. >> GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THIS FEBRUARY 19TH MEETING OF THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADVISES AS THE CITY COUNCIL ON DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS LONG RANGE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION ISSUES. SOME ITEMS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ARE STUDY ITEMS WHERE WE WILL NOT MAKE A FORMAL DECISION WHILE OTHER ITEMS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ARE PUBLIC HEARINGS WHERE WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY HERE IN THE CHAMBERS OR YOU CAN ALSO DO SO FROM HOME BY FOLLOWING THE INSTRUCTIONS ON YOUR SCREEN. SOME ITEMS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL HAVE FINAL DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY WHILE ON OTHER ITEMS BEFORE THE COMMISSION WE ACT IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY AND THE CITY COUNCIL WILL MAKE THE FINAL DECISION. WE HAVE FOUR COMMISSIONERS PRESENT HERE IN CITY HALL AT THE MOMENT SO WE DO HAVE A QUORUM AS PART OF SEVEN COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE APPOINTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO SERVE THREE YEAR TERMS WITH A TWO TERM LIMIT. AS WE BEGIN THIS EVENING I'LL ASK EVERYONE IN THE CHAMBERS TO PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN THIS EVENING WITH ITEM NUMBER ONE. THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON IS THE APPLICANT FOR FINAL SITE AND BUILDING PLANS AND A VARIANCE FOR THE CITY SALT SHED AND BRAIN BUILDING AND 9721 JAMES AVENUE. MR. KAREEM SHERROD IS HERE WITH THE STAFF REPORT. YES, GOOD EVENING CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. I'M HERE TO PRESENT THEIR PROPOSED SALT SHED AND BRIAN BUILDING AT 9721. LET'S TRY THIS AGAIN. GOOD EVENING CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. I'M HERE TO PRESENT THE PROPOSED SALT SHED AND BRIAN BUILDING AT 9721 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH TO GIVE CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING. THE SITE IS LOCATED ON THE PROPOSED SITE. IT WILL BE LOCATED ALONG 97 STREET AND JAMES AVENUE. THE SITE HAS CLOSE PROXIMITY TO OTHER CITY OF BLOOMINGTON GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS NAMELY THE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING AND THE CITY OF LUMBERTON CIVIC PLAZA WHERE WE ARE WHERE WE ARE CURRENTLY TO GIVE MORE INSIGHT TO THE PROPOSED LOCATION THE CURRENT SITE OF THE SOLE SITE IS SLATED TO BE REDEVELOPED. SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR A NEW A NEW SITE. THAT SITE IS GOING TO BE THE NEW FARLEY GARAGE SITE WHICH IS 1800 WEST 96TH STREET. THE NEW SITE HERE IS GOING TO BE SANDWICHED IN BETWEEN JAMES AND IRVING AVENUES. THE PROJECT CONSIST OF AN APPROXIMATELY 6000FT BRICK BUILDING AND A 19,000FT SPORTS STORAGE BUILDING. THE CURRENT LOCATION IS PREDOMINANTLY AN INDUSTRIAL AREA THAT'S IMPORTANT TO MAKE NOTE OF THE LAND USE GUIDANCE ZONING IS THAT IS ZONED A3 GENERAL INDUSTRY AND IS OWNED THE LAND USE GUIDANCE IS INDUSTRIAL. THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN THAT WE HAVE HERE JUST SHOWS THAT THIS BUILDING CONSOLIDATES AREAS OF FUNCTIONS THE MULTIPLE FUNCTIONS THAT IS NEEDED TO PERFORM EFFICIENT USE OF THE SALT SHED AND THE BRICK BUILDINGS FROM BY THE CITY. SO THIS SITE CONSOLIDATES DIFFERENT AREAS TO ASSOCIATE THE BRAIN BUILDING IN THE WASH OFF AREA AND IT'S ALSO A STORM WATER RETENTION POND ON SITE. IN ADDITION, A SIDEWALK ALONG JAMES AVENUE WILL BE CONSTRUCTED AS WELL AS A LANDSCAPING. THE SAID LANDSCAPING IS A HOME IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH IOWA CITY CODE. WE DO RECOMMEND THAT THIS WILL BE A RAIN GARDEN FEATURE AS PART OF THE INFILTRATION BASIN AND FLOOD STORAGE. IN TERMS OF THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS DUE TO THE BRINE AND SHORT ASSOCIATED BUILDING THIS THE PROPOSED MATERIALS ARE WITHIN COMPLIANCE OF OUR EXTERIOR MATERIALS STANDARDS. THERE IS A SPECIAL COMPLIANT THERE IS A SPECIAL COMPLIANCE WHEN IT COMES TO THEM WHEN IT COMES TO GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS THAT'S GOING TO CONTAIN ANY TYPE OF ROAD, ANY TYPE OF MATERIALS THAT'S GOING TO TREAT THE ROAD. SO EVERYTHING IS A COMPLIANCE HERE WHEN IT COMES TO EXTERIOR MATERIALS. THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK THERE'S THIS IS THIS SLIDE ON PUBLIC SIDEWALK. LET ME SHOW YOU THAT THE AREA IN GREEN SHOWS THAT'S WHERE THE SIDEWALK IS GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTED. THE AREA IN RED IS WHERE THE WHERE THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTED BECAUSE THERE'S NOT. THERE ARE TWO REASONS. THE FIRST REASON IS THAT THIS IS AN INDUSTRIAL AREA AND IS NOT AN EXISTING SIDEWALK THAT'S CONNECTING TO OVER TO JAMES. SO BECAUSE THE CITY IS NOT CONSTRUCTING THOSE SIDEWALKS, CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY IS NEEDED TO REFER CONSTRUCTION OF THOSE PUBLIC SIDEWALKS IN TERMS OF THE VARIANCE THAT WE ARE SEEKING THE CITY IS SEEKING SEEKING A 25 FOOT VARIANCE INSTEAD OF A 30 FOOT SO A FIVE FOOT VARIANCE ALONG WITH 97TH STREET. AND THE REASON FOR THIS IS BECAUSE THERE'S AS THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN WHEN IT COMES TO THE EASTERN SIDE OF WEST 97TH STREET AS OPPOSED TO THE WESTERN PORTION. SO THIS WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE JUST WHAT THIS WILL BE POSE A CHALLENGE TO ANY TYPE OF ANY TYPE OF VEHICLES GOING INTO WEST 97TH STREET WHERE THE PROPOSED ENTRANCE IS. IT WILL BE A TOO STEEP OF A GRADE. SO HAVING THAT FIVE FOOT SETBACK PUSHES THE BUILDING FURTHER EAST AND JUST THAT WOULD THAT WOULD GREATLY THAT WOULD GREATLY PROMOTE BETTER CIRCULATION TO THE BUILDING AND SAFETY. SO WITH THAT WE DO HAVE STUFF HERE AND ARCHITECTS IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BUT WE DO HAVE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS TWO MOTIONS TO BE SPOKE UPON I THINK. MR. SHORT WE WILL BEGIN WITH QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONING. THANK YOU CHAIR MR. SCHRAG, COULD YOU PLEASE TALK ABOUT THIS? GO BACK TO THE SIDEWALK SLIDE AND I THINK MY FIRST QUESTION IS IS THERE AN EXISTING SIDEWALK ON 90TH STREET AND WILL THAT REMAIN OR WHAT'S THE SITUATION WITH THE SIDEWALK ON THE 19TH STREET SIDE? SURE CHAIR AND COMMERCIAL AND THEN THERE IS AN EXISTING SIDEWALK ALONG A STREET THAT WILL REMAIN ON. THERE'S GOING TO BE A SIDEWALK ALONG. JAMES BUT IN TERMS OF THE NECESSITY OF CREATING AN ADDITIONAL SIDEWALK ALONG 97TH STREET AND IRVING, WE DON'T SEE THAT AS BEING A VIABLE USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS TO CONSTRUCT THESE SIDEWALKS BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN AN INDUSTRIAL AREA. SO IT'S CONCERNED WITH SEEKING DEFERMENT OF THE NECESSITY RIGHT? MR. JOHNSON ANYTHING AND CHAIR THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. AND IF I CAN JUST ADD AND CLARIFY TO THIS SITE DOES NOT GO ALL THE WAY DOWN THE STREET SO THERE WOULD BE A GAP EVEN WHEN CONSTRUCTING A SIDEWALK ALONG IRVING FOR EXAMPLE THERE'S TWO PROPERTIES IN BETWEEN THIS SITE AND 90TH STREET SO THERE STILL WOULD BE A SIDEWALK GAP REMAINING. SO JUST TO CLARIFY THAT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF SEEING NONE. THANK YOU. MR. SHORT IS THE APPLICANT HERE AND WOULD WISH TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM. PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF FOR US. HELLO I'M MARK PRESSURE ASSISTANT CAPITAL PROJECT MANAGER. I WORK IN PUBLIC WORKS AND I WILL BE MANAGING THIS CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. ANYTHING WE SHOULD KNOW THAT WASN'T COVERED IN THE STAFF REPORT? I THINK SHE DID A GREAT JOB. I THINK THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD IS IN TERMS OF THE SETBACK VARIANCE THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WITH THE DESIGN WAS THE ELEVATION THAT GOES FROM THE WESTERN PORTION OF 97TH TO THE EASTERN PORTION. IT'S A VERY STEEP GRADE. AND IN ORDER TO MEET THE FLOODPLAIN REQUIREMENTS WE HAVE TO RAISE OUR THE ELEVATION OF OUR FOUNDATION ON THE SITE. SO THAT'S WHERE BASICALLY IF WE'RE NOT ABLE TO MEET THE FURTHER TOWARDS THE EAST THAT WE CAN SET THE BUILDING, THE BIKE THE LESS STEEP OUR GRADE IS COMING OUT OF THE BUILDING. SO THAT'S KIND OF JUST THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING THE VARIANCE FOR THE SETBACK. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW ONLY FOR ITEM NUMBER ONE AND I'LL ASK IF THERE'S ANYONE IN THE CHAMBERS WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY TO THIS ITEM FOR THE SALT AND BRINE BUILDING. SEE NO ONE STEPPING FORWARD IN THE CHAMBERS. IS THERE ANYBODY ONLINE? ALL PARTICIPANTS ONLINE OR STAFF. THANK YOU, MS.. BROWN. I'LL LOOK FOR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES FOUR ZERO. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED AND WE WILL MOVE TO DISCUSSION AND I CAN GET US STARTED HERE. HISTORIC LEE THE CITY GOES TO IN MY AT LEAST IN MY OBSERVATION PRETTY GREAT LENGTHS TO NOT REQUEST VARIANCES. THEY SET A GOOD EXAMPLE FOR NOT DOING THAT. AND SO I TRUST THAT WHEN THE CITY DOES REQUEST A VARIANCE IT'S FOR LEGITIMATE REASONS AND MY READING OF THE OF THE APPLICATION HERE SUGGESTS IT IS A REASONABLE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE AND I CAN MAKE THE FINDINGS AS SUCH AND I THINK THIS SEEMS LIKE A FINE PROJECT HERE AND I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF IT. COMMISSIONER I CONCUR WITH THAT. I THINK THAT IN PARTICULAR I COMMEND THE CITY FOR HER FINDING A WAY TO CONTINUE TO KEEP AS MANY THINGS IN A RELATIVELY SMALL FOOTPRINT AS POSSIBLE AND THE CONSOLIDATION AND STRUCTURING OF THIS I THINK IS A GOOD USE OF LAND AND WARRANTS A VARIANCE. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? IF NOT I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. COMMISSIONER MR. IN CASE NUMBER EXCUSE ME L20260002. HAVING BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS I MOVE TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED EASTERN STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM 30FT TO 25FT FOR THE SALT STORAGE BUILD AS SALT STORAGE AND BRINE BUILDINGS LOCATED AT 9721 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH. SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND CODE REQUIREMENTS ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THIS FIRST MOTION ON THE STREET. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I OPPOSED THAT MOTION PASSES FOUR ZERO. COMMISSION ANY IN CASE PL 20260002. HAVING BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THE FINAL REQUIRED FINDINGS I MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FINAL SITE AND BUILDING PLANS FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 19,280 SQUARE FOOT SALT STORAGE BUILDING AND APPROXIMATELY 6050 SQUARE FOOT BRIAN BUILDING LOCATED AT 9721 JAMES AVENUE SOUTH. SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND CODE REQUIREMENTS ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT I SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THESE FINAL SITE AND BUILDING PLANS. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I OPPOSED THE MOTION PASSES FOUR ZERO. THESE ITEMS WILL GO BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ON MARCH 3RD 2026 ON THEIR CONSENT AGENDA. THANK YOU MR. SHORT THANKS. WE WILL MOVE INTO ITEM NUMBER TWO WHICH IS ALSO A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A VARIANCE FOR LOT WITH AT 9211 COLUMBUS AVENUE SOUTH. MR. DYLAN PALMER IS HERE WITH A STAFF REPORT . ALL RIGHT GOOD EVENING CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS AGAIN I'M DYLAN PALMER HERE TO PRESENT ITEM NUMBER TWO WHICH IS A LOT WITH VARIANCE FOR 9211 COLUMBUS AVENUE SOUTH. THIS IS LOCATED IN EAST BLOOMINGTON JUST EAST OF PORTLAND AVENUE. THIS IS THE LOCATION SO IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. IT'S IN A NEIGHBORHOOD SURROUNDED BY OTHER SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND THIS IS THE LAND USE GUIDANCE AND ZONING. SO IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THIS IS GUIDED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AS WELL AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD SURROUNDING IT AND IT IS ZONED R ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ALONG WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD SURROUNDING IT SO THE LOT WITH VARIANCE IS OR THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE LOT WITH FROM 60FT DOWN TO 59.5FT. SO IT'S A VARIANCE FOR SIX INCHES. THE REASON WE HAVE TO DO THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT WE MEASURE LOT WITH IN THE CODE. SO THIS GRAPHIC HERE IS PULLED FROM THE CODE WE DO NOT MEASURE LOT WITH AT THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE WE MEASURE IT AT THE FRONT SETBACK. SO IN THIS CASE IT'S 30FT BACK FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND THEN 50FT BEYOND THAT FRONT SETBACK. SO 70 70FT OH 80FT CAN'T DO MATH IN MY HEAD ANYMORE. 80 FEEDBACK FROM FROM 15 SO THE REASON THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE IS BECAUSE THE 1951 PLAT IT WAS LOT NINE BLOCK EIGHT OF THE FA THIRD EDITION PLAT SHOWS 120FT. SO ON THIS IMAGE HERE YOU CAN SEE THE LOT WE'RE DISCUSSING AS LOT NUMBER NINE WITH THE STAR AND THEN THE ARROW POINTING TO THAT 120 FOOT LOT WITH MEASUREMENT AND THAT OF COURSE IT'S ON THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE BUT IT'S ALSO 120FT ON THE REAR PROPERTY LINE BASED ON THIS MEASUREMENT THE APPLICANT WAS LOOKING AT THAT SAYING OKAY GREAT WE CAN SUBDIVIDE OUR LOT INTO TWO 60 FOOT WIDE OUR ONE LOTS AND IT WOULDN'T NEED A VARIANCE OR ANYTHING SPECIAL. SO THEY WENT OUT AND HIRED A SURVEYOR IN ORDER TO DRAW UP A PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE THE LOT AND THAT SURVEYOR WENT OUT THERE AND FOUND OUT THAT THAT 1951 PLAT WAS WRONG. IT WAS DONE IN ERROR. SO AS YOU CAN SEE HERE THIS IS THE PLAT SUBMITTED BY BROWN SURVEYORS SO THE LOT WITH UP AT THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE IS 59FT AND SIX INCHES AND THEN AT THE SETBACK LINE 30FT BACK IS 59FT AND 7.75IN AND THEN YOU GO 50FT BACK FROM THERE IT'S 59FT AND TEN INCHES AND THEN THE REAR PROPERTY LINE IS STILL 60FT AND A QUARTER OF AN INCH. SO THE REASON THE REQUESTING THE VARIANCE IS JUST TO ALLOW FOR THE LOT TO BE 59.5FT WIDE RATHER THAN 60FT WIDE AND JUST TO KIND OF GO BACK TO HOW THIS AREA WAS CREATED INITIALLY AT LEAST WHAT WE THINK WHEN SURVEYORS GO OUT AND SURVEY THE SURVEY THE LAND THEY DON'T JUST GO OUT AND DRAW IT UP ON A MAP. THEY ACTUALLY DIG UP THE GROUND AND PUT RODS IN EACH PROPERTY CORNER SO THERE'S A METAL ROD AT EACH CORNER OF YOUR PROPERTY OR THERE SHOULD BE A METAL ROD THERE. IN THIS CASE WHEN THE SURVEYOR PUT THE RODS DOWN BACK IN THE 50S THEY DID IT IN ERROR. THEY ENDED UP SKEWING THE LOT ABOUT SIX INCHES. SO AGAIN THE APPLICANT IS JUST REQUESTING THE VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE 60 FOOT LOT WITH DOWN TO 59.5 AGAIN BECAUSE OF A SURVEYING ERROR IN THE FUTURE THEY WISH TO SUBDIVIDE THE LOT INTO TWO CODE COMPLYING LOTS. SO ONE OF THEM LET ME GO BACK HERE TO THE SURVEY LOT NUMBER TWO THAT'S THE SOUTHERN LOT THERE IT WOULD BE 60FT WIDE AT ALL OF THE MEASUREMENT POINTS AND THEN LOT NUMBER ONE WHICH IS WHERE THE EXISTING HOUSE IS CURRENTLY WOULD BE THE ONE WITH THE SHORTER LOT WITH AND THEN JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT ADDITIONAL OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THERE IS AN ATTACHED GARAGE ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE NOW THEY'RE PROPOSING TO DEMOLISH THAT GARAGE AND THEN REBUILD A DETACHED GARAGE IN THE REAR OF LOT NUMBER ONE THERE. SO THAT WON'T BE AN ISSUE WITH THE SETBACK. SO STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE THROUGH THE FOLLOWING MOTION AND IF YOU HAD ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, I'M AVAILABLE. THANK YOU, MR. PALMER, I DO HAVE A QUESTION. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT'S BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TONIGHT IS IT AT ALL RELATED TO SPLITTING THE LOT OR IS THAT A FUTURE APPLICATION? AND BEFORE US TONIGHT IS JUST THE VARIANCE TO 59.5 CHAIR COOKED AND THAT IS CORRECT. THE VARIANCE TO IT IS JUST THE VARIANCE THAT YOU'LL BE DECIDING ON TONIGHT. THE SUBDIVISION APPLICATION WILL HAVE TO COME IN AFTER THE VARIANCE IF IT IS TO BE APPROVED IT WOULD HAVE TO COME IN AFTER THE VARIANCE AND IS THAT A STAFF REVIEWERS THAT COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION? THE PLAT APPLICATION WILL BE REVIEWED BY STAFF AND THEN ULTIMATELY IS DECIDED ON BY CITY COUNCIL AT THEIR CONSENT AGENDA. OKAY. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER MR.. AND JUST WANT TO CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE THE SITE SKETCH WITH THE MEASUREMENTS AT THE DIFFERENT INTERVALS THERE WE GO. SO JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING THE IS THE VARIANCE BASED ON THAT FRONT PROPERTY LINE MEASUREMENT OR THE 80 FOOT MEASUREMENT THAT'S ACTUALLY 5910 AND THREE QUARTERS. WE'RE BASING THE VARIANCE OFF OF THAT FRONT LOT MEASUREMENT JUST TO GIVE THEM THAT EXTRA INCH JUST KIND OF THE COVER ALL THE BASES JUST IN CASE THERE IS ANOTHER ERROR IN SURVEYING HOPE NOT WITH MODERN TECHNOLOGY BUT JUST TO KIND OF COVER ALL OF THE DIFFERENT MEASUREMENTS INVOLVED. WE WANTED TO GIVE THEM THE WIDEST MEASUREMENT AND THEY ASKED FOR THE WIDEST MEASUREMENT OF A SIX INCH VARIANCE. OKAY. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. >> ME THANK YOU CHAIR AND HOW WAS THE DECISION MADE AGAIN IF YOU CAN GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE AGAIN, HOW WAS THE DECISION MADE TO MAKE THE LAST ONE THE LOT THAT WERE THE VARIANCE WAS NEEDED VERSUS A LOT TO LOOK WHERE THAT DIVIDING POINT WOULD BE. THE APPLICANT DECIDED TO HAVE LOT ONE BE THE LOT WITH THE REDUCED WITH BECAUSE THAT'S THEIR CURRENT HOME AND I PRESUME THAT'S WHERE THEY INTEND TO LIVE IN THE FUTURE. SO RATHER THAN SUBDIVIDE OFF A SIX INCH LESS WIDE LOT AND SELL IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE THEY DECIDED TO KEEP THAT LOT IN THEIR OWN HANDS. SO IT WAS JUST TO CLARIFY SO IT WAS AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST WHERE THE LINE THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. >> COMMISSIONER SUMMERS THANK YOU CHAIR. I'M IN A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PLACE TODAY SO SO THE GARAGE SITUATION THREW ME OFF A BIT. SO CAN YOU CLARIFY IF WE WERE TO BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS IS THAT CREATING A SITUATION WHERE THERE'S A GARAGE THAT'S OUT OF COMPLIANCE THAT THEY WOULD THEN NEED TO TEAR DOWN? CHAIR COMMISSIONER, THAT WOULD BECOME AN ISSUE WHEN THEY APPLY FOR THE SUBDIVISION. SO TONIGHT IT IS JUST THEIR REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A LOT TO BE 59.5FT WIDE ONCE THEY COME IN WITH THEIR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION THAT'S WHEN WE'LL BE REQUESTING OF THEM TO SHOW THAT THE GARAGE WILL BE DEMOLISHED OR REQUESTED DEMOLITION PERMIT PRIOR TO APPROVAL OR SOME KIND OF CONDITION ON THAT PLAT. ONCE THAT APPLICATION COMES IN FOR OUR REVIEW. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF THANK YOU MR. PLANNER. I'M JUST GOING TO DOUBLE CHECK IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE IN THE CHAMBERS NOT SEEING SO MS. BROWN IS THE APPLICANT ONLINE ALL PARTICIPANT ONLINE. I SAT VERY WELL. WE WILL MOVE THEN TO THE PUBLIC HEARING WHICH I WILL OPEN NOW AND I WILL ASK IF THERE'S ANYONE IN THE CHAMBERS WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY TO THIS ITEM BEFORE US. PLEASE SUPPORT IF YOU COULD INTRODUCE YOURSELF TO US PLEASE. I AM SHIRLEY WINTERS. THIS IS JOHN WINTERS. JOHN OWNS PROPERTY IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD SO WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SPLITTING OF THE LOT AND THE USE OF A LOT AND HOW IT AFFECTS THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUE. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE HOUSES THERE WITH THE GARAGE THE INTENT IS TO TEAR DOWN THE GARAGE, BUILD ANOTHER GARAGE. HOWEVER IT'S NOT SET IN STONE THAT THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS THAT WILL HAPPEN. SO IF THIS LOT IS APPROVED AS TWO LOTS, WHAT PREVENTS THIS PERSON FROM BUILDING TWO HOUSES ON THESE TWO PIECES OF PROPERTY? AND AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION THE WAY WE'LL DO THIS HERE IS HAVE YOU DO ALL YOUR PUBLIC TESTIMONY NOW AND THEN WE'LL ANSWER QUESTIONS AT THE END HERE. SO IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO ASK OF US OR LET US KNOW NOW LET'S DO THAT FIRST WE ARE I MEAN JUST TO JUST TO SPEAK ON ON I DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW ANY THIS WORKS BUT I'M JUST TO SPEAK ON LIKE IF WE IF IT WAS SPLIT INTO TWO PUBLIC HOUSING SPOTS WHICH IS THIS SEEMS LIKE THE DIRECTION IT WOULD GO IF IT WAS REQUIRED OR ALLOWED THEN LIKE THAT AND THAT THAT PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD DOESN'T HAVE VERY GOOD DRAINAGE, IT DOESN'T HAVE CURBS, IT DOESN'T HAVE DRAIN DRAINS. SO THERE'S ALREADY LOTS OF BACKUP ON WATER AND STUFF LIKE THAT. SO THINGS LIKE CARS ON THE STREET AND STUFF LIKE THAT EXTRA CARS THAT WOULD BE CREATED BY EXTRA HOUSING WOULD BE AN ISSUE AND I THE WAY SHE SPOKE ABOUT PROPERTY VALUES SO I JUST WANTED TO BRING THOSE KIND OF THINGS UP. IT JUST SEEMED TO ME THAT I KNOW IT'S NOT A LARGE VARIANCE BUT IT JUST SEEMED LIKE THERE'S A REASON THAT WE HAVE THESE CERTAIN SIZES SO YEAH, THAT'S ALL I GOT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND HE TOO COULD SIGN IN ON THE SIGN IN SHEET RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU THERE WOULD BE APPRECIATE YOU TAKING NOTES. BEFORE WE GET TO ANSWERING THOSE QUESTIONS I'LL ASK IF THERE'S ANYONE ELSE IN THE CHAMBERS WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY ON THIS ITEM. >> SEEING NONE. MS. BROWN IS THERE ANYBODY ONLINE ALL PARTICIPANTS ONLINE OR STAFF? I WILL THEN LOOK FOR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SECOND MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I OPPOSED THE MOTION PASSES FOUR ZERO THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. MR. JOHNSON OR MR. PALMER IF IF YOU'RE AVAILABLE I'LL ASK EITHER ONE OF YOU TO COULD YOU COMMENT ON SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED ABOUT MINIMUM LOT SIZE CAN WE FIT TWO HOMES ON A SMALLER LOT ETC. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT? YOUR CHAIR COOKED IN THE 60 FOOT LOT WITH REQUIREMENT IS FOR ALL FOR ONE LOT SO THEY WOULD BE IF THEY ARE TO APPLY FOR THE SUBDIVISION THEY WOULD BE CREATING TWO 60 FOOT WIDE LOTS. EACH OF THOSE LOTS COULD SUPPORT ONE HOUSE SO THE EXISTING HOUSE 9211 COLUMBUS WOULD BE ON ONE LOT. SO REALISTICALLY THEY WOULD BE CREATING ONE NEW RESIDENCE IF THEY WERE TO SUBDIVIDE THAT LOT AND THEN SOMEBODY WAS WERE TO COME IN AND APPLY FOR BUILDING PERMITS FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME THERE. MR. JOHNSON ANYTHING THAT YEAH THANK YOU CHAIR COCHRAN IF I CAN CLARIFY THE PROCESS TO ABOUT THE EXISTING GARAGE AND THE STRUCTURE SETBACK SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THEY'RE NOT SEEKING ANY VARIANCES TO STRUCTURE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. THEY HAVE TO MEET A FIVE FOOT SETBACK TO A GARAGE OR A TEN FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK TO LIVING SPACE. AND SO THE WAY THAT WE MEMORIALIZE THAT OR THE WAY THAT WE EFFECTUATE THAT OUTCOME IS THAT AS THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT COMES THROUGH TWO TYPICALLY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GET ATTACHED TO THAT AS WELL AND ONE OF THOSE IN THIS CASE WOULD BE THAT THEY'RE MEETING THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT PRIOR TO THE PLAT BEING RECORDED WE WOULDN'T WANT TO CREATE AN INTERNAL LOT BOUNDARY THAT DOESN'T MEET THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT SO THEY WOULD NEED TO DEMO THAT GARAGE PRIOR TO RECORDING THE PLANT IN EFFECT. THANK YOU FOR THAT MR. PALMER . ANOTHER QUESTION WAS ASKED ABOUT DRAINAGE AND OTHER THINGS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON SOME THINGS THAT COME BEFORE THE CITY PERHAPS A LARGE DEVELOPMENT WE REQUIRE THINGS LIKE TRAFFIC STUDIES AND OTHER THINGS AND WE LOOK AT THINGS LIKE DRAINAGE. WOULD THAT APPLY HERE? HOW DO WE JUDGE WHETHER SOMETHING IS GOING TO OVERWHELM CITY SERVICES CHAIR COOKED AND THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE DETERMINED WHEN THE SUBDIVISION PLAT IS APPLIED FOR. I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A SIMILAR LOT SUBDIVISION THAT 9111 COLUMBUS AND 9117 COLUMBUS WHERE THERE WAS TO MY KNOWLEDGE AND PLANNING MANAGER JOHNSON CAN CORRECT ME BUT TO MY KNOWLEDGE THERE WERE NO ADDITIONAL STUDIES REQUESTED FROM THE CITY JUST BECAUSE IT WAS GOING AGAIN FROM ONE HOME ON A LARGE LOT TO TWO HOMES ON TO SMALLER LOTS. MR. JOHNSON ANYTHING TO ADD THAT YOU'RE CORRECT IN? THAT'S CORRECT. AND YOU KNOW, SIMILAR TO HOW WE REVIEW LARGER SCALE DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING STAFF ALSO REVIEWS JUST BUILDING PERMITS AND SO WHAT THEY WOULD BE REVIEWING FOR FOR EXAMPLE OUR TRAFFIC STAFF WILL REVIEW THE DRIVEWAY THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY CURB CUT LOCATION TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NOT SIGNIFICANT CONFLICTS WITH WHERE THEY'RE PROPOSING IT AND THEN EVEN CONSTRUCTING A NEW HOUSE TYPICALLY REQUIRES A WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMIT DEPENDING ON WHICH WATERSHED YOU'RE IN. SO THERE IS A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REVIEW AS PART OF THAT AS WELL JUST PART OF A TYPICAL BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS FOR A NEW HOME. SO ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU TYPICALLY SEE WITH LARGER SCALE DEVELOPMENT ARE HAPPENING AT A SMALLER SCALE WITH SMALLER PROJECTS AS WELL . AND JUST TO CLARIFY THAT HAPPENS AT THE SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION. NOW WE'RE REVIEWING THIS EVENING IT WOULD HAPPEN AT BOTH THE PLAT APPLICATION AS WELL AS THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION BECAUSE IN THE CASE OF SOME PLATS YOU KNOW THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE THE DRIVEWAY LOCATION FINALIZED FOR EXAMPLE OR THE HOME LOCATION FINALIZED. THEY'RE JUST CREATING THE LOTS SO IT HAPPENS AT BOTH LEVELS. I UNDERSTAND. THANKS CHAIR. ANOTHER PROCESS QUESTION SO AT WHAT POINT SO AT THIS POINT JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND AT THIS POINT WITH THE VARIANCE, DOES THAT CREATE IS THAT THE ENABLING STEP SO THAT THEY CAN ATTEMPT TO SELL OR IS IT AT THE PLANT POINT THAT THEY CAN ATTEMPT TO SELL THE OTHER PROPERTY? WHEN DOES IT BECOME SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN REALLY ACT ON? CHAIR CORRECT. AND COMMISSIONER WHEN IT WOULD BE ONCE THE PLAT IS RECORDED AND THAT'S WHEN IT'S OFFICIALLY SUBDIVIDED IS WHEN THAT LOT GOES TO THE COUNTY AND IT'S RECORDED UNDER LAW. THANK YOU. GREAT. WE'LL MOVE TO DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER. WELL I HEAR THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORS. I THINK THAT RECOGNIZING THAT ONE OF THE OVERARCHING GOALS IS FINDING A WAY TO INCREASE HOUSING WITHIN BLOOMINGTON. I THINK THAT THIS IS A FAIRLY MINOR REQUEST TO AND I RECOGNIZE IT ULTIMATELY DOES NOT DRAMATICALLY CREATE OPPORTUNITIES BUT I THINK I PERSONALLY AM SUPPORTIVE OF SMALLER LOT SIZES ALSO THROUGHOUT BLOOMINGTON AND SO LOOKING AT A VARIANCE THAT IS A RELATIVELY SMALL REQUEST IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK I CAN SUPPORT. YEAH I, I I'M ALWAYS A LITTLE CAUTIOUS BECAUSE WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF SMALL RIGHT? LIKE WELL WHAT IF THE NEXT ONE IS ONLY 59FT AND THEN THE NEXT ONE 57FT AND SO LIKE I'M KIND OF A BLACK AND WHITE PERSON OF LIKE IT EITHER MEETS IT OR IT DOESN'T IN THIS CASE I THINK YOU HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FACT THAT THERE WAS AN INITIAL MISTAKE IN THE PLANNING. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SOMEONE WHO IS HAS A LOT THAT JUST THEY CAN'T QUITE GET THERE BECAUSE IT'S NOT BIG ENOUGH. IF THERE WAS IT WAS INTENDED TO BE A CERTAIN SIZE. IT'S NOT THE PLIGHT OF THE LANDOWNER THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW THAT THEIR LOT WAS SIX INCHES SHORTER THAN IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE. AND SO I THINK THAT'S A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY THAT'S BEEN PUT UPON THE LANDOWNER THAT'S REALLY OUT OF THEIR CONTROL AND AND NOT THEIR FAULT. AND SO IN THAT CASE I CAN SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE IT WAS INTENDED TO BE 60FT. IT'S IT'S 1950S TECHNOLOGY THAT DIDN'T QUITE WORK OUT RIGHT AND FOR THAT I CAN SUPPORT THE VARIANCE. MR. SUMMERS I AGREE WITH THE TWO COMMISSIONERS WHO SPOKE BEFORE ME. FOR ME WHEN I'M THINKING ABOUT IS SOMETHING SMALL ENOUGH OR AM I AN EASY YES I AM LOOKING AT IF THE VARIANCE IF GRANTED WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY ALTHOUGH I DO RESONATE WITH NEIGHBORS WHO ARE DEEPLY CARING ABOUT THE LAND THAT THEY'RE SHEPHERDING I THINK THAT ONE MORE HOUSE IN THIS AREA IF THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS HERE, IF THE CITY IS GOING OVER ALL OF THE DIFFERENT EFFECTS THAT ONE MORE FAMILY COULD HAVE ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I TRUST THAT THAT WILL BE OKAY AND WON'T ALTER THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TO AN EXTENT THAT WOULD BE INJURIOUS TO THE PEOPLE LIVING THERE CURRENTLY. SO I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SUMMERS COMMISSIONER, MOST FOR YOU KNOW JUST I'M ALSO IN SUPPORT OF THIS. I THINK THE FINDINGS ARE MADE AND I DO WANT TO ECHO MR. CHAIRMAN, WOULD YOU SAID THAT THIS IS TRULY A SORT OF FLOOR OF THE ORIGINAL PLANNING THAT THE MEASUREMENTS WORK RIGHT. YOU KNOW, THIS ISN'T TO SAY THAT RIGHT? WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A HABIT OF SAYING OH NO IS 59.5FT IS FINE AS WE GO FORWARD. THIS IS THIS IS REALLY SORT OF AN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE AND THAT'S WHAT THESE VARIANCES ARE MADE TO ADDRESS . ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION OTHERWISE. COMMISSIONER IN CASE P.L. 2026-3 HAVING BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS I MOVED TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR REDUCED SITE WIDTH FROM 60FT TO 59.5FT AT 9211 COLUMBUS AVENUE SOUTH SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND CODE REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN THE RESOLUTION THERE A SECOND SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THIS VARIANCE. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I OPPOSED THIS MOTION PASSES FOUR ZERO. THIS IS THE FINAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNLESS AN APPEAL IS RECEIVED TO THE CITY COUNCIL BY 4:30 P.M. ON FEBRUARY 24TH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY COMMISSION I HAVE A BIT OF A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE HERE WITH OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING WE ARE I'M GOING TO PROPOSE THAT WE MOVE ITEMS THREE AND FOUR SO JUST FLIPPING THAT IN THE ORDER HERE WHILE WE WAIT FOR ANOTHER COMMISSIONER TO POTENTIALLY JOIN US REMOTELY. SO WE NEED TO DO THAT VIA MOTION. SO I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION NOW TO SWAP ITEMS THREE AND FOUR ON THIS EVENING'S AGENDA. >> I MOVE THAT WE SWAP ITEMS THREE AND FOUR ON THE AGENDA. IS THERE A SECOND SECOND MOTION AND A SECOND TO SWAP ITEMS THREE AND FOUR ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I I OPPOSED THE MOTION PASSES FOUR ZERO WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR WHICH THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON IS THE APPLICANT REGARDING FENCE STANDARDS MR. PALMER, YOU'RE HERE WITH ANOTHER STAFF REPORT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, CHAIR COTTON AGAIN, DILLON PALMER WITH ITEM NUMBER FOUR FOR THE OFFENSE STANDARDS CODE UPDATE . BEAR WITH ME A MOMENT OR POWERPOINT DECIDES WHAT TO DO . ALL RIGHT. THE OBJECTIVES AND THE BACKGROUND OF THIS APPLICATION FROM THE CITY ARE TO UPDATE OUR FENCE CODE TO BE MORE CONCISE AND ALLOW FOR RESIDENTS TO HAVE MORE MORE FLEXIBLE OPTIONS FOR FENCING IN THEIR YARDS. IT WAS ALSO DONE TO ADDRESS CONCERNS ABOUT FENCE MATERIALS AND FENCE HEIGHT. WE'RE MAKING SOME MINOR CODE CHANGES TO UPDATE LANGUAGE AND PROVIDE MORE CLARITY FOR BOTH RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES AND CONTRACTORS. THIS CODE UPDATE WAS INITIALLY PROPOSED AS PART OF THE 2025 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN AND WE HELD STUDY SESSIONS HERE AT PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 4TH OF LAST YEAR AND THEN DECEMBER 15TH OF LAST YEAR WITH CITY COUNCIL. SO TONIGHT WE'LL BE GOING THROUGH EACH CODE SECTION AND I GUESS CHAIR COOKED IN PLANNING MANAGER JOHNSON DID YOU WANT TO HAVE QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION AFTER EACH ITEM OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO HOLD ALL OF THEM TO THE END? I THINK I'D LIKE TO HOLD ALL OF THEM TO THE END PLEASE JUST ALL RIGHT. >> SO WE BEGIN WITH THE FENCE HEIGHT IN THE CORNER SIDE YARD. SO THE CORNER SIDE YARD IS NOT A DEFINED TERM IN OUR ZONING CODE SO THIS IS JUST KIND OF A AN AREA OF THE SIDE YARD ON A CORNER LOT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. SO CURRENT STANDARDS ONLY ALLOW FOR A FOUR FOOT TALL FENCE IN THAT CORNER SIDE YARD AREA WITH A 50% CAPACITY REQUIREMENT AT STUDY SESSION WE PRESENTED FOUR DIFFERENT OPTIONS ONE OF THOSE BEING STAY WITH THE CURRENT CODE, THE OTHER THREE WORKING THEIR WAY MORE LENIENT. WE DECIDED TO GO WITH OPTION C WHICH THIS IS MOST SIMILAR TO THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS WHERE YOU ALLOW A SIX FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT IN THAT CORNER SIDE YARD BEHIND THE REAR PLAIN OF THE HOME AND A FOUR FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT DIRECTLY TO THE SIDE OF THE HOME. THIS WAS DONE MAINLY BECAUSE WE HAD A SPLIT HERE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE STUDY SESSION ABOUT SHOULD IT BE AT THE FRONT PLAIN OF THE HOME SHOULD BE AT THE REAR PLAIN SHOULD WE ALLOW THIS AT ALL? AND THEN CITY COUNCIL WAS ALSO SPLIT BUT LEANED A LITTLE BIT MORE TOWARDS THIS OPTION TO ALLOW FOR JUST THE SIX FOOT AREA BEHIND THE REAR PLANE OF THE HOME THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR RESIDENTS TO HAVE A SLIGHTLY LARGER BACKYARD AREA WHERE THEY COULD HAVE A SIX FOOT TALL FENCE UP BOTH I WILL SAY BOTH BODIES IN THE STUDY SESSIONS WERE OKAY WITH HAVING A FENCE A TALLER FENCE IN THAT CORNER SIDE YARD AREA. THEN JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE BACKGROUND ABOUT WHY DID WE LOOK AT DOING THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE. WE HAVE A LOT OF RESIDENTS WHO LIVE ON CORNER LOTS WHO CANNOT FULLY USE THEIR BACKYARD JUST BECAUSE OF THE PLACEMENT OF THEIR HOME OR THEIR GARAGE DRIVEWAY ANY OTHER KIND OF STRUCTURES. SO ALLOWING THIS AREA TO BE FENCED IN AT A TALLER HEIGHT GIVES PEOPLE A LITTLE BIT MORE ROOM TO DO RECREATION TO ALLOW THEIR PETS IN THE BACKYARDS THEY CAN HAVE THEIR KIDS IN THE BACKYARD AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THEM JUMPING THE FENCE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I ALSO WANT TO ADD THAT THERE IS A TWO FOOT SETBACK FROM SIDEWALKS IN OUR FENCE CODE THAT IS PROPOSED TO REMAIN THE SAME. WE'RE NOT CHANGING THAT AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO ADD THAT I DON'T WANT TO SAY ALL BUT A DECENT MAJORITY OF PROPERTY LINES IN THE CITY INSIDE YARDS DO NOT DIRECTLY ABOUT THE CURB OR DIRECTLY BUT THE STREET. USUALLY THERE'S A PIECE OF RIGHT AWAY IT CAN BE ANYWHERE FROM LIKE 5 TO 10FT BETWEEN THE STREET AND WHERE A FENCE COULD GO AGAIN, THAT'S NOT IN ALL CASES BUT THAT'S IN MOST CASES OF CORNER YARDS ACROSS THE CITY. MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT PROPOSED CODE CHANGE AND THAT IS THE CAPACITY REQUIREMENT. SO WE BROUGHT THIS UP AT THE STUDY SESSION JUST AS KIND OF AN EXPLORATORY QUESTION AND FEEDBACK FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS GENERALLY NOT SUPPORTIVE. HOWEVER CITY COUNCIL WAS MORE SUPPORTIVE OF REDUCING OR COMPLETELY GETTING RID OF THE 50% CAPACITY REQUIREMENT. SO AS IT STANDS NOW FENCES IN THE FRONT YARD THEY'RE ONLY ALLOWED TO BE FOUR FEET TALL AND THEY HAVE TO BE 50% OKAY SO THEY HAVE TO BE SEE THROUGH KIND OF LIKE A PICKET FENCE REMOVING THIS REQUIREMENT. IT WOULD JUST ALLOW FOR THE FOUR FOOT TALL IT STILL BE FOUR FOOT TALL IN THE FRONT YARD TO BE CLEAR BUT IT WOULD ALLOW FOR FULLY OPAQUE FENCES . SO THOSE TWO EXAMPLES BELOW FROM NEIGHBORING JURISTIC REASONS THE ONE ON THE LEFT FOR ME AND THE ONE ON THE RIGHT FROM RICHFIELD AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO ADD THAT IN GENERAL IN MY GOOGLE MAPS EXPLORATION LOOKING FOR THESE EXAMPLES YOU DON'T SEE A LOT OF FENCES IN THE FRONT YARD TO BEGIN WITH AND YOU REALLY DON'T SEE A LOT OF OPAQUE FENCES. SO WHERE THERE IS DEMAND FOR THIS I CAN MAINLY SEE PEOPLE LOOKING IF THEY HAVE A LARGE FAMILY OR PETS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT AND THEY REALLY NEED THAT FRONT YARD FENCED IN THAT'S THE MAIN CASE WHERE PEOPLE WOULD PUT UP A FULLY OPAQUE FOUR FOOT FENCE IN THEIR FRONT YARD. ANOTHER REASON THAT WE PROPOSE THIS ITEM IS BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT SCREENING THEIR GARBAGE CANS OR REFUSE CANS AND ALLOWING FOR THIS FOUR FOOT OPAQUE FENCE WOULD PROVIDE THEM A KIND OF A SHIELD TO PREVENT PEOPLE ON THE STREET FROM SEEING THOSE GUYS. ALL RIGHT. OUR THIRD MAJOR CODE CHANGE OR CODE PROPOSAL HERE IS TO AMEND FENCE MATERIALS LANGUAGE. SO WE'RE PROPOSING LANGUAGE TO CLARIFY THAT PLASTIC SLAT SO THAT'S THE IMAGE ON THE BOTTOM LEFT THERE DO NOT COUNT TOWARDS SCREENING REQUIREMENTS . THE REASON THAT WE DID THIS IS BECAUSE OF CONCERNS FROM OUR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT WHO ENFORCED THE FENCE STANDARDS ACROSS THE CITY. THEY NOTICED THAT A LOT OF THESE PLASTIC SLATS THEY GET DAMAGED OVER THE YEARS WHETHER IT'S FROM SNOW GETTING THROWN ON THEM FROM PLOWS, WHETHER IT'S SIGN PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, BACKING CARS INTO THEM, WHATEVER THESE PLASTIC SLATS THEY END UP DAMAGED AND THEY CREATE HOLES IN THE FENCE THAT DO NOT PROPERLY SCREEN THE PROPERTY PROPERLY SCREEN APPROPRIATE EXCUSE ME. WE'RE ALSO PROPOSING LANGUAGE TO RESTRICT FENCE COVERINGS TO A COMMERCIALLY BUILT PRODUCT MANUFACTURED SPECIFICALLY FOR USE ON FENCING. SO THAT'S THE PHOTO ON THE RIGHT THERE THAT'S JUST PULLED FROM THE INTERNET. THE MAIN POINT OF THIS CODE LANGUAGE IS TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM PUTTING TARPS UP ON THEIR FENCES OR SOME KIND OF MATERIAL THAT IS UNSIGHTLY AND DOES NOT PROMOTE GOOD NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. SO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DID HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH PEOPLE PUTTING UP TARPS ON THEIR FENCES OF THIS. THAT'S WHY THIS PIECE OF LANGUAGE WAS ADDED IN THERE . SO THIS IS OUR FOURTH MAJOR CODE CHANGE. SO THIS I'D LIKE TO START OFF BY SAYING THIS CODE CHANGE IT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE STUDY SESSION. HOWEVER IT WAS SUPPORTED BY CITY COUNCIL AT THEIR STUDY SESSION MEETING. THE ORDINANCE IS PROPOSING TO ADD LANGUAGE TO ALLOW FOR EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCES AT THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING SETBACK AND ALL ZONING DISTRICTS. SO FOR EXAMPLE THIS GRAPHIC BELOW THIS IS FOR AN R-1 PROPERTY THEY HAVE 30 FOOT FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS AND THEN THEY HAVE TEN FOOT SIDE SETBACKS SO THAT GREEN SQUARE IN THE MIDDLE SURROUNDING THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE THAT'S THE AREA WHERE THEY COULD PLACE AN EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCE. THE RATIONALE BEHIND THIS WAS ONE AT THE STRUCTURE SETBACK YOU'RE ALLOWED TO PUT A 40 FOOT TALL STRUCTURE THERE IF YOU WISH AND R-1 DISTRICT THAT IS OTHER RATIONALE IS THERE ARE SOME LOTS PARTICULARLY DOWN ALONG THE BLUFF LINE ALONG THE RIVER THAT ARE VERY DEEP AND PEOPLE LIKE TO THESE TALLER EIGHT FOOT FENCES FOR PRIVACY. AGAIN, THIS IS VERY LIMITED PLACES ACROSS THE CITY VERY FEW LOTS WHERE THIS WOULD ACTUALLY WORK TO PUT UP AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE IN THEIR FRONT YARD. AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO ADD THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE IS ALREADY ALLOWED IN THE SIDE IN THE REAR YARD AT THE SETBACKS. SO WE'RE JUST EXPANDING THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE AREA TO THE AREA OR PROPOSING TO EXPAND THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE AREA IN FRONT OF THE HOME IN LOTS THAT ARE DEEP ENOUGH TO ALLOW FOR THAT. >> AND THEN OUR FIFTH PIECE OF THIS IS JUST SOME MINOR CODE LANGUAGE CLEANUP. WE'RE PROPOSING LANGUAGE TO REMOVE STANDARDS FOR ARBORS AND TRELLISES FROM SECTION 21 THROUGH 1 TO 8 WHICH IS THE FENCE CODE. THERE ARE ALREADY STANDARDS IN PLACE IN ANOTHER SECTION OF THE CODE THAT DEFINE SEPARATE STANDARDS. WE'RE ALSO PROPOSING TO REMOVE LANGUAGE THAT STATES FENCES MAY BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE PROPERTY LINE. THIS IS MAINLY JUST TO REMOVE THE CITY FROM ANY LEGAL LIABILITY IF SOMEBODY IS TO BUILD THEIR FENCE ON THE PROPERTY LINE AND WEAR WHAT THEY THINK IS THE PROPERTY LINE AND IT'S NOT IT COULD OPEN THE CITY UP TO A LEGAL CHALLENGE. SO WE'RE JUST REMOVING THAT LANGUAGE TO REMOVE THE CITY'S LIABILITY IN THOSE CASES. AND THEN AN ADDITIONAL NOTE ABOUT LEGAL NONCONFORMITY SO FENCES BUILT PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE FENCE CODE IN 2008 ARE LEGALLY NON CONFORMING. THERE ARE MANY OF THESE ALL OVER THE CITY WHERE PEOPLE BUILT THEIR FENCE WELL PRIOR TO 2008. THEY DO NOT CURRENTLY CONFORM TO OUR CURRENT FENCE STANDARDS AND THAT'S OKAY. THEY WERE THERE PRIOR TO 2008 SO THEY'RE CONSIDERED LEGALLY NONCONFORMING. ONE PART OF THIS CODE UPDATE OR ONE OF THE REASONS WE'RE DOING THIS CODE UPDATE AIMS TO BRING SOME OF THOSE FENCES INTO CONFORMITY SO THEY'RE NO LONGER LEGALLY NONCONFORMING. THEY'RE JUST ABIDING BY THE CODE AND IT WOULD NOT CREATE ANY ADDITIONAL NONCONFORMITY. SO THAT WAS A REQUEST FROM CITY COUNCIL TO ADD THAT NOTE IN THERE THAT WE ARE NOT HURTING ANY CURRENT EXISTING FENCES BY AMENDING THIS CODE. SO STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL THROUGH THE FOLLOWING MOTION. THIS WILL GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON MARCH 23RD BASED OFF OF THE RECOMMENDATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION THIS EVENING. THANK YOU MR. PALMER. WE'LL BEGIN WITH QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AND I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE EIGHT FOOT FENCES. WHAT IS THE CAPACITY ALLOWANCE ON THOSE IF A CHAIR HOOKED IN IF ALL OF THE CODE AMENDMENTS ARE TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL IT WOULD BE A THERE WOULDN'T BE AN OPACITY REQUIREMENT. SO THEORETICALLY YOU COULD PUT UP A FULLY OPAQUE EIGHT FOOT FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF NOT SEEING ANY THANK YOU MR. PALMER, IS THERE ANYONE HERE FROM THE CITY AS AN APPLICANT THAT WISHES TO TESTIFY ON THIS? I DON'T BELIEVE SO. WITH THAT THEN I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK IF THERE'S ANYONE IN THE CHAMBERS WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY ON THIS ITEM. SEE NO ONE COMING FORWARD. I'LL ASK IF THERE'S ANYONE ONLINE WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY. >> OUR PARTICIPANTS ONLINE. OUR STAFF. THANK YOU MS. BROWN. I WILL THEN ASK FOR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SO MOVED THERE SECOND SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL NOTE THAT WE NOW HAVE A COMMISSIONER REMOTE SO WE WILL DO A ROLL CALL VOTING MS. BROWN IN I LANI I MONSTER SUMMERS IN CUNNINGHAM ABSTAIN THE MOTION PASSES FOUR ZERO WITH ONE ABSTENTION WE WILL MOVE THEN TO DISCUSSION . I WILL GET US STARTED. WE DID SEE THIS AS A STUDY ITEM A BIT WHILE AGO I THINK IT WAS IN DECEMBER AND I HAVEN'T I HAVEN'T BEEN PERSUADE TO FEEL DIFFERENTLY ABOUT IT. I HAVE A COUPLE OF ISSUES WITH THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. I'M NOT A FAN OF FULLY OPAQUE FENCES. I, I JUST I THINK IT IT LENDS A LICENSE FOR NUISANCES BEHIND A FULLY OPAQUE FENCE WHETHER THAT BE JUST KEEPING YOUR YARD LESS TIDY AND IF YOU HAD AN OPAQUE FENCE OR A FENCE WITH THAT WASN'T FULLY OPAQUE OR OTHER THINGS AND SAFETY AND A VARIETY OF OTHER THINGS AND I DON'T SEE A GREAT DEAL OF BENEFIT FOR FRONT FRONT FENCES TO BE FULLY OPAQUE SO I CAN'T SUPPORT THAT. MY BIGGER PROBLEM IS THE EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCES. I JUST CAN'T SUPPORT IT. I DON'T THINK BLOOMINGTON IS A CITY THAT NEEDS EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCES. WE IT'S THOSE ARE HUGE. AN EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCE IS ENORMOUS AND ESPECIALLY TO BE FULLY OPAQUE I MEAN THAT IS THAT'S LIKE THAT'S LIKE HIGHWAY STUFF TO PUT A FULLY OPAQUE EIGHT FOOT FENCE I MEAN THAT IS THAT IS A VERY VERY AGGRESSIVE FENCE THAT I DON'T THINK WE NEED THAT IN AN URBAN COMMUNITY LIKE THIS AGAIN, I THINK IT LENDS ITSELF TO NUISANCES THAT WE WE JUST DON'T NEED. I, I THINK THAT IS BUILDING UP WALLS INSTEAD OF A WELCOMING COMMUNITY WELCOMING COMMUNITIES, OUR COMMUNITIES THAT ARE ALIVE AND MAYBE YOU DON'T LIKE YOUR NEIGHBOR THAT MUCH BUT YOU KNOW BIG DEAL LIKE WE SEE EACH OTHER WE'RE IN THE SAME COMMUNITY. WE'RE NOT BUILDING UP THESE ENORMOUS FENCES TO BE BY OURSELVES AND AND CORDONED OFF FROM THE REST OF THE WORLD. THIS IS A DENSE URBAN COMMUNITY THAT IS FULLY POPULATED AND LOOKING TO DENSIFY AND I DON'T THINK ADDING THAT LAYER OF OF IT PRIVACY CALL WHATEVER YOU WANT IS APPROPRIATE IN BLOOMINGTON I CANNOT SUPPORT A FOOT TALL FENCES I CERTAINLY CAN'T SUPPORT EIGHT FOOT TALL FULLY OPAQUE FENCES AND I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS APPLICATION COMMISSION WHEN I WELL IN ONE OF THE RARE CASES OF DISAGREEMENT I DO NOT THANK YOU CHAIR. I DO NOT TAKE ISSUE WITH THIS. I DON'T LOVE THE IDEA OF EIGHT FOR FENCES. I DON'T LOVE THE IDEA OF OPAQUE FENCES BUT HAVING LIVED IN COMMUNITIES WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE RESTRICTIONS LIKE THIS I DON'T THINK IN MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IT HASN'T BEEN A HINDRANCE TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND IF ANYTHING I DO THINK IT CAN SOMETIMES ALSO PREVENT CONFLICT BETWEEN NEIGHBORS PARTICULARLY IF TIDINESS IS AN ISSUE AND OR SPECIFIC BREEDS OF DOGS PARTICULARLY MORE DANGEROUS DOGS CAN BE A BIT OF A CONCERN . SO WHILE I DON'T LOVE THE IDEA OF LIVING NEXT DOOR TO SOMEONE WITH AN EIGHT FOOT TALL FULLY OPAQUE FENCE, I DO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN CHOICES INDIVIDUALS MAY MAKE WHERE HAVING THAT FENCE MAY BE BENEFICIAL AND THINK THAT THERE ARE ADVANTAGES TO THE CITY REDUCING SOME OF THE RESTRICTIONS. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER. MR. I, I WILL DISAGREE WITH THE CHAIR INSOFAR AS THE CAPACITY STANDARDS PARTICULARLY ON THOSE FOUR FOOT FRONT YARD FENCES. I DON'T SEE A HUGE ISSUE THERE ONLY BECAUSE IT'S FOUR FEET TALL IT CAN ONLY HIDE SO MUCH BACK THERE. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SEE OVER IT AND I THINK THIS ORDINANCE OVERALL IS IS MAKING A LOT OF VERY GOOD CHANGES. I FULLY APPRECIATE THE CORNER SIDE YARD CHANGE. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD COMPROMISE IN RECOGNIZING SORT OF THE WEIRD CHARACTER OF A CORNER SIDE YARD THAT IT'S KIND OF A FRONT YARD BUT IT'S ALSO SOMEONE'S BACKYARD. SO I THINK THAT'S THAT IS THE RIGHT DIRECTION THERE. I AM HOWEVER NOT AT ALL SUPPORTIVE OF EIGHT FOOT FENCES IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU KNOW AND AGAIN IN THE STAFF REPORT NOTES IT WE WE WERE AGAINST THAT THE FIRST TIME THIS CAME THROUGH. I'M SURE IT'S NO SURPRISE TO ANYBODY THAT WE'RE NOT A FAN OF IT NOW. BUT ASIDE FROM THAT I THINK IT'S IT'S I THINK IT'S A GOOD ORDINANCE BUT THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD I JUST CAN'T SUPPORT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. MR. COMMISSIONER SUMMERS. I OH THANK YOU CHAIR AND I THE OPACITY WHEN WE FIRST TALKED ABOUT THIS DIDN'T SEEM LIKE A REAL CONCERN TO ME. I ALSO THINK THAT SOME OF OUR MORE STRICTER STRUCTURED AND STRICT NEIGHBORS DON'T HAVE A CAPACITY REQUIREMENT SO I FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE KNOWING THAT THEY HAVEN'T FOUND ENOUGH NUISANCES TO ADD OPACITY REQUIREMENTS TO THEIR FENCING . UM AND I THINK THAT ELIMINATING THAT MAKES THINGS A LOT SIMPLER AND EASIER. I APPRECIATE ALSO THAT I WAS IN FAVOR OF NOT HAVING THE SIX FOOT FENCING START IN FRONT OF THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY LINE SO SEEING THAT IN THERE IS SOMETHING I CAN SUPPORT. WHAT I WAS THINKING WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THE EIGHT FOOT FENCING GRAPHIC WAS WOW IT WOULD BE GREAT TO SEE THIS WITH A REAL HOUSE BECAUSE IN MY HEAD IT LOOKS LIKE A FORTRESS IF SOMEONE'S BUILDING AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE AROUND THEIR HOME I AM NOT IN SUPPORT PERSONALLY OF EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCES IN THE FRONT OF THE HOME AND THERE'S A TENSION THERE BECAUSE I THINK THAT I'M TRYING TO STEP OUTSIDE WHAT MY PERSONAL OPINION IS WHEN I WOULD SEE A NEIGHBOR BUILDING A FENCE LIKE THAT THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE MY NEIGHBOR . UM, SO IT WAS HELPFUL CLARIFICATION THAT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS BROUGHT UP THAT THERE WERE PEOPLE LIVING IN BLOOMINGTON WHO MIGHT APPRECIATE THE ABILITY TO BUILD A FENCE LIKE THAT BECAUSE OF THE OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD NOT BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO SEE THEIR NEIGHBOR NEIGHBORS OR INTERACT WITH THEM. SO THERE'S TROUBLE WITH THE EIGHT FOOT FENCING FOR ME IN THE FRONT OF THE HOME BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH FOR ME TO VOTE AGAINST THIS. I THINK I AM IN SUPPORT. MR. JOHNSON DO YOU HAVE ANY CONTEXT TO PROVIDE FOR US? YEAH. THANK YOU CHAIR COACH AND IF I CAN SHED A LITTLE MORE LIGHT ON THE EIGHT FOOT FENCING AND NOT TO DISSUADE THE OR NOT TO MOVE KIND OF THE DISCUSSION THAT'S BEEN HAPPENING IN ONE DIRECTION OR THE OTHER. BUT DILLON CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE ABOUT THE EIGHT FOOT FENCING JUST TO ADD SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SO THE WAY THAT THE RULES WORK TODAY IS THAT IF YOU'RE MEETING THE SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS AND YOU'RE EVEN OR BEHIND THE HOME YOU CURRENTLY CAN HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCE. SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY AND BE ON THE RECORD THAT THAT'S WHAT THE RULE IS TODAY GIVEN THAT THAT IS THE CURRENT RULE . I JUST WANT TO REPORT THAT WE DON'T SEE A LOT OF EIGHT FOOT FENCING CONSTRUCTED IN BLOOMINGTON DESPITE THIS CURRENT EXISTING ALLOWANCE AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS TO TWOFOLD ONE PEOPLE WANT TO BUILD FENCES ALONG THEIR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES. THEY DON'T LIKE SEGMENTING OFF PORTIONS OF THEIR LOT BY HAVING TO MEET THESE SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. SO THAT'S ONE FACTOR. ANOTHER FACTOR JUST HAPPENS TO BE THE FACT THAT EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCES ARE VERY EXPENSIVE TO CONSTRUCT. YOU HAVE TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT. IT REALLY ELEVATES THE COST OF SAID PROJECT QUITE A BIT. SO I SAY THAT TO SHARE THAT I WANT TO HONOR THE CONCERNS I SHARE SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS ABOUT TALLER FENCING AND FRONT YARDS. I JUST WANT TO SHARE THIS INFORMATION FROM THE STANDPOINT THAT I WOULD NOT ANTICIPATE REGARDLESS OF WHICH DIRECTION YOU GO WITH THIS TO SEE A PROLIFERATION OF THIS TYPE OF FENCING FOR THE TWO FACTORS THAT I JUST MENTIONED. ANOTHER THING TO CONSIDER HERE IS THAT UNDER TODAY'S FENCE CODE FOR THOSE LOTS THAT DYLAN MENTIONED ABOUT THE VERY DEEP LOTS ALONG THE BLUFF, YOU'RE ALSO NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE A SIX FOOT TALL FENCE IN FRONT OF THE FRONT PLANE OF YOUR HOME EVEN IF YOUR HOME IS 50FT BACK YOU COULDN'T HAVE A SIX FOOT TALL FENCE AT A 40 FOOT. SO WHETHER IT BE AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE OR A SIX FOOT FENCE, WE'VE GOTTEN, YOU KNOW, REQUESTS BOTH WAYS THAT I'D LIKE SOME FORM OF, YOU KNOW, SIX FOOT FENCING IN FRONT OF MY MY HOME BECAUSE MY HOME IS SETBACK A SIGNIFICANT DISTANCE FROM THE ROADWAY. SO EITHER WAY THAT KIND OF ISSUE IS STILL THERE. THE FINAL THING I'D SAY IS THAT TWO YEARS AGO THE CITY ADOPTED A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION POLICY IN OUR ZONING CODE WHICH IF YOU ARE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE A NEED FOR A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION WE HAVE HAD SOME CIRCUMSTANCE CASES WHERE TALLER FENCING BEYOND WHAT IS ALLOWED IN THE FENCE CODE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED UNDER A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION. SO THAT DOES EXIST IN THE CODE. NOW TODAY THAT WILL CONTINUE TO EXIST IN CIRCUMSTANCES IS THAT YOU KNOW HAVE TO DO WITH A DISABILITY. THE CITY HAS APPROVED THAT ACCOMMODATION THROUGH THIS PROVISION THAT WAS ADOPTED TWO YEARS AGO. SO JUST A COUPLE ADDITIONAL POINTS OF CONTEXT ABOUT THIS. THANK YOU. MR. JOHNSON YEAH. I THINK WHAT WAS LAID OUT BEFORE US KIND OF ONLY REINFORCES MY THOUGHTS ON THIS THE FACT THAT WE DON'T THINK MANY OF THESE ARE GOING TO BE BUILT. I THINK THAT'S EVEN MORE REASON TO WE'RE NOT HELPING THAT MANY PEOPLE BY ALLOWING THIS TO TO GO FORWARD. AND SO FOR THAT REASON I'M STILL NON SUPPORT AND FURTHERMORE THE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION THING HELPS ME A LOT SO IF THERE IS A CASE AND WE'VE ACTUALLY APPROVED ONE OF THESE I BELIEVE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO WHERE THERE IS A ACTUAL NEED FOR AN EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCE FOR THOSE SPECIFIC REASONS THAT CAN BE GRANTED BY THE CITY. AND SO THAT AGAIN PREVENTS A PROLIFERATION OF EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCES BUT STILL ALLOWS FOR SOMETHING WHERE THERE IS A REAL NEED FOR IT TO THE POINT AND YOU AND I APPRECIATE STAFF'S OPINION ON THIS BUT I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE. OKAY THERE'S THERE'S A HOUSE THERE SO WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A HOUSE AND A FENCE? I THINK THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT ONE'S A HOUSE AND ONE'S A FENCE. I, I THINK IT DOES CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF A NEIGHBORHOOD TO SEE A HOUSE VERSUS A VERY LARGE FULLY OPAQUE PRIVACY FENCE. I THINK THOSE TWO THINGS HAVE VERY DIFFERENT MESSAGES TO YOUR NEIGHBORS TO JUST YOUR YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN GENERAL OF YOU KNOW, HOW WELCOMING IT FEELS AND YOU KNOW IT I THINK IT JUST DOES NOT CREATE A WELCOMING NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN YOU'RE PUTTING UP HUGE FENCES EVEN IF IT'S IN LIMITED CAPACITY, I JUST CAN'T SUPPORT IT. MR. MOSER I CONCUR WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN. I JUST HAVE ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION FOR MR. JOHNSON, IF I MAY. SINCE THE TALK HAS SORT OF BEEN THE HOUSES ON THE BLUFFS THAT ARE SET INCREDIBLY FAR BACK, IS THAT WHERE THE CURRENT 65 FOOT RULE COMES FROM AND I GUESS JUST BEFORE YOU EVEN ANSWER AND IF SO THEN IS THE 65 FOOT RULE ADEQUATE? MR. JOHNSON CHAIR COMMISSIONER MUNSTER THE 65 FOOT RULE WE WERE DESCRIBING IT IN OUR LAST MEETING AS A STUDY MEETING AS LEGACY CODE. THE REASON WHY IT WAS 65FT IS BECAUSE THE CITY USED TO HAVE A STANDARD CALLED PREVAILING SETBACK MEANING YOU HAD TO MEET THE AVERAGE OF TWO HOMES THAT WERE NEXT TO YOU. BUT IN NO CASE WITH THE FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT BE GREATER THAN 65FT. SO THAT'S WHY THAT 65 FOOT DIMENSION SETBACK FROM THE FRONT WAS ADDED TO THE FENCE CODE IS BECAUSE THAT WAS THE FURTHEST SETBACK UNDER THE OLD PREVAILING SETBACK REQUIREMENT LEGACY CODE AS WE TALKED ABOUT IT. SO IS IT ADEQUATE POTENTIALLY? YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I DON'T SEE THESE PROJECTS OFTEN ENOUGH TO REALLY HAVE A GOOD DATA SET OR TO CHOOSE FROM TO PROVIDE GOOD DIRECTION THERE. I WOULD NOTE THAT IN THE ORDINANCE IT DOES SHOW THE STRIKETHROUGH OF WHAT THE EXISTING CODE IS TODAY. YOU KNOW IT JUST HASN'T COME UP VERY OFTEN FRANKLY I THINK YOU REALLY NEED TO GO BACK TO THE MOTION. MR. PALMER THANK YOU. SO I GUESS THE QUESTION IS DO WE HAVE TO GO WITH THIS MOTION OR CAN WE ALTER THE MOTION BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE WE MIGHT BE AT A BIT OF AN IMPASSE ON THIS MOTION AS WRITTEN INCLUDING EVERYTHING IN A SINGLE MOTION. SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS IS NOT AN ALL OR NOTHING SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE TO TAKE THE MOTION BEFORE US. WE CERTAINLY COULD START WITH THAT SEE WHERE THE VOTING LIES IF WE DON'T REACH A MAJORITY DECISION WE COULD THEN TRY ANOTHER MOTION. THERE'S ALSO THE ABILITY HERE TO MODIFY THE MOTION THAT'S PROPOSED. IS THAT ALL CORRECT? MR. TUSK I'M SEEING A HANDFUL OF YES THAT YOU'RE COOKED IN. THAT'S CORRECT. AND I MEAN AND YOU'RE WHAT YOU'RE WEARING YOUR LEGISLATIVE HAT RIGHT NOW AND SO YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU THAT WOULD WOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER WELL WELL THEN I'M GOING TO MAKE A PROPOSAL. I'M GOING TO MOVE ON THIS SO THAT WE CAN VOTE ON THAT TO FIGURE OUT IF WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD. CAN WE DO THAT? I MOVED TO CLOSE THE DISCUSSION FIRST. WELL WE DON'T NEED TO MOVE THE OF DISCUSSION. I WILL ASK IF THERE'S ANY OTHER THOUGHTS BEFORE WE BEGIN MOTIONS. I'M NOT SEEING ANY. COMMISSIONER REALLY IF YOU'D LIKE TO ATTEMPT A MOTION HERE IN CASE PL 2026 DASH 12 I MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE CLARIFYING FENCE HEIGHT EXEMPTIONS, REMOVING FENCE CAPACITY STANDARDS AND ADDING FENCE COVERING MATERIAL STANDARDS THEREBY AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE CITY CODE. IS THERE A SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO THE MOTION PRESENTED BEFORE US. I WILL ASK MS. BROWN TO CALL THE ROLL KICKED IN. NO LENNY. YES. MONSTER NO SUMMERS YES. IN CUNNINGHAM ABSTAIN. MOTION IS TIED TO TWO WHICH I BELIEVE MEANS IT DOES NOT PASS. IT FAILS. WE DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEMPT ANOTHER MOTION IF WE CHOOSE THE LESSER QUESTION IF I MAY ASK A QUESTION YES IN IF WE MODIFY THIS DO WE HAVE TO SPECIFY THE MODIFICATION TO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE OR JUST WITH ENOUGH DETAIL IN THE MOTION THAT STAFF CAN MAKE THE CHANGE? I THINK ENOUGH DETAIL OR STAFF CAN MAKE THE CHANGE. SO JUST FOR THE RECORD FOR CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS THE THE PROVISION WITH THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE HEIGHT IS 21.301 .08 PARENTHESES. FRIENDS TO PERSONS CAPITAL B SO THAT'S CAN YOU. YEP 21.301 .08 SMALL PER AND PAREN SMALL C PER NS TWO THAN PER NS CAPITAL B SO THAT'S THE SECTION WHERE THE CHANGE WAS MADE REGARDING THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE SO SOUNDED LIKE THAT'S WHERE MAYBE THAT DISCUSSION WOULD BE TO MODIFY THAT CHANGE SO AND IF THE MOTION FOR SO CHOOSE I THINK THEY COULD STATE THE SECTION REFERENCED BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY AND SORT OF RE TRYING TO READ THAT PART VERBATIM. OKAY COMMISSIONER, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION. I WILL HOLD THOSE. OKAY. COMMISSIONER MUNSTER IF HE WAS PLANNING TO MAKE THAT MOTION FIRST COMMISSIONER WHEN I OKAY COMMISSIONER LINNEY IN CASE PL 2026 DASH 12 I MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE CLEAR, CLARIFYING AND TIGHT EXCEPTIONS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 21.301 .08 PER AND C PERSONS TO PERSONS B REGARDING THE EIGHT FOOT HEIGHT ELIMINATION REMOVING FENCE OPACITY STANDARDS AND ADDING FENCE COVERING MATERIALS MATERIAL STANDARDS THEREBY AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE CITY CODE. SO SECOND SECOND ALL RIGHT. IF I MIGHT CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY'S ON THE SAME PAGE VOTING ON THE SAME THING HERE SO WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS MAKING A MOTION TO STRIKE ALL THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE TO THAT SPECIFIC SECTION AND GO BACK TO WHAT IT SAID BEFORE, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, ARE WE ALL CLEAR ON THAT'S OKAY. IF WE'RE NOT WE CAN TAKE ANOTHER BREATH HERE IF WE NEED TO CLARIFY . OKAY. IS THERE A DO WE GET A SECOND SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE MOTION PROPOSED BY COMMISSIONER LINNEY. MS. BROWN PLEASE CALL THE ROLL KICKED IN. NO LENNY. YES. MONSTER YES. AND SUMMERS? YES. AND CUNNINGHAM ABSTAINED. THAT MOTION PASSES THREE ONE WITH ONE ABSTENTION. THAT RECOMMENDATION WILL GO BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL AS A PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 23RD, 2026. THANK YOU, MR. PULVER NOTING FOR THE RECORD THAT COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM HAS JOINED US VIRTUALLY ONLINE. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THEN TO ITEM NUMBER THREE FOR WHICH I WILL BE ABSTAINING MYSELF TO AVOID A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. ACTING CHAIR FOR THIS ITEM WILL BE COMMISSIONER LINNEY OKAY. OKAY SO THIS IS MY FIRST TIME DOING THIS SO PATIENTS SO THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. THE APPLICANT IS ROOSEVELT AND COMPANY AND I THINK WE'LL HEAR FIRST THIS IS A PRIVATELY INITIATED CITY CODE AMENDMENT AND I BELIEVE FIRST WE ARE GOING TO HEAR FROM CITY PLANNER MIKE CENTENARIAN. MR. SCENARIO THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS THE TOWNS ITEM THREE OBVIOUSLY WE CHANGE THIS ORDER AROUND A LITTLE BIT BUT WE'RE ASKING THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER A PRIVATELY INITIATED CITY CODE AMENDMENT RELATED TO AIRPORT PARKING OR REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING SPECIFICALLY THIS HAS BEEN QUITE A LONG PROCESS. WE WENT THROUGH AN AIRPORT PARKING STUDY LAST YEAR, MADE A NUMBER OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED MOST OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS BUT THEN ASKED STAFF TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH EXISTING SORRY EXISTING AIRPORT PARKING OPERATORS WHICH WE DID AND I COULD PROVIDE SOME MORE CONTEXT AND WE'LL WE'LL GO THROUGH SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT ARE BEFORE YOU TODAY. BUT LIKE WE ALWAYS LIKE TO DO PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT THIS ORDINANCE THAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING TONIGHT FOCUSES ON TO REALLY ON TWO SITES PARKING GO AND PARKING FLY THOSE ARE THE TWO EXISTING REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON AND THESE ARE THE TWO SITES THAT WOULD BE THE ORDINANCE ADDRESSES IN SOME DETAIL. SO PARKING FLY AS YOU CAN SEE ON SCREEN. YOU KNOW THESE ARE SLIDES YOU MAY RECALL FROM PAST MEETINGS BUT A LITTLE OVER 12 ACRES OVER 2000 PARKING STALLS. THE PARKING STRUCTURE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE SITE IT WAS BUILT IN 1994 INTENDED FOR AN OFFICE TOWER THAT DID NOT MATERIALIZE. MORE RECENTLY ONE OF THE CITY CODE AMENDMENTS THAT WAS ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL IN SEPTEMBER OF LAST YEAR WAS THAT ALL INTERIM USE PERMITS FOR REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING AIRPORT PARKING HAS NEVER BEEN A PERMANENTLY APPROVED USE. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN UNDER TEMPORARY APPROVALS SPECIFICALLY WHAT'S CALLED AN INTERIM USE PERMIT. THE INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR PARKING FLY EXPIRES AUGUST 8TH OF NEXT YEAR. SIMILARLY PARKING GO WHICH RECENTLY WENT THROUGH AN INTERIM USE PERMIT EXTENSION THERE INTERVIEWS PERMIT ALSO EXPIRES AUGUST 8TH, 2027 AND THAT WAS VERY DELIBERATE TO PUT THESE TWO SITES WILL HAVE SIMILAR USES ON THE SAME TIMELINE TO TRY AND FIND A PERMANENT A PERMANENT SOLUTION TO A USE THAT'S BEEN UNDER TEMPORARY APPROVALS FOR WELL OVER 30 YEARS. BUT PARKING GO IS JUST A SLIGHTLY BIT LARGER SITE 12.5 ACRES BUT IT'S 100% SURFACE SO ABOUT 1500 PARKING STALLS AND SO ZOOMING OUT A LITTLE BIT AND THE AREA WITHIN THE SOUTH OF DISTRICT SO FOR 94 IS ON THE NORTH END OF THIS GRAPHIC OF THE TWO SITES PARKING GO IS TO THE LEFT OR WEST AND THEN PARKING FLY IS TO THE RIGHT THE THE COLOR SYSTEM HERE IS THE ZONING ORDINANCE HSR OR HIGH INTENSITY MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL I THINK IS THE TITLE AND THEN FOR PARKING FLY THE EAST REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING FACILITY THAT HATCHING THAT STANDS FOR THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY SO PARKING GO DOES NOT HAVE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY PARKING FLY DOES BUT BOTH SITES THE BASE ZONING OR THE UNDERLYING ZONING IS HSR SO A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTEXT SETTING OR BACKGROUND RELATED TO THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION. SO THE CASE FILE NUMBER IS 2025 153 AND SO WE'RE OBVIOUSLY NOT IN 2025 ANYMORE AND THIS PRIVATELY INITIATED COMMENT WAS ORIGINAL ONLY SUBMITTED IN OCTOBER AND WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY EXCUSE ME WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY STAFF AND WE CAN GO INTO DETAIL AND WHY NOT BUT STAFF RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THAT AND THAT ORDINANCE AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGREED WITH STAFF AND RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL DENY THE AUDIENCE. HOWEVER, THE ORDINANCE NEVER MADE IT TO CITY COUNCIL. THE APPLICANT EXTENDED THE AGENCY ACTION TIMELINE THE SHOT CLOCK IF YOU WILL, FOR CITIES TO TAKE ACTION ON PROPOSALS AND WE ENGAGED IN A DISCOURSE ON WHAT WHAT THE APPLICANT COULD ACCEPT AND WHAT THE CITY COULD SUPPORT AND THAT LED US TO WHERE WE ARE TONIGHT. SO THE MOST RECENT PROPOSAL ORDINANCE THAT YOU ARE SEEING TONIGHT AND BEING ASKED TO TAKE ACTION ON WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT A MONTH AGO WHICH LED US TO TONIGHT'S MEETING. SO GETTING INTO THE MEAT OF THE ORDINANCE THAT'S BEFORE YOU YOU KNOW IT'S KIND OF GOES SEQUENTIALLY. FIRST OFF IS THAT IT WOULD REMOVE REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING AS AN INTERIM USE IN THE H R DISTRICT. SO AGAIN, REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING HAS BEEN AROUND FOR DECADES ALL UNDER TEMPORARY APPROVALS AND CURRENTLY THEY ARE APPROVED THROUGH INTERVIEWS AND THE MATRIX OUR DISTRICT THAT WOULD BE REMOVED AND ONE SUBSTANTIAL COMPONENT IS IT CREATES THE USE FROM A REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING IS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE C X2 DISTRICT AND IF YOU RECALL FROM A PREVIOUS SLIDE THESE SITES ARE ZONED X HSR AND I'LL GET TO THAT IN A MOMENT. WHY WHY THAT IS BUT THIS WOULD BE CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED AS OPPOSED TO AN INTERIM USE PERMIT WHICH MEANS PERMANENT APPROVALS ONCE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS APPROVED UNLESS THERE ARE SOME UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS REVOKED WHICH IS VERY RARE, IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A PERMANENT APPROVAL AND THIS ORDINANCE WOULD ALLOW FOR PERMANENT REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING IN THE SIX TWO DISTRICT AND AGAIN IF CAN LOOK AT THE PRECISE LANGUAGE THERE'S TWO LOT THERE WOULD BE TWO ROWS IF YOU WILL AND USE CODE ONE IS WITHIN A EXISTING PARKING STRUCTURE AND THEN WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED TONIGHT IS AN EXISTING PARKING FACILITY AND SO AGAIN WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE THESE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN WHAT WAS AN EXISTING PARKING STRUCTURE. THINK OF THE MALL OF AMERICA'S CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND EXISTING REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING FACILITIES AND THAT'S WHERE YOU THINK OF PARKING GO AND PARKING FLY. AND SO I DIDN'T WANT TO GO THROUGH A WHOLE SERIES OF SCREENSHOTS BUT I WANTED TO PROVIDE THE HIGHLIGHTS OF WHAT THIS ORDINANCE WOULD ACCOMPLISH AND IT'S PRETTY DENSE AND IT WOULD ALLOW CONTINUED SURFACE SURFACE PARKING WHICH IS EXISTING TODAY SO THAT IT WOULD CONTINUE IT WOULD ALLOW THAT IN PERPETUITY, IT WOULD ALLOW FOR FUTURE REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING EXPANSION BEYOND ITS EXISTING SUPPLY ON THE SITE. SO THAT IS PARKING GO FOR EXAMPLE, THEY ARE 100% SURFACE PARKED SITE. THEY COULD EXPAND THEIR CAPACITY THROUGH STRUCTURED PARKING. IT WOULD ALLOW AIRPORT PARKING TO BE INTEGRATED INTO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND SO WE HAVE OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OUR SOUTH OF DISTRICT PLAN GOES INTO SOME DETAIL ON HOW WE ENVISION THE SOUTH LOOP DISTRICT DEVELOPING AND WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT MOVING AWAY FROM THAT BUT WE DO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ALLOWING REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING INTEGRATION WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS NOT AIRPORT PARKING HELPS FINANCE PROJECTS OTHERWISE OTHER THAN THAT IT DOES REQUIRE A 120,000 SQUARE FOOT ACTUALLY 2.2.75 ACRE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SITE ALONG AMERICAN BOULEVARD EAST AND SO THAT IS TO SET THE STAGE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. IT WOULD EXEMPT EXISTING REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING FROM SOME LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS NAMELY PARKING ISLANDS WHERE YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN ISLAND, A LANDSCAPED PARKING ON A CERTAIN INTERVALS AND AT THE END OF ROWS NONE EXIST TODAY AND SO THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE WHERE YOU WOULD NOT HAVE TO RETROFIT, YOU KNOW, DOZENS OF PARKING ISLANDS WITHIN AN EXISTING FACILITY. HOWEVER, THAT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'RE IT'S KIND OF SETTING THE STAGE FOR WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE DEVELOPING STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE FOR HERE IN THE CITY. SO WHY SIX TWO WHY MOVE AWAY FROM THE SIX OUR DISTRICT AND INSTEAD SEEK TO REZONE TO SIX TWO? THERE'S A FEW REALLY CRITICAL REASONS FOR THAT. ONE IS THE R AND H. S R HOURS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES AND IT ACTUALLY HAS A RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENT. THE SIX TWO DISTRICT DOES NOT AND SO RESIDENTIAL USES ARE PERMITTED IN SIX TWO BUT THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED. FURTHER THE SIX HOUR DISTRICT HAS A MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY REQUIREMENT OF 30 UNITS AN ACRE SO IT REQUIRES HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES . THE SIX TWO DISTRICT DOESN'T HAVE THAT TYPE OF SPACE DESCRIPTIVE STANDARD AND MORE GENERALLY THE SIX TWO DISTRICT IS JUST LESS PRESCRIPTIVE AND MANY MORE USES ARE PERMITTED COMPARED TO THE DISTRICTS OUR DISTRICT FURTHER THERE IS A LOWER MINIMUM FLOOR AREA REQUIREMENT SO H X ARE THE MINIMUM FLOORING RATIO FOR IS 1.5 WHEREAS IN THE C TWO DISTRICT THERE ISN'T A MINIMUM FLOOR A RATIO BUT THERE IS JUST A MINIMUM BUILDING FLOOR AREA AND THAT'S A 120,000FT. SO IT IT'S EASIER TO DEVELOP IS REALLY WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO. IT'S MORE FLEXIBLE AND THAT WAS THAT'S APPEALING TO FOLKS THAT WOULD BE DEVELOPING IN THE FUTURE. SO SPEAKING OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW I PRESENTED SIMILAR SLIDES TO YOU BEFORE BUT THE RED BOX IS REALLY CLOSE TO WHAT 2.75 ACRES LOOKS LIKE ON THESE SITES AND I LOCATED THIS RED BOX WHERE I DID BECAUSE THE CODE WOULD REQUIRE A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SITE ALONG AMERICAN BOULEVARD EAST AND WE WANT TO HAVE STREET PRESENCE ON AMERICAN BOULEVARD TO HAVE AN URBAN CHARACTER WITH ALONG THE PUBLIC REALM AND JUST OFF THIS GRAPHIC IS A BLUE LINE LRT. WE WANT THIS DEVELOPMENT TO BE PROXIMATE TO THE EXISTING TRANSIT AND SO THE SITE AREA WOULD BE OUTLINED IN CODE. THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME SCREENING BETWEEN THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND THE REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING AND THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS TO ACCOMPLISH THAT IN CITY CODE BUT THE COMPLIANCE DATE FOR CREATING THIS FUTURE SITE WOULD BE END OF YEAR 2036 IF YOU RECALL WHEN OF LAST YEAR WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THIS PROCESS ULTIMATELY WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ADOPT WAS SOMETHING KIND OF LIKE THIS SIMILAR AND THE COMPLIANCE DATE WAS DECEMBER 31ST OF 2034 AND SO WE'RE YOU KNOW, TWO YEARS BEYOND WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD ORIGINALLY RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL GOING TO THE PARKING GO SITE AGAIN THIS IS WHAT 2.75 ACRES LOOKS LIKE IF YOU WERE TO DRAW A BOX ALONG AMERICAN BOULEVARD EAST AGAIN THERE WOULD BE A SCREENING REQUIREMENT AND THE DECEMBER 31ST 2036 COMPLIANCE DEADLINE AND SO WHAT I WANT TO HOPEFULLY MAKE CLEAR IS THAT THESE THESE CODE CHANGES ALLOW THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TO BE DESIGNED AND ALLOWS STAFF TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANTS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. ONE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS IS HERE TONIGHT HAS BEEN SAYING LITERALLY FOR YEARS THEY NEED TWO THINGS TO MAKE REDEVELOPMENT HAPPEN AND THEY NEED PERMANENT ZONING MEANING THEY NEED PERMANENT RIGHTS TO OPERATE REMOTELY FOR PARKING AND THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO INTEGRATE REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING WITHIN DEVELOPMENT TO HELP MAKE THE NUMBERS WORK. AND THIS ORDINANCE THAT'S BEING PRESENTED DOES ACCOMPLISH THOSE TWO NEEDS. AND ACCORDING TO THAT PROPERTY OWNER YOU MAY HAVE RECALLED THERE WERE SOME DEVELOPMENT WELL IN THE CASE OF PARKING FLY THEY ACTUALLY DID GO THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS AND THEY DID GET APPROVAL FOR A INITIAL PHASE OF REDEVELOPMENT UNDER DIFFERENT APPROVALS THAT THAT BUILDING DID NOT HAPPEN OBVIOUSLY. BUT I JUST WANTED TO YOU KNOW, I CHECKED ON SOME OF THE SUMMARY SUMMARY STATISTICS AND THAT'S THAT DEVELOPMENT SITE WHERE THAT WHERE YOU SEE THAT OUTLINED IN YELLOW WAS I THINK 2.92 ACRES. SO JUST A LITTLE BIT LARGER THAN WHAT THIS AMENDMENT WOULD CREATE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PAD AND THE FLOOR AREA WAS JUST UNDER 200,000. SO IT WOULD THAT DEVELOPMENT EXCEEDED THE MINIMUM 120,000 SQUARE FOOT FLOOR AREA THAT WE'RE THAT WOULD BE ENVISIONED HERE FOR A PARKING GO JUST VERY MUCH A CONCEPTUAL DRAWING YOU KNOW THE CONCEPTUALLY THAT THE BUILDING THAT YOU'RE SEEING THERE WOULD MEET THE INTENT OF WHAT THE CODE IS PROPOSING. OBVIOUSLY WHEN WE'RE HAVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW THERE'S A LOT OF PROCESS TO GO THROUGH. IF THIS ORDINANCE WERE TO BE ADOPTED THAT WOULD SET THE STAGE FOR A REZONING APPLICATION AND ACTUALLY A GUIDING APPLICATION TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION AS WELL AS THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION. SO THERE'S A LOT OF THERE'S A LOT OF PROCESS THAT WOULD BE FOLLOWING THIS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. I DO HAVE THE MOTION BEFORE YOU AND THIS ISN'T SUPER EASY UNDERSTAND MATERIAL SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. >> GREAT. THANK YOU MR. CENTENARIO I THINK MY FIRST QUESTION AS IS FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES THE KEY WORD IN WHAT WE'RE APPROVING HERE IS FACILITIES BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED THE PARKING GARAGES IN PREVIOUS CORRECT? >> SO WE COMMISSIONER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING FACILITY WITHIN AN EXISTING GARAGE OR PARKING STRUCTURE. OKAY. AND THESE IF THIS ORDINANCE IS ADOPTED IT WOULD BE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR AN EXISTING REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING FACILITY. OKAY GREAT. >> THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. COMMISSIONER MUNSTER THANK YOU. ACTING CHAIR THIS IS IT'S JUST A PROCESS QUESTION CAN THE ZONING CHANGE APPLICATION AND A CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION PROCEED SIMULTANEOUS VIOUSLY ASSUMING THIS ORDINANCE IS ADOPTED AND THAT HAPPENS? YEAH. COMMISSIONER A GREAT QUESTION. YEAH. YOU KNOW IDEALLY I THINK WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE OF WELL FIRST OFF THE ORDINANCE HAS TO BE AMENDED SO YOU KNOW WE CAN'T PROCESS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IF THE USE IS NOT CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED AND SO THIS ORDINANCE WOULD HAVE TO BE ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOLLOWING THAT ADOPTION. THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE TO WORK WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN PREPARING A SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION FOR THE LAND USE DESIGNATION. THE REZONING AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION AND PRESUMABLY THOSE WOULD BE ONE PACKAGE. COMMISSIONER SUMMERS THANK YOU. ACTING CHAIR I AM IN SUPPORT OF REMOVING THE PARKING ISLANDS FROM THE ORDINANCE FOR THESE TWO FACILITIES JUST ON QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW YES, SORRY CAN YOU CLARIFY IF SO THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE TO INSTALL COMPLIANT PARKING ISLANDS OR STRUCTURES LIKE THAT IN THE FACILITIES AT ALL IN FUTURE COMMISSIONERS. SO IF THE CODE IS ADOPTED AS WRITTEN OKAY YEAH THE OPERATORS WOULD NOT HAVE TO RETROFIT PARKING ISLANDS FOR LANDSCAPE PARKING ISLANDS WITHIN THE SURFACE PARKING AREAS SO THAT'S CORRECT. THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE SITE WOULD BE DEVOID OF LANDSCAPING. YOU KNOW THERE ARE STILL LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS ESPECIALLY AROUND ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THE SITE BUT THEN ALSO THERE WOULD BE A SCREENING REQUIREMENT IN BETWEEN THE REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING FACILITY AND THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE YOU KNOW, IT HASN'T BEEN DESIGNED BUT THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A MINIMUM LANDSCAPE BUFFER SOME SCREENING AND AND LANDSCAPING BUT YES, THERE AS PROPOSED THERE WOULD REMAIN LARGE SWATHS OF UNINTERRUPTED SURFACE PARKING. THERE ARE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF . COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> NO. OKAY GREAT. JUST ONE MORE QUESTION FOR ME THEN WHAT IS THE END FOR WHAT HAPPENS IF ON DECEMBER 31ST, 2036 SOMETHING HAS HAPPENED AND THIS IS NOT TO IMPLY ANY INTENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT WHO KNOWS THERE COULD BE ANOTHER PANDEMIC. THERE COULD BE A GLOBAL DEPRESSION WHATEVER WHAT HAPPENS ON JANUARY 1ST, 2037 IF NOTHING HAS HAPPENED? COMMISSIONERS IT'S A GREAT QUESTION BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN SO MUCH CHANGE IN THE WORLD BUT AS OF JANUARY 1ST, 2037 IF THAT DEVELOPMENT SITE AND THE NECESSARY SCREENING HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED THEN WE WOULD START ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS. AND DO WE KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE? >> YES. PLANNING MANAGER JOHNSON YEAH. CHAIR ACTING CHAIR LANI AND COMMISSIONERS AND KEVIN YOU CAN FILL IN WHATEVER GAPS YOU FEEL BUT ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF A SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION SHOULD THAT BE APPROVED FOR THE REZONING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THOSE COMPONENTS ONE ELEMENT THAT COULD BE ATTACHED AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL WOULD BE SOME FORM OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND WHAT THAT AGREEMENT COULD ENTAIL IS SOME OF THE PROVISIONS AND OR ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS TO COMPLY WITH THE DEVELOPMENT SITE REQUIREMENT BY THE DEADLINE. SO I THINK SOME OF THAT WOULD GET FLESHED OUT THROUGH THAT SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION AS MY GUESS. YEAH. CHAIR ACTING CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS, THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS YOU CAN ENFORCE CITY CODE. WE HAVE ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS WHICH ATTACH A FINE AFTER CERTAIN NOTICES ARE GIVEN THERE'S REVOCATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IF CONDITIONS AREN'T FOLLOWED WE DON'T WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT THAT MUCH IN THE PAST. WE STICK WITH FINES USUALLY BUT THOSE ARE OPTIONS. YOU KNOW THERE'S COURT ACTIONS ,DIFFERENT THINGS THAT CAN TAKE PLACE BUT USUALLY WE STICK TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE FINES. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER MUNSTER AND IF I COULD JUST REFER FOLLOW UP ON THAT AND THAT TECHNICALLY AGAIN ASSUMING THIS IS ADOPTED AS IT'S WRITTEN TECHNICALLY SPEAKING THAT DEADLINE WOULD NOT EVEN APPLY UNLESS THE ZONING IS CHANGED ON THOSE PROPERTIES. OTHERWISE IT SUNSETS IN 2027, CORRECT? MR. CASA THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. I THINK I GET THAT. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? GREAT. THANK YOU, MR. CENTENARIO AND NOW I'D LIKE TO INVITE THE APPLICANT TO COME UP . >> NO. GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. BILL GRIFFITH REPRESENTING ROSA DEVELOPMENT IN THIS APPLICATION KRISTIN MUIR IS HERE WITH ME AGAIN AND SHE'S DELIGHTED TO BE HERE BECAUSE WE'VE REACHED CONSENSUS WITH STAFF. OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE A PROCESS WITH YOU AND THE CITY COUNCIL BUT THE FIRST STEP IS GETTING ON THE SAME PAGE WITH STAFF AND I KNOW OVER MANY MEETINGS THAT HAS BEEN THE DESIRE OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. IT'S BEEN THE DESIRE OF THE STAFF MEMBERS. IT'S CERTAINLY BEEN THE DESIRE OF MY CLIENT NOT TO BE AT ODDS WITH THE CITY AND WE'VE WORKED VERY HARD OVER MANY YEARS TO STAY IN COMPLIANCE IN THIS. FINALLY FOR THE FIRST TIME I'VE BEEN AT THIS FOR A LONG TIME AND FOR THE FIRST TIME AT LEAST A COUPLE OF YEARS LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A PATH FORWARD AND I'M VERY GRATEFUL FOR THAT. AND I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT A COUPLE OF KEY THINGS. I THINK MR. CENTENARIO DID A VERY NICE JOB OF KIND OF PULLING IT ALL TOGETHER IN A IN A RELATIVELY BRIEF PRESENTATION. I THINK THE KEY HERE IS SOMETHING THAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION LAST SUMMER. THIS IS VERY CLOSE TO THAT RECOMMENDATION WITH THE WITH THE CHANGE TO SIX TWO WHICH I THINK IS IMPORTANT FOR MY CLIENT AND PERHAPS THE OTHER OWNER AND IT'S ALSO TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION WE WERE IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL I THINK THREE TIMES AND THIS WAS THE UNFINISHED PIECE OF BUSINESS. THE COUNCIL KNEW THAT IN SEPTEMBER AS THE REASON WE CAME IN IN OCTOBER TO TRY AND PRESENT THIS WHILE IT WAS STILL FRESH IN EVERYBODY'S MINDS AND GET GET FINALLY A RESOLUTION NOTWITHSTANDING ALL THE STEPS THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE AFTER TONIGHT. AND SO WE LISTENED TO THE COUNCIL, WE LISTENED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE DID TRANSCRIPTS OF THOSE MEETINGS SO WE WERE NOT MISSING ANYTHING. AND THEN I THINK THE KEY MOMENT WAS WHEN WE SAT DOWN WITH STAFF AND I THINK BOTH PARTIES CAME TO THE TABLE IN GOOD FAITH OVER THREE MEETINGS BETWEEN HOLIDAYS AND AND THEN WE REVISED OUR ORDINANCE AND THEN WE ACCEPTED VIRTUALLY EVERY COMMENT FROM STAFF AND SO IT WAS REALLY A TRUE COLLABORATION AND SOMETHING WE FELT GOOD ABOUT SOMETHING I FEEL GOOD ABOUT STANDING HERE THIS EVENING WE NEVER WANT TO BE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO PUT THE OTHER PARTY IN A IN A POSITION THAT THEY CAN'T MOVE FROM AND SO THIS FEELS LIKE THAT MOMENT. THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS THIS IS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CODE SECTION IN THERE ARE SIX TWO AND EIGHT CHECKS ARE THERE WAS A GRAPHIC THAT SHOWED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SO YOU ALREADY YOU ALREADY HAVE PERMANENT RIGHTS NOW IN YOUR CITY FOR REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING BOTH AT HOTEL PROPERTIES WHICH WERE PERMITTED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT IN SEPTEMBER AND AND NOW IT EXISTING PARKING STRUCTURES THAT HAVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SO YOU YOU'VE CROSSED THAT RUBICON IF YOU WILL THERE ARE PERMANENT OR REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING RIGHTS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITED LIMITED AT LEAST AT THIS JUNCTURE TO THOSE LOCATIONS. SO YOU KNOW YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A PROLIFERATION OF THE USE I DON'T BELIEVE BUT YOU ALSO HAVE ALREADY CROSSED THAT LINE THERE ARE PERMANENT RIGHTS WITHIN THE CITY. SO THIS IS FINALLY PUTTING THE EXISTING OPERATORS IN A SIMILAR POSITION. I THINK REALLY, REALLY KEY AT THE BOTTOM IS YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S BOTH AT IT. IT BOTH RESOLVES THE PERMANENT RIGHTS THAT WE BELIEVE WE HAD. BUT I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT TONIGHT BECAUSE YOU KNOW WE'VE GOT A PROCESS TO SECURE THOSE PERMANENT RIGHTS BUT IT BUT IT FINALLY PUTS THAT QUESTION TO BED BUT IT ALSO DOES IT IN A WAY THAT REALLY CREATES AN INCENTIVE NOW FOR THESE TWO OPERATORS TO DO SOMETHING ALONG AMERICAN BOULEVARD AND KEEP IN MIND THAT THAT'S A MINIMUM. IT DOESN'T IT DOESN'T STOP EITHER OPERATOR FROM DOING MORE AND LIKELY WHEN YOU WHEN YOU PROPOSE A DEVELOPMENT IT WILL LIKELY BE MORE THAN THE MINIMUM. IT CERTAINLY COULD BE AT THE MINIMUM. BUT YOU KNOW, IN MY EXPERIENCE THOSE THINGS TEND TO MORPH BASED ON WHAT WHAT'S PROPOSED AND ANOTHER KEY TO THIS IS THAT THE AIRPORT PARKING CAN BE INTEGRATED INTO THAT DEVELOPMENT. SO YOU CAN IMAGINE YOU CAN IMAGINE A FIVE ACRE DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS AIRPORT PARKING BUILT INTO IT DRIVING AN ECONOMIC CONSIDERATION AND FINANCING FOR THAT VERY SAME PROJECT. SO THERE'S A LOT TO LIKE ABOUT THIS. I'M SURE WE COULD FIND THINGS THAT THAT AREN'T QUITE YOU KNOW, QUITE PERFECT THAT'S THAT'S REALLY THAT REALLY IS THE ESSENCE OF A COMPROMISE. YOU KNOW, MY CLIENT DIDN'T REALLY WANT TO HAVE THE SHOT CLOCK BUT FINALLY CONCEDED THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THIS THING WAS GOING TO HAVE THE KIND OF TEETH THAT COUNCILMEMBERS TALKED ABOUT AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TALKS ABOUT TALKED ABOUT THERE REALLY HAD TO BE A DEADLINE. AND SO WE LOOKED AT A DEADLINE THAT WAS ESSENTIALLY TEN YEARS OUT IN YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT KIND OF WHAT WHAT WOULD BE WORKABLE. SO WITH THAT I'M GOING TO JUST OPEN IT UP TO ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE OF THE APPLICANT AND JUST THINK AGAIN STAFF AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND EVERYBODY WHO KIND OF CAME TOGETHER TO SAY ALL RIGHT, WE CAN ROLL UP OUR SLEEVES BETWEEN THANKSGIVING AND CHRISTMAS AND AND WORK ON THIS. THANK YOU. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. GRIFFITHS. QUESTIONS? ANYONE HAVE ANY GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER MUNSTER. THANK YOU. ACTING CHAIR JUST IN AND I THINK YOU ALREADY SAID IT BUT JUST TO ASK AND BE SURE BARRING ANY CATASTROPHIC ECONOMIC EVENTS, DO YOU ALL BELIEVE 2036 IS A REASONABLE WINDOW? YES, WE DO FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS. THERE'S YOU KNOW, MY IS VERY INTERESTED IN COMING IN RIGHT AFTER THIS WOULD BE ADOPTED IF IT'S ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO SECURE THE NEXT SET OF ENTITLEMENTS. BUT ONCE YOU DO THAT THEN THEN YOU CAN SAY WITH CERTAINTY TO PROPOSERS DEVELOPERS EVEN SOMEBODY WHO MIGHT BUY OUT THE ENTIRE OPERATION. HERE'S THE SET OF APPROVALS AND ENTITLEMENTS YOU CAN RELY ON AND THOSE YOU KNOW IT DOESN'T THAT'S SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY GET BETTER WITH AGE BECAUSE COUNCILS CHANGE GOVERNMENT CHANGE CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE AND MAYBE SOMEBODY WANTS TO KIND OF MESS AGAIN WITH THIS PROGRAM. SO THE SOONER THAT THESE PROPERTY OWNERS GET AFTER THE POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARE COMING THE BETTER. NOW WE'RE HOPING THAT THE CYCLE INTEREST RATES COME DOWN . THERE'S SOME STABILITY IN THE MARKETPLACE IN TERMS OF THE POTENTIAL USERS BUT THESE ARE TWO REALLY WELL POSITIONED SITES AND SO YOU KNOW, IF TEN YEARS ISN'T A GOOD ENOUGH RUNWAY, I'M NOT SURE WHAT IS AND AND I WON'T BE STANDING HERE. I CAN TELL YOU THAT. YEAH. THANK YOU. OKAY GREAT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. CUNNINGHAM? OKAY GREAT. THANK YOU. NO QUESTIONS. GREAT. DAN DAN WILLIAMSON WITH PARKING. GO. I'M SORRY . OKAY, NOW WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE WELCOME YOU TO COME UP. MR. WILLIAMSON ALL RIGHT. DAN WILLIAMSON WITH PARK AND GO. AS YOU KNOW WE'VE REALLY BEEN IN SUPPORT OF THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE FIRST ROUND TO THIS ROUND BECAUSE WE'RE FOCUSED ON TWO THINGS A FORM OF PERMANENT ZONING AND THE ABILITY AND THIS IS KIND OF ICING ON THE CAKE AND THAT IS THE ABILITY TO INTEGRATE THE PARKING INTO A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. OUR PLAN ALREADY WAS IN EXCESS OF THE 2.75 ACRES SO THAT DOESN'T CONCERN US AT ALL. WE'RE A VOLUME BASED BUSINESS SO IF YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT HOW BIG IS THE HAMMER, IT'S PRETTY BIG WHEN YOU TAKE AWAY 2.75 ACRES. BUT I WAS ASKED A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION THE OTHER DAY I THOUGHT WAS INTERESTING AND THIS MAY REALLY HELP AMPLIFY THE ANSWER TO SOME OF THE CONCERNS YOU HAVE AND IT'S THIS SOMEONE SAID WELL IF IN 2006 WHEN YOU MOVED FROM A CONDITIONAL USE PER PERMIT TO AUP WHICH IS WHAT PARK AND GO DID IF WE WOULD HAVE HAD THIS PROPOSAL ON THE TABLE AND WE WOULD HAVE APPROVED IT BACK IN 2006, YOU'D HAVE DEVELOPMENT THERE TODAY. SO THIS IS THE OLD WHEN'S THE BEST TIME TO PLANT AN OAK TREE 100 YEARS AGO OR TODAY? MY GRANDKIDS WE PUT ACORNS IN THE GROUND. SOME OF THOSE TREES ARE 15 FOOT HIGH NOW SO THIS IS YOUR DAY. IF WE CAN GET THIS APPROVED TEN YEARS DOWN THE LINE WHICH IS NO TIME AT ALL SOME OF US BRAVE KIDS AND STUFF AND WE KNOW HOW FAST IT GOES. YOU'LL BE GOING WOW, I'M GLAD WE DID THAT BACK THEN BECAUSE LOOK WHAT'S BUILT TODAY AND THAT'S JUST KIND OF MY ENCOURAGEMENT FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS BECAUSE WE SUPPORT IT. ANY QUESTIONS? RARA THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. WILLIAMSON AND TO HAVE ANY OH APPLICANTS OH YEAH. YES PLEASE. I'LL BE BRIEF. NO. HI. SO YEAH, I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE UP TOO MUCH OF YOUR TIME. KRISTEN MIRA WITH MS. DEVELOPMENT BUT I REALLY LIKE THIS IDEA TOO BECAUSE I'VE BEEN SPENDING A LOT OF TIME FOR MANY YEARS WORKING WITH STAFF AND TRYING TO PUT TOGETHER SOMETHING WOULD ACTUALLY WORK AND I SAID THIS BEFORE IN OTHER MEETINGS BUT THE HOUSING REQUIREMENT FOR AT LEAST MY SITE AND I CAN'T SPEAK FOR DAN SITE BUT IN MY OPINION IT WAS ALWAYS A STRUGGLE FOR HOUSING BECAUSE OF THE NOISE LEVEL AND THE HIGHWAY BEING RIGHT THERE AND JUST THE RENT CAP THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO PAY TO LIVE NEXT TO A TO A A BUSY FREEWAY AND THE FREEWAYS NOT GOING ANYWHERE. THE AIRPORT'S NOT GOING ANYWHERE. SO HAVING THE FLEXIBILITY TO MOVE TO SEE X2I FEEL LIKE IS FINALLY RELEASING SOME OF THE PRESSURE OF JUST TRYING TO BE LIKE A ROUND PEG IN A SQUARE HOLE WHERE I'M LIKE OH YOU HAVE TO DO HOUSING. YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN AFFORDABLE COMPONENT. YOU HAVE TO DO THIS AND IT WAS VERY NARROW, NARROW THE PATH NOW IS IF IT'S IF THERE'S MANY MORE OPTIONS I THINK YOU KNOW, IT OPENS IT UP TO FOOD USES OR ENTERTAINMENT USES OR THE MALL ZONING HAS, YOU KNOW, A LOT MORE OPTIONS. SO I THINK THAT RIGHT THERE JUST MEANS THE LIKELIHOOD THAT IT'LL REDEVELOP IS MUCH HIGHER BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT BEING FORCED TO DO ONE. YES AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, I WE LISTENED AND WE COLLABORATED BUT YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T WANT TO SIT AROUND AND WAIT UNTIL AUGUST OF 2027 LIKE BECAUSE THEN IT'S JUST LIKE SPINNING YOUR WHEELS FOR ANOTHER YEAR AND YOU KNOW, I WANTED TO KEEP YOU KNOW, YOU'VE DONE THIS FOR THE MALL AND THE HOTEL SO LIKE LET'S FINISH THE YOU KNOW, TRIO HERE AND AND I THINK SOMEBODY TOUCHED ON THIS BEFORE BUT AND YOU KNOW, DAN BROUGHT IT UP BUT THIS IS YOU KNOW, I WENT TO TRY TO GET THE CONSTRUCTION LOAN AND TALK TO BANKS. BANKS REALLY DON'T WANT TO FINANCE BIG PROJECTS WITH TEMPORARY RATES. SO NOBODY'S BEEN WANTING TO GIVE US PERMANENT RATES BUT YET THEY WANT US TO REDEVELOP. SO IT'S KIND OF A CATCH 22. YOU CAN'T REALLY GET TRACTION ON A BIG SCALE DEVELOPMENT WITH TEMPORARY RIGHTS. SO ALL IN ALL I THINK THAT IT'S NOT 100% WHAT WE WANT AND MAY NOT BE 100% WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE WANTS. BUT YOU KNOW, WE DID KIND OF TRY OUR BEST TO FIND A COMPROMISE THAT WORKS FOR EVERYBODY. SO THANK YOU AND THANK YOU TO STAFF ALSO FOR COLLABORATING WITH US. GREAT. THANK YOU SIR. ANYONE ELSE IN THE CHAMBERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING? ANYONE ONLINE OR PARTICIPANTS ONLINE? OUR STAFF I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING I MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SECOND STAFF COULD YOU TAKE ROLL CALL MY NAME YES. MONSTER. YES. SUMMERS? YES. IN CUNNINGHAM I GREAT. WE CAN MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO CHIME IN FIRST KEVIN COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU CHAIR. APOLOGIES FOR NOT BEING THERE TONIGHT. I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS HAPPY OR MAYBE NOT SO HAPPY MIDDLE GROUND THAT WE'VE FOUND. I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT STAFF AND THE APPLICANTS HAVE PUT IN HAVING KIND OF BEEN ON THIS MY ENTIRE TENURE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS HAD SOMETHING EVERY QUARTER SEEMS TO HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH AIRPORT PARKING SO I'M EXCITED TO SEE BUT I THINK IS A GOOD MIDDLE GROUND PROPOSAL FOR THE USE OF BOTH SITES AND A GOOD RUNWAY FOR DEVELOPMENT. >> THANK YOU CHAIR. PUN INTENDED. THANK YOU. OTHER COMMENTS COMMISSIONER SUMMERS THANK YOU. ACTING CHAIR I THINK I AM SO I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS. I THINK WHAT I LIKE TO SEE REFLECTED IN COMMENTS FROM THE APPLICANTS IS A SHIFT INTO THE CREATIVITY THAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE IN DEVELOPMENT. SO FEELING LIKE THERE IS POTENTIAL SOME USES THAT FEEL LIKE THEY LINE UP WITH STAFF AND THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON FEELS LIKE COMPROMISE AND COMPROMISE CAN RANGE FROM REALLY REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE. I'VE HEARD COME FROM LIKE GOOD COMPROMISE MEANS EVERYONE IS UNHAPPY AND THIS FEELS LIKE WE'RE MOVING THE NEEDLE JUST A LITTLE AWAY FROM VERY UNHAPPY. AND I ALSO WANT TO EXPRESS GRATITUDE BECAUSE AFTER THE LAST TIME THAT WE TALKED ABOUT THIS I THOUGHT ABOUT WHERE THINGS LEFT OFF AND THAT THE APPLICANT EXPRESSED THAT THIS HAS BEEN A LONG AND TOUGH PROCESS AND THAT IT'S HARD TO BE ASKED TO DO MORE. SO I KNOW THAT THIS IS ONE THING AND MULTIPLE MORE STEPS BUT I APPRECIATE THE ENERGY THAT YOU BROUGHT TO THIS AND WORKING WITH THE STAFF AND IT SEEMS LIKE THOSE CONVERSATIONS HELPED PAVE THE WAY FOR MORE PRODUCTIVE AND MAYBE NOT EASY CONVERSATIONS IN THE FUTURE. GREAT OTHER THAN COMMISSIONER MUNSTER I WILL JUST I WILL ECHO THAT. I THINK THAT WAS THAT WAS VERY WELL SAID AND I THINK THAT WHAT IS BEFORE US TONIGHT IS IS TRULY A GOOD COMPROMISE. THAT'S A GOOD BALANCE OF PROTECTING WHAT THE CITY'S INTERESTS ARE AND PROTECTING THE ABILITY OF THESE OPERATORS TO MOVE FORWARD BOTH IN THEIR OPERATION AND SORT OF FULFILLING THE CITY'S VISION FOR THIS CORRIDOR. SO YEAH, WITH THAT I MEAN I, I SUPPORT THIS. THANK YOU. AND JUST ADD MY $0.02. I'M ALSO VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS, VERY APPRECIATIVE OF THE EFFORT THAT EVERYONE PUT IN TO REACH THIS CONSENSUS AND IN PARTICULAR AND THIS GOES TO THE COMMENTS THE APPLICANT JUST MADE I THINK THE POSSIBILITY FOR PRODUCTIVE REDEVELOPMENT ARE EVEN GREATER UNDER THIS ZONING DISTRICT. SO I THINK HUGE KUDOS TO EVERYONE WHO WORKED ON THIS. OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE THINGS PEOPLE WANT TO WEIGH IN ON OKAY. AND I JUST I JUST WANT TO THANK YOUR TRANSCRIPTIONIST WHO HAD TO DEAL WITH THIS MY MY HEART GOES OUT GREAT. ANY OTHER FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IF NOT IF SOMEONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION I MOVE TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE APPROVING THE PRIVATELY INITIATED CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW EXISTING REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING FACILITIES AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE C X TWO ZONING DISTRICT AND TO CREATE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR EXISTING FACILITIES. SECOND, THE THAT MOTION IS PASSED. NO NO, NO SORRY I FORGET THAT I READ THE TERMINOLOGY THAT I HAVE TO SAY TO TURN IT OVER FOR VOTING. ACTING CHAIR MOTION MADE BY SUMMERS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUNSTER GREAT. OKAY LENNY YES. MONSTER YES. SUMMERS YES. AND CUNNINGHAM YES. THAT MOTION IS PASSED. THANK YOU FOR AND THEN THE AND THEN WE GET TO THIS THE COUNCIL CONSIDERATION DATE IS THAT I JUST HAVE TO FIND THE MARCH 23RD AND SAID I HAVE TO SAY YEP THAT'S IT SO THANK YOU VERY THANK YOU COMMISSIONER LINNEY. COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM APPEARS TO BE SIGNING OFF SO WE'LL BE BACK TO YOU FOR COMMISSIONERS HERE IN THE CHAMBERS. MOVING THEN TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON IS THE APPLICANTS TO DISCUSS THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FEE STUDY. MR. JOHNSON YOU'RE HERE FOR THE STAFF REPORT. OKAY. THANK YOU. CHAIR COOKED IN THIS ITEM WILL BE BRIEF. WE DON'T TALK ABOUT FEES VERY OFTEN WITH RESPECT TO OUR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS BUT THIS HAS BEEN A PROJECT ON THE CITY'S OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S WORK PLAN FOR A YEAR OR SO NOW WE WANT TO EVALUATE OUR FEES HAD BEEN A NUMBER OF YEARS SINCE WE TOOK A LOOK AT THAT. BUT INFORMATIONAL UPDATE HERE YOU KNOW REALLY THE PURVIEW OF FEES AND THE FIDUCIARY COMPONENTS OF THE CITY REALLY ARE THE REALM OF RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO ESTABLISH THOSE. SO WE'RE NOT SEEKING ANY FORMAL RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IF YOU DO HAVE QUESTIONS OR INPUT WE'LL CERTAINLY COMMUNICATE THAT TO THE COUNCIL WHEN WE BRING THIS BEFORE THEM. BUT YEAH, HERE'S JUST A QUICK REPORTING OUT AND AGAIN WELCOME YOUR QUESTIONS AND FEEDBACK. SO REGARDING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FEES AND PRETTY MUCH ALL FEES IN GENERAL THAT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES IMPOSE ON THE PUBLIC THERE IS A MINNESOTA RULE 1300 .0160 THAT IN EFFECT IT'S YOU KNOW HAS VERBOSE LANGUAGE BUT WHAT IT REALLY MEANS IS THAT YOU CAN'T CHARGE MORE FEES THAN THAN WHAT IT COSTS TO DELIVER THE SERVICE. AND SO THAT REALLY SETS THE BASELINE FOR ALL CITIES IN TERMS OF WHERE THEY CAN SET THE FLOOR OR I SHOULD SAY THE CEILING MAYBE RATHER OF WHERE THEIR FEES EXIST. SO THAT'S SOMETHING TO JUST BE COGNIZANT OF IN TERMS OF WAYS THAT CITIES THINK ABOUT THEIR FEES. THERE'S A COUPLE OF FACTORS THAT THEY LOOK AT. ONE IS JUST PURE COST RECOVERY CITIES STUDY WHAT IT COST THEM BOTH IN STAFF TIME OR CONSULTANTS THAT THEY USE TO DELIVER THE FEE AND REALLY WHAT SOME CITIES ARE DOING IS REALLY TRYING TO CAPTURE AS MUCH OF THAT COST THAT'S INCURRED TO THE CITY ORGANIZATION THROUGH THE FEES THAT THEY IMPOSE ON THE PUBLIC SEEKING THOSE SERVICES OR APPLICATIONS. SO THAT'S ONE COMPONENT. ANOTHER COMPONENT IS THAT CITIES TYPICALLY TEND TO LOOK AT THEIR PEERS WITHIN THE REGION. CERTAINLY DEVELOPERS OR BUSINESSES OR OPERATING WITHIN REGIONAL ENVIRONMENT, NOT JUST ONE MUNICIPALITY. THEY MIGHT BE LOOKING AT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT MUNICIPAL PARTIES. WHILE IT'S RARELY THE I WOULD SAY THE FACTOR THAT MAYBE BREAKS THE BACK OR IS THE MOST INFLUENTIAL FACTOR IN WHERE A BUSINESS WILL LOCATE IF A CITY HAD YOU KNOW, SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER FEES THAT MIGHT BE A FACTOR IN TERMS OF WHERE THEY CHOOSE TO PURSUE AN APPLICATION ON. AND THEN SO I SAY ALL THAT TO SAY THAT YOU KNOW CITIES TEND TO TRY AND BE WITHIN REASONABLE RANGE OF ONE ANOTHER AND LOOKING AT IT'S IMPORTANT OR VALUABLE TO KNOW WHERE OUR PEER CITIES ARE IN TERMS OF THEIR FEES. AND THEN FINALLY STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS. SO THIS CAN BE A NUMBER OF FACTORS JUST DEPENDING ON THE CITY. THERE ARE SOME CITIES THAT ARE MORE SIMPLISTICALLY CHARACTERIZED AS PRO-DEVELOPMENT OR MORE IN FAVOR OF ECONOMIC OR DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. IN THAT CASE A CITY MIGHT CHOOSE TO SET ITS FEES SOMEWHAT LOWER THAN PEER CITIES OR JUST TO ENSURE THAT THE ACCESS TO THE APPROVAL PROCESSES YOU KNOW, IS THERE FOR FOLKS TO PURSUE. IN THE CASE OF BLOOMINGTON WE'VE GONE THROUGH MULTIPLE STRATEGIC PLANNING EFFORTS IN THE CITY OF THE CURRENT STRATEGIC PLAN THAT WE HAVE AS BLOOMINGTON TOMORROW TOGETHER. ONE OF THE KEY PRIORITIES OF THAT STRATEGIC PLAN IS EQUITABLE, EQUITABLE ECONOMIC GROWTH AND SO HOW THAT CONNECTS TO OUR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FEES AGAIN IS THAT WE DON'T WANT TO SET OUR FEES AT SUCH A LEVEL THAT THE PROCESS BECOMES INACCESSIBLE FOR ALL DIFFERENT TYPES OF APPLICANTS. REALLY THE HIGHER THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FEES THAT DO EXIST REALLY IT'S JUST MORE FAVORING MORE RESOURCED, MORE KIND OF LONGER TENURED DEVELOPERS AND THEN YOU'RE JUST KIND OF WORKING WITH ONE SUBSET OF OF THOSE ACTORS. AND THEN FINALLY THE FINAL FACTOR I'LL POINT TO WHEN IT COMES TO FEES IS THAT THIS VARIES FROM CITY TO CITY. SOME CITIES JUST ESTABLISH A FLAT FEE FOR A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TYPE SOME MIGHT TAKE LESS STAFF TIME, SOME MIGHT TAKE MORE STAFF TIME BUT THEY'RE COLLECTING THE SAME FEE FOR THAT APPLICATION TYPE. OTHER CITIES DO FAVOR AN APPROACH WHERE THEY COLLECT AN ESCROW FROM DEVELOPERS AND THE REASON THEY DO THAT IS AGAIN BACK TO THE POINT AROUND COST RECOVERY IS THAT THEY WILL CHARGE BACK TO THE APPLICANT FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES. I WOULD SAY THAT THIS APPROACH IS FAVORED BY CITIES WHO TEND TO USE MORE CONSULTANTS IN THEIR REVIEW OF PROJECTS IF THEY HAVE A CONSULTING ENGINEER, A CONSULTANT ATTORNEY OR THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. THIS ESCROW IS IN EFFECT A WAY TO COLLECT FEES FOR THOSE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THAT THE CITY IS DOESN'T CURRENTLY HAVE ON STAFF A FLAT FEE ESCROW APPROACH BOTH WORK. ONE THING I WOULD SAY ABOUT THE ESCROW APPROACH IS THERE IS ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OR TIME TO TRACK STAFF TIME SPENT WITH AN ESCROW APPROACH. BLOOMINGTON IS A FLAT FAT EXCUSE ME FLAT FEE APPROACH AND I WOULD BE REMISS NOT TO SAY THAT WE'RE MORE SUPPORTIVE OF A FLAT FEE APPROACH GIVEN THE RESOURCES AND THE STAFFING THAT BLOOMINGTON HAS. SO BASED ON THOSE FACTORS WE EVALUATED ALL OF OUR FEES BASED ON COST RECOVERY. AGAIN IT'S NOT A PERFECT SCIENCE. THEY ARE SOMEWHAT ESTIMATES IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF STAFF TIME IT TAKES AT THE EASIEST OR MOST TYPICAL APPLICATION TYPE HOUR OF THAT TYPE. SO WE DID COST RECOVERY ANALYSIS. WE ALSO LOOKED AT PEER CITY FEES AND BETWEEN THOSE TWO FACTORS WHAT IT REALLY ILLUMINATED WAS THAT THERE'S SIX APPLICATION TYPES THAT WE'VE REALLY KIND OF FALLEN BEHIND AND THAT WE'RE NOT MEETING THE MARK WHERE WE WANT TO BE FROM A COST RECOVERY STANDPOINT AND THERE WAS ENOUGH OF A GAP BETWEEN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON AND OUR PEER CITIES THAT WE FELT WARRANTED AN INCREASE TO OUR FEES. SO I'LL SHARE THAT SLIDE IN A SECOND. I WILL NOTE IN THE PACKET THERE WAS A FULL REPORTING ON OUR PEER CITY ANALYSIS THAT INCLUDED MORE APPLICATION TYPES THAN WHAT YOU'RE SEEING ON THIS SLIDE. I WILL NOTE JUST FOR FOLKS LOOKING AT THAT DOCUMENT IT DID LOOK LIKE THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON HAS QUITE A BIT HIGHER FEES FOR REZONINGS PLAN AMENDMENTS AND PLAN DEVELOPMENTS. BUT THE REASON FOR THAT AGAIN IS THAT THOSE THREE APPLICATION TYPES ARE THE MOST COMMON APPLICATION TYPES FOR CITIES TO COLLECT ESCROWS AND THAT CHART THAT WAS IN YOUR PACKET DID NOT REFLECT THOSE ESCROWS. THERE WAS JUST THE BASE FEE ONLY. SO I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT DISCREPANCY BUT YEAH THE SIX APPLICATION TYPES THAT STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND AN INCREASE ON ARE THE TWO ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION TYPES THAT'S FINAL SITE AND BUILDING PLANS ADMIN AND THE REVISION TO FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS ADMIN AGAIN THOSE ARE PLAN DEVELOPMENTS AS LONG AS THEY'RE CODE COMPLYING CHANGES AND MEET CERTAIN CRITERIA AND THEN FINAL SITE AND BUILDING PLANS ACTED UPON BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. YOU HAD ONE OF THOSE APPLICATION TYPES WITH QUICK TRIP MORE RECENTLY CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. YOU SEE A LOT OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS RIGHT NOW OUR FEE IS AT $220. YOU CAN SEE THE MEDIAN FEE IN THE PURE CITIES THAT WE STATED WAS OVER $500 AND THEN THE INTERIM USE PERMIT APPLICATION WE DON'T SEE A TON OF THOSE AND THEN VARIANCE FOR SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY USES. SO THESE ARE THE SIX APPLICATION TYPES THAT WE FELT WERE WARRANTED INCREASE AND THEN JUST TO PUT A PIN IN IT THIS IS THE INCREASE THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING. IT DOESN'T ACCOUNT FOR EVERY SCENARIO OF FULL COST RECOVERY BUT AGAIN WE FEEL IT STRIKES THE RIGHT BALANCE IN TERMS OF FULFILLING THE CITY'S STRATEGIC GOALS BUT ALSO ADDRESSING MORE OF THE COSTS THAT THE CITY HAS INCURRED BY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. ANOTHER THING TO THINK ABOUT WHICH I DIDN'T BRING UP IS THAT THERE IS SOME STRATEGIC ELEMENTS OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FEES THAT REALLY TOUCH ON THE FACT THAT THE TRUE REVENUE CAPTURE OF THE CITY IS REALLY DOWNSTREAM OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS ARE REALLY JUST A DROP IN THE BUCKET WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT BUILDING PERMIT FEES AS WELL AS THEN ANNUAL TAXES COLLECTED, PROPERTY TAXES COLLECTED SHOULD THE DEVELOPMENT ACTUALLY BE CONSTRUCTED. SO YEAH, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. AGAIN, WE'RE NOT LOOKING FOR ANY FORMAL RECOMMENDATION FROM YOU TONIGHT IF WE'RE GOING TO PRESENT THIS TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 23RD IF THEY SUPPORT THESE FEE INCREASES OR HAVE OTHER DIRECTION FOR US, WE'RE LIKELY TO BRING AN ORDINANCE BACK TO THEM. IT'S ACTUALLY IN APPENDIX A OF THE CITY CODE SO IT WOULD NOT COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT . THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOESN'T HAVE PURVIEW OVER APPENDIX A BUT STILL BECAUSE THIS WAS A PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN PROJECT WE WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN INFORMATIONAL UPDATE ABOUT IT AND KIND OF GIVE YOU AN OUTLINE OF WHERE WE'RE GOING AND GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ANY FEEDBACK OR ASK ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE . SO THAT'S IT REALLY THE REST OF THEIR PROCESS KIND OF REST MORE WITH THE CITY COUNCIL BUT I WELCOME ANY FEEDBACK OR QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. THANK YOU MR. JOHNSON THIS IS A STUDY ITEM SO WE'LL MOVE RIGHT INTO DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS TODAY. JUST A QUICK QUESTION WHEN IS THE LAST TIME THE FEES WERE UPDATED? >> I MISSED THAT. YEAH. THANK YOU FOR THAT CHAIR COMMISSIONER LINNEY THE LAST TIME THERE WAS SOME AMENDMENTS WAS IN 2010 SO IT'S BEEN SOME TIME THE CITY HAS DONE IN THE PAST SOME PERCENTAGE UPDATES TO KIND OF ACCOUNT FOR INFLATION. THAT'S MORE THE MORE COMMON APPROACH OF OUR BUILDING PERMIT FEES AND OTHER FEES THAT WE COLLECT ON LIKE PARKS AND RECREATION PROGRAM AND OTHER THING THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FEES HAS BEEN A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN THAT APPROACH WE'VE DONE TEND TO DO KIND OF STRATEGIC INCREASES OVER LONGER SPANS OF TIME. THERE IS SOME SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT KIND OF TAKING MORE OF THAT PERCENTAGE BASED APPROACH IN THE FUTURE BUT FOR NOW THIS IS KIND OF RESETTING THE DECKS A LITTLE BIT OF WHERE THINGS SHOULD BE TODAY AT LEAST AND STAFF WHICH ARE MR.. MR. JOHNSON NOW YOU'RE IN MY WHEELHOUSE. OKAY. I'VE BEEN FOR A LONG TIME SO I'VE WORKED IN COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE BOTH FLAT FEES AND COST RECOVERY PROGRAMS AND COMBINATIONS OF THE TWO. SO JUST AS A AS A QUESTION OF THE FEES AS THEY ARE OUTLINED, DOES THAT COVER THEORETICALLY COVER STAFF TIME AND ADVERTISING AND ALL THOSE OTHER COSTS? >> CHAIR COMMISSIONER MUNSTER THAT'S CORRECT. IT COVERS ALL THE STAFF TIME AND THE ADVERTISING, YEAH AND THE MAILED NOTICES POSTAGE, THE TIME IT TAKES TO PREPARE THOSE MAILED NOTICES AS WELL. IF THERE'S I WOULD SAY LIKE FOR EXAMPLE IF THERE'S A TRAFFIC STUDY THAT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REQUIRES THAT IS ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT THE BASE FEE IS, THAT IS WHERE THEY DO NEED TO POST. THERE'S A NEGOTIATED CONTRACT WITH A NEUTRAL THIRD PARTY CONSULTING ENGINEER WHO PERFORMS THOSE TRAFFIC STUDIES LIKE SAY WITH THE COMMUNITY CENTER OR OTHER APPLICATIONS THAT YOU'VE SEEN THAT IS NOT COVERED BY THE BASE FEE THAT'S ABOVE AND BEYOND THAT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE A SECOND QUESTION THAT I HAD FOR SORT OF THOSE OTHER STRANGE OUT OF THE ORDINARY THINGS WITH JUST CONSIDERING I MEAN PARTICULARLY POSTAGE RATES GOING UP DRAMATICALLY OVER AND OVER ARE THE ARE THE PROPOSED NEW FEES STILL SUFFICIENT TO COVER STAFF TIME AND ALL OF THESE OTHER EXTERNAL EXPENSES? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE IN THE FUTURE WE'RE LIKELY TO LUMP OUR FEES IN WITH A PERCENTAGE BASED INCREASED ALONG WITH ALL OF THE OTHER FEES THAT WE PROVIDE RIGHT NOW THIS IS KIND OF JUST WE'VE BEEN A LITTLE BIT BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL AGAIN SINCE NOT REVISING IT SINCE 2010. SO THESE ARE MORE OF THESE STRATEGIC UPDATES BUT I WOULD ANTICIPATE THOSE PERCENTAGE INCREASES TO OCCUR TO ACCOUNT FOR POSTAGE. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE ISN'T THE ONLY NEED FOR POSTAGE IN THE COMMUNITY WE HAVE WE DO SEND OUT A LOT OF DIFFERENT MAILED NOTICES SO SOME OF OUR PERCENTAGE INCREASES ARE BASED ON POSTAGE SO WE ARE TRACKED. WE DO HAVE FINANCE STAFF TRACKING THAT THINKING YEP. MR. JOHNSON CAN WE GO BACK TO THE PROPOSED FEE CHART? THERE WE GO. THANK YOU. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH I MEAN I'M QUALIFIED TO BE EVEN PROVIDING COMMENT ON THIS BUT THE THING THAT DID STICK OUT THE MOST TO ME WAS THE BOTTOM LINE THERE THE VARIANCE FOR SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS WHICH TO ME IS JUST A REGULAR SINGLE RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON AT $400 IS ALMOST THE SAME AS FINAL SAY IN BUILDING PLANS THE TOP LINE AND THAT'S LIKE TORO WHO IS LIKE A FORTUNE COMPANY AND THEY'RE ONLY PAYING $150 LESS. CAN YOU JUST WALK ME THROUGH THAT? YEAH. THANK YOU, CHAIR AND AS SHOCKING AS IT MIGHT SOUND, THE WAY THAT WE HAVE TO EVALUATE OUR FEES IS BASED ON THE MOST SIMPLE TYPE OF APPLICATION THAT CAN BE CREATED. SO WHILE YOU'RE RIGHT AND THAT'S KIND OF THE CHALLENGE OF A FLAT FEE APPROACH IS THAT YOU'RE COLLECTING THE SAME FEE FOR A TORO AS YOU MENTIONED AND JUST A VERY SMALL DENTAL OFFICE DEVELOPMENT FOR EXAMPLE. THAT'S ACTUALLY QUITE STRAIGHTFORWARD TO REVIEW AND DOESN'T NECESSITATE A LOT OF STAFF TIME. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THERE IS THAT WHAT THE FEE REALLY IS COLLECTING IS WHAT IS THE MOST SIMPLE TYPICAL EASY DEVELOPMENT THAT GETS REVIEWED UNDER THAT CATEGORY TYPE AND BELIEVE IT OR NOT LIKE WE HAD I MEAN I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT THE APPLICATION WE REVIEW TONIGHT BUT WHEN WE REVIEW APPLICATIONS IT DOES NECESSITATE REVIEW OF STAFF BEYOND THE PLANNING STAFF. IT DOES INVOLVE LEGAL IT DOES INVOLVE ENGINEERING, IT DOES INVOLVE OTHER DEPARTMENTS REVIEWING DEVELOPMENTS SIMILAR TO OTHER APPLICATION TYPES. YES, CERTAINLY IT'S NOT AS EXTENSIVE AS THAT BUT THAT BEING SAID, YOU KNOW, WE LOOKED AT COST RECOVERY. WE LOOKED AT PEER CITIES. A $400 FEE IS NOT THAT MUCH OUT OF LINE WITH WHAT THE MEDIAN FEE FOR THAT TYPE IS AND WE'RE NOT RECOVERING OUR COSTS CURRENTLY ON THAT APPLICATION TYPE CERTAINLY. AND MR. JONES SAID ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS YOU TOLD US WAS THAT WE STATE LAW DOES NOT ALLOW US TO CHARGE MORE THAN OUR COSTS, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. SO WHAT I'M GETTING AT THAT IS THEY'RE LIKE WE CAN CHARGE A LITTLE LESS TO OUR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING OWNERS AND CHARGE A LITTLE MORE TO THE BIG GUYS TO MAKE UP FOR IT. WE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT . WE YEAH, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION CHAIR WE COULDN'T CHARGE THE A LARGE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY SEEKING A VARIANCE LET'S JUST SAY A CRAZY NUMBER FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION A $2,000 VARIANCE FOR ONE IT ONLY COST THE CITY SAY $800 TO PERFORM THAT SERVICE TO MAKE UP OR BALANCE THE SCALES FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY. WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT. NO. YEAH I THINK THE WAY I WOULD FRAME IT HERE IS CHARGE AS MUCH AS REASONABLE TO THE BIG GUYS AND CHARGE AS LITTLE AS AS WE CAN TO THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING OWNER. IT BREAKS MY HEART THAT WE'RE CHARGING 400 BUCKS TO NUDGE YOUR GARAGE OVER OR WHATEVER TO MEET THE SETBACK. THAT SEEMS LIKE ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT YOU COMPLAIN TO YOUR YOUR BROTHER ABOUT AS WELL AS AN EGO YOU'RE LIKE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BELIEVE WHAT THE STATE IS CHARGING ME TO MOVE MY GARAGE OVER OR WHATEVER AND LIKE YOU JUST YOU KNOW, YOU WISH YOU COULD BE NICE TO OUR RESIDENCES AS WELL AS YOU CAN. SO THAT'S THAT'S MY THAT'S MY ONLY COMMENT ON IT. I APPRECIATE THAT FEEDBACK AND I THINK I CAN COMMUNICATE THAT TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS WELL. MR. MOSER. WELL, IF I COULD JUST FOLLOW UP ON THAT I AND THIS IS REALLY MORE OF A QUESTION BECAUSE I DON'T FULLY APPRECIATE OUR FEE STRUCTURE BUT SO FINAL SITE AND BUILDING PLANS ACTED UPON BY PLANNING COMMISSION THAT IS WHETHER IT'S THE SMALLEST OF OF LIKE WHAT DOES THAT INCLUDE? GOOD QUESTION. AND SO THAT'S THAT'S WHERE GETTING INTO EVEN EVALUATING PEER CITIES KIND OF GETS A LITTLE BIT FRAUGHT BECAUSE THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL AUTHORITY OF DIFFERENT CITIES ON THEIR SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIES QUITE A BIT FROM CITY TO CITY. SO IN BLOOMINGTON WHAT THAT MEANS IS A BUILDING AT LEAST OVER 10,000FT, MAYBE OVER 20,000FT IF THERE'S ALREADY APPROVED SITE PLAN, IF IT'S AN EXPANSION IN EFFECT AND MEETS KIND OF CERTAIN PROPORTIONALITY REQUIREMENTS. BUT TYPICALLY WHAT ADMIN YOU KNOW FINAL SITE AND BUILDING PLANS IS REALLY FOR IS SMALL BUILDING ADDITIONS TO COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS. IT'S PARKING LOT CHANGES AND IMPROVEMENTS THAT KIND OF CHANGE THE PARKING SUPPLY SIDEWALKS THINGS THAT THAT WE HAVE TO REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE THAT CAN'T JUST BE DONE THROUGH A BUILDING PERMIT IN EFFECT. SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ONES YOU KNOW, IT'S STILL A SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT. I MEAN WE SAW THE QUIKTRIP PROJECT FOR EXAMPLE ANYTHING THAT NECESSITATES A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HAS TO COME THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL. LIKE ONE IS BUNDLED BUT BUT YEAH IT CAN BE SMALLER DEVELOPMENT, IT CAN BE QUITE LARGE AND THAT'S KIND OF THE CONUNDRUM AROUND THE FLAT FEE APPROACH. THAT'S ONE OF THE WEAKNESSES OF A FLAT FEE APPROACH. SO WOULD WE CONCEPTUALLY IT IT MAY NOT EVEN BE WORTH IT TO TO HAVE THE EXERCISE COULD WE SET RATES THAT ARE FINAL SITE AND BUILDING PLANS UP TO 20,000FT AND THEN 20,000 TO 50,000 YOU KNOW KIND OF TEAR IT THAT WAY BECAUSE SORT OF ALMOST BY NECESSITY THE LARGER THE DEVELOPMENT THE MORE TIME WILL GO INTO IT. I APPRECIATE THE SPIRIT BEHIND THAT. THE ONLY PROBLEM IS IS THAT SOMETIMES I'VE ENCOUNTERED 80,000 SQUARE FOOT DEVELOPMENTS THAT REQUIRE LESS STAFF TIME TO DELIVER THAN A 20,000 SQUARE FOOT DEVELOPMENT JUST ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLEXITY OF SAY THE CIVIL ENGINEERING COMPONENTS OF THE SITE. THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MAYBE THE SITE HAS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT WHICH TAKES A LOT OF STAFF TIME TO WORK WITH NEIGHBORS AND EXPLAIN THE PROJECT. YOU HAVE SOME PROJECTS LIKE THE SALT SHED THIS EVENING WELL AGAIN I SHOULDN'T TALK WHAT OTHER ITEMS YOU HAVE PROJECTS THAT DON'T GENERATE A LOT OF PUBLIC INTEREST PROJECTS THAT DO TRICKY STATE TRICKY SITES FROM A CIVIL ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE MAYBE THERE'S OTHER UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS. SO BUILDING SIZE ALONE IS NOT THE ONLY DRIVER OF COMPLEXITY AND HOW MUCH STAFF TIMES IT TAKES TO GET IT THROUGH THE PROCESS. THAT'S KIND OF THE ONLY CHALLENGE OF KIND OF TEARING IT IN THAT WAY AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A GOOD STANDARD AND CRITERIA THAT REALLY EVALUATES THE COMPLEXITY OF EACH DEVELOPMENT AS IT RELATES TO THE AMOUNT OF STAFF TIME COMMISSIONING AND ALSO TO COMMISSIONER PLANNING MANAGER JOHNSON'S POINT, I WOULD ALSO IMAGINE THAT THERE ARE TIMES WHERE LARGER PROJECTS PARTICULARLY FOR MAJOR CORPORATIONS WHERE THEY HAVE YOU KNOW, LARGE ENGINEERING IN-HOUSE COUNSEL, THINGS LIKE THAT THEIR PACKAGES PERHAPS COME BETTER PREPARED THAN SMALLER APPLICATIONS WHERE YOU MAY HAVE SOMEONE DOING IT ON THEIR OWN. SO PARADOXICALLY MAYBE SOME OF THOSE SMALLER ONES THAT ACTUALLY GENERATE SUBSTANTIALLY MORE WORK FOR THE CITY STAFF I COULD SAY A LOT THEM I JUST HAD TO I'M GOING TO CHOOSE NOT TO DO THAT. BUT YES YOU'RE ON THE RIGHT TRACK. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON ON THIS ITEM, MR. SUMMERS JUST ONE COMMENT A LOT OF WHAT I HEARD WERE REALLY WONDERFUL QUESTIONS AND GREAT ANSWERS AND I DID HEAR STAFF NOD TO THE FACT THAT THIS HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED FOR MORE THAN 1015 YEARS. THAT'S RIGHT. WHEN I SEE INCREASES THAT ARE NEARING 100%, THAT TO ME FEELS LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT IN THIS MEETING AND NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO UPDATES FROM THE CITY TO MAKE CONCLUSIONS ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS ABOUT WHAT THE CITY IS DOING. SO I WOULD BE HIGHLY IN FAVOR OF MORE INCREMENTAL INCREASES THAT ARE CLOSER TO THAT 30% MARK. I THINK THAT THERE IS SOME UNDERSTANDING THAT EVERYTHING IS GETTING MORE EXPENSIVE AND I THINK THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO NOTICE AS ANY ANY TYPE OF FEE GOES UP. COMMISSIONER SO RAISES A POINT OF CLARIFICATION ARE YOU PROPOSING OR SUGGESTING THAT THE CURRENT INCREASE IS AROUND THE 30% MARK OR MOVING FORWARD OR DOING THIS MORE OFTEN SO IT'S AROUND 30% AND NOT 100%? >> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, CHAIR. I WOULD SUGGEST MOVING FORWARD THIS FEELS LIKE A GOOD RESET. THANK YOU FOR THAT VERIFICATION. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? MR. JOHNSON IS THERE ANYTHING YOU NEED FORMALLY FROM US OR NOT? THANK YOU. GOOD FEEDBACK AND I'LL SHARE THAT WITH THE CITY COUNCIL WHEN I MEET WITH THEM ON MONDAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, MR. JOHNSON. WE'LL MOVE THEN. ITEM NUMBER SIX WHICH IS THE CONSIDERATION OF TO A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SYNOPSIS WE WILL BEGIN WITH JANUARY 15TH 2020 SIXTH AND I WILL 26 AND I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. COMMISSIONER MUNSTER I MOVE TO APPROVE THE DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SYNOPSIS FROM JANUARY 15TH 2026 AS PRESENTED SO A SECOND SECOND GRADING AND I WILL NOTE THAT ALL PLANNING COMMISSIONERS WERE PRESENT FOR THAT MEETING. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I, I OPPOSED NONE OF THAT MOTION PASSES 40I WILL NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR JANUARY 22ND 2026 MR. JOHNSON COMMISSIONER LINNEY WAS ABSENT FOR THAT MEETING SO WE HAD SIX COMMISSIONERS AT THE MEETING. THREE COMMISSIONERS TONIGHT ARE PRESENT. IS THAT ENOUGH TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS ITEM? YES IT IS. THE RULES OF PROCEDURE DO ALLOW THAT. VERY WELL. THANK YOU. >> I'LL LOOK THEN FOR A MOTION FOR JANUARY 22ND I MOVE TO APPROVE THE DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SYNOPSIS FROM JANUARY 22ND 2026 AS PRESENTED. SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR JANUARY 20TH 22ND 2020 SIXTH. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I OPPOSED ABSTAIN ABSTAIN THEIR MOTION PASSES THREE ZERO WITH ONE ABSTENTION. THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM SEVEN. OUR FINAL ITEM THIS EVENING IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND ISSUES UPDATE MR. JOHNSON THANK YOU CHAIR COOKED IN AGAIN PREVIEWING THE UPCOMING MEETINGS BEFORE YOU FEBRUARY 26TH HAS OFFICIALLY BEEN CANCELED. THE NEXT MEETING AFTER THAT IS MARCH THE 12TH. WE'RE PLANNING TO STUDY ITEMS AT THAT MEETING. ONE IS A PLANNING COMMISSION WHILE BOTH ACTUALLY NOW ARE PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN ITEMS THE CORNER LOT STUDY CORNER LOT STANDARD SO BLOOMINGTON HAS A UNIQUE STANDARDS BOTH FOR LOT WIDTH AND SIZE FOR OUR CORNER LOTS IN OUR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS ARE TAKING A LOOK AT LOT SIZE AS WELL AS SOME OTHER MISCELLANEOUS STANDARDS IN OUR CODE THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY PERTAIN TO CORNER LOTS. AND THEN THE SECOND ITEM FOR THAT WOULD BE A KICKOFF DISCUSSION AROUND THE 2050 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO REALLY KIND OF SETTING THE FOUNDATION AROUND THE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT A PLAN IS, WHAT ARE THE PROCEDURES THAT THE CITY HAS TO FOLLOW REALLY JUST KIND OF DOING A DEEP DIVE AND INTRODUCTION TO THAT. I WILL NOTE THAT ON MARCH THE 10TH A CITY COUNCIL CONCURRENT MEETING HAS BEEN CALLED WHERE ALL YOU HAVE BEEN INVITED AS WELL AS MULTIPLE OTHER ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. WE WILL TOUCH ON THE COMP PLAN IS THAT AS PART OF THAT MEETING AS WELL BUT WE ARE HOLDING TIME ON MARCH THE 12TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SO THAT THERE'S MORE THERE'S ANTICIPATED TO BE OVER 40 OFFICIALS AT THAT MEETING SO THERE'S IT'S LIKELY THAT THERE'LL BE LESS AIR TIME TO ADDRESS EVERY QUESTION YOU MIGHT HAVE A DISCUSSION ITEM AND SO WE'RE HOLDING SPACE ON THE MARCH 12TH MEETING JUST IN CASE TO GIVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MORE TIME AND SPACE TO CONNECT WITH STAFF ABOUT THE CONTENT THAT WAS PRESENTED FOR THE 2015 PLAN MARCH 19TH AS A CANDIDATE FOR CANCELLATION AT THIS POINT WE'LL SEND OUT MORE NOTICE OF THAT MOVING FORWARD. AND THEN OTHER UPDATES JUST A REMINDER ABOUT THE MARCH 10TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING INVITED THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION, THE PORT AUTHORITY AND THE HRA BOARD WILL ALL BE IN ATTENDANCE AT THAT MEETING. SO I'M STILL WORKING THROUGH THE PHYSICAL LOGISTICS OF DOING THAT BUT WE'LL GET IT SQUARED AWAY AND THEN YEAH YOU MAY. SO THERE WAS A MEETING INVITE SENT OUT AND THEN THERE WAS A MEETING CANCELLATION SENT OUT WAS THE CANCELLATION JUST A VENUE CHANGE OR TIME THAT WAS FORGIVE ME THAT WAS A HOLD OF TIME. OKAY. I THINK MAYBE WHAT HAPPENED IS WE HAVEN'T FORWARDED THE NEW EVENT INVITE FOR THAT BUT IT'S STILL ON ON MARCH 10TH. FORGIVE US FORHAT PROCEDURAL HICCUP. THAT'S OKAY. YEAH. AND THEN FINALLY JUST A REMINDER THAT WE HAD THE PLANNING COMMISSION RETREAT ON FEBRUARY THE 2ND. SHANTE BROWN HAS PREPARED A SURVEY POST EVENT SURVEY IF YOU'RE WILLING TO PROVIDE ANY FEEDBACK ON THAT FOR HER IT'LL HELP US TO PLAN FUTURE SIMILAR EVENTS AND WE THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR ANY FEEDBACK YOU CAN OFFER US. SO THAT'S IT? THAT'S MY UPDATE. THANK YOU MR. JOHNSON TO COMMISSIONERS WE DO HAVE THREE COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE NOT PRESENT AND ALTHOUGH I'M SURE THEY'RE WATCHING ME YOU MAY WANT TO PUT THAT HOLD OR SOMETHING BACK ON THE CALENDAR BECAUSE IT DID IMPLY THAT THAT MEETING WAS CANCELED AND SO I DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO FILL THAT UP ON THEIR CALENDARS BY ACCIDENT. SO MAYBE A TEXT MESSAGE OR OTHER COMMUNICATION TO MAKE SURE OUR COMMISSIONERS ARE HOLDING THAT. MR. JOHNSON I'D LIKE TO ASK ONE OTHER QUESTION AND I'M SURE YOU'LL GO INTO GREAT DETAIL ON MARCH 12TH BUT COULD YOU JUST HELP US HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ROLE IN THE COMPLAINT? YEAH. THANK YOU, CHAIR. AS THE CITY'S ADVISORY BOARD FOR LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION, LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ARE TWO CRITICAL ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THERE'S TWO CHAPTERS OR ELEMENTS THAT ARE DEDICATED TO LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION. BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT IS SERVING AS THE CITY'S PLANNING AGENCY. YOU ARE THE ONLY ADVISORY BOARD OR COMMISSION THAT THE THE HAS TO MAKE A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION ON THE COMP PLAN. THE COMP PLAN CERTAINLY WILL BE THE DRAFT THAT ULTIMATELY COMES FROM THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS AND THE RESEARCH PROCESS AND THE YOU KNOW MULTIPLE ITERATIONS OF INPUT CERTAINLY WILL BE PRESENTED TO OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS FOR THEIR FEEDBACK . BUT YOU'RE THE ONLY BODY MAKING A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION UNDER THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS. SO IT WAS THERE THAT ADEQUATELY ANSWER THAT RESERVE OR MY QUESTION I THINK IS WHAT IS OUR ROLE IN DRAFTING OR CREATING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? DOES THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAVE INPUT ON IT? IS IT MORE OF IS IT IS IT STRICTLY A REVIEW THING? SOMEONE ELSE HAS PREPARED IT AND WE REVIEW IT OR IS THERE MORE OF AN INPUT ACTIVE ROLE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IF YOU'RE WILLING TO GRANT ME SOME PATIENCE I THINK THAT SOME OF THAT CONTENT WAS GOING TO BE COVERED ON MARCH 10TH AND THEN THE SUBSEQUENT SESSION WITH YOU ON MARCH THE 12TH DEEPER DIVE. SO IF YOU'RE WILLING TO SAVE THAT QUESTION AND I'LL ENSURE THAT THE CAUCUS AND WHO WHO'S THE PROJECT MANAGER FOR THE COMP PLAN PROJECT IS AWARE OF YOUR QUESTION BUT THERE'S GOING TO BE MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO REALLY SHAPE THE CONTENT AND THE POLICIES OF THE PLAN. SO I WOULD NOT CATEGORIZE IT OR CONSIDER IT A PASSIVE REVIEW. I THINK AT MULTIPLE STAGES ALONG THE WAY MANY DIFFERENT CITY OFFICIALS YOURSELVES INCLUDED WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY SHAPE THE ITS CONTENT FROM AN EARLY STAGE. SO I WILL WAIT WITH BATED BREATH. OKAY. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF PARTICULARLY THINGS THAT WERE NOT ON THIS EVENING'S AGENDA. WAS THERE ANYTHING WE'D LIKE TO BE DISCUSSED? COMMISSIONER LINNEY YEAH, I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW IF OBVIOUSLY IN THE NEWS QUITE A BIT IN THE LAST WEEK OR TWO OR LAST FEW WEEKS HAS BEEN DATA CENTERS AND DECISIONS BY OTHER COMMUNITIES AND WHATNOT. AND I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S BEEN ANY CONVERSATION OF I MEAN I REALIZE BLOOMINGTON DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE THE SAME AVAILABLE LAND OPTIONS ARE SOME OF THE FURTHER OUT SUBURBS HAVE BUT HAS THIS TOPIC COME UP EITHER AT THE CITY COUNCIL IN PLANNING MEETINGS, YOU KNOW AS WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE COMP PLAN, IS THIS GOING TO BE A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION? THANKS. YEAH. CHAIR COMMISSIONER LINNEY I DON'T MEAN TO PAT OURSELVES ON THE BACK HERE BUT THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON WAS A LITTLE BIT AHEAD OF THIS ISSUE A FEW YEARS AGO WHERE WE DID ADOPT REQUIREMENTS AROUND DATA CENTERS. IN FACT WE DO HAVE YOU STANDARDS FOR DATA CENTERS. I'M TRYING TO NAVIGATE TO THEM NOW. I'M SURE I'M NOT I MEAN I'M SURE IT'S NOT AN INTENT TO PROLONG THIS MEETING MUCH FURTHER BUT EFFECTIVELY WHAT THE MAIN BRAKE PEDAL OR RESTRICTION ON DATA CENTERS ARE THE FIRST THING WE DID IN THIS ORDINANCE IS WE DEFINED THE USE BUT THE MAIN THING THAT REALLY KIND OF MANAGES THEIR IMPACTS IS THAT THEY MAY NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN 500FT OF SITE ZONED AND USED RESIDENTIALLY AND SOME OF THIS WAS COMING OUT OF A EXPANSION OF A DATA CENTER KIND OF AN INDUSTRIAL SITE THAT HAD LOTS OF COOLERS AND CHILLERS ON SITE THAT WE'RE MAKING QUITE A BIT OF NOISE SO THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON DOES HAVE STANDARDS FOR DATA CENTERS. THIS IS REALLY THE KEY PROVISION THAT I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED ON THE SCREEN. AND IT HAS PREVENTED A COUPLE OF PERSPECTIVE INTEREST IN A COUPLE SITE LOCATIONS FROM JUST MY OWN ANECDOTAL INVOLVEMENT AND A COUPLE INQUIRIES THAT WE'VE RECEIVED. SO WE WERE A LITTLE BIT AHEAD OF IT. BUT I AGREE WITH YOUR YOUR COMMENT THAT WE'RE LIKELY NOT A GOOD CANDIDATE FOR LARGE SCALE DATA CENTERS JUST ON THE BASIS OF BEING A FULLY DEVELOPED COMMUNITY AND THEY'RE MORE LOOKING FOR GREENFIELD SITES YOU CAN TRUST. YOUR FORMER PLANNING COMMISSION SPENT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT GENERATORS AND OTHER THINGS THAT CAUSE NOISE AND AND THEIR PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL USES. BUT I THINK ALL TOO POSITIVE IMPACT ANY OTHER ITEMS WISHING TO BE DISCUSSED SEEING NONE. THAT CONCLUDES THIS FEBRUARY 19TH MEETING OF THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION. GOOD NIGHT