. >> GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THIS OCTOBER 23RD 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 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ARE STUDY ITEMS WHERE WE WILL NOT TAKE FORMAL ACTION WELL OTHER ITEMS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ARE PUBLIC HEARINGS WHERE WE DO TAKE PUBLIC ACTION AND WE DO ENCOURAGE PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS. HOWEVER, WE WE DO HAVE ONE THIS EVENING. ITEM NUMBER ONE IS THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO TESTIFY ON THAT, YOU'RE WELCOME TO DO SO HERE AT CITY HALL OR YOU CAN DO SO FOLLOWING THE INSTRUCTIONS THAT ARE ON YOUR SCREEN ON SOME ITEMS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION WE HAVE FINAL DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY WHERE OTHER ITEMS THE CITY COUNCIL WILL MAKE THE FINAL DECISION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTS IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS MADE UP OF SEVEN VOLUNTEER RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON. SIX OF US ARE HERE THIS EVENING SO WE DO HAVE A QUORUM . LET'S GET EVERYONE IN THE CHAMBERS NOW 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 . WE WILL MOVE RIGHT INTO ITEM NUMBER ONE. THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON IS THE APPLICANTS FOR OUR ANNUAL MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES ORDINANCE. MR. SPEAKER, YOU HAVE THE STAFF REPORT. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. SO I'M HERE TO PRESENT THE FINAL MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES FOR 2025 AND JUST TO REVIEW AGAIN WHAT MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES IS FOR NEW COMMISSIONERS. IT'S A PROJECT WE DO ANNUALLY THAT'S KIND OF A HODGEPODGE OF DIFFERENT ORDINANCES WHETHER THAT BE CLEANUP ITEMS OR POLICY CHANGE ORDINANCES THAT DON'T WARRANT THEIR OWN WHOLE PROJECT AND PUBLIC HEARING. SO WE KIND OF PUT THEM TOGETHER FOR REVIEW. HERE'S A QUICK TIMELINE JUST FOR REMEMBERING I WAS HERE ON SEPTEMBER 18TH AND WE HAD A STUDY SESSION TO TALK ABOUT THE POLICY CHANGE ITEMS. I THEN WENT TO COUNCIL ON SEPTEMBER 29 SO WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT AND THEN THERE WILL BE A FINAL PUBLIC HEARING AT COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 17TH. SO THIS IS A TABLE OF ALL THE CLEANUP ITEMS WITHIN THE PROJECT AND THERE ARE A LOT THERE'S 2XA THROUGH Z EXCEPT FOR WE DROPPED ORDINANCE P AT THIS TIME. SO REALLY IT'S A THROUGH OH AND Q THROUGH Z. I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THESE INDIVIDUALLY BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A LOT. BUT IF YOU DO HAVE QUESTIONS I HAVE EXTRA SLIDES AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT ANY OF THESE INDIVIDUALLY IF YOU WANT TO. I JUST HAVE ONE EXAMPLE OF WHAT A CLEANUP ITEM LOOKS LIKE. SO THIS IS ORDINANCE A AND THERE IS JUST A GRAMMATICAL ERROR HERE AND WE ADDED AN ORDER AND SO THAT'S KIND OF AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT A CLEANUP ITEM LOOKS LIKE AS FAR AS THE POLICY CHANGE ITEMS GO. HERE IS A SHORTER LIST OF JUST SIX SINCE I WAS HERE AT THE STUDY SESSION WE DROPPED A COUPLE SO WE TOOK THE DOUBLE PUBLIC HEARING REMOVAL OUT FOR NOW AND THEN WE MOVED ONE OF THE ITEMS INTO THE CLEANUP SECTION SO WE WILL GO THROUGH THESE ONES INDIVIDUALLY. SO ORDINANCE A DAY IS CHANGING THE EXTERIOR LIGHTING SECTION SLIGHTLY. IT NEEDS TO BE UPDATED TO SPECIFY WHEN LIGHTING PLANS ARE REQUIRED BECAUSE NOT EVERY PROJECT THAT INVOLVES INSTALLATION OF LIGHTING NECESSITATES A WHOLE PHOTOMETRIC PLAN AND THEN ADDITIONALLY STAFF PROPOSE ADDING A SECTION TO MAKE SURE THAT MAINTENANCE OF LIGHTING IS IN GOOD REPAIR AND KEPT UP ORDINANCE BE BE. IT CAME FROM THE OFFICE CONVERSION STUDY FROM EARLIER THIS YEAR AND THIS ORDINANCE BASICALLY IS TO ALLOW MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES WITH A COMBINED MINIMUM LEVEL OF NONRESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA AND THE FOUR ZONING DISTRICTS THAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN ORDINANCE YOU SEE HAS A FEW DIFFERENT PARTS. SO FIRST WE CURRENTLY HAVE A PROCESS FOR APPEALS TO CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS AND THAT NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP A LITTLE BIT. THE CODE CURRENTLY SAYS THAT APPEALS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION WOULD GO TO A PUBLIC HEARING NOT THE PLANNING COMMISSION. BUT THAT'S AN ACCURATE IT SHOULD GO TO COUNCIL TO BE DECIDED ON ADDITIONALLY FOR THE APPEALS OF DECISION AND CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS THERE'S CURRENTLY NO FEE LISTED IN CODE SO THE FEE SHOULD BE $220 MIRRORING OTHER APPEAL FEE COSTS. AND THEN LASTLY AS PART OF THE STREAMLINING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WE ESTABLISH THE PROCESS FOR APPEALING A VARIANCE DECISION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION BUT FORGOT TO ADD IT TO THE CODE. THE APPEAL PROCESS FOR THAT WOULD INCLUDE A PUBLIC HEARING AT COUNCIL ORDINANCE DDA IS RELATED TO GARAGE HEIGHT LIMITS SO CURRENTLY THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE RULES DO NOT ALLOW A GARAGE OR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE TALLER THAN THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING WHICH CAN BE CHALLENGING IN SOME CASES. SO STAFF IS PROPOSING A MAXIMUM OF 15FT IN HEIGHT FOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND GARAGES THAT DO EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING ORDINANCE. >> E IS PROPOSING TO REMOVE A STATEMENT REQUIRING ARCHITECTURAL UNITY A STANDARD THAT WE HAVE FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS. SO CURRENTLY WE REQUIRED NONRESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTED ON ONE SITE TO MATCH STYLE COLOR SCHEME AND STAFF BELIEVES THAT THIS KIND OF LIMITS DESIGN FLEXIBILITY AND CREATIVITY AND CREATES AN UNNECESSARY BURDEN FOR THE DEVELOPER OR THE BUSINESS. AND THEN LASTLY WE HAVE ORDINANCE DOUBLE F SO CURRENTLY CODE REQUIRES AN EIGHT FOOT SIDEWALK ALONG MINOR COLLECTOR ROADS BUT THE CITY ENGINEER HAS AGREED THAT THIS COULD BE REDUCED TO SIX FEET WHEN NOT ABIDING THE CURB . THIS AMENDMENT IS INTENDED TO RIGHT SIZE PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ALONG LOWER VOLUME ