THIS MARCH 19TH MEETING OF THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADVISES THE CITY COUNCIL ON DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, LONG RANGE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION ISSUES. SOME ITEMS THAT COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ARE STUDY ITEMS WHEREE WILL NOT TAKE FORMAL ACTION. OTHER ITEMS THAT COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ARE PUBLIC HEARINGS WHERE WE WILL TAKE ACTION AND DO ENCOURAGE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. YOU CAN DO THAT HERE AT CITY HALL IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS. YOU CAN ALSO DO SO FROM HOME BY TESTIFYING ONLINE. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THIS EVENING AGENDA. ON SOME ITEMS THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS FINAL DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY ON OTHER ITEMS. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL MAKE THE FINAL DECISION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTS IN AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE ADVISORY CAPACITY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS MADE UP OF SEVEN VOLUNTEER RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON. EACH PLANNING COMMISSIONER HAS BEEN APPOINTED TO SERVE A THREE YEAR TERM WITH A TWO TERM LIMIT. WE HAVE SIX COMMISSIONERS PRESENT HERE AT CITY HALL SO WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. WE WILL BEGIN THE MEETING THIS EVENING WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. ALL RISE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. WE'RE GOING TO GET STARTED THIS EVENING. ITEM NUMBER ONE IS A CORNER LOT STANDARD STUDY. MISS EMILY PECK IS HERE WITH THE STAFF REPORT. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. YES, SO TONIGHT I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT A STUDY ABOUT THE CORNER LOT STANDARDS AND BLOOMINGTON SO JUST FOR SOME CONTEXT BLOOMINGTON'S CURRENT ZONING RULES TREAT ALL STREET FACING YARDS AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CORNER SORRY ON LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CORNER LOTS AS FRONT YARDS. THIS RESULTS IN LARGER LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS INCREASED SETBACKS AND STRICTER REGULATIONS COMPARED TO INTERIOR LOTS. THESE STANDARDS MAY HINDER THE CITY'S GOALS OF ENCOURAGING INFILL DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVING HOUSING AFFORDABILITY WHILE ALSO CREATING INEQUITIES FOR CORNER LOT OWNERS BY LIMITING THEIR ABILITY TO EXPAND THEIR HOMES OR ADD ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. THIS PROJECT REVIEWS THESE REGULATIONS AGAINST PEER CITIES TO ASSESS WHETHER UPDATES ARE WARRANTED. I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THE STANDARDS AND THEN ASK A GUIDING QUESTION RELATED TO THAT STANDARD. SO WE'LL KIND OF GO THROUGH ONE BY ONE AND WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION. SO STARTING WITH RESEARCH FINDINGS, SFF ANALYZE CORNER LOT ZONING STANDARDS AND 15 COMPARABLE CITIES IN THE METRO AREA AND ACROSS THE STATE SHOWN AS I HIGHLIGHTED CITIES ON THE SCREEN THE ANALYSIS FOUND THAT MOST PEER CITIES DO NOT IMPOSE SEPARATE MINIMUM LOT WITH OR AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR CORNER LOTS. INSTEAD THEY TYPICALLY REGULATE THESE PROPERTIES BY APPLYING A DEFINED SIDE YARD SETBACK ALONG THE STREET COMMONLY BETWEEN 15 AND 25FT RATHER THAN TREATING BOTH STREET FACING YARDS AS FRONT YARDS. NEARLY ALL REVIEWED CITIES ALSO PROHIBIT ACCESSORY STRUCTURES BETWEEN THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING AND THE STREET. CONSISTENT WITH BLOOMINGTON'S CURRENT APPROACH. SO AS FAR AS SETBACK GOES, THE CURRENT CODE REQUIRES A 30 FOOT SETBACK ALONG ALL YARDS FACING A STREET. THIS REQUIRES A LARGER LAW AND STRICTER LOCATION REQUIREMENTS FOR STRUCTURES. BASED ON RESEARCH FINDINGS STATHIS PROPOSING REDUCING THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE SIDE YARD FACING A STREET TO 20FT 20FT ALIGNS WITH OTHER STANDARDS IN THE CODE SUCH AS THE 20 FOOT LANDSCAPING YARD REQUIREMENT. SO THE FIRST GUIDING QUESTION IS RELATED TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK ADJACENT TO A STREET. AND JUST AN EYE ON ALL THE GUIDING QUESTIONS. THE OPTIONS MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK ARE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. SO I'LL JUST READ THROUGH ALL THE OPTIONS. SO OPTION ONE IS A 20 FOOT SETBACK FOR A SIDE YARD ADJACENT TO A STREET AND REGULATE LOT AREA AND LOT WITH THE SAME AS INTERIOR LOTS. >> I'M GOING TO GIVE A SIDE NOTE ON THAT ONE. SO A POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGE FOR THIS OPTION WHICH WOULD BE TO ONLY REGULATE THE SETBACK AND NOT THE SITE SIZE AND WIDTH IS THAT IT COULD CREATE UNREALISTIC DEVELOPMENT EXPECTATIONS FOR PROPERTY OWNERS OR BUYERS. A LOT MAY MEET THE MINIMUM LOT AREA AND WIDTH REQUIREMENTS BUT STILL HAVE A LIMITED OR CONSTRAINED BUILDING PAD DUE TO SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ONE POSSIBLE RESULT OF THIS SITUATION COULD BE INCREASED REQUESTS FOR ZONING VARIANCES. AND THEN ON THE FLIP SIDE, THE ADVANTAGE OF THIS APPROACH IS THAT IT WOULD CREATE A SIMPLER CODE STRUCTURE OPTION TWO WHICH IS STAFF RECOMMENDED IS TO HAVE A 20 FOOT SETBACK FOR A SIDE YARD ADJACENT TO A STREET AND TO STILL REGULATE LOT AREA AND A LOT WITH DIFFERENTLY THAN INTERIOR LOTS. >> AND THEN OPTION THREE IS TO NOT CHANGE CURRENT STANDARDS. SO TO STILL HAVE A 30 FOOT SETBACK AND TO STILL REGULATE CORNER LOT AREA AND WITH DIFFERENTLY THAN INTERIOR LOTS . SO LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OTHERWISE WE ARE LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK ON YOUR THOUGHTS ON THESE OPTIONS. THOUGHTS ON SIDE YARD SETBACK . MR. CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU CHAIR AND MR. SPEAKER, I'M SORRY THIS IS KIND OF A STUMP THE PLANNER QUESTION. ARE THERE ANY AREAS OF THE CITY WHERE CITY RIGHT OF WAY EXTENDS BEYOND 20FT INTO A PROPERTY? CHAIR COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. >> THE REASON I ASK I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING YOU THE REASON I ASK IS JUST WONDERING IF WE'RE ALLOWING FOLKS TO BUILD A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE WITHIN A 20 FOOT SETBACK. AND I GUESS RIGHT AWAY WOULD STILL GOVERN OVER THAT, CORRECT? WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ISSUE A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE BUILDING IN A RIGHT OF WAY. CORRECT. YOU CAN'T BUILD IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. SO THE PROPERTY LINE STARTS AFTER THE RIGHT OF WAY. I'M NOT SURE IF RIGHT AWAY WITHIN THE CITY IS OVER 20FT. THAT SEEMS WIDE TO ME. PLANNING MANAGER JOHNSON DESTRY JOHNSON SURE CHAIR. COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM THANKS FOR THE QUESTIONS. SO IT'S PRETTY ATYPICAL TO HAVE A BOULEVARD I ASSUME YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A BOULEVARD EFFECTIVELY BEING 20FT WIDE. THAT WOULD BE FAIRLY RARE. I WOULDN'T SAY THAT THERE ARE NO SITUATIONS LIKE THAT IN THE CITY. BUT THE LARGEST I TYPICALLY SEE WOULD BE 16FT 15FT AND THAT'S PRETTY SIGNIFICANT OR EVEN THAT'S ATYPICAL. I'D SAY 10FT TO 12FT IS THE MOST COMMON WIDTH OF THE BOULEVARD. BUT EMILY'S CORRECT REGARDLESS OF WHERE THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE EXISTS THAT PROPERTY LINE IS WHERE THE SETBACK IS MEASURED FROM. SO JUST TO CONFIRM THAT REGARDLESS OF WHERE THAT'S LOCATED, THE 20 FOOT APPLIES FROM BEHIND THAT LINE WHEREVER IT EXISTS. THANK YOU . COMMISSIONER MUNSTER. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. JUST AS A QUESTION ON SORT OF THIS GUIDING QUESTION WE'RE REALLY JUST LOOKING AT IN REFERENCE TO THE STAFF REPORT SORT OF JUST THAT FIRST LINE IN THE TABLE THAT'S IN THERE. SO JUST TALKING ABOUT THE 30 VERSUS 20FT, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE LOT WITH THAT MAY GO WITH IT, RIGHT? RIGHT. WE'LL GET TO THAT. OKAY, PERFECT. AND IN THAT CASE I WOULD SUPPORT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF OPTION TWO. I MISSPOKE. I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTOOD THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION. THERE ISN'T OPTION ONE REGARDING THE LOT WITH CHAIR YES. SO OPTION ONE IS STATING THAT YOU WOULD HAVE A 20 FOOT SETBACK BUT THEN YOU WOULD JUST REGULATE THE LOT AREA IN LOT WITH THE SAME AS INTERIOR LOTS. SO YOU WOULD HAVE THE SAME STANDARDS FOR A LOT WITH AS AN INTERIOR LOT WHICH FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES FOR EXAMPLE IS 60FT. EVEN IF YOU ALL CHOSE OPTION ONE WE WOULD STILL WANT TO GO THROUGH AND SEE YOUR THOUGHTS ON LOT WITHIN THAT AREA JUST IN CASE COUNSEL HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION. AND I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU ALL AS WELL. SO MS.. ASPECT, THE 60FT WOULD BE A MINIMUM. A CORNER LOT COULD STILL BE LARGER MORE THAN THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. COMMISSIONER, WAIT JUST A QUESTION AND APOLOGIES IF THIS IS IN THE CHART THAT THAT YOU SHOWED US EARLIER. WHAT IS THE CURRENT LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT FOR A CORNER LOT VERSUS AN INTERIOR LOT? CHAIR COMMISSIONER WHITE THANK YOU. SO THE LOT WITH REQUIREMENT FOR CORNER LOT IS 100FT FOR AN INTERIOR LOT AT 60FT AND THEN THE AREA FOR A CORNER LOT IS 11,050FT. AND THEN THE INTERIOR LOT AREA IS 70 800FT. COMMISSIONER ISSA THANK YOU CHAIR. IS IT WAS THERE A DEBATE WITHIN CITY STAFF BETWEEN 1 AND 2 AND IF THERE WAS WHAT WAS KIND OF THE DEBATE? CHAIR COMMISSIONER ISSA, THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION A LITTLE BIT. I THINK THAT THE THE REASON FOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION BEING OPTION TWO IS KIND OF WHAT I STATED ABOUT OPTION ONE POTENTIALLY BEING UNREALISTIC. SO NOT UNREALISTIC BUT COULD GET PEOPLE'S HOPES UP BASED ON LIKE THE TYPICAL SIZE OF A HOUSE EVEN IF YOU ARE LIKE OH A CORNER LOT ONLY NEEDS TO BE 60FT WIDE. ARE THEY STILL GOING TO BE ABLE TO MEET THE REQUIRED SETBACKS AND HAVE A LIKE BUILDING PAD THAT MAKES SENSE IS KIND OF THE REASON THAT WE WENT WITH OPTION TWO PRESSURE RIGHT. THANK YOU CHAIR. I, I, I DON'T HAVE ANY PARTICULAR OBJECTION TO THE 20 FOOT SETBACK CHANGE. I THINK MY BRAIN IS STRUGGLING WITH THE MATH OF THE THE DIFFERENCE IN LOT SIZES. I'M CURIOUS NOT BEING A PLANNER OF THIS NATURE ANYWAY I'M WONDERING WHY THE DIFFERENCE EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE OF 100 VERSUS THE 64 CORNER VERSUS INTERIOR AND MAYBE I'M THE ONLY ONE THAT DOESN'T KNOW BUT I'D APPRECIATE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT. CHAIR COMMISSIONER, WHY I THINK IT IS PARTIALLY PROBABLY LIKE THE GREATER SETBACK IS FOR ESTHETICS SO THAT IT'S LIKE UNIFORM ACROSS ALL YARDS FACING A STREET. AND THEN ALSO AGAIN WHAT I JUST SAID PROBABLY TRYING TO BE REALISTIC WITH THE REQUIRED SETBACKS AND THE SIZE OF A HOUSE. PLANNING MANAGER JOHNSON I'M NOT SURE IF THERE WAS SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO ADD TO THAT. MR. JOHNSON I THINK YOU'D HAVE TO DIG MORE INTO SOME OF THE OLD RECORD OF WHEN THOSE STANDARDS WERE ESTABLISHED WHICH WE HAVE DONE SOME OF THAT BUT IT'S NOT ALWAYS CLEAR WHERE THE MINUTES ARE ALWAYS A LITTLE BIT MORE MODEST THAN THEY ARE TODAY. WE TRY AND KEEP A LITTLE BIT SHARPER RECORD ON SOME OF THE THINGS WE RETAIN AS PART OF TODAY'S POLICY DISCUSSIONS BUT IN EFFECT IT WAS JUST TO MAINTAIN THOSE WIDE AND OPEN YARDS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET. THEY ESTABLISHED A MORE SIGNIFICANT WIDTH ON BOTH SIDES TO BASICALLY EFFECTUATE THAT OUTCOME AND HAVE LARGER LOTS OCCUPY THE CORNERS. YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY WERE USING THE SAME MATH OR METHODS THAT WE ARE IN TERMS OF PROVIDING YOU THIS SITE WITH AN AREA OPTIONS THAT EMILY IS GOING TO TALK ABOUT ON SUBSEQUENT SLIDES. MS. ASPECT WHAT IS THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR AN INTERIOR LOT? CHAIR COOKED IN IT'S TEN FEET NOW I'M UNDERSTANDING SO HAVING A CORNER LOT HAVE THE SAME MINIMUM LOT WITH AS AN INTERIOR LOT RESTRICTS THE DEVELOPMENT ON IT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PUT YOUR HOUSE PAD AS CLOSE TO THE SIDE OF YOUR YARD AS YOU COULD ON AN INTERIOR LOT. SO YOU'RE RESTRICTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SIZE OF THE HOME THAT COULD GO ON A CORNER LOT. CORRECT. THANK YOU. CHAIR IF I CAN ADD ONE THING TO THAT SOMETIMES LOTS ARE SUBDIVIDED NOT BY THE EVENTUAL HOMEBUILDER OR THE CONSUMER OF THE HOUSE. SO THAT'S WHERE THOSE CONSUMER EXPECTATIONS CAN RUN INTO SOME CHALLENGES IN TERMS OF THE WIDTH OF THE BUILDING PAD THAT THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED. SO THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS TO STILL RETAIN SOME MINIMUM EXPECTATION FOR CORNER LOT SIZE IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A LARGER SETBACK THAN AN INTERIOR LOT LINE. I DON'T KNOW IF I EXPLAIN THAT WELL BUT SO UNDERSTANDING BETTER NOW I, I PREFER OPTION TWO. I THINK OPTION ONE IS UNDULY RESTRICTIVE TO OWNERS OF A CORNER LOT THAT THEIR HOUSE HAS TO BE EFFECTIVELY SMALLER THAN AN INTERIOR LOT WOULD BE . SO I PREFER OPTION TWO. COMMISSIONER LINNEY THANK YOU CHAIR. >> I THINK I WAS THINKING ABOUT THIS AS I WAS WALKING AROUND MY NEIGHBORHOOD TODAY AND I CAN SEE IN PARTICULAR ONE CERTAIN SCENARIO ALSO WHERE IT'S PARTICULARLY DISADVANTAGEOUS WHICH IS IN AN AREA IN NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE PEOPLE HAVE THESE APPARENTLY SEEMINGLY VERY LARGE LOTS BUT BASED ON THE CURRENT RESTRICTIONS CAN'T FOR EXAMPLE ADD A THIRD CAR GARAGE EXTENSION ON WHEREAS THEIR NEIGHBORS WITH TO AN INTERIOR LOT DO HAVE ENOUGH SPACE TO GO WIDER. I KNOW THAT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS BEEN A CONTENTIOUS ISSUE WITH A PARTICULAR HOUSE AND SO I COULD SEE HOW THAT VERY SPECIFIC ISSUE IN COULD BE FOR PARTICULARLY FOR CORNER LOTS PARTICULARLY FRUSTRATING COMMISSIONER SUMMERS. THANK YOU CHAIR. I. A LOT OF GOOD STUFF HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID. I'M IN FAVOR OF OPTION TWO. I THINK THAT THE STAFF REPORT ON THIS MADE REALLY CLEAR THAT WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE WILL GROW PRETTY QUICKLY OUT OF ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IN MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. SO FOR ME I DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW IF WE NEED TO BE LESS RESTRICTIVE THAN OPTION TWO BUT FOR ME THAT I FEEL REALLY COMFORTABLE WITH THAT ONE. AND YOUR THOUGHTS SEEING IT. OKAY. THANK YOU ALL. SO NEXT WE'LL TALK ABOUT CORNER LOT WITH SO SITE WITH FOUR CORNER LOTS AT BOTH OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK LINES MUST BE AT LEAST 100FT MINIMUM SITE WITH FOUR SINGLE FAMILY INTERIOR LOTS IS 60FT WHILE MINIMUM SITE WIDTH FOR TWO FAMILY INTERIOR LOTS IS 80FT. THE EXAMPLE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE SCREEN SHOWS THE REQUIREMENT OF A 100 FOOT LOT WITH AT BOTH FRONT YARD SETBACKS. THIS SITE THIS SITE WITH REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT TO SPLIT A CORNER LOT. AND THE FIGURE ON THE LEFT SHOWS HOW SITE WIDTH IS MEASURED IN BLOOMINGTON SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SITES MUST MEET MINIMUM SITE WITH REQUIREMENTS AT THE FRONT SETBACK LINE AND OVER THE FIRST 50FT OF THE SITE BEYOND THE REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK LINE. SO THE NEXT GUIDING QUESTION I SPLIT INTO SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILIES I WILL TALK ABOUT SITE WITH FOR BOTH AND THEN I'LL JUST READ ALL THE OPTIONS. SO OPTION ONE WOULD BE TO HAVE THE SAME REQUIREMENTS AS FOR INTERIOR LOTS WHICH WOULD BE A 60 FOOT LOT WITH. OPTION TWO WOULD BE A 70 FOOT LOT WITH OPTION THREE AND 84 LOT WITH AND THEN OPTION FOUR WOULD BE TO NOT CHANGE THE CURRENT STANDARDS WHICH WOULD BE 100FT AND THEN A NO ABOUT CALCULATIONS. I WILL SUMMARIZE HOW WE GOT TO THESE NUMBERS. LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. SO WE CALCULATED PROPOSED LOT WITH BY ASSUMING THE AVERAGE SINGLE FAMILY HOME BUILDING PAD IS ABOUT 30 TO 40FT IN LENGTH AND THE AVERAGE TWO FAMILY BUILDING PAD WOULD BE IS 65 TO 75FT IN LENGTH. STAFF ADDED THE HOUSE LENGTH THE EXISTING SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF TEN FEET AND THE PROPOSED SIDE YARD ADJACENT TO A STREET SETBACK OF 20FT. AND THEN FOR CALCULATING LOST AREA STAFF MULTIPLIED POTENTIAL LOT WITH BY THE TYPICAL LOT OF TYPICAL LENGTH OF A LOT WHICH IS ABOUT 130FT. SO I KNOW THAT CAN BE CONFUSING TO US TO VERBALLY SO LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. MRS. BUT FOR THOSE OF US WHO DON'T HAVE AN EDUCATION IN PLANNING PERHAPS YOU COULD HELP Y YOU KNOW I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS BUT WHY DO WE EVEN REGULATE A LOT WITH INSTEAD OF JUST RELYING ON THE SETBACKS TO DO THE JOB? CHAIR COOKTOWN THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION. I THINK IT HAS TO DO KIND OF WITH THIS UM THE VISUAL ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SCREEN. UM SO I THINK LOTS CAN BE SHAPED PRETTY FUNKY. SO I THINK THE SITE WITH KIND OF HELPS TO STANDARDIZE THE LOTS AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE WIDE OR LIKE THE WIDTH THAT WE WANT MOST OF THE WAY THROUGH THE LOT. WHEREAS A SETBACK IF THE HOUSE WAS AT THE FRONT OF THE LOT AND NOT THE REAR IT COULD BE WAY LESS WIDE THAN WE WANT IT TO BE AT THE AT THE BACK. MR. JOHNSON ANYTHING THAT YEAH IF I CAN ADD TO THAT THE ONE OF THE CHALLENGES OF IRREGULAR SHAPED LOTS IS THAT THEY PRESENT ISSUES FOR ASSESSMENT POLICIES. SO WHEN YOU'RE REBUILDING STREETS OR YOU'RE IMPROVING SANITARY SEWER WATER THE CITY ASSESSES ON A PER LINEAL FOOT BASIS. WE HAVE SOME MECHANISMS IN OUR POLICIES TO KIND OF DEAL WITH FLAG LOTS AND KIND OF DO AN AVERAGING OF THE LOTS ON A PARTICULAR BLOCK. SO THERE IS WAYS TO ADDRESS THAT. BUT IN ADDITION TO KIND OF THE UNIFORMITY AND ENSURING THAT THERE'S ADEQUATE MINIMUM BUILDING PADS FOR KIND OF MODERN EXPECTATIONS. ONE OF THE ISSUES IN TERMS OF CREATING THIS UNIFORMITY IS IT HELPS PAY FOR AND ADDRESS OTHER PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE CONSIDERATIONS. THAT BEING SAID, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, MODERN BUILDING PADS HAVE CHANGED QUITE A BIT TOO. THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT HOUSE DESIGNS THAT ARE NARROWER THAN MAYBE THERE WAS IN 1960S, 70S 80S. SO I SEE MORE VARIETY IN TERMS OF THE BUILDING PAD AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WHY RAISING THIS QUESTION OF SHOULD IT BE ADDRESSED THROUGH SETBACKS ONLY VERSUS ESTABLISHING THESE MINIMUM WITH AN AREA REQUIREMENTS THAT SAY KIND OF THE HEART OF THE DISCUSSION. THANKS. YES IF I COULD FOLLOW UP JUST ON AN EVEN MORE BASIC LEVEL. LET'S SAY IT'S NOT AN IRREGULAR SHAPED LOT. IT'S JUST A SQUARE LOT. WHATEVER AND A PERSON WANTED TO SPLIT THEIR LOT IN HALF AND THEY WOULD BUILD TWO JUST VERY NARROW BUT LONG HOUSES LIKE HOUSES KIND OF USED TO BE THERE JUST VERY SORT OF NARROW BUT THEY'RE LONG IN THE BACK AND YOU HAVE THE SETBACK ON EITHER SIDE OF IT. AND SO YOU JUST HAVE TWO VERY NARROW LOTS BUT IT MEETS THE SAME SETBACKS WE HAVE TODAY. WHY WOULDN'T WE WANT TO ALLOW THAT? IS THAT AN AREA IS IT A NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER THING? IS IT A OVER DENSIFICATION TYPE THING? IS IT NOT BUILDING THE TYPE OF HOUSING STOCK WE WANT OR WHY WOULDN'T WE ALLOW THAT? >> PLANNING MANAGER JOHNSON DO YOU WANT TO GIVE THAT A SHOT? YEAH I THINK THAT THERE'S VALID REASONS TO ALLOW THAT SCENARIO. YOU HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT OTHER PERFORMANCE STANDARDS LIKE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND SOME OF THOSE THINGS BUT AS LONG AS YOU'RE MEETING THEORETICALLY THE SAME LOT AREA BUT IT'S JUST A NARROWER THAN IT DOES ACCOUNT FOR SOME OF THAT MEETING THOSE OTHER STANDARDS LIKE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND SETBACKS AND THOSE THINGS. SO I THINK IT CERTAINLY IS A VALID CONSIDERATION. THE ONE THING I'D SAY IS GOING KIND OF TYING THIS PROJECT BACK TO THE LOW DENSITY ZONING REFORMS WE DID IN 2022 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE 60 FOOT WIDE LOT. THAT'S A KIND OF THE SWEET SPOT RIGHT NOW FOR NON ALLEY LOADED LOTS THAT MEET OUR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITATIONS THAT HAS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONNOTATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL CONNOTATIONS THOSE THINGS. AND SO I DON'T THINK YOU'D WANT TO STRAY BELOW THAT 60 FOOT WORTH BECAUSE THAT DOES FIT WELL WITH BLOOMINGTON'S KIND OF INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM. BUT THAT BEING SAID, I MEAN THAT'S WHY ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS IS SHOULD THIS SHOULD CORNER LOTS JUST HAVE TO DEAL WITH A DIFFERENT SETBACK ON THAT SIDE STREET CORNER. THAT'S ONE WAY TO DEAL WITH IT. AND EMILY'S RESEARCH YIELDED THAT THAT IS A WAY THAT A LOT OF OUR PEER CITIES ARE HANDLING THIS. AGAIN, THE ONLY DOWNSIDE OF THAT IS THAT KIND OF MEETING, THAT CONSUMER BASED EXPECTATION OF AN ADEQUATE BUILDING PAD. SO THAT'S THE TRADEOFF. I PROMISED THIS LAST TIME I'LL FOLLOW UP ON THIS BUT I THINK YOU HIT IT. I THINK YOU SAID FROM AN INFRASTRUCTURE STANDPOINT SO IF YOU REALLY TOOK A LOT SPLIT IN HALF AND MADE SOME REAL NARROW HOUSES THAT MEET OUR SETBACKS BUT YOU'VE PUT TWO HOUSES, TWO FAMILIES THERE NOW INSTEAD OF ONE YOU HAVE TWICE AS MUCH TAX YOUR TAXING OUR UTILITIES TWICE AS MUCH AS YOU WERE IF WE HAD ONLY HAD ONE HOUSE ON THAT LOT. IS THAT A FAIR REASON NOT TO SPLIT LOTS TO NARROW? I THINK THAT'S FAIR AND WHAT I WOULD ADD TO THAT IS THAT NOT HAVING ALLEYS DRIVES A WIDER LOT REQUIREMENT AND BLOOMINGTON AND ITS OTHER SUBURBAN PEERS THAN A NARROWER MORE URBAN LOT THOSE CAN BE 30 OR 40 WIDE BECAUSE THEY'RE ALLEY LOADED I MEAN THAT'S JUST A CRITICAL COMPONENT TO BE CONSIDERING WHEN EVALUATING THIS. NOW ON A CORNER LOT YOU CAN HAVE A SIDELOADED GARAGE THAT GOES OUT TO A DIFFERENT STREET THAN THE FRONT OF THE HOME. THEORETICALLY WE DO SEE THAT IN SOME INSTANCES. BUT YEAH, JUST A KEY CONSIDERATION IS THAT MOST BLOOMINGTON LOTS ARE FRONT LOADED NOT ALLEY LOADED WHICH DRIVES MORE WIDTH. THANK YOU BOTH. THE REASON I KEEP ASKING THE QUESTION IS LIKE I GUESS FOR ME EVEN WITH ALL THE ANSWERS I'VE BEEN GIVEN HERE I DON'T EVEN I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND WHY WE HAVE A LOT WITH MINIMUM IF IF WE MEET THE SETBACKS BUT PEOPLE DO WHAT THEY WANT. WE HAVE TO DENSIFY OUR CITY. WE'RE GOING TO GET MORE URBAN. WE'VE GOT TO FIND WAYS TO GET MORE PEOPLE IN HERE. IF YOU'VE GOT A LOT THAT'S DEEP ENOUGH AND YOU THINK YOU CAN SPLIT YOUR LOT IN HALF AND BUILD A HOUSE THAT YOU'RE HAPPY WITH AND I WOULD SAY YOU CAN STILL GET MARKET VALUE FOR AND SELL TO SOMEBODY ELSE. WHY NOT? LIKE IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE PUTTING TOO LIKE WE'RE I DON'T KNOW. I THINK WHAT REALLY MATTERS HERE IS THE SETBACKS NOT THE MINIMUM LOT WITH MAYBE IT CHANGES THE CHARACTER OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD A LITTLE BIT BUT WELL WE'RE IDENTIFYING OUR NEIGHBORHOODS ARE GOING TO CHANGE OVER TIME. IT'S GOING TO TAKE A LONG TIME TO DO THAT. I DON'T THINK IN IN PRACTICAL TERMS WE WOULD SEE A RASH OF EVERY HOMEOWNER IN BLOOMINGTON SELLING THEIR HOUSE AND TEARING IT DOWN AND BUILDING TWO. I THINK IT'S A VERY MINOR THING THAT W WOULD SEE BUT I THINK IF YOU HAD A LOT THAT'S A LITTLE WIDER THAN NORMAL AND KIND OF DEEP AND HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THIS, I THINK WE SHOULD ALLOW IT TO DO IT SO AND I UNDERSTAND THAT PUTS A LITTLE BIT MORE TAX ON OUR OUR UTILITIES. BUT AGAIN I DON'T SEE THIS ACTUALLY OCCURRING VERY MUCH. I THINK IT'S A VERY MINOR CONSIDERATION IN AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO START OVERTAXING OUR SEWER SYSTEMS OR ANYTHING. SO IT LIKE FOR ME I WOULD I WOULD STRIKE LOT WITH FROM THE CITY CODE AND I KNOW THAT'S A BIG STATEMENT FOR ME TO MAKE AS SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T HAVE EXPERTISE IN PLANNING AND I'M SURE IF IF I GAVE THESE MORE GUYS MORE TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT AND GIVE ME A MORE ELOQUENT ANSWER THAN ME JUST ASKING YOU KNOW, 30S AGO THAT THEY WOULD GIVE ME SOME GOOD REASONS WE SHOULDN'T DO THAT BUT I DON'T KNOW I, I WOULDN'T PUT A LOT WITH MINIMUM AN HOUR CODE I'D TAKE IT OUT COMMISSIONER SO THANK YOU CHAIR I BASED OFF ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WAS GIVEN I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST SAID AND REALLY LETTING THE RESIDENTS OR MARKET I GUESS DECIDE AND IF IF THEY DO YOU KNOW GREAT. BUT AT LEAST HAVING THAT ABILITY TO TO TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT I THINK IS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR HOMEOWNERS FOR THE CITY SCHOOLS AND MISSIONS OF MORE DENSITY AND UH YEAH SO THAT'S MY TAKE. THANK YOU MR. SUMMERS THANK YOU CHAIR DID ANY OF YOUR RESEARCH INTO THE PARTNER CITIES THAT YOU REVIEWED HAVE KNOW A LOT WITH REQUIREMENTS? CHAIR COMMISSIONER SUMMERS NONE THAT I LOOKED AT THE CORNER LOTS ALL JUST HAD THE SAME LOT WITHIN MY AREA AS THE INTERIOR LOTS THIS IS YOUR MONSTER AND WITHOUT GOING TOO FAR DOWN EXCUSE ME THE ROAD OF ABOLISHING WIDTH ENTIRELY WHICH I FEEL WOULD JUST LEAD TO A RACE TO THE BOTTOM IS HOW MUCH YOU CAN SQUEEZE ON A PIECE OF LAND. UM I WOULD GO WITH OPTION TWO OF OF WHAT IS PRESENTED BEFORE US BECAUSE THAT ESSENTIALLY GIVES THE SAME BUILDABLE LOT WITH AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE UNDER OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS FISHERIES. THANK YOU CHAIR IF FOR MY UNDERSTANDING MOST PURE CITIES HAVE THE SAME REQUIREMENTS AS INTERIOR LOTS RIGHT SO I FOLLOW UP QUESTION WOULD BE IF IS WHAT IS THE REASON TO THAT THAT THIS STAFF DECIDED ON 70 OR 10 FOR EXTRA VERSUS OTHER CITIES A CHAIR COMMISSIONER ISSA KIND OF FOR THE REASONS THAT COMMISSIONER MUNSTER JUST GAVE IT'S BASICALLY JUST TAKING THE INTERIOR LOT WITH AND ADDING TEN FEET FOR THE EXTRA TEN FOOT SETBACK THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED ON THE SIDE YARD FACING A STREET. YEAH JUST TO TO REITERATE THAT MATH OF A TYPICAL BUILDING PAD IS 30 TO 40FT IN WIDTH FROM WHAT WE SEE FOR HOMES BUILT IN BLOOMINGTON. YOU ADD A TEN FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK PLUS 40FT IS THE LARGER ON THE LARGER SIDE OF A BUILDING PAD PLUS 20FT THAT GETS YOU TO 70. JUST TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT. COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU CHAIR. I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER MUNSTER. I THINK THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR 70FT IS THE KIND OF MORE MODEST, PRUDENT, SLOW APPROACH AND IF THERE IS A LARGE DEMAND FOR MORE DENSITY IN THE FUTURE OR HOMEOWNERS THAT WANT MORE OPTIONS FOR THEIR LOT, I THINK, YOU KNOW, A PRIVATELY INITIATED CODE AMENDMENT MIGHT BE A GOOD AVENUE THERE. I DON'T WANT TO CUT EVERYTHING TOO FAST AND THEN NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT SOMETHING BACK IF WE'RE OVERLOADING ON SEWER. I MEAN WE HAVE A NEW SAT CREDIT SYSTEM IN OUR CITY IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT UTILITIES AND YOU KNOW WE JUST CHANGED KIND OF OUR STREET PARKING ORDINANCES AS WELL AND SO JUST DENSITY IS AWESOME. IT'S OUR IT'S OUR PLAN FOR THE CITY. IT'S IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WHETHER WE WANT IT TO OR NOT. BUT I THINK A MEASURED APPROACH IS IS THE RIGHT MOVE HERE. THK YOU. THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER WHAT IS THE MINIMUM LAW WITH FOR AN INTERIOR LOT? CHAIR IT IS 60FT 60 SO I'M HAVING A HARD TIME GETTING MY HEAD WRAPPED AROUND 70 SO IF THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR AN INTERIOR LOT ARE TEN FEET THAT MEANS YOU HAVE 20FT WORTH OF SIDE YARD. IF ARE WE JUST AGREED WE ARE GOING TO PUT 20FT FOR CORNER LOTS ALTHOUGH I GUESS I WOULD BE 20 PLUS TEN SORRY. SO THAT'S A PLUS 15 SO FOR ME I WOULD HAVE I WOULD HAVE GONE AT 75 BECAUSE WE ARE ASKING OR WERE OUR LAST CONVERSATION SAID WE'RE GOING TO 15FT MORE SIDE YARD. NO TEN IS TEN FEET MORE SORRY THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN I'M YOU KNOW, TRY TO CHANGE THE CODE AND DO ALL THIS OTHER STUFF AT THE SAME TIME. 70FT SEEMS REASONABLE BECAUSE IT'S TEN FEET MORE THEN THE MATH WORKS OUT FOR ME. SO IF I WERE GOING TO DO IT I GUESS IT WOULD BE OPTION TWO BUT I STILL STAND BY I, I QUESTION THE VALIDITY OR NECESSITY OF A LOT WITH ANYBODY ELSE. COMMISSIONER WHITNEY THANK YOU CHAIR I THINK I DEFINITELY BE OPEN TO A CONVERSATION ON THE LOT WITH MY CONCERN WOULD BE HAVING SEEN PARTICULARLY IN SOUTHWEST MINNEAPOLIS SOME CHOICES THAT PEOPLE MADE TO SPLIT THEIR LOTS AND THEN DISCOVERED HOW HARD IT WAS TO BUILD ON THE LOT AND THE LOTS HAVE SAT VACANT IN AN AREA WHERE PROPERTY DOES NOT SIT VACANT FOR LONG IF IT'S BUILDABLE AND THERE'S SEVERAL NOTABLE PROPERTIES THAT HAVE HAD FOR SALE SIGNS FOR YEARS AND THEY'VE BECOME DRAINAGE PITS AND THINGS LIKE THAT I JUST I THINK THAT I WOULD WANT A LOT MORE RESEARCH ON WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE IN PRACTICE BEFORE WE CONSIDER THAT ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE FACT THAT MEETING SETBACK AND PARTICULARLY FRONT SETBACK YOU CAN HAVE A LOT THAT YOU CAN MEET THE SIDE SETBACK AND MEET THE FRONT SETBACK DIVIDE THE LOT AND STILL MEET ALL THOSE SETBACKS REQUIREMENTS BUT IT COULD STILL BE A PIECE OF LAND THAT WASN'T BUILT ON FOR A REASON WHETHER FOR SEWAGE ACCESS TO PIPING AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO I WOULD WANT TO SEE A LOT MORE RESEARCH BEFORE WE MOVED FORWARD ON THAT. SO I'D SAY I'M DEFINITELY SUPPORTIVE OF OPTION TWO BUT WOULD BE OPEN TO A LONGER CONVERT AND LONGER TERM CONVERSATION AND RECONSIDERING LOT WITH ALTOGETHER FISHERIES BASED ON THE SIMPLE FACT THAT OTHER WELL THANK YOU FIRST CHAIR BUT I BASED ON THE SIMPLE FACT THAT MOST OF MY UNDERSTANDING MOST PURE CITIES ARE DOING OPTION ONE ALREADY I WOULD GO WITH OPTION ONE. SECONDLY I THINK COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT OVERBURDENING SEWAGE THE SEWAGE SYSTEM AND I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE BIT OFF TOPIC BUT MY OPINION ON THAT IS IF REGARDLESS THE INTENTION IS TO HAVE HIGH DENSITY THAT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WILL HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED I BELIEVE. RIGHT. AND SO I DON'T THINK IT'S A SHOULD BE A MEASURE TO NOT HAVE HIGH DENSITY IF OUR INTENTION IS TO HAVE HIGH DENSITY LONG TERM AND SO I JUST WANT TO THROW OUT THERE AND MAYBE GET YOUR FURTHER THOUGHTS ON THAT. BE THANK YOU. THANK YOU . FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH I WOULD AGREE WITH THE COMMISSION ALSO HOLD OURSELF BACK FROM OUR LONG TERM GOALS. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THIS? I'M HEARING A LOT OF SUPPORT FOR OPTION TWO. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO THIS NEXT ONE IS JUST LIKE THE FIRST ONE EXCEPT FOR IT'S TALKING ABOUT TO FAMILY LOTS. SO OPTION ONE WOULD BE TO HAVE THE SAME REQUIREMENTS AS FOR INTERIOR LOTS WHICH IS 80FT. OPTION TWO WOULD BE 85FT. OPTION THREE 95FT AND THEN OPTION FOUR WOULD BE TO KEEP THE CURRENT STANDARDS IN THE CODE WHICH IS 100FT AND SAME MATH THAT WENT INTO THE SINGLE FAMILY CALCULATIONS JUST ASSUMING A DIFFERENT SIZE OF BUILDING PAD IS THAT SO I HELP ME WITH THE MATH ON THAT. SO THE SINGLE FAIR I'M SORRY THE TWO FAMILY LOT WITH FOUR INTERIOR IS 80FT. YES. AND THE STAFF REPORT RECOMMENDATION HERE IS 85FT. BUT WE'RE REQUIRING TEN MORE FEET ON THE SETBACK FOR CORNER LOTS. THE CHAIR YEAH. SO THAT WAS BASED OFF THE BUILDING PAD SIZE THAT I FOUND FOR VIA RESEARCH WHICH IS MAYBE JUST DIFFERENT THAN THE BUILDING PAD SIZE THAT WAS USED FOR THE INTERIOR LOTS WHEN THOSE CHANGES WERE MADE A FEW YEARS AGO. UNDERSTOOD. BUT WHEN WE HAVE TEN MORE FEET OF SIDE YARD FOR A CORNER LOT SO WE WOULD BE AT 90FT. YES. BASED ON WHAT WAS ON THE LEFT SIDE. OKAY. MR. CUNNINGHAM, THANKS. AND I'M PROBABLY GOING TO MESS UP THIS MATH BUT MISSPOKE IF I'M DOING THE MATH RIGHT, 55FT IS THE WIDTH THAT WE'RE USING TODAY AND I THINK YOU ALLUDED TO THAT IN THE PAST THEY MIGHT HAVE USED A DIFFERENT WIDTH OF A HOME SAY 60FT AND SO THAT COULD BE WHERE THE THE DISCONNECT. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER MUSSER. I'M GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT OH, EXCUSE ME INCONSISTENT WITH MYSELF HERE AND THANK YOU CHAIR BUT I MEAN IN MY OPINION IT SHOULD PROBABLY JUST STAY AT 80FT OR MOVE UP TO 90 EITHER. LET'S BE CONSISTENT ON THAT MATH OR LET'S JUST MAKE IT 80 AND THE HOUSE HAS TO BE FIVE FEET SHORTER SO THAT THAT'S WHERE I AM. I, I WOULD BE AT 90 TO JUST TO SORT OF MAKE THE MATH CONSISTENT WITH THE LAST ONE. COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM I WAS AT THE START OF THIS I WAS GOING TO SAY OPTION TWO LOOKS GREAT BUT I THINK HAVING CONSISTENCY IN CODE FOR FOLKS THAT ARE APPROACHING THE CITY FOR THE FIRST TIME AS A BUILDER MIGHT BE A GOOD THING. SO I'M IN AGREEMENT THAT I THINK 90 WOULD BE A GOOD WAY. SO THIS IS SAME METHODOLOGY ALL THE WAY THROUGH AND THE SAME GAPS BETWEEN INTERIOR AND CORNER LOTS FOR WHATEVER TYPE OF HOME. SO 90 WOULD BE OPTION 2.5 PLEASE. YEAH FOR ME IT'S JUST PROVIDING EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IF WE'RE ASSUMING THE HOUSES ARE THE SAME OR LIKE IF YOU HAVE A CORNER LADDER OR AN INTERIOR LIGHT YOU'RE BASICALLY ALLOWED TO BUILD THE SAME SIZE HOUSE YOU'RE NOT REWARDING ONE OR THE OTHER WITH THE ABILITY TO BUILD A LARGER HOUSE IF YOU HAVE AN INTERIOR LOT VERSUS A CORNER LOT THAT MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE. COMMISSIONERS YEAH I ALSO AGREE WITH THE CONSISTENCY ON THAT PART BUT FOR OPTION ONE GET THE MATH PERFECT THERE. SO YEAH THANK YOU RACHEL MOSER THANK YOU. THIS IS JUST A QUESTION I MEAN IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A CHANGE OF TEN FEET, IS IT WORTH EVEN CHANGING THE CODE? >> CHAIR COMMISSIONER MUNSTER SO IT WOULD BE FROM WHAT OUR EXISTING STANDARDS ARE IT WOULD BE I GUESS WELL YEAH, TEN FEET FOR THIS ONE I WAS GOING TO SAY IT'S MORE FOR THE OTHER ONE BUT ONLY TEN FOR THIS. YEAH. I MEAN I THINK THAT WOULD INCREMENTALLY HELP BUT I ALSO THINK IT'S IT'S KIND OF UP TO YOU ALL AND WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THAT OR SORRY MR. JOHNSON YEAH SURE COMMISSIONER MUNSTER THANKS FOR THAT VERY VALID AND IMPORTANT QUESTION. IT'S VERY ANECDOTAL BUT THERE'S A NUMBER OF SCENARIOS THAT I'VE ENCOUNTERED OVER MY CAREER WHERE A VERY A FEW FEET MAY MAKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PROJECT GOING FORWARD OR NOT. AND AGAIN UNDERLYING ANECDOTAL BUT I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO ADJUST RIGHT SIZE OUR STANDARDS FOR WHAT WE FEEL IS REASONABLE. SO I THINK SOME OF THE STANDARDS THAT CITIES ADOPTED OVER THESE YEARS HAD WERE INFLUENCED TO A GREATER EXTENT BY MAINTAINING NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER OR HAVING SOME DESIRED MARKET OUTCOME VERSUS JUST RIGHT SIZING THE STANDARDS FOR HEALTH SAFETY WELFARE CONSIDERATIONS ALONE IF THAT MAKES SENSE. SO WE THINK THAT THIS STANDARD WOULD MEET BLOOMINGTON'S WOULD FIT WELL IN OUR ZONING CODE AND WOULD BE WELL SUITED AND SITUATED WITH THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE HAVE. SO IF THAT HELPS KIND OF MOVE IT ALONG. THANKS. MR. JOHNSON OR MS. ASPECT TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, WHAT'S THE REAL WORLD APPLICATION OF THIS? WE AREN'T MAKING ANY MORE LOTS. WE'RE NOT LAKEVILLE OR ANY OF THESE YOU KNOW DEERING SUBURBS THAT HAVE OPEN LAND ALL OUR LOTS ARE ALREADY MADE SO WHAT'S THE REAL WORLD IMPLICATIONS OF US MAKING THESE ADJUSTMENTS? CHAIR GOOD QUESTION. THIS IS MOSTLY USED FOR LOTS PLATES WHERE 100FT HAVING TO HAVE A 100 FOOT LOT WITH ON TWO DIFFERENT LOTS. SO HAVING TO HAVE A 200 FOOT LOT WITH IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO SPLIT A LOT IS JUST EXTREMELY WIDE AND LIKE PLANNING MANAGER JOHNSON SAID SOMETIMES IT CAN JUST BE LIKE A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN THAT AND YOU'RE LIKE WOW THIS LOOKS LIKE A REALLY BIG LOT. LIKE THERE COULD DEFINITELY BE TWO HOMES ON HERE BUT ACCORDING TO OUR STANDARDS NO . SO IT REALLY JUST TO BE ABLE TO CREATE MORE INFILL DEVELOPMENT IS A BIG PLUS. MR. JOHNSON CHAIR, IF I CAN ADD TO THAT TOO IS IT'S ALSO ABOUT CONVERSIONS AND ADDITIONS. SO WE HAVE HAD NOT MANY BUT THERE'S BEEN A FEW INQUIRIES OVER THE YEARS ABOUT WANTING TO MAKE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, A TWO FAMILY HOME AND THEY'RE JUST NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T MEET OUR CORNER SITE WITH REQUIREMENTS OR I MEAN PREVIOUSLY INTERIOR SITE WITH REQUIREMENTS TOO. SO I THINK THAT THERE ARE WAYS TO CREATE TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS AND MORE INFILL DEVELOPMENT IF YOU USE SOME OF THESE STANDARDS IN EFFECT IT MAKES MORE LIVES CANDIDATES FOR THAT INVESTMENT AND THAT CONVERSION IN SOME CASES. SURE I DO SEE YOU BUT I'D LIKE TO FOLLOW UP ON THIS. IS IT OKAY IF I KEEP GOING HERE? THANK YOU. SO THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, COMMISSIONER MUNSON AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH IT BUT I'M GOING TO GO THERE. I BROUGHT THIS UP A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS MISSING MISSOULA MISSING MIDDLE TYPE HOUSING STUFF LITERALLY FOR YEARS NOW AND I'M A BIT TORN ON ON IT BECAUSE I'M A BELIEVER IN THE MISSING MIDDLE. WE HAVE A HUGE PORTION OF HOUSING OWNERSHIP THAT WE DON'T PROVIDE IN THIS CITY. WE'VE GOT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, A FEW TOWNHOMES AND THEN APARTMENTS AND THERE IS A HUGE MISSING MIDDLE OF HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES AND I WANT TO SEE THAT INNER CITY WHERE I GET A LITTLE HUNG UP ON JUST THE INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF STAFF TIME WE'VE PUT INTO THIS IS ABOUT ONCE A YEAR WE SEE THE NUMBERS OF HOW MANY APPLICATIONS THIS IS ACTUALLY IMPACTED OR LIKE HOW MANY LOT SPLITS THERE HAVE BEEN AND IT IS A PER YEAR IT'S LIKE A COUPLE AND I KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND I THINK WE ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING. BUT I DO THINK FOR ME AND I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS WHAT COMMISSIONER MOSER WAS GOING AFTER BUT FOR ME I DO THINK IT IS FAIR TO CHECK OURSELVES OR QUESTION ON WHETHER OUR STAFF TIME IS GOING TO THE RIGHT PLACE LIKE WE'RE DOING THE RIGHT THING HERE BUT IT HASN'T THE MARKET HASN'T ABSORBED IT. AND IF YOU LOOK AT MINNEAPOLIS WHICH IS MUCH MORE AGGRESSIVE ON THIS TYPE OF THING THAN WE DO FROM A LIKE THE I THINK THIS TYPE OF LOT SPLIT GOING INTO REALLY SMALL LOTS WHATEVER IS MUCH MORE COMMON AND MUCH MORE LIKELY TO HAPPEN IN MINNEAPOLIS WHO DID THIS BEFORE WE'VE DONE IT EVEN MINNEAPOLIS HASN'T REALLY TAKEN THIS ON THE QUAD FLEXES IN THE TRI PLEX IS THAT THE MARKET HASN'T RESPONDED EVEN IN MINNEAPOLIS AND I THINK IT'S EVEN LESS LIKELY TO RESPOND HERE IN BLOOMINGTON AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE KIND OF SEEN WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DATA THERE HASN'T BEEN MUCH ACTION ON THIS SINCE WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS AND I DO THINK IT'S FAIR TO QUESTION WHETHER ALL THE STAFF TIME WE'RE PUTTING INTO THIS COULD HAVE GONE TOWARDS SOMETHING ELSE THAT WOULD HAVE A GREATER REAL WORLD IMPACT ON THE CITY LIKE THIS IS A GOOD THING THAT STAFF IS DOING AND I SUPPORT IT BUT ARE THERE OTHER GOOD THINGS WE COULD HAVE BEEN DOING WITH STAFF TIME THAT WOULD HAVE HAD A GREATER MARKET ABSORPTION THAN ALL THE TIME WE'VE PUT ON THIS AND IT'S JUST A LITTLE KIND OF HEARTBREAKING FOR ME THAT WHEN I SEE LIKE LAST YEAR WE DID LITERALLY LIKE TO OF THIS TYPE OF THING IT'S LIKE MAN WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR YEARS AND THE MARKET JUST ISN'T TAKING IT. AND HOW MUCH STAFF TIME DID WE SPEND ON THIS WHEN WE COULD HAVE BEEN UPDATING DISTRICT PLANS AND DOING OTHER THINGS THAT ALSO BENEFIT THE CITY? SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THAT. I I'M COMFORTABLE SAYING THAT I'VE SAID IT BEFORE AND I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THIS. I THINK WE'RE DOING THE RIGHT THING. BUT I DO QUESTION SOMETIMES OF THE AMOUNT OF STAFF TIME WE PUT INTO IT AND THE SORT OF LACK OF MARKET ABSORPTION WITH IT IS WORTH IT. BUT I'LL LEAVE IT THERE. CAN I RESPOND TO THAT? YOU MAY PLEASE. THANKS VERY TO COMMISSIONER WHITE. I'M SORRY TO DELAY YOU THREE QUICK POINTS ABOUT ALL THAT IS ONE I THINK ONE OF THE CHALLENGES OF INFILL DEVELOPMENT IS THERE'S A VERY LIMITED SUBSET OF DEVELOPERS DOING THAT WORK BECAUSE THE REGULATIONS HAVE NOT ALLOWED IT FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS. SO JUST LIKE KIND OF A STAFFING A BASEBALL TEAM AND IN FACT YOU HAVE TO CREATE A BENCH OF PLAYERS WHO ARE ABLE TO PLAY THE GAME AND THIS MAY BE A STRAINED ANALOGY BUT THERE IS A WHOLE LITANY OF PROGRAMS BY YOU APPLY IN OTHER ENTITIES RIGHT NOW TRYING TO SUPPORT EMERGING DEVELOPERS AND GIVE PEOPLE DEVELOPER TRAINING BECAUSE THIS IS A BIG OPPORTUNITY THAT'S NOT BEING CAPTURED RIGHT NOW EFFECTIVELY BECAUSE ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE DEVELOPMENT SPACE ARE HAVE BEEN SOLELY FOCUSED ON SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS OR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. AND SO THAT'S THAT'S ONE POINT I WOULD MAKE IS THAT I WOULD ANTICIPATE THE ROSTER THE GROUP OF FOLKS DOING INFILL DEVELOPMENT IT COULD INCREASE OVER TIME NOT DECREASE. THE SECOND POINT I WOULD MAKE IS THAT SOME OF THESE HOUSING TYPES ARE GOING TO BE ARE GOING TO ADD VARIETY TO THE HOUSING STOCK THAT DOESN'T CURRENTLY EXIST AND THAT'S GOING TO HELP SENIORS. THAT'S GOING TO HELP SINGLE PERSON HOUSEHOLDS THAT'S GOING TO HELP PEOPLE OTHER THAN KIND OF THE NUCLEAR TRADITIONAL 4 OR 5 PERSON FAMILY THAT MUCH OF THIS HOUSING WAS CREATED TO SUPPORT. BUT I TAKE IN THE FINAL POINT I WOULD MAKE IS I VERY MUCH TAKE THE CHAIR'S POINT AND I WOULD VERY MUCH ENCOURAGE, YOU KNOW, THIS BOARD AND SUBSEQUENT BOARDS TO AS THEY'RE THINKING ABOUT THEIR WORK PLANS IT IS A SERIES OF CHOICES. THERE'S NOT INFINITE STAFF TIME AND CAPACITY. THAT'S WHY WE PRESENT TO YOU THE NUMBER OF PROJECTS THAT WE DO AND WE DO TRY AND ESTIMATE THE AMOUNT OF TIME THEY'LL TAKE US BECAUSE THERE IS NOT AN INFINITE NUMBER OF CITY PLANNERS AND OTHER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF WORKING ON THESE PROJECTS AND ENGINEERING I SHOULD SAY. SO JUST TO THAT POINT ABOUT BEING THOUGHTFUL ABOUT HOW YOU DEPLOY THE RESEARCH SOURCES, I DO WANT TO UNDERLINE THAT THAT IS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT. THANK YOU MR. JOHNSON I'LL MAKE ONE MORE POINT FOR YOU AS TO WHY THIS IS A GOOD THING AND WHAT KIND OF GETS ME HOME AT NIGHT WITH THIS IS THAT THE MARKET'S NOT READY TODAY BUT MAYBE THE MARKET WILL BE READY AND WHEN THE MARKET IS READY WE'RE ALREADY WE'VE DONE ALL THE WORK ALREADY AND SO I'D RATHER BE AHEAD OF THE GAME THAN BEHIND THE GAME. AND SO MAYBE IT'S TEN YEARS FROM NOW, MAYBE 40 YEARS FROM NOW THAT WE'LL ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND QUAD FLEXES AND MICRO UNITS WHATEVER TAKE OFF AND WE'VE ALREADY DONE THE WORK AND WE'RE READY TO SUPPORT THAT DEVELOPMENT AND WE'RE NOT STARTING FROM THE BACK FOOT SO I FEEL GOOD ABOUT THAT. CAN I MAKE ONE REALLY LAST ONE? THE ONE POINT I FORGOT IS THAT IF THE STATE LEGISLATURE PASSES HOUSING REFORM THAT PREEMPTS CITIES AND CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF LOCAL ZONING THEN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON IS GOING TO BE FAR AHEAD THAN ITS PEERS BECAUSE THEY HAVE INVESTED THAT TIME AND THAT WORK COMMISSION FROM THE SORRY MISTRESS OF I CAN'T THANK YOU CHAIR JUST TO KIND OF ADD ON TO THAT DISCUSSION IF ANECDOTALLY THE AMOUNT OF APPLICATION LOANS THAT COME INTO THE CITY FOR LAW SPLITS FOR EXAMPLE IS VERY SMALL LIKE 5 TO 10 LET'S SAY OR FIVE AND WE ARE AND I GUESS MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE OF THE MARKET INTEREST RATES THE PAST FEW YEARS MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE IT'S NEW, IT'S A NEW THING AND IT WAS HIGHLY REGULATED SO THERE'S NOT PEOPLE WHO ARE UP TO BAT FOR IT YET. I FEEL LIKE IF AGAIN JUST TO EMPHASIZE IF OUR INTENTION IS TO HAVE MISAL MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING AND TO HAVE HIGHER DENSITY AND WE ARE A CITY THAT IS LANDLOCKED FOR LACK OF BETTER TERMINOLOGY I THINK IT'S BEST IF WE WERE TO GO WITH THE MORE OR LESS RESTRICTIVE OPTION BECAUSE OF THAT AND ALSO MORE PURE CITIES. PIERCE CITIES FROM MY UNDERSTANDING AND DOING THAT AS WELL. AND SO I THINK IF WE I GUESS WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING, RIGHT AND WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY IN FRONT OF US WHERE WE CAN DIRECTLY IMPACT THAT, RIGHT? AND AND SO THAT'S THAT'S WHY I WOULD VOTE OPTION ONE VERSUS OPTION TWO. AND I UNDERSTAND CITY STAFF ADVISED ON OPTION TWO BUT I THINK MAYBE EVEN FOR EXAMPLE THAT 5 FOOT OR 10 FOOT DIFFERENCE THERE WOULD BE MAYBE DOUBLE THE APPLICANTS FROM 5 TO 10 AND THAT WOULD BE WORTH CITY STAFF TIME. YOU KNOW AND SO I THINK IT'S WORTH CITY STAFF TIME REGARDLESS BECAUSE IT'S SO IMPORTANT. BUT YEAH THAT'S THAT'S MY TAKE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND I'VE BEEN TALKING A LOT SO I'M SORRY BUT CAN I MAKE ONE LAST POINT THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT TO THE DISCUSSION IS THAT WHEN STAFF WAS DEBATING AS YOU ASKED OR DISCUSSING THESE ALTERNATIVES, I DON'T THINK IT WAS A SLAM DUNK ONE DIRECTION OR THE OTHER. THERE ARE MERITS TO BOTH SIDES OF THESE DIFFERENT OPTIONS. I'M SORRY THERE ARE MERITS TO BOTH SIDES OF THESE OPTIONS AND SO IT WAS MORE OF LIKE A 5149 KIND OF SITUATION ON THE STAFF LEVEL THERE'S MERITS BOTH WAYS. THERE COULD BE PROS AND CONS, THERE COULD BE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES BUT IT WASN'T LIKE WE DON'T FEEL THAT THE CITY WOULD BE POORLY SERVED BY GOING WITH THAT OPTION. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT POINT IN JUST ONE COMMENT AND THAT IS I THINK THE OTHER THING THAT COMES FROM DOING SOME OF THIS WORK RIGHT NOW PARTICULARLY CONSIDERING SOME OF THESE THINGS SPECIFICALLY IS WHEN THESE RARE OPPORTUNITY IS AND I GO BACK TO WHAT WAS BEFORE US A FEW MONTHS AGO WITH THE ST MARK'S CHURCH WHERE IT WAS A BIG PIECE OF LAND AND DECIDING THE NUMBER OF HOUSES OR THE NUMBER OF LOTS THAT COULD FIT ON THERE, MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE IN A POSITION TO HAVE THAT RESOLVED WHEN AN OPPORTUNITY THAT MAYBE NO ONE SAW COMING FOR A PIECE OF LAND COMES UP IS A GOOD IDEA AS WELL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON TO FAMILY LOT WORDS THERE WAS NOT THE MOST CLARITY WE'VE EVER PROVIDED YOU OKAY. YEAH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO MOVING ON TO LOT AREA THIS IS SIMILAR I'M GOING TO SPLIT IT INTO SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY SO CURRENT CODE REQUIRES SINGLE FAMILY CORNER LOTS TO HAVE A MINIMUM LOT AREA OF 11,050FT WHILE MINIMUM SINGLE FAMILY INTERIOR LOT AREA IS ONLY 70 800FT AND THEN FOR TWO FAMILY CORNER LOTS THERE'S A MINIMUM LOT AREA OF 14,625FT AND THE TWO FAMILY INTERIOR LOTS ONLY REQUIRE 11,700FT AND SO ON THE SCREEN ARE JUST TWO EXAMPLES OF CORNER LOTS THAT MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS . BUT WE'LL GO THROUGH THE GUIDING QUESTIONS BY SINGLE FAMILY IN TWO FAMILY. SO OPTION ONE IS TO HAVE THE SAME REQUIREMENTS AS FOR INTERIOR LOTS WHICH WOULD BE 70 800FT. OPTION TWO WHICH IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDED IS 90 100FT. AND I ALSO JUST WANT TO SAY THE MATH FOR THAT ONE CORRELATES WITH THE 70 FOOT SITE WIDTH AND THEN OPTION THREE 10,400FT CORRELATES WITH THE 80 FOOT LOT WITH AND THEN OPTION FOUR WOULD BE TO NOT CHANGE THE CURRENT STANDARDS WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT THE LOT AREA WOULD BE 11,050FT. MR. MUNSTER THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A MINIMUM LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENT? NO. SO AS A FOLLOW UP, HOW DOES THIS CORRELATE TO THE MINIMUM? WHAT WELL, WHAT ARE WE MULTIPLYING IT BY? CHAIR COMMISSIONER MUNSTER GOOD QUESTION. MULTIPLYING IT BY 130 WHICH IS A TYPICAL I GUESS LIKE DEPTH DEPTH IF I MAY FOLLOW UP ON THAT IS IF WE DON'T HAVE A MINIMUM LOT DEPTH BUT WE DO REQUIRE THAT THE MINIMUM SITE WITH BE A MINIMUM OF 80FT INTO THE LOT AS A FUNCTION OF IT MEETING THAT ALONG 50FT BEYOND THE FRONT SETBACK LINE THERE'S JUST THIS IN CODE THAT EXPLAINS THAT ON THE LEFT SIDE OF YOUR SLIDE THERE. SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE MINIMUM SITE WITH FOR THE FIRST 50FT BEYOND THE FRONT SETBACK LINE . SO MAYBE TECHNICALLY THAT DOESN'T ESTABLISH A MINIMUM DEPTH BUT IT HAS TO BE SO WIDE PRESSURE MONSTER 50FT BEYOND THAT. I'M JUST I'M JUST TRYING TO DO THE MATH IN MY HEAD. SO FROM A FUNCTIONAL PERSPECTIVE WE'VE GOT A 30 FOOT FRONT YARD. WE'VE GOT A 30 FOOT REAR YARD AND WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF BUILDING IN BETWEEN. SO ABOUT HOW DEEP WOULD WE THINK AN AVERAGE STRUCTURE IS? I CAN YEAH THE CHAIR AND THE PARISH PART OF THIS CONUNDRUM THAT YOU'RE HIGHLIGHTING YOU'RE IDENTIFYING IS THAT IT BUILDS UPON THE WORK THAT WAS DONE IN 2022 WHEREIN WE BUTTRESSED THE FOUNDATION FOR A LOT OF THE WORK WE DID WAS THE MOST TYPICAL BLOOMINGTON PLANTED LOT AND THE MOST COMMON LOT WE FOUND IN EASTERN AND CENTRAL BLOOMINGTON WAS A LOT DEPTH OF 130FT SO THAT INFORMED SOME OF THE MINIMUM LOT AREA CALCULATIONS THAT WE DEVELOPED FOR INTERIOR LOTS IN OUR ONE AND ADJUSTMENTS WE MADE TO OUR TWO FAMILY DWELLING STANDARDS ETC. ETC.. SO I KNOW THAT SEEMS A LITTLE BIT ODD. YOU DON'T NEED 130FT IN DEPTH TO HAVE A BUILDABLE LOT BUT JUST THINKING ABOUT FROM A LOGICAL STANDPOINT HOW MOST SUBDIVISIONS ARE GOING TO OCCUR, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE LOPPING OFF DEPTH THEY COULD ON A CORNER LOT THEORETICALLY YOU COULD COMBINE TO QUADRANT YOU COULD CREATE AN INTERIOR LOT IN THEORY AMONGST TWO CORNER LOTS BUT AGAIN THAT INVOLVES MULTIPLE PARTIES SO A LOT OF THE CHANGES TO OUR REGULATIONS WERE CONTEMPLATING THE MOST EASY STRAIGHTFORWARD PATH TO CREATING INFILL DEVELOPMENT . MR. CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU CHAIR. I DID NOT HAVE MY WHEATIES THIS MORNING SO APOLOGIES IF MY MATH IS WRONG BUT I, I TEND TO AGREE WITH STAFF ON THIS WITH OPTION TWO IF WE'RE USING 130 AS A TYPICAL DEPTH AND WE'RE ADDING TEN FEET TO THE SETBACK TO GO WITH A 20 FOOT SETBACK ON SIDE YARD SETBACK THEN THAT'S 1300 FEET WHICH IS SEVEN 800 PLUS 3000 IS 9100. SO IN THE NAME OF KEEPING THINGS CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THE CODE AND KIND OF AS EXPECTED FOR A POTENTIAL DEVELOPER BUILDER OR HOMEOWNER THAT WANTS TO SUBDIVIDE THEIR LOT, I FEEL LIKE THIS IS THE MOST LOGICAL PATH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM I WOULD I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU. I LIKE THE MATH OF IT. THIS STILL FEELS LIKE A LOT WITH ME WHERE I. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE REGULATE THIS. I THINK IF YOU HAVE A TINY HOUSE AND IT FITS ON A ON A A TINY LOT AND YOU MEET THE SETBACKS, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD HAVE MINIMUM LOT AREAS I, I THINK IT'S AN OVERREGULATION IF SOMEBODY'S GOT A SMALL HOUSE AND YOU MEET THE SETBACKS WHAT'S THE FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE? SO FOR ME I WOULD STRIKE IT. I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT. SO FROM A MATH STANDPOINT I AGREE OPTION TWO IS A LOGICAL CHOICE QUESTION MR.. THANK YOU AND YES I AGREE THAT AGAIN FROM A CONSISTENCY PERSPECTIVE OPTION TWO FLOWS WITH WHAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING FROM A PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE I THINK A LOT AREA SHOULD GO AWAY AND BE REPLACED BY A COMBINATION OF WIDTH AND THAT IF YOU MEET THESE TWO STANDARDS THERE YOU GO MOVE ON. BUT THAT THAT'S JUST ME IN A PERFECT WORLD. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER SUMMERS THANK YOU CHAIR I TEND TO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER MUNSTER AND I RECOGNIZE THAT WE HAVE PLENTY I'M WONDERING IF WE HAVE PLENTY OF HOMES THAT DON'T HAVE WIDTH THAT IS THE SAME AT THE FRONT OF THE LOT AS AT THE BACK AND THAT WITH AND DEPTH WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE AN EASY THOROUGH WAY COMPARED TO THIS IS THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FEET THAT ARE IN THIS IRREGULAR SHAPED LOT. CHAIR COMMISSIONER SUMMERS YES. I THINK THAT IS A GOOD POINT AND A GOOD WAY TO LOOK AT IT. PLEASE. THANK YOU. THAT BEING SAID, I LIVE ON A CORNER LOT IN EAST BLOOMINGTON AND WHEN YOU SAY WHEN STAFF PUT IN THE REPORT THAT THERE IS AN EXCEPTIONALLY LARGE LOT I LOVE MY LARGE YARD BUT I DO I AM LIKE WOW AM I THE PROPERTY THAT I'M ON IS MUCH LARGER THAN MY NEIGHBORS AND WHEN I THINK ABOUT GROWING UP IN THE INNER CITY IN ST PAUL SOME OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER THERE WAS BEING A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO NEIGHBORS. SO MY CURRENT LOT IS REALLY DIFFERENT THAN MY VERY URBAN LOT GROWING UP AND 1000FT LESS WOULD NOT NECESSARILY PUT ME TOO CLOSE TO THE PEOPLE SURROUNDING ME AND IT WOULD POTENTIALLY ADD TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER OF BLOOMINGTON BUT NOT REMOVE TOO MUCH OF THE GREENSPACE THAT WE LOVE. THANK YOU . FISHERIES SO CAN I ASK IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ON THIS? I HAVE APPRECIATED YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON THE PREVIOUS ONES. THANK YOU CHAIR I WOULD GO WITH OPTION ONE AND I DO THINK COMMISSIONER SUMMERS PERSPECTIVE IS PROBABLY A PERSPECTIVE THAT WELL A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE AND SO THE CHARACTER I GUESS PART OF IT AND YOU KNOW SOME PEOPLE OR HOW DO I WHERE THIS YEAH I JUST THINK IT WOULDN'T YOU KNOW SOME PEOPLE MIGHT THINK THAT YOU KNOW MORE DENSITY MIGHT BE A BAD THING LIKE YOUR KITCHEN IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF SOMEONE'S I DON'T KNOW WHATEVER LIKE THEIR THEIR KITCHEN RIGHT AND IT'S INVASIVE AND WHATNOT BUT I THINK WHAT OUTWEIGHS THAT IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE TO DEVELOP YOU KNOW, ON THEIR ON THEIR LOT AND AND IF THE GOAL AGAIN IS TO HAVE MORE MISSILE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY AND SO I'M CONSISTENT. LEE I THINK IT'S I WOULD GO WITH THE LESS RESTRICTIVE OPTION ONE YEAH SO THAT'S THAT . THANK YOU. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER MOSER THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. IF I COULD MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT ON THIS AND I'M REVISING MY MY PREVIOUS STATEMENT ON THE OPTIONS I THINK OPTION ONE WOULD PROBABLY BE FINE. I MEAN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LESS THAN 20FT OF LOT DEPTH DIFFERENCE IN IN A CONCEPTUAL WAY AS IF WE'RE LOOKING AT A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 70FT IT WOULD THEN BE 111FT IN SOME CHANGE LONG I DON'T SEE WHERE THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW AS AS THE PLANNING MANAGER INDICATED, SOMETIMES IT'S THESE SMALL DIFFERENCES THAT CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOMETHING BEING ABLE TO PROCEED AND NOT. SO THIS IS ONE IF WE HAVE A LOT WITH IN PLACE THAT WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH, THERE'S NO REASON NOT TO REDUCE THAT LOT DEPTH. WE HAVE SET BACK REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO PROVIDE FOR THOSE MINIMUM SEPARATIONS AND IF SOMETHING IS JUST SLIGHTLY THE HOUSE CAN BE SLIGHTLY LESS DEEP THAN OTHERWISE. SO BE THANK YOU. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON LOT AREA SEEING NONE THANK YOU. SO NOW WE GET INTO TO FAMILY LOT TO AREA AND SO I WAS JUST DOING SOME QUICK MATH IF WE WERE GOING TO USE WHAT MOST OF YOU RECOMMENDED FOR THE TWO FAMILY LOT WITH WHICH WAS 90FT AND MULTIPLY THAT BY THE SAME LOT DEATH THAT WE WERE USING FOR THE LAST CALCULATION WHICH IS 130 I BELIEVE THAT WOULD COME OUT TO THIS OPTION ONE WHICH IS 11,700FT. OPTION TWO WAS CORRELATING TO 95 FOOT LOT WIDTH AND THEN OPTION THREE IS NOT CHANGING CURRENT STANDARDS . I DON'T LIKE LAWN AREA SO I'M NOT GOING TO GO FIRST. COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM I'M GOING TO SOUND LIKE A BROKEN RECORD. I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO DO 130 TIMES 95 IN MY HEAD IS LONG. I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF ANYTHING AS LONG AS IT KIND OF CORRELATES WITH THE TYPICAL 130 LOT DEPTH AND THE YOU KNOW WHAT WE WOULD ASSUME FOR OUR WITH TO DICTATE A LOT AREA THANK YOU FISHER MR. THANK YOU I WOULD GO WITH OPTION ONE OF THOSE PRESENTED I THINK A LOWER NUMBER COULD PROBABLY BE WORKABLE BUT SINCE OPTION ONE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY OR I MEAN I'M SORRY THE INTERIOR DEAR LORD THE TWO FAMILY REGULATIONS AS THEY EXIST NOW I THINK IT WOULD BE FINE TO KEEP THAT CONSISTENCY COME ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ? OKAY. EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. OKAY. LAST TOPIC SO ACCESSORY STRUCTURE PLACEMENT SO QUESTIONS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE KIND OF LAYERED. THERE'S MULTIPLE DIFFERENT REGULATIONS AND QUESTION BUT ESSENTIALLY AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE PLACEMENT IS REGULATED THROUGH SETBACKS AND PLACEMENT WITHIN THE YARD. SO NOT ONLY IS THERE A MINIMUM 30 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE STREET FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES BUT THEY ALSO CANNOT BE LOCATED BETWEEN THE DWELLING AND THE STREET WHICH CAN OFTEN LEAD TO A LARGER SETBACK REQUIREMENT AND THE FIGURES ON THE SCREEN SHOW AN EXAMPLE OF A LOT THAT MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR THE HOMEOWNER TO ADD AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE BECAUSE OF THE PLACEMENT OF THEIR HOUSE ON THE LOT. SO YOU CAN SEE THE RED STRIPED AREA IS ALL THE AREA THAT THIS HOMEOWNER WOULD HAVE TO ADD AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. SO THESE GUIDING QUESTIONS ARE NOT OPTIONS. IT'S MORE QUESTION ONE, TWO, THREE. SO THE FIRST QUESTION IS WHETHER YOU ALL THINK THAT ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SHOULD BE ALLOWED BETWEEN THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND THE STREET WITHIN THE SIDE YARD ADJACENT TO A STREET STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND AT LEAST A 20 FOOT SETBACK OF PLANNING COMMISSION CHOOSES TO GO THIS ROUTE AND KIND OF CORRESPONDING TO THE OTHER PIER CITIES THAT I REVIEWED I THINK THERE'S ONLY ONE OTHER CITY THAT ACTUALLY ALLOWS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE STREET SO STAFF WOULDN'T RECOMMEND THIS OPTION. THIS OPTION I GUESS FORGIVE ME THIS ASPECT WHAT IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IT IS OR IS NOT TO ALLOW A ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ON THE SIDE HERE IS NOT IN SORRY IT'S NOT AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT JUST ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT COULD BE SHED GAZEBO, ANYTHING LIKE THAT. BUT IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD DIRECTION THEY WANTED TO OFFER IT IT DOES COME UP FROM TIME TO TIME IN A SIDE COURTYARD OF A CORNER LOT. COMMISSIONER LINNEY THANK YOU CHAIR I THINK I WOULD BE OPEN TO CONSIDERING ACCESSORY UNITS AND CORNER LOTS BETWEEN THE SITE AND THE STRUCTURE. I THINK LAST TWO YEARS AGO FOR THE AREA ARCHITECT AIR AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS I'M NOT IN THEIR HOME TOURS THAT IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE HOMES THAT THEY HAD HAD AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT THAT WAS BUILT ON TOP OF A GARAGE. BASICALLY THEY DETACHED THE GARAGE, HAD A DETACHED GARAGE WITH THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. IT WAS A REALLY, REALLY IMPRESSIVE AND EXTREMELY LIKE ATTRACTIVE THING AND I THINK PARTICULARLY LOOKING AT CORNER LOTS WHERE YOU COULD HAVE THAT SPACE I THINK IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE WORTH LOOKING AT AND I THINK THE LIMITATIONS ON I THINK IN A NEIGHBORHOOD IN PARTICULAR FIGURING OUT WHERE TO PUT AN ACCESSORY DWELLING I KNOW WE'RE NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS BUT ANY KIND OF ATTACHMENT SOMETIMES CAN BE MORE COSMETICALLY ATTRACTIVE ON CORNER LOTS IN THAT TYPE OF A LOCATION THAN IF THEY'RE COMPLETELY YOU KNOW, IN THE BACKYARD WHICH IS GETTING CLOSER TO NEIGHBORS AND THINGS LIKE OTHER NEIGHBORS IN A DIFFERENT WAY. SO I WOULD BE OPEN TO CONSIDERING ON CORNER LOTS. MS. RESA COULD YOU GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE FOR THANK YOU CHAIR SO THAT'S ACTUALLY MY HOUSE BELIEVE IT OR NOT AND I GENERAL AND SO I, I DEFINITELY AGREE WITH WHAT COMMISSIONER LINNEY SAID IT'S ON A CORNER LOT AND THAT IS A MINI GREEN HOUSE THAT I BUILT THERE AND THAT'S FOR THE RESIDENTS TO HAVE THE ABILITY IN THE SPRING AND SUMMER TOO. SO I JUST THAT'S A REAL WORLD EXAMPLE OF HOW IT COULD POSITIVELY AFFECT RESIDENTS. SO YEAH, IS THAT A CODE COMPLIANT STRUCTURE? IF IT'S NOT THEN YES. YES. CHAIR IF I MAY RESPOND REALLY QUICKLY JUST SOMEWHAT CONVENTIONAL AND I WAS SAYING THAT WE DID NOT CONTEMPLATE INITIALLY ADUS BEING PART OF THIS DISCUSSION BUT THEY ADD USE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTION ON CLOSER TO THE STREET THAN THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING CURRENTLY BUT THEY ARE SUBJECT TO A 30 FOOT SETBACK SO SORRY TO CUT YOU OFF NOW TWICE COMMISSIONER WAIT COMMISSIONER WAIT. THANK YOU CHAIR SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THIS IS ESSENTIALLY AND I APOLOGIZE I'M IT'S BEEN A LONG WEEK SO THIS WOULD ONLY AFFECT LIKE YOU'RE ON THE CORNER LOT IT'S NOT ALLOWING THE SHED TO BE IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE. IT'S ALLOWING THE SHED TO BE BETWEEN THE HOUSE, THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE AND THE STREET OR WOULD THIS BE PUT A SHED IN YOUR FRONT YARD? CHAIR COMMISSIONER WHITE IT WOULD NOT BE IN YOUR FRONT YARD. IT WOULD BE IN THE SIDE YARD ADJACENT TO A STREET. YEAH. THANK YOU. IF I COULD FOLLOW UP AND YEAH, I THINK AS LONG AS THERE'S NOT ANY ISSUES WITH VISIBILITY AND SAFETY WHERE THEY'RE BLOCKING THE VIEW FROM THE CORNER FOR CARS THAT ARE TRYING TO TURN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT WHICH I THINK IS PART OF THE REASON THAT SOME OF THAT REGULATION EXISTS I DON'T SEE WHY THAT WOULD BE A BAD THING AND INTEREST OF FULL DISCLOSURE I HAVE A ODDLY SHAPED CORNER LOT SO SINCE WE'RE ALL KIND OF DISCLOSING WHO LIVES ON THE CORNER AND WHO DOESN'T, I'M ONE OF THOSE IRREGULAR CORNER LOTS SO I'M NOT EVEN SURE WHICH IS THE SIDE AT THIS POINT. SO COMMISSIONER THANK YOU CHAIR THIS IS JUST A TECHNICAL QUESTION FOR DOES THE CITY CONSIDER IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE TO MEAN FULLY IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE OR IF IT'S LIKE OFF TO THE SIDE AND A PORTION OF IT IS IN FRONT OF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE? DOES THAT WHERE DOES THAT JUST FOR REASONS TO BE PEDANTIC YEAH. CHAIR COMMISSIONER LINNEY IT CANNOT BE IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE AT ALL LIKE IT HAS TO BE COMPLETELY BEHIND THE PLANE OF THE HOUSE. IT'S COMMISSIONER MUNSTER. I'M SORT OF AT AN IN-BETWEEN POINT ON THIS QUESTION. I FEEL LIKE IT SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FENCE CHANGES THAT WE JUST MADE BUT IF YOU CAN BOX IT IN IN THE BACK THEN WHY CAN'T YOU PUT A SHED THERE? HMM. OKAY . CAN I SEE CLARIFICATION WITH GARAGES AND SHEDS ALL TYPES OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES I THINK THAT'S WHERE IT GETS A LITTLE BIT WEIRD AS IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GARAGES ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE TRYING TO THEN ENCOURAGE AS COMMISSIONER LENNY WAS SAYING PUTTING IN A NEW ABOVE THAT GARAGE WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO PUSH IT BACK FURTHER. BUT YOU KNOW IF IT'S A GAZEBO, IF IT'S SOMETHING SORT OF MORE I GUESS OF A PASSIVE ACCESSORY USE THEN IT WOULD PROBABLY ACTUALLY BE MORE ATTRACTIVE TO PUSH IT UP THERE THAN TO TRY TO CRAM IT IN THAT BACK CORNER . MR. SOBERS THANK YOU CHAIR. I THINK I'M HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF TROUBLE THINKING THIS THROUGH BUT ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT SO I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFLICTED ABOUT WHAT MY ANSWER SHOULD BE HERE ONE OF MY QUESTIONS IS DOES BLOOMINGTON HAVE STANDARDS FOR HOW THESE STRUCTURES ARE MAINTAINED? SO LIKE A GARAGE I WOULD IMAGINE IS MAINTAINED DIFFERENTLY THAN A SHED AND WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT FENCES SEVERAL COMMISSIONERS NOTED BEING CONCERNED ABOUT LIKE NUISANCE VISUAL NUISANCE IS AND I THINK ABOUT A SHED AS SOMETHING THAT CAN CONTAIN THINGS BUT IT CAN ALSO BE A VISUAL NUISANCE ITSELF. SO DO WE HAVE STANDARDS FOR THAT IF SOMETHING IS FALLING DOWN OR FALLING APART, IS IT JUST FALLING APART? CHAIR COMMISSIONER SUMMERS THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. I THINK THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE REGULATED BY THE BUILDING CODE OR OUR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION FOR YOUR QUESTIONS I GUESS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT SHEDS, WE DON'T ACTUALLY REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT FOR SHEDS THAT ARE LESS THAN 200FT. SO YOU KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF SHEDS OUT THERE THAT ARE SMALLER THAN THAT THAT WE AREN'T REALLY REGULATING OR AT LEAST THE BUILDING CODE ISN'T . PLANNING MANAGER JOHNSON DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING ADD YEAH. THANK YOU. I'M VERY VERY TALKATIVE TONIGHT. SORRY THE INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE DEALS WITH KIND OF MORRIS THAT ECTOR PEELING PAINT AND THOSE KINDS OF ISSUES IF IT'S A LIFE SAFETY ISSUE THEN IT WOULD BE A BUILDING CODE VIOLATION. SO IT JUST KIND OF DEPENDS ON THE NATURE OF THE DISREPAIR DEPENDING ON WHICH CODE IS GOING TO BE IN PLAY THERE. YEAH. MISS ASPECT THAT THE TYPE OF SHED YOU CAN BUY FROM MENARDS LIKE THE PREFABRICATED ADDED PLASTIC MILK JUG RECYCLED TYPE THING WOULD THAT BE ALLOWED IF WE WENT WITH IF WE WERE IN FAVOR OF THIS CHAIR SO WE HAVE LIKE PLANNING SPECIFICALLY HAS CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS THAT ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE SUPPOSED TO MATCH. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT THE EXACT WORDING IS BUT LIKE KIND OF THE CHARACTER OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. AND THEN I ALSO THINK THAT THE BUILDING CODE IT KIND OF REGULATES SHEDS AND STRUCTURES LIKE THAT WHERE I'M NOT SURE IF THEY ALLOW ALL LIKE MANUFACTURED THINGS FROM LIKE MENARD'S OR IT THAT YOU COULD BUY ONLINE. SO JUST AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION THAT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IF IF WE WERE TO GO WITH THIS LIKELY NOT THE ZONING CODE DOESN'T ALLOW IT PEOPLE STILL BUY THEM AND DEPLOY THEM IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. IT DOES HAPPEN AND SOMETIMES THEY'RE SUBJECT TO ORDERS. IT JUST DEPENDS ON KIND OF WHAT MATERIAL THEY ARE. IF THEY ARE NOT A VERY RIGID OR DURABLE MATERIAL THEY DON'T PERFORM WELL TO WIND LOAD OR SNOW LOAD AT TIMES. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE REASON FOR IT. BUT EMILY'S CORRECT THE LIKE PRECISE LANGUAGE IN THE CODE IS THAT IT MUST MATCH YOUR COMPLEMENT THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AND SO IT DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY PROHIBIT PLASTIC BUT STAFF THE CITY INTERPRETS THAT TO MEAN PLASTIC SHEDS VERY THIN METALS. CAN YOU SEE SOME OF THOSE ALUMINUM ONES THAT ARE NOT VERY WELL CONSTRUCTED? SO WHEN WHEN RESIDENTS CALL US WE ADVISE THEM NOT TO UTILIZE OR PURCHASE THOSE THOSE MATERIALS. BUT IF YOU LIVED IN A PLASTIC HOUSE IT WOULD SPEAK TO THE TO THE CHARACTER OF YOUR HOME. THAT MAKES ME FEEL A LOT BETTER. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS. LIKE THE ONLY THING THAT GAVE ME PAUSE WAS SORT OF A CRUDDY LAST A FEW YEARS TYPE SHEDS BEING ADJACENT TO A SIDE STREET BUT IF IT HAS TO MATCH THE CHARACTER OF YOUR HOUSE IT'S MORE YOU KNOW INTENTIONAL STRUCTURALLY BUILD MATCHES YOUR HOME. I THINK A GAZEBO WOULD LOOK NICER THAN THE SIDE OF A HOUSE SO I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS CHAIR . MAY I SEE CLARIFICATION FOR GARAGES OR ALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES? THAT'S KIND OF THE NEXT QUESTION. YEAH, WHICH MIGHT BE A MOOT POINT IF YOU WANT TO ALLOW ALL OF THEM. SORRY. YEAH. SO MOVING ON TO THE NEXT QUESTION SHOULD THERE BE REDUCED SETBACK SPECIFICALLY FOR DETACHED GARAGES? IT SOUNDS LIKE I GUESS WE ARE MORE TALKING ABOUT LIKE GAZEBOS AND SHEDS BUT ARE YOU ALL INTERESTED IN THAT FOR DETACHED GARAGES AS WELL VISUALLY ECHOING MADELINE'S EXPERIENCE GROWING UP IN THE CITY, GROWING UP IN MINNEAPOLIS THIS WAS THE NEIGHBORHOOD I GREW UP IN. A LOT OF PEOPLE SHIFTED TO DETACHED GARAGES THAT HAD LITTLE TO NO SETBACK AND I DIDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT AND I ACTUALLY THINK WE SAW MORE OF OUR NEIGHBORS THAT WAY. SO I THINK I DON'T PERSONALLY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, THIS HAS BEEN REDUCED RELATED TO WHAT THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE YES . SO FROM 30FT. SO YES. YES. OH OH FROM THE 20FT I SEE. YEAH. SO STAFF RECOMMENDS A MINIMUM OF A TEN FOOT SETBACK SO THAT THE DRIVEWAYS LONG ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO PARK A CAR SO TEN MR. ROSEN, DO YOU HAVE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION? YEAH SORRY FOR CLARIFICATION. STAFF'S RECOMMENDING A 20 FOOT SETBACK RIGHT. IT'S BEEN A LONG WEEK FOR US TO OR AT LEAST JUST FOR ME. I'LL JUST SPEAK FOR MYSELF, MR. MUNSTER. THANK YOU. IF WE WENT WITH THIS WHERE THERE'S A 20 FOOT SETBACK, WHAT WOULD THE REQUIRED SETBACK FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE BE? >> I CHAIR COMMISSIONER MUNSTER. THE REQUIRED SETBACK FOR GARAGES FROM REAR PROPERTY LINES IS FIVE FEET SO A REDUCED 20 FOOT SETBACK WOULD COME INTO PLAY FOR EXISTING HOMES IF THEY'RE AT A 30 FOOT SETBACK AND THEN THEY WANT TO BUILD A DETACHED GARAGE, IT COULD POTENTIALLY BUILD IT AT 20FT. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION VISUALLY OR LET'S JUST SAY HYPOTHETICALLY THERE'S A DETACHED GARAGE THAT IS EXISTING YOU COULD THEORETICALLY ADD ON TO THE FRONT OF THE GARAGE AS OPPOSED TO THE BACK OF THE GARAGE WITH A SHORTER SETBACK. YEAH, BUT IT WOULD REDUCE THE LENGTH OF YOUR DRIVEWAY. YES . I GUESS FOR ME I'M IN FAVOR OF 20FT. I UNDERSTAND IF YOU HAD THE ALLEY TYPE SET UP THAT'S MORE COMMON IN MINNEAPOLIS LIKE IF YOUR GARAGE IS NEXT TO SOMEBODY ELSE'S GARAGE YOU PROBABLY NOT A BIG DEAL BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO STAY SOMEBODIES HOUSE I THINK THEY'D GET ANNOYED BY THAT. COMMISSIONER MUNSTER I AGREE WITH THAT ENTIRELY AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS SITTING HERE TRYING TO THINK OF IS IF YOUR NEIGHBOR TO THE REAR ESSENTIALLY OF YOUR CORNER ONLY HAS THAT TEN FOOT REQUIRED SETBACK. THIS GARAGE IS 15FT FROM THEIR HOUSE AND IF IT'S PUSHED SORT OF CLOSER THAN THAT 20FT YOU'RE TRULY OBSTRUCTING THEIR THEIR SORT OF VIEW AND REALLY THEIR ABILITY TO GET OUT OF THEIR DRIVEWAY POSSIBLY. SO I THINK THE 20FT IS PROBABLY THE RIGHT NUMBER IF IT'S A GARAGE, GROCERIES. I JUST GOING BACK TO QUESTION NUMBER ONE, JUST SO IT'S CLEAR, I THINK THERE'S AGREEMENT THAT YOU COULD CLARIFY THAT IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO OR YEAH OKAY THAT IS WHAT I GOT THAT YEAH IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ALL ARE OKAY WITH ALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SO SHEDS, GAZEBOS, GARAGES BEING AT A 20 FOOT SETBACK BETWEEN THE PRIMARY DWELLING AND THE SIDE YARD ADJACENT TO THE STREET PROPERTY LINE CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. I THINK YOU OKAY. AND THEN THE LAST QUESTION MIGHT BE A NON ISSUE ACTUALLY RIGHT NOW BASED ON THE FEEDBACK YOU ALL JUST GAVE BUT BASICALLY IN THE CODE THERE'S A CURRENT SECTION THAT SAYS WHERE GARAGES WERE LEGALLY CONSTRUCTED WITH THE SETBACK OF 20FT OR MORE FROM A SIDE PROPERTY LINE ABUTTING A STREET, THE GARAGE MAY BE EXPANDED, PROVIDED ADDITIONAL OR EXPANDED GARAGE DOORS ARE NOT PROPOSED TO FACE THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE ABUTTING A STREET SO STAFF IS WOULD RECOMMEND GETTING RID OF THAT STATEMENT DISCUSSING THE GARAGE DOOR PLACEMENT AS IT CREATES UNNECESSARY DIFFICULTY AND CONFUSION AND WHICH WOULD ACTUALLY NO LONGER BE AN ISSUE IF WE MOVING FORWARD DO CREATE AN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A GARAGE AT A 20 FOOT SETBACK BECAUSE THEN THEY COULD EXPAND THEIR GARAGE DOOR FACING WHATEVER WAY THEY WANTED SO MORE OF AN I GUESS IF ANYONE STRONGLY DISAGREES WITH THAT YOU CAN LET ME KNOW. SEE NONE. OKAY. OKAY. EXCELLENT. THANK YOU ALL FOR THE FEEDBACK. THANKS FOR HANGING IN THERE. I KNOW THAT IS CONFUSING AND THERE WAS A LOT OF MATH INVOLVED. THE NEXT STEPS ARE GOING TO A STUDY SESSION AT CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 13TH AFTER RECEIVING COUNCIL FEEDBACK STAFF WILL BE BACK AT PLANNING COMMISSION IN MAY WITH A DRAFT ORDINANCE . THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. I'M I'VE GOT MR. JOHNSON CLARIFYING THE DATE IS IT APRIL 13TH OR APRIL 14TH? MY SHEET IN FRONT OF ME HERE SAYS APRIL 14TH DON'T ANYBODY SHOWING UP AT CITY HALL ON A SUNDAY OOPS, IT'S THE 13TH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. WE'LL MOVE THEN. ITEM NUMBER TWO WHICH IS A UPDATE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ROLE IN THE 2050 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. I BELIEVE MR. DAKOTAH CASSIDY IS HERE AND IS GOING TO GIVE US A STAFF REPORT SO I AM JUST GOING TO SIT HERE PLANNING COMMISSION I DON'T HAVE A FORMAL PRESENTATION MORE JUST WANTED TO CREATE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FROM THE CONCURRENT MEETING THAT HAPPENED LAST TUESDAY WHERE WE PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROCESS KIND OF PROPOSED ENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND THEN SOME OF THE DEMOGRAPHIC DATA AND AND JUST YOU KNOW, ACKNOWLEDGING HAVING FIVE BODIES THERE CAN KIND OF MAKE IT AWKWARD TO ASK A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND JUST KIND OF AFTER A LENGTHY OR KIND OF TECHNICAL DISCUSSION SO JUST WANTED TO BE AVAILABLE IN CASE THERE IS ANY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS OR CLARIFICATIONS THAT FOLKS WANTED TO TALK THROUGH ON THE PLAN. THANK YOU. MR. GARCIA I'LL START WITH A QUESTION DOES THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL WE BE LOOKING AT POTENTIALLY PROACTIVELY REGAINING ANY PROPERTIES OR DO WE DO WE LOOK AT THE GUIDE MAP AS PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE YEAH. CHAIR CAPTAIN YEP. LOOKING AT OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND THAT GUIDE MAP IS PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROCESS. SO THAT IS ONE OF THOSE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FROM THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AS WELL. SO WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT THAT PLAN TO SEE IF WE NEED TO YEAH. DO WE KEEP THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE GUIDANCES THAT WE HAVE? ARE WE ADDING DIFFERENT ONES OR CHANGING THE NAME AND THEN THROUGH THAT DO WE NEED TO KIND OF PROACTIVELY RE GUIDE PROPERTIES AND THEN POTENTIALLY REZONE PROPERTIES AFTER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? THANK YOU MR. CASSIDY IF I COULD DIVE A LITTLE DEEPER ON THAT BECAUSE I'VE NEVER BEEN A PART OF THIS PROCESS. I MEAN IS IT LIKE WE ROLL OUT A BIG MAP AND THEN WE ALL POINT TO DIFFERENT THINGS AND SAY OH I LIKE THIS OVER HERE AND MAYBE THIS IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE THINKING OVER HERE OR IS IT MORE WE'VE BEEN SEEING THIS IN THE MARKET AND DEVELOPERS HAVE BEEN APPROACHING US ABOUT THIS OR WE'VE BEEN SEEING THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY OVER HERE AND WE KIND OF HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT. YEAH. CHAIR COOKED IN I'LL JUST SHARE SOME INITIAL THOUGHTS. THIS IS ALSO MY FIRST TIME KIND OF FORMALLY GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS AS WELL SO I WOULD SAY IT'S PROBABLY MORE TOWARDS THE LATTER OPTION WHERE I WOULD SAY PROBABLY FROM COMP PLAN CYCLE THE COMP PLAN CYCLE THERE'S NOT A DRASTIC CHANGE WHERE WE'RE KIND OF REDOING EVERYTHING AND EVERYTHING BECOMES NEW BUT BE MORE KIND OF LOOKING AT SOME OF THOSE PRIORITY AREAS AND LOOKING AT OUR DISTRICT PLANS KIND OF FOR SOME GUIDANCE IF ANYTHING NEEDS TO BE RE GUIDED IN THOSE KIND OF PRIORITY REDEVELOPMENT AREAS AND AND KIND OF INCORPORATING COMMUNITY FEEDBACK KIND OF THINKING ABOUT JUST OUR INTERACTIONS WITH DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS, KIND OF LOOKING AT THOSE DISTRICT PLANS WORKING WITH YOU ALL IN THE COUNCIL TO KIND OF COME UP WITH A PROPOSED MAP FOR KIND OF FEEDBACK AND ITERATION THROUGH THAT PROCESS. IS IT FAIR TO SAY WE MIGHT BE REACTING TO MAJOR CHANGES IN OUR CITY THAT HAVE OCCURRED OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS? SO I'M THINKING ABOUT LIKE THE 494 CONSTRUCTION THAT IS CHANGING SOME OF THE EXIT AND ENTRANCE RAMPS IN FOR INSTANCE PORTLAND AND FOR 94 AND AMERICAN BOULEVARD THAT'S ALL MUCH DIFFERENT THAN IT WAS TEN YEARS AGO. IS THAT THE TYPE OF THING WHERE WE WOULD REFLECT UPON THAT? THERE'S BEEN A BIG CHANGE HERE. LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE GUIDING TO SEE IF WE'RE STILL IN THE RIGHT PLACE. YEAH CHAIR COOKED AND I THINK THAT THAT IS A FAIR ASSUMPTION TO MAKE OR WOULD BE PART OF THAT ANALYSIS IS KIND OF THINKING ABOUT YEAH SOME OF THOSE TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS IN ADDITION TO WHERE WE'VE ALREADY KIND OF GUIDED AND KIND OF PRIORITIZE REDEVELOPMENT IN SOME OF THOSE DISTRICTS OR THINK ABOUT THE LYNDALE AVE SUBURBAN RETROFIT PLAN TOO AND JUST KIND OF THINKING ABOUT HOW HOW THAT PLAN IS CALLED FOR SOME DIFFERENT KINDS OF DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE CORRIDOR. YES. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM. THANK YOU, CHAIR. MR. KASS AND A COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ARE A BIG DEAL FOR ANY CITY. WE OBVIOUSLY WANT TO GET A TON OF PUBLIC INPUT. THIS IS MORE ADDRESS TO THE THOUSANDS WATCHING AT HOME BUT BUT I GUESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL HAVE AMPLE PUBLIC HEARINGS RELATED TO THIS AND THERE'S A LOT OF COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROGRAMS HAPPENING. CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO HOW RESIDENTS CAN GET INVOLVED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? YEAH, COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM CHAIR CAPTAIN YEAH. THERE WILL BE AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SO THE CITY USES THAT KIND OF INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SPECTRUM OR WE JUST CALL IT P2 FOR SHORT AND SO WE'RE AT THAT COLLABORATE LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT WHICH LEANS KIND OF THINKING ABOUT THE SPECTRUM OF KIND OF I GUESS COMMUNITY DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY AND THE FURTHER RIGHT YOU A ON THAT SPECTRUM THERE'S MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMUNITY HAVE THAT DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY SO IN THIS CASE COLLABORATE FALLS ON THAT KIND OF RIGHT SIDE OF THE SPECTRUM. SO YEAH THERE'LL BE WILL BE OUR TABLING AT CITY EVENTS. I'M HOPING TO HAVE SOME INFORMATION VERY SOON TO RELEASE FOR THE PUBLIC LOOKING AT MAY FOR KIND OF A COMMUNITY LAUNCH SERIES SO KIND OF DOING SOME LIKE WORLD CAFE KIND OF FACILITATED CONVERSATION STYLE OPEN HOUSES THROUGHOUT THE CITY DIFFERENT KIND OF FACILITATED CONVERSATIONS. YEAH, THERE'LL BE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL WHEN WE GET KIND OF TOWARDS THE END OF THE PROCESS WITH THE DRAFT PLAN AND THEN KIND OF MAKING THAT RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT THE FINAL PLAN. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE SHARED AT THE CONCURRENT MEETING WAS THE CREATION OF A COMMUNITY ADVISORY COUNCIL THAT WILL BE MADE UP OF IT'S NOT FULLY DECIDED YET WHAT EXACTLY THAT MAKEUP WOULD LOOK LIKE BUT FOR THE 2040 PROCESS IT WAS A MIX OF KIND OF APPOINTED COUNCIL MEMBERS AND FOLKS ON ADVISORY COMMITTEES LIKE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE PARKS BOARD AS WELL AS JUST KIND OF GENERAL RESIDENTS. AND SO THERE'LL BE THERE'LL BE THIS KIND OF COMMITTEE OR GROUP OF PEOPLE AND COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS THAT WILL PLAY A LARGER ROLE IN KIND OF PRIORITIZING THE GOALS AND MAKING THE RECOMMENDED AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL ON WHAT THE GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WILL BE. SO YEAH, REALLY IS REALLY THIS MAY IS KIND OF THE KEY KICK OFF FOR US AND THEN YOU KNOW WE'LL BE AT LIKE BLOOMINGTON PRIDE OR JUNETEENTH CELEBRATION AT THE FARMER'S MARKETS THROUGHOUT THE SUMMER AND IN SOME DIFFERENT WAYS PARTICULARLY WHEN THE WEATHER IS NICE TO BE OUTSIDE AND ENGAGING RESIDENTS ON ON THIS PROCESS. I COULD FOLLOW UP A LITTLE BIT AND WE'RE GETTING A BIT FAR AFIELD HERE BUT THE COMMUNITY WHAT DID YOU CALL IT THE COMMUNITY COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE? YEAH. SO YOU MENTIONED THERE MIGHT BE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OR COMMISSIONERS ON THAT. I KIND OF LIKE THAT IDEA TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. I, I LIKE LIKE I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT HAVING AN OUTSIZED INFLUENCE ON THAT. YOU KNOW, IF THE MAYOR'S ON IT ,IS OUR RESIDENTS REALLY GOING TO FEEL AS COMFORTABLE OR ARE THEY FEELING LIKE THEY'RE TAKING OWNERSHIP OR ARE THEY JUST TAKING DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL? AND I LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING NOBODY FROM CITY STAFF HELPING THAT GROUP BUT NO NO COMMISSIONERS, NO COUNCIL MEMBERS ON IT SO THAT THE PUBLIC FEELS LIKE THIS IS OUR VOICE AND WE'RE NOT BEING INFLUENCED BY COMMISSION AND WE'RE TELLING THEM WHAT WE WANT AND MAYBE COUNCIL DOESN'T GO FOR IT BUT I LIKE THE INDEPENDENCE OF OF THAT INSTEAD OF YOU KNOW, JUST COUNCIL HAVING THEIR TENTACLES EVERYWHERE AND WE HAVING OUR TENTACLES EVERYWHERE. I DON'T WANT TO INFLUENCE THE PUBLIC ON WHAT THEY WANT. I WANT THE PUBLIC TO TELL ME AS A COMMISSIONER WHAT THEY WANT AND SO THAT'S JUST MY OPINION ON A CHAIR. YEAH JUST CHAIR COOKED AND I DO APPRECIATE THAT FEEDBACK BECAUSE YEAH, LIKE I SAID WE HAVEN'T TOTALLY FIGURED OUT WHAT THE COMPOSITION OF THAT WOULD BE AND I THINK YEAH THERE'S GOOD PROS AND CONS FOR EITHER APPROACH IF IT IS MORE KIND OF PUBLIC RESIDENTS OR COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS VERSUS FOLKS ON APPOINTED BOARDS OR SOME MIX OF THE TWO. SO YEAH I APPRECIATE THAT FEEDBACK AND COULD BE A POTENTIAL TO AND YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ABOUT WHAT OUR ROLE IS AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHAT WE MIGHT BE DOING IF NOW IF I COULD JUST MAKE ONE MORE PLUG JUST FOR THE PUBLIC TO SO WE'LL HAVE OUR PROBABLY THE BEST WAY TO GET INFORMATION RIGHT NOW IS ON OUR CITY WEBSITE. IF YOU GO TO BLM DOT COM AND FORWARD SLASH 2050 IT'LL TAKE YOU TO KIND OF A GENERAL WEBSITE THAT HAS SOME INFORMATION AROUND WHAT IS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT ALSO LINKS TO OUR LET'S TALK BLOOMINGTON PAGE WHICH WILL REALLY BE THE PRIMARY WEB PAGE FOR SHARING THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PIECES OF THE OF THE PROCESS IF WE HAVE ONLINE SURVEYS AND THINGS THOSE ARE I'LL BE LINKED ON THAT WEB PAGE AND THEN WE SHOULD HAVE AN ARTICLE GOING OUT IN THE APRIL BRIEFING AS WELL KIND OF HIGHLIGHTING THAT WEBSITE AND THE LET'S TALK PAGE TO KIND OF GET PEOPLE HOPEFULLY STARTING TO KIND OF GO TO THAT WEBSITE AS A SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND THEN OF COURSE WE'LL DO SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS AND OTHER THINGS TOO BUT I GUESS JUST FOR PUBLIC WATCHING WE HAVE THAT WEB PAGE AVAILABLE. THANK YOU. MR. CASSIDY MR. JONES, I ASK YOU A QUESTION ABOUT THIS SO THIS IS GOING TO BE A HUGE LIFT FOR CITY STAFF AS PLANNING MANAGER DO YOU HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT OUR STAFF? ARE WE GOING TO GET STRETCHED TOO THIN ON THE THINGS WE DO OTHERWISE? THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. YOU'RE CORRECT AND I'M NOT FOR TWO REASONS ONE IS THAT WE'RE ABLE TO DRAW UPON COLLEAGUES AND PROFESSIONALS ACROSS THE ORGANIZATION TO HELP SUPPORT IT. SO WE DEFINITELY PULL IN A LOT OF SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, FROM PARKS, YOU KNOW, DECORATORS ASSEMBLED A VERY WIDE SPECTRUM OF PROFESSIONALS ON THIS INTERNAL STAFF TEAM TO HELP SUPPORT THIS EFFORT. SO WHILE PLANNING STAFF IS VERY MUCH THE FRONT FACING AND DOES A LOT OF THE AUTHORSHIP AND CREATES A LOT OF THE MAPS AND DOES SOME OF THE TECHNICAL WORK, IT REALLY IS A COLLABORATION ACROSS THE FULL ORGANIZATION AND FOR SURE. THE SECOND THING TOO IS JUST THAT I THINK A POINT THAT DAKOTA MADE IN THE 2026 WORK PLAN IS WE ARE PARING DOWN SOME OF OUR POLICY WORK TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE RESERVING ENOUGH ADEQUATE STAFFING CAPACITY TO FOCUS ON THE COMP PLAN AND THAT'S GOING TO CONTINUE FOR THE 2027 AS WELL AS THE 2028 WORK PLAN. THERE'LL BE, YOU KNOW, SUBTLE FLUCTUATIONS BETWEEN THOSE YEARS YOU KNOW, THE LIFTS ARE PROBABLY MORE SIGNIFICANT THIS YEAR AND NEXT YEAR THAN 2028 BUT IT DOES INFLUENCE WHAT ARE THE OTHER PROJECTS ON THE WORK PLAN TO ENSURE THERE'S ADEQUATE CAPACITY? I'M NOT SURE HOW TO PHRASE THIS ELOQUENTLY BUT DO YOU THINK THE OVERALL IMPACT OF THE PUBLIC WE HAVE IS THE SAME LIKE DIFFI DO YOU FIND THIS TO BE A DISTRACTION FOR PLANNING STAFF THAT GOSH IS THIS OTHER GOOD STUFF WE WISH WE COULD BE DOING BUT WE HAVE TO CONFORM TO MEET COUNCIL'S REQUIREMENT FOR THE 2050 PLAN OR DO YOU SEE THE 2050 PLAN AS THIS IS ALSO PROVIDING BENEFIT TO OUR RESIDENTS BY BEING THOUGHTFUL AND BEING PREPARED FOR THE NEXT, YOU KNOW, PHASE OF THE CITY? DO YOU HAVE THOUGHTS THERE? YEAH, I DO. CHAIR CORRECT AND I VERY MUCH VIEWS THAT VIEW IT AS THE SECOND AS THE FORMER AND THE REASON BEING IS THAT A LOT OF THE ENGAGEMENT WE DO WITH THE COMMUNITY REALLY INFORMS A LOT OF THE POLICY WORK WE DO LIKE THE FARTHER WE GET AWAY FROM THE TOUCH POINT OF THE LAST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH GUIDES A LOT OF OUR UPDATES TO THE ZONING CODE IN TERMS OF DEFINING WHAT THE FUTURE SHOULD LOOK LIKE, THE STRATEGIES, ACTIONS YOU KNOW THE MORE DISCONNECTED WE ARE FROM THE CURRENT SNAPSHOT IN TIME OF ITS RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES IN TERMS OF WHAT THEIR NEEDS ARE. SO I DON'T VIEW IT AS A DISTRACTION AND I THINK MOST PLANNING PROFESSIONALS GET PRETTY EXCITED ABOUT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING. AND SO WHEN YOU MEET VARIOUS PLANNERS AND PLANNING COMMUNITIES THEY TALK ABOUT HOW MANY COMP PLAN CYCLES THEY'VE BEEN THROUGH OR AS KIND OF A BADGE OF HONOR AND AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GETTING IN SOME OF OUR INITIAL MEETINGS I SEE COMMISSIONER MUNSTER NODDING HIS HEAD SOME OF THAT STUFF. SO NO, IT'S NOT IT'S NOT A DISTRACTION AND I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE RELISH THE OPPORTUNITY AND I THINK THAT IDEALLY YOU'RE CONNECTING THIS ENGAGEMENT AND BROADER PLANNING EFFORT TO ALL THE POLICY WORK THAT YOU'RE DOING DOWNSTREAM. SO IT'S EXCITING. YEAH. THANKS FOR THE PERSPECTIVE ON THAT. MR. JOHNSON AND I HAV A LOT OF AGREEMENT WITH THAT. I MEAN I THINK IT COULD BE VIEWED VERY CYNICALLY AS WELL. WE'RE TAKING A REDUCTION ON THE STUFF WE ARE NORMALLY DOING AND WE'RE KIND OF DISTRACTED AND THIS IS JUST LIKE A BURDEN THAT MATT COUNCIL PUTS ON US AND LOOK, I HAVE MY DRUTHERS WITH THAT COUNCIL AS MUCH AS ANYBODY BUT I THINK THE LONG TERM PLAN IS IMPORTANT FOR US AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK MUCH FURTHER THAN THIS BODY AND HOW OFTEN ARE WE MAKING A DECISION BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S IN THE COMP PLAN WHETHER IT'S HOW IS THE PROPERTY GATED OR ZONED OR WHAT IS THE COMP PLAN TELLING US THAT HAS A REAL IMPACT ON THE DECISIONS THAT THIS BODY MAKES ON REAL WORLD APPLICATIONS AND I THINK IT'S A VALUE THAT WE ARE TAKING A LOOK AT THIS AND BEING VERY INTENTIONAL, THOUGHTFUL ABOUT WHAT UPDATES WE'RE MAKING TO THE PLAN BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE APPLICATIONS DOWN THE ROAD AND WE'RE GOING TO SAY WELL LET'S WHAT IS THE COMP PLAN SAY AND THIS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY NOT ONLY US BUT THE PUBLIC TO SHAPE WHAT THE COMPREHENSIVE. SO I DO THINK THERE'S A LOT OF VALUE IN THIS. SO I JUST WANT TO SAY CONGRATULATIONS TO CONOR. THANK YOU FOR UNDERTAKING THIS AND IT'S GOING TO BE A FUN JOURNEY YET. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THEN TO ITEM NUMBER THREE WHICH IS THE CONSIDERATION OF THE FEBRUARY 19TH, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES COMMISSIONERS WHITE COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM AND COMMISSIONER ISSA WERE ABSENT AT LEAST FOR PART OF THE MEETING. AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, MR. CUNNINGHAM, HOW DOES A MR. JOHNSON HOW DOES THAT WORK FOR COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM WHO WAS PARTIALLY IN ATTENDANCE FOR THE MEETING THANK SURE COOKED IN TECHNICALLY HE SHOULD ALSO ABSTAIN FROM VOTING ON THE MINUTES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. I LOOK THEN FOR A MOTION OF APPROVAL I MOVE I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FROM FEBRUARY FEBRUARY 19TH 2026 32ND SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THESE MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 19TH 2026. ALL TSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I OPPOSED ABSTAIN ABSTAIN THAT MOTION PASSES FOUR ZERO WITH THREE ABSTENTIONS WE HAVE INTO ITEM NUMBER FOUR OUR FINAL ITEM THIS EVENING IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION POLICIES AND ISSUES UPDATE MR. JOHNSON YEAH. THANK YOU CHAIR COUCH AND PREVIEW OF UPCOMING MEETINGS ON APRIL THE 2ND THERE'S TWO PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE ONE IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CANNABIS MANUFACTURING AT 333 WEST 86TH STREET. THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING IS A PRIVATELY INITIATED CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO AMEND REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO TOWERS AT PLACES OF ASSEMBLY. THESE ARE TOWERS THAT HOST WIRELESS COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS ON APRIL THE 16TH THERE'S A STUDY ITEM PLAN FOR A LONG RANGE PLANNING PROJECT THE OFF STREET PARKING SUPPLY PROJECTS AGAIN A PROJECT ON THE 2026 WORK PLAN CARRIED OVER FROM 25 AND THEN ON APRIL THE 23RD THERE IS A PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR A REZONING OF 8030 OLD CEDAR AVENUE SOUTH FROM 52 TO BE ONE TO ACCOMMODATE A RETAIL TENANT . SO THAT'S A PREVIEW OF THE NEXT THREE UPCOMING MEETINGS. ALL OF THEM HAVE ITEMS CURRENTLY SLATED FOR THEM. IF THERE'S ANY ADJUSTMENTS TO THAT WILL CERTAINLY LET YOU KNOW. AS FAR AS OTHER UPDATES THAT I HAVE THERE IS A BOARD AND COMMISSION CONNECT MEETING IF YOU PARTICIPATED IN THAT BEFORE OR I'VE NEVER BEEN TO ONE IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE AND MEET OTHER ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS SOMETIMES COUNCIL MEMBERS STOP BY AS WELL APRIL THE 6TH FROM 6 TO 8 P.M.. THE ROOM IS NOT YET DETERMINED BUT I THINK NORMALLY THEY HOST THAT IN HAIG BUT I COULD BE WRONG. I'LL SEND OUT DETAILS ON THAT WHEN I LEARN MORE. AND THEN THE SECOND UPDATE IS THAT THE MINNESOTA APA AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION STATE CONFERENCE HAS BEEN RELEASED IN TERMS OF THE DATE AND LOCATION. SO IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU WANT TO KEEP ON YOUR CALENDAR FOR THE FALL IT WOULD BE OCTOBER 21ST THROUGH THE 23RD IN MANKATO, MINNESOTA THIS YEAR. SO CERTAINLY WE HAVE TRAINING FUNDS AVAILABLE IF YOU WISH TO ATTEND THAT CONFERENCE I THINK I'VE REALLY ENJOYED ATTENDING STATE CONFERENCES AND IT'S A REALLY GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO MEET PLANNING COMMISSIONERS FROM OTHER COMMUNITIES AND PROFESSIONALS. A LOT OF GOOD LEARNING SESSIONS ON THAT. THEN FINAL UPDATE IS THAT THE CITY'S ACROSS THE COUNTRY ARE WORKING TO UPDATE THEIR DOCUMENTS TO GET IN COMPLIANCE WITH ADA REQUIREMENTS. SO THAT'S REQUIRING A LOT OF UPDATES TO OUR WEBSITE, SOME OF OUR HANDOUTS AND THOSE THINGS. SO IF YOU ARE A FREQUENT FLIER OF THE PLANNING DIVISIONS OR JUST THE CITY'S WEBSITE IN GENERAL YOU'RE GOING TO BE NOTICING SOME CHANGES IN THE COMING MONTHS AS WE CONTINUE TO MAKE PROGRESS AND HEADWAY ON FULLY COMING INTO COMPLIANCE WITH ADA REQUIREMENTS SO THAT IS MY UPDATE. THANK YOU MR. JOHNSON I'D LIKE TO PUT IN A PLUG FOR BOTH OF THE MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS YOU MENTIONED THERE. FIRST THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS CONNECT EVENT ON APRIL 6TH. THAT'S WHEN I'VE ATTENDED A LOT. IT'S A REALLY GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR US AND IT'S GREAT WHEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS A GOOD SHOWING. SO YOU DO HAVE SOMETHING IN YOUR INBOX ABOUT THAT. DO LOOK AT THAT AND CONSIDER GOING. THEY USUALLY FEED US AND SO IT'S A GOOD EVENING. THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD THINGS THAT CAN COME OUT OF IT SO IT DOES HAVE MY RECOMMENDATION AS DOES THE STATE APA CONFERENCE. YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE AND THE STATE CONFERENCES IT DOES SEEM LIKE THE STATE CONFERENCE IS REALLY FOCUSED AROUND YOU KNOW, JUST LEARNING AND IT'S VERY APPLICABLE TO WHAT WE DO HERE IN MINNESOTA. SO USUALLY MIANDAD IS PRESENTING OR OTHER OTHER ENTITIES THAT ARE CLOSE TO HOME AND YOU CAN LEARN A LOT FROM THAT STATE CONFERENCE. SO I DO RECOMMEND EVEN IF YOU CAN'T GO ALL THREE DAYS TRYING TO GET TO A COUPLE OF DAYS THAT CONFERENCE IS REALLY BENEFICIAL. I'VE CERTAINLY SAT THROUGH SOME PRESENTATIONS THAT HAVE IMPACTED ME AS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER OVER TIME DID JUST WANT TO BRING UP ONE OTHER ITEM AS THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO BRING UP ANYTHING THAT'S NOT ON THIS EVENING'S AGENDA AND I DID WANT TO JUST HAVE A QUICK CHAT ABOUT THE JOINT MEETING WE HAD LAST WEEK WITH WHAT WAS IT FIVE COMMISSIONS OR FOUR COMMISSIONS AND THE CITY COUNCIL. INTERESTING AND I THINK A NEW WAY FOR US TO DO THINGS. MR. JOHNSON CAN GET YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON ON HOW THAT MEETING WENT. YEAH YOU'RE COACH AND I THINK IT WAS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO MEET OTHER DECISION MAKERS IN THE CITY KIND OF MAKE SOME OF THOSE CONNECTIONS. SO THAT'S POSITIVE. YOU KNOW I THINK IT MAYBE SOME MORE OPEN OR UNSTRUCTURED TIME WOULD HAVE BEEN GOOD JUST TO BRING UP VARIOUS POLICY ISSUES THAT'S ON THE TOP OF COMMISSIONERS OR COUNCIL MEMBER'S MIND AND THAT SETTING WOULD PROBABLY BE ONE CHANGE OR ONE OPPORTUNITY I WOULD MAKE IN THE FUTURE WITH THAT AGAIN JUST WITH THE VOLUME OF PEOPLE I THINK IT'S HARD TO ASK A LOT OF QUESTIONS IF THERE'S A DOWNSIDE TO BE HAD OF THAT TYPE OF FORMAT I WOULD SAY IT'S JUST YOU KNOW WHEN YOU'RE ONE OF 35 PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE IT MIGHT BE MORE DIFFICULT TO YOU KNOW, HAVE MORE IN-DEPTH DISCUSSIONS AND THAT'S WHY WE BROUGHT THIS ITEM WITH THE COMP PLAN BACK TO YOU IS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT YOUR QUESTIONS WERE GETTING ANSWERED. SO YEAH, I THINK THERE'S PROS AND CONS TO IT CERTAINLY IT'S NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE AT THAT SCALE SO I DEFINITELY WOULD TAKE ANY FEEDBACK YOU HAVE ABOUT IT IN TERMS OF YOUR EXPERIENCE WHETHER YOU THINK SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD BE VALUABLE FOR THE FUTURE. IT WAS NOT EASY TO PUT IT TOGETHER. I WILL SAY THAT JUST FROM A STAFF LEVEL IN TERMS OF COORDINATING ALL THOSE SCHEDULES I DID FEEL LIKE WE NEEDED A DESIGNATED SURVIVOR IN THAT ROOM WITH ALL THE HIGH POWERED BALLOONS AND RESIDENTS AND THERE DO YOU SEE US HAVING ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE OR WAS THAT I YEAH I DON'T BUT I TAKE THE I TAKE THE FEEDBACK IN TERMS OF IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS BENEFICIAL TO DO ON AN ANNUAL BASIS THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I CAN I COMMUNICATE THAT TO THE OTHER LIAISONS OF THOSE BODIES THE COUNCILS ALWAYS YOU KNOW A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT IN THAT RESPECT BUT IT'S SOMETHING WE DEFINITELY COULD DO ON A MORE REGULAR BASIS. I THINK WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST IS MORE STRATEGIC CONCURRENT MEETINGS ABOUT SPECIFIC TOPICS YOU KNOW HOUSING POLICY WITH H OR EIGHT FOR EXAMPLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEETS ZONING FOR PLANNING AND PORT. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE NATURE OF THE CONCURRENT MEETINGS THAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST IS THAT IT WAS USUALLY JUST WITH TWO BODIES AT MOST AND ON VERY STRATEGIC TOPICS OF MUTUAL INTEREST. BUT IN THIS CASE I THINK IT SAVES DAKOTA FROM PROBABLY GIVING THE SAME PRESENTATION FIVE TIMES. SO THAT WAS A POSITIVE THING AND I'LL JUST THE WITH THE WAY IT'S DEVELOPMENT HAS OCCURRED IT KIND OF TOUCHES ON ALL THE DIFFERENT BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. SO THAT'S WHY WE THOUGHT THOSE TWO TOPICS WOULD BE A GOOD FIT IN THIS CASE THEIR FEEDBACK ON THAT MEETING FOR MANY COMMISSIONERS WHO WERE IN ATTENDANCE WE'RE SHORT. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. I AGREE. I THINK IT WAS IT WAS GREAT TO BE IN THE SAME ROOM WITH FOLKS. I THINK THE PRESENTATIONS AND TOPICS WERE CERTAINLY INTERESTING. I THINK IT WOULD HAVE FELT MORE BENEFICIAL HAD THERE BEEN EVEN OPPORTUNITIES FOR TABLE CONVERSATIONS THAT COULD HAVE THEN BEEN REPORTED OUT OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. I APPRECIATE IT. I THINK WE PROBABLY SAVED A LOT OF MONEY AND CONSULTING TIME MAKING PRESENTATIONS FOR EACH GROUP BUT WHAT I APPRECIATE VERY MUCH BUT YEAH I JUST FELT LIKE YOU KNOW WE WERE ALL SITTING AND LISTENING AND THERE REALLY WASN'T AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CONVERSATION AND COMPARING NOTES AND HOW WAS YOUR HOW IS YOUR BOARD HANDLING THIS AS OPPOSED TO HOW OUR BOARD IS HANDLING THIS AND I THINK CERTAINLY THE CONNECT OPPORTUNITIES ARE GREAT FOR BUILDING RELATIONSHIP BUT YOU KNOW IN A MORE INFORMAL WAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS I THINK WE WOULD HAVE BENEFITED FROM MORE STRUCTURED CONVERSATE LINES WITH EACH OTHER BEYOND THE PRESENTATIONS. THANK YOU BUT THANK YOU TO THE STAFF. I KNOW HOW HARD IT IS TO PUT THOSE THINGS TOGETHER AND I DO REALLY APPRECIATE THE STAFF'S COMMITMENT TO MAKING THAT HAPPEN. OTHER THOUGHTS ? YEAH I. I AGREE WITH A LOT OF THINGS. YOU SAID COMMISSIONER WHITE'S ONE THING I THINK THIS COMMISSION DOES VERY WELL IS OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH EACH OTHER AND EVEN I THINK JUST THIS EVENING I MEAN BOUNCING OUR DIFFERENT THOUGHTS ON WHETHER IT'S A SETBACK OR WHATEVER THAT WE TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN FROM EACH OTHER, REEVALUATE WAIT HOW WE YOU KNOW, THE THOUGHTS WE HAD AS WE PREPARED FOR THE MEETING AND I'VE I'VE ALWAYS BEEN PROUD OF THE WAY THAT THIS COMMISSION IS WILLING TO ACCEPT DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS, WILLING TO RECONSIDER THEIR OWN VIEWPOINT AFTER HEARING NEW INFORMATION. AND I HOPE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THIS COMMISSION CONTINUES AS I AS I SUNSET ON IT AND YOU DO LOSE THAT WHEN YOU HAVE 3040 PEOPLE IN HERE THERE'S REALLY NOT THE OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN FROM EACH OTHER BECAUSE IT'S JUST SORT OF THE CONSULTANT TALKING TO YOU AND IT'S HARD TO HAVE THAT SORT OF CRITICAL THINKING TIME. SO I DO MISS THAT. I'VE NEVER BEEN THE BIGGEST FAN OF THE JOINT MEETINGS I LIKE I THINK WE ARE THE PERFECT SIZE. I THINK SEVEN OF US IS IS REALLY GOOD. YOU LOOK AT OTHER PLANNING COMMISSIONS AND THEY'RE HUGE LIKE I THINK SAINT PAUL'S LIKE 20 PEOPLE OR SOMETHING AND IT'S THE SAME THING WHERE THEY LIKE BARELY HAVE CRITICAL CONVERSATIONS WHERE I THINK THIS GROUP IS THE PERFECT SIZE WHERE WE'RE ALL PREPARED TO BE HERE BUT WHERE WE CAN HAVE CRITICAL CONVERSATIONS WITH EACH OTHER WHICH IS GREAT. AND SO I'VE NEVER BEEN THE BIGGEST FAN OF THE JOINT MEETINGS I WOULDN'T BE DISAPPOINTED IF THERE'S NOT ANOTHER ANOTHER ONE OF THAT SIZE BUT I THINK IT WAS A FINE FINE EFFORT. CREDIT THE STAFF FOR PUTTING ON A VERY DIFFICULT EVENT. THIS IS THAT OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ANY OR TO DISCUSS ANYTHING ELSE THAT WASN'T ON THE AGENDA ANY OTHER DISCUSSION TOPICS SO COMMISSIONER MUNSTER THANK YOU ,MR. CHAIRMAN. THIS IS JUST A QUESTION AND I THINK THE ANSWER IS NO. BUT HAS THE COUNCIL TAKEN UP THE AIRPORT PARKING ORDINANCE YET? CHAIR COOKSON. COMMISSIONER MUNSTER THEY HAVE NOT. IT'S SCHEDULED FOR THIS COMING MONDAY, MARCH THE 23RD AS WELL AS MISSING RENTAL HOUSING WAS CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY THROUGH LAST FEBRUARY MEANING TO MARCH 23RD AND A COUPLE OTHER PLANNING AGENDA ITEMS FENCE ORDINANCE AND YES, THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. AS YOU PLANNING NIGHT ANYBODY ELSE SEEING NONE. THAT CONCLUDES THIS MARCH 19TH MEETING OF THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION. >> GOODNIGHT