT'S QUITE A LARGE GAP FROM THE STREET? WHERE DID THAT 40 COME FROM AND COULD YOU GIVE US SOME EXAMPLES OF WHERE 39 AND A HALF FEET WOULD BE APPROPRIATE? **[00:25:40] Staff (Mr. Morales/Wilson):** CHAIR, COMMISSIONER GOLTZMAN, THE 40 FEET WAS TAKEN FROM THE B-4 DISTRICT WANTING TO MAINTAIN THAT COMPATIBILITY. WE LIMIT THE AREA OF PARKING SO MUCH TO THE REAR; IT CAN'T BE ESTABLISHED IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE STREET, SO THAT COULD BE EITHER GREENSPACE OR ACTIVATED SPACE IF IT'S FOR INSTANCE FRONTING A RETAILER OR RESTAURANT ESTABLISHMENT. I'D HAVE TO DEFER TO THE PLANNING MANAGER ON THE ORIGINAL CONVERSATION FOR THAT 40 FEET. **[00:26:20] Glen Markegard (Planning Manager):** CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER GOLTZMAN, THINKING ABOUT THE B-4 DISTRICT, WE'VE SEEN QUITE A LOT OF DEVELOPMENTS IN B-4 OVER THE YEARS. HAVE WE HAD ANY THAT HAVE ACTUALLY UTILIZED THAT 40 FEET? AS MR. MORALES SAID, YOU CANNOT HAVE PARKING IN THAT AREA SO REALLY THE ONLY VIABLE USE WOULD BE SOME SORT OF LARGE LANDSCAPE AREA OR OUTDOOR SEATING PATIO. IT WOULD BE SURPRISING TO SEE A DEVELOPMENT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT 40 FEET BUT IF IT DID HAPPEN IT WOULD BE SOME SORT OF VERY LARGE OUTDOOR SEATING AREA MOST LIKELY. **[00:26:55] Commissioner Goltzman:** OKAY THANK YOU. MR. MORALES, AS A FOLLOW UP, YOU SAY THERE CAN'T BE PARKING BETWEEN THE STREET AND THE BUILDING. DOES PARKING INCLUDE DRIVE AISLES OR CAN THOSE BE THERE? **[00:27:05] Staff (Mr. Morales/Wilson):** YEAH IT DOES INCLUDE DRIVE AISLES AND PARKING SO ESSENTIALLY ALL AUTOMOBILES WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED WITHIN THAT AREA. **[00:27:10] Glen Markegard (Planning Manager):** WITH ONE EXCEPTION THAT WOULD BE THE DRIVEWAY LEADING INTO THE PARKING LOT, BUT NOT ANY KIND OF CIRCULATION DRIVE. **[00:27:15] Chair Kirkton:** FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? **[00:27:18] Staff (Mr. Morales/Wilson):** CHAIR KIRKTON, I JUST WANT TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC. WE ARE REALLY FOCUSING THIS DISTRICT AS IT FRONTS ALONG LYNDALE AND SOME OF THE OTHER CROSS STREETS (86, 90TH, 92ND). THERE ARE SOME LOTS THAT FRONT ON HARRIET AND SO WE DO MAKE EXCEPTIONS FOR THOSE PROPERTIES SO IN THAT CASE THEY WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO HAVE DRIVE AISLES AND PARKING IN BETWEEN THE BUILDING IN THE STREET ON THOSE LOTS. **[00:27:45] Chair Kirkton:** VERY WELL. FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON IS THE APPLICANT. WE WON'T HEAR AGAIN FROM THEM BUT I WILL SEE IF THERE'S ANYONE ONLINE WHO WOULD WISH TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM. **[00:27:55] Glen Markegard (Planning Manager):** CHAIR, WE HAVE NOBODY ONLINE. **[00:28:00] Chair Kirkton:** THANK YOU. AND THERE'S NOBODY HERE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS. I WOULD NOTE WE DID RECEIVE ONE ITEM OF CORRESPONDENCE WHICH YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU AND THAT CORRESPONDENCE IS IN FAVOR OF THE REZONING. WITH THAT I WILL LOOK FOR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. **[00:28:15] Commissioner Albrecht:** SO MOVED. **[00:28:16] Commissioner McGovern:** SECOND. **[00:28:17] Chair Kirkton:** WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. (AYE). OPPOSED? THE MOTION PASSES 4-0. WE WILL MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER ALBRECHT. **[00:28:30] Commissioner Albrecht:** THANK YOU CHAIR. I APPRECIATE THIS COMING BACK SO QUICKLY. I THINK IT'S A GOOD DIRECTION FOR THE LYNDALE RETROFIT PLAN STEPS. I APPRECIATE THE ADDING OF THE ADDITIONAL LOTS ON THAT 86TH STREET AND HARRIET CORNER. THAT'S A GOOD ADDITION AND I AM IN SUPPORT OF MOVING FORWARD ON THIS. **[00:28:50] Commissioner Goltzman:** THANKS CHAIR. I WOULD SAY IN ADDITION TO MR. ALBRECHT THAT I ALSO AM IN SUPPORT. I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO SAY I LIKE THAT WE DIDN'T ADD ANY ADDITIONAL NONCONFORMITY. I ALSO LIKE THAT WE ARE MAKING THE WEST SIDE OF LYNDALE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE EAST SIDE OF LYNDALE. COMING INTO THE STUDY SESSION IN OCTOBER I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THE SIDES OF THE STREETS MADE A DIFFERENCE ON WHAT TYPE OF BUSINESS COULD DO WHAT AND I LIKE THAT NOW IT'S A LOT MORE CONSISTENT. I THINK IT'S GOING TO DRIVE FOR A MORE PLEASANT APPROACHABLE THOROUGHFARE THROUGH OUR CITY. I'M EXCITED TO SEE WHAT IT WILL DO FOR ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT OFF OF THE LYNDALE RETROFIT PLAN. **[00:29:40] Chair Kirkton:** ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? I'LL JUMP IN AS WELL AND JUST SAY I LIKE WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE. I THINK IT WAS WELL DONE. I WOULD DEFINITELY LIKE TO SAY I APPRECIATE THE INTENTIONAL PUBLIC OUTREACH TO THE FOLKS ON LYNDALE. IF WE COULD JUST TAKE A SECOND PEEK AT THAT MINIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO THING—IF YOU'VE LOOKED AT IT AND ARE INTENTIONAL ABOUT THAT, I'M FINE WITH IT. I THINK THIS IS GREAT. I'M REALLY EXCITED FOR THE FUTURE OF LYNDALE. I THINK THIS AN IMPORTANT STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO GET LYNDALE AS OUR MAIN STREET INTO THE 21ST CENTURY. I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS AND WILL LOOK FOR A MOTION. **[00:30:30] Commissioner Albrecht:** THANK YOU CHAIR. IN CASE FILE 2022-249 I MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 19 AND 21 ESTABLISHING THE TRANSITION INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT AND MODIFYING MULTIPLE CITY CODE SECTIONS TO REFERENCE THE TI ZONING DISTRICT. **[00:30:50] Commissioner McGovern:** SECOND. **[00:30:55] Chair Kirkton:** WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. (AYE). OPPOSED? THE MOTION PASSES 4-0. **[00:31:10] Commissioner Albrecht:** IN CASE FILE 2022-249 I MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY'S OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO REZONE 28 LOTS ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH BETWEEN 86TH AND 92ND STREETS AS REFERENCED IN TABLE THREE OF THE STAFF REPORT FROM GENERAL INDUSTRY I-3 TO TRANSITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TI. **[00:31:35] Commissioner McGovern:** SECOND. **[00:31:40] Chair Kirkton:** WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE. (AYE). OPPOSED? THAT MOTION PASSES 4-0. THIS WILL PROCEED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 6TH. THANK YOU MR. MORALES. WE WILL THEN MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER THREE. THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON IS THE APPLICANT. THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING RATHER A STUDY ITEM FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MR. JOHNSON YOU HAVE THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE SIGN ORDINANCE. **[00:32:15] Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** THANK YOU CHAIRMAN KIRKTON AND MEMBERS THE PLANNING COMMISSION. NICE TO SEE YOU THIS EVENING. I SHOULD NOTE THAT I ALSO HAVE WITH ME ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KEVIN TASCA; HE'S GOING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PRESENTATION WITH ME AND TALK ABOUT SOME LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS AS THEY PERTAIN TO SIGNAGE. SO LET ME SHARE MY SCREEN HERE AND WE'LL GET STARTED. SO JUST A QUICK AGENDA SLIDE... WE'LL TALK BRIEFLY ABOUT SOME OF THE BACKGROUND AND HISTORY ABOUT OUR EXISTING SIGN ORDINANCE. WE'LL TALK ABOUT WHAT THE PRIMARY GOALS ARE FOR STAFF. WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOME OF THE ENGAGEMENT AND RESEARCH. ATTORNEY TASCA WILL TALK ABOUT THE LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS RECENT CASES SO SOME ANALYSIS BEING DONE ON OUR EXISTING SIGN ORDINANCE AND THEN WE'LL GET INTO KIND OF THE MORE INTERACTIVE PART. WE ACTUALLY HAVE SOME POLLING EQUIPMENT GOING TO SEE HOW IT WORKS, HOPEFULLY USE SOME CLICKERS TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF A POLLING ACTIVITY. SO WHAT IS THE SIGN ORDINANCE? THE CITY CODE HAS A DEDICATED ARTICLE IN OUR ZONING CODE THAT DEALS WITH EVERYTHING PERTAINING TO SIGNAGE. GENERALLY SPEAKING SIGN ORDINANCES REGULATE EXPRESSION; THEY PROVIDE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL COMMERCIAL AND NONCOMMERCIAL SPEECH THAT TAKE THE FORM OF SIGNS. ALL COMMUNITY SIGN ORDINANCES SEEK SOME TYPE OF BALANCE BETWEEN ALLOWING FOR EXPRESSION WHILE ALSO BALANCING PUBLIC SAFETY AND AESTHETICS. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SAFETY, CERTAINLY IN THE ERA OF CELL PHONES THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT DISTRACTION; WELL SIGNS REALLY WERE THE ORIGINAL DISTRACTION IN TERMS OF DRIVING. SIGNS IN VISION TRIANGLES CAN PRESENT A VISUAL OBSTRUCTION THAT CAN PRESENT A HAZARD. BUT THAT'S NOT TO LEAVE OUT COMMUNITY AESTHETICS. THERE'S COMMUNITIES AROUND THE COUNTRY THAT HAVE TAKEN A MUCH MORE AGGRESSIVE APPROACH TO LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF SIGNAGE THAT THEY ALLOW. THE SIGN ORDINANCE IS IN ARTICLE TEN OF CHAPTER 19. ONE THING I WILL ADD IS THAT CURRENTLY BILLBOARD STANDARDS ARE ACTUALLY A SEPARATE ARTICLE OUTSIDE OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WOULD CONTEMPLATE IS TO BRING THOSE THINGS TOGETHER INTO ONE BULK SECTION. THE LAST FULL SCALE OVERHAUL OF THE CITY SIGN ORDINANCE WAS IN 1996. SINCE THAT TIME THERE HAS BEEN NO FULL SCALE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW. WE'VE HAD ITERATIVE AND ONGOING UPDATES TO ADDRESS CERTAIN LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS OR PUBLIC FEEDBACK. FINALLY, WE'VE BEEN INCORPORATING NEW SIGNAGE STANDARDS FOR SOME OF OUR NEWER MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICTS. AS STAFF GOES THROUGH AND WORKS TO UPDATE THE SIGN ORDINANCE, WE'RE CERTAINLY GOING TO SEEK A LOT OF FEEDBACK FROM YOU AND THE CITY COUNCIL. WHAT ALL THOSE DISCUSSIONS BOIL DOWN TO IS THAT THERE'S THREE PRIMARY GOALS: ONE, THERE'S SOME REALLY SIGNIFICANT CASE LAW IN THE LAST FEW YEARS THAT KEVIN TASCA WILL TALK ABOUT. WE NEED TO PULL OUR SIGN ORDINANCE INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THOSE CURRENT LEGAL STANDARDS. THE SECOND IMPORTANT GOAL IS TO IMPROVE THE CLARITY AND REDUCE THE COMPLEXITY. IT'S NOT AN UNCOMMON OCCASION TO SEE PLANNING STAFF IN A CONFERENCE ROOM HAVING A LIVELY DEBATE ABOUT A CERTAIN PROVISION OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE THAT WE CAN'T SEEM TO AGREE ON. THE THIRD PRIMARY GOAL IS IMPROVING ORGANIZATION AND FORMATTING. CURRENTLY THE WAY THE EXISTING SIGN ORDINANCE IS SET UP IS JUST THERE'S A LOT OF REDUNDANT LISTS OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. WE WANT TO INTEGRATE TABLES TO COMMUNICATE THESE REGULATORY STANDARDS. IN TERMS OF AN ANTICIPATED TIMELINE, WE'VE BEEN DOING RESEARCH AND ENGAGEMENT OVER THE FALL AND EARLY WINTER. ONCE FOLLOWING THESE STUDY SESSIONS THEN WE'LL TAKE THE WINTER HERE TO DRAFT OUR NEW SIGN ORDINANCE. AT SOME POINT IN THE LATE SPRING MAYBE GETTING INTO EARLY SUMMER WE WOULD CONSIDER SCHEDULING SOME PUBLIC HEARINGS. WITH THAT I WILL TURN OVER TO KEVIN TASCA AND HE CAN TALK ABOUT SIGNS IN THE LAW. **[00:38:20] Kevin Tasca (Assistant City Attorney):** GOOD EVENING CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS KEVIN TASCA. I'M THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. PART OF SIGNAGE IS EXPRESSION SO YOU HAVE FIRST AMENDMENT CONSIDERATIONS BECAUSE THE CITY IS REGULATING A MESSAGE OR EXPRESSIVE ACTIVITY. THERE HAS BEEN A COUPLE OF CASES OVER THE PAST SEVEN YEARS OR SO THAT HAVE KIND OF SHOOK THE SIGNAGE WORLD. WE HAD *REED VERSUS TOWN OF GILBERT* IN 2015. WHAT THAT CASE SAID WAS THAT IF YOUR SIGN ORDINANCE DIFFERENTIATES BETWEEN SIGNS BASED ON THE MESSAGE OR THE CONTENT—BASICALLY IF YOU HAVE TO READ THE SIGN TO DETERMINE HOW IT'S REGULATED—THAT'S GOING TO BE A MAJOR FIRST AMENDMENT PROBLEM. A LOT OF CITIES WERE DEFINING SAY A POLITICAL SIGN AS SAYING X, Y, AND Z. THAT'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM AFTER REED. BLOOMINGTON HAS DONE SOME PIECEMEAL UPDATES SINCE 2015 BUT THIS IS OUR COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW. JUST LAST YEAR WAS THE *CITY OF AUSTIN VERSUS REAGAN OUTDOOR ADVERTISING* WHICH WAS A CASE ABOUT BILLBOARDS. THE SUPREME COURT IN THAT CASE SAID THAT AN OFF-PREMISE VERSUS ON-PREMISE DISTINCTION IS STILL ALLOWED AND IT'S NOT CONTENT-BASED. WHAT AUSTIN DID SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DO IN BLOOMINGTON IS THAT ANY NEW BILLBOARD IS PROHIBITED AND ANY EXPANSION OF A BILLBOARD HAS TO COME INTO CONFORMANCE WITH CURRENT STANDARDS. THE COURT SAID YEAH THAT'S FINE. SO WE'RE WORKING WITH THE GREENE ESPEL LAW FIRM. ONE OF THEIR ATTORNEYS, JOHN BAKER, IS KIND OF A NATIONAL EXPERT ON SIGNAGE AND LAND USE CASES. WHAT WE REALLY WANT TO DO IS MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE REGULATING SIGNAGE BASED ON KIND OF WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE PROPERTY RATHER THAN WHAT'S WRITTEN ON THE SIGN. WE'LL GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM YOU TONIGHT ABOUT HOW WE WANT TO DO POLICY WITH SETBACKS, SIGN SIZES, AND HOW IT IS CALCULATED. AS LONG AS THERE'S A JUSTIFICATION FOR THOSE REGULATIONS, THEN IT SHOULD HOLD UP IN COURT. BACK TO NICK. **[00:41:40] Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** THANK YOU, KEVIN. CHAIR KIRKTON, I WOULD RECOMMEND IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LEGAL SIDE OF IT, MAYBE DO THAT NOW OR PAUSE. **[00:41:50] Chair Kirkton:** ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. TASCA? ALL RIGHT. **[00:41:55] Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** THANK YOU KEVIN. SO MOVING FORWARD, JUST A NOTE ABOUT SOME OF THE ENGAGEMENT WE'VE DONE. WE CURED A LIST OF ALL THE PARTIES WHO HAVE BEEN ISSUED A SIGN PERMIT IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS—THAT TURNED UP BEING 113 DIFFERENT PARTIES. WE SENT THEM A SIGN ORDINANCE SURVEY. UNFORTUNATELY ONLY SIX PEOPLE COMPLETED THE SURVEY AND THE RESULTS SURPRISED US; THEY WERE DEMONSTRATING A CERTAIN LEVEL OF SATISFACTION. MY GUESS IS THAT REFLECTS THAT MANY OTHER CITIES' SIGN ORDINANCES ARE EVEN MORE REDUNDANT. ANOTHER THING WE DID IS THAT WE DID SEND A SURVEY OUT TO 30 PEER COMMUNITIES HERE IN THE METRO AREA AND REALLY WE WERE IDENTIFYING WHAT COMMUNITIES HAVE RECENTLY UPDATED THEIR SIGNAGE. WE DID GET 14 RESPONSES ON THAT. IN ADDITION WE DID TABLE AT THE BLOOMINGTON FARMERS MARKET. NO ONE WANTED TO TALK TO ME ABOUT THE SIGN ORDINANCE THERE. SO WE'RE GOING TO TRY THIS POLLING ACTIVITY USING EQUIPMENT CALLED TURNING POINT. I'VE GOT THE CLICKERS HERE. THE RESULTS ARE ANONYMOUS. WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO TO SEE IF THIS ACTUALLY WORKS IS A TEST POLL. **[00:45:30] Commissioner Goltzman:** MAY I ASK HOW ARE YOU PLANNING TO USE THE INFORMATION YOU COLLECT FROM US? IS IT A HARD DATA COLLECTION OR IS IT MORE INFORMATIVE IN NATURE? I MEAN THERE'S ONLY FOUR OF US. **[00:45:45] Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. IT'LL BE INCUMBENT WITH YOU AND THE CITY COUNCIL—THAT'LL BUMP UP THE NUMBERS A LITTLE BIT. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION THAT HONORS THE OUTCOMES OF THE PC AND COUNCIL. OKAY, HERE IS OUR FIRST TEST POLL. WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION? **[00:46:50] Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** THREE OUT OF FOUR—75% OF YOU—PICKED BIKE. THAT'S MINE TOO. SO THAT'S JUST A TEST. NOW WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO THE ACTUAL QUESTIONS. THE FIRST QUESTION IS ABOUT FREESTANDING SIGNS (GROUND SIGNS, MONUMENT SIGNS, PYLONS). ARE THE EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGNS IN BLOOMINGTON TOO SMALL, JUST RIGHT, OR TOO LARGE? **[00:48:30] Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** OKAY, WE'RE GETTING SOME CONSISTENCY THERE. THE NEXT QUESTION: BUILDING SIGNS. CURRENTLY WE REGULATE BY TYPE (WALL, AWNING, PORTICO, ENTRANCE). SHOULD WE CREATE AN OVERALL ALLOWANCE FOR BUILDING SIGNS PER BUILDING ELEVATION, OR DO YOU PREFER THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF DEDICATED ALLOWANCES BY SIGN TYPE? **[00:50:00] Commissioner Goltzman:** MR. JOHNSON, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE WORD ALLOWANCE? **[00:50:05] Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** ALLOWANCE IS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE YOUR BUSINESS IS ALLOWED TO HAVE. SO THE POLL IS OPEN: BUILDING SIGNS OR SEPARATE ALLOWANCES BY TYPE? (POLL RESULTS: 75% YES/25% NO). **[00:51:10] Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** NEXT: HOW WE CALCULATE BUILDING AREA. CURRENTLY IT'S CALCULATED BASED ON WALL AREA UP TO A CERTAIN HEIGHT. MANY OTHER CITIES CALCULATE BASED ON LINEAR FRONTAGE (THE LENGTH OF THE WALL). ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WITH WALL AREA IS THAT BUILDINGS ARE NOT UNIFORM. DECORATIVE PARAPETS ARTIFICIALLY CREATE WALL AREA. LINEAR FRONTAGE IS MUCH EASIER FOR THE SIGN INSTALLER AND BUSINESS OWNER TO KNOW THEIR ALLOWANCE GOING INTO IT. SHOULD WE USE LINEAR FRONTAGE AS OPPOSED TO AREA? **[00:53:35] Commissioner Goltzman:** I GO BACK TO THE PICTURE. WHAT IF THIS BUILDING IS THREE STORIES TALL? DO YOU TAKE HEIGHT INTO ACCOUNT? **[00:53:45] Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** WE DO CHAIR KIRKTON, MR. GOLTZMAN, BUT WE CAP IT AT 25 FEET. THE PROPOSAL IS TO GET RID OF THAT HEIGHT COMPONENT AND USE A MULTIPLICATION FACTOR BASED ON THE LINEAR FRONTAGE. (POLL RESULTS: 4 RESPONSES IN FAVOR). **[00:55:00] Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** SIGN CONSTRUCTION. THERE'S TWO BASIC TYPES: CABINET SIGNS (BACKLIT BOXES) AND LETTER CONSTRUCTION (INDIVIDUAL CUT LETTERS LIKE CHANNEL LETTERS). CURRENTLY BLOOMINGTON DOES NOT ALLOW MIXING THESE TYPES ON THE SAME WALL. SHOULD BOTH CABINET AND CHANNEL LETTER TYPES BE ALLOWED ON THE SAME BUILDING ELEVATION? (POLL RESULTS: 4 RESPONSES). **[00:58:00] Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** USE-BASED SIGNAGE. WE HAVE SPECIAL STANDARDS FOR GAS STATIONS, HOTELS, OFFICE TOWERS. WE WOULD PREFER TO ELIMINATE THESE SPECIAL RULES WHERE FEASIBLE TO REDUCE COMPLEXITY. SHOULD WE ELIMINATE USE-BASED SIGNS WHERE FEASIBLE? (POLL RESULTS: 4 RESPONSES). **[01:00:00] Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** ELECTRONIC SIGNS. WE CURRENTLY DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN "CHANGEABLE COPY" (TEXT) AND "GRAPHIC DISPLAY." SHOULD THE CITY MAINTAIN TWO DISTINCT TYPES OF ELECTRONIC SIGNS OR MERGE THEM INTO ONE REGULATORY TYPE? (POLL RESULTS: PREFERENCE TOWARDS NO). **[01:01:30] Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** SHOULD ELECTRONIC GRAPHIC DISPLAY SIGNS BE ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (FOR PLACES OF ASSEMBLY OR PARKS)? CURRENTLY ONLY CHANGEABLE COPY IS ALLOWED. (POLL RESULTS: SPLIT VOTE). **[01:03:00] Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** DWELL TIME. THIS IS PUBLIC SAFETY. HOW FAST CAN THE MESSAGE CHANGE? CHANGEABLE COPY CAN CHANGE EVERY 8 SECONDS; GRAPHICS CURRENTLY HAVE A STATIC DWELL TIME OF 20 MINUTES. SHOULD WE RETAIN OUR EXISTING DWELL TIME STANDARDS OR REDUCE DWELL TIME FOR GRAPHIC DISPLAY SIGNS? (POLL RESULTS: RETAIN CURRENT STANDARDS). **[01:05:30] Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS. SOME CITIES HAVE SIZE RESTRICTIONS OR OPERATION TIME RESTRICTIONS (TURNING THE SIGN OFF AT NIGHT NEAR RESIDENTIAL). SHOULD WE ADD THESE? A) SIZE RESTRICTION, B) OPERATION TIME, C) BOTH A AND B, OR D) NO ADDITIONAL RESTRICTION. (POLL RESULTS: MIXED). **[01:07:00] Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** UNIFORM SIGN DESIGN (USD). THIS DEALS WITH MULTI-TENANT BUILDINGS AND SPECIFYING FONTS/LETTERS FOR THE WHOLE CENTER. IT REQUIRES A SEPARATE LAND USE APPROVAL STEP. SHOULD WE A) ELIMINATE THE USD PROCESS, B) MAKE IT AN OPTIONAL PROCESS FOR PROPERTY OWNERS, OR C) MAINTAIN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE? (POLL RESULTS: OPTIONAL). **[01:10:00] Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** MURALS. CURRENTLY OUR EXTERIOR MATERIAL STANDARDS PRECLUDE THE INSTALLATION OF MURALS ON BUILDINGS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PAINT DIRECTLY ON PRIMARY MATERIALS. SHOULD STAFF PURSUE CITY CODE AMENDMENTS AND A MURALS POLICY TO FACILITATE INSTALLATION? (POLL RESULTS: 4 YES). **[01:11:30] Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** BILLBOARDS. NEW BILLBOARDS ARE CURRENTLY PROHIBITED IN BLOOMINGTON. SHOULD WE A) RETAIN THE PROHIBITION, B) ALLOW ADDITIONAL BILLBOARDS SUBJECT TO STANDARDS, OR C) CONSIDER SELECTED AREAS ONLY? (POLL RESULTS: RETAIN PROHIBITION OR CONSIDER SELECTED AREAS). THAT CONCLUDES THE POLLING. I'LL STAND FOR QUESTIONS. **[01:13:00] Chair Kirkton:** QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT SIGN DISTRICTS. IF I'M RECALLING THE STAFF REPORT CORRECTLY, SOME SIGN DISTRICTS REQUIRED CHANNEL LETTER SIGNS OVER CABINET SIGNS. IS THAT CORRECT AND IS THAT TO BE CARRIED FORWARD? **[01:13:30] Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** THANKS CHAIR KIRKTON. I BELIEVE THAT IS REQUIRED IN OUR MIXED USE DISTRICTS (CLASS 5), BUT I'D HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT TO BE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN. **[01:13:45] Chair Kirkton:** AND SIGN DISTRICTS—ARE THEY GEOGRAPHIC OR ARE THEY PARCEL BY PARCEL? **[01:14:00] Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** THEY'RE NOT GEOGRAPHIC; THEY ARE TIED TO THE BASE ZONING OF EVERY SINGLE PARCEL. FOR EXAMPLE, THE MALL OF AMERICA HAS ITS OWN DISTRICT. WE MAY LOOK AT SHRINKING THE NUMBER OF DISTRICTS TO REDUCE COMPLEXITY. **[01:14:50] Commissioner Goltzman:** THANKS CHAIR. I THINK THE CLICKERS WERE FUN. IT WAS A VERY CONCISE WAY TO GET OUR FEEDBACK. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE VISUALS THAT YOU PROVIDED. IT HELPED ME UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU WERE SAYING. **[01:15:15] Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** I WOULD JUST LIKE TO THANK EMILY, THE PLANNING TECH, WHO ACTUALLY DID A LOT OF THE HEAVY LIFTING BEHIND THIS ACTIVITY. **[01:15:30] Chair Kirkton:** THANK YOU TO STAFF. WE WILL THEN MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR WHICH IS THE CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE DRAFT MEETING MINUTES. WE'LL START WITH NOVEMBER 17TH. THREE OF THE FIVE MEMBERS AT THAT MEETING ARE PRESENT HERE THIS EVENING WHICH IS A QUORUM. I'LL LOOK FOR A MOTION. **[01:16:10] Commissioner Goltzman:** I MOVE TO APPROVE THE DRAFT SYNOPSIS FOR NOVEMBER 17TH. **[01:16:15] Commissioner McGovern:** I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. **[01:16:20] Chair Kirkton:** ALL THOSE IN FAVOR (AYE). OPPOSED? ABSTAIN? MOTION PASSES. WE WILL THEN MOVE ON TO DECEMBER 8TH. SEVEN MEMBERS WERE AT THAT MEETING AND WE HAVE FOUR HERE THIS EVENING SO WE COULD VOTE ON THAT ONE AS WELL. LOOK FOR A MOTION. **[01:16:45] Commissioner Albrecht:** THANK YOU CHAIR. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE DRAFT MEETING SYNOPSIS FROM DECEMBER 8, 2022. **[01:16:55] Commissioner Goltzman:** SECOND. **[01:17:00] Chair Kirkton:** ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. (AYE). OPPOSED? THAT PASSES 4-0. WE WILL THEN MOVE ON TO THE 22ND OF DECEMBER. **[01:17:15] Glen Markegard (Planning Manager):** CHAIR, WE HAD FIVE MEMBERS PRESENT AT THAT MEETING, ONLY TWO OF WHICH ARE HERE TONIGHT, SO WE WILL NEED TO REVISIT THAT AT YOUR NEXT MEETING. **[01:17:30] Chair Kirkton:** VERY WELL. THAT CONCLUDES ITEM FOUR. ITEM FIVE IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY AND ISSUES UPDATE. MR. MARKEGARD? **[01:17:40] Glen Markegard (Planning Manager):** CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS, THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING IS JANUARY 26. HOWEVER, WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY APPLICATIONS SO WE HAVE A GAP UNTIL FEBRUARY 16TH. WE HAVE THREE ITEMS FOR THAT AGENDA: A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HOCKEY TRAINING FACILITY, AN EXPANSION OF A CAR DEALERSHIP, AND A POTENTIAL STUDY ITEM DISCUSSING SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY. **[01:18:20] Chair Kirkton:** ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS THEY'D LIKE TO BRING UP? SEEING NONE, THAT CONCLUDES OUR JANUARY MEETING OF THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION. GOOD NIGHT.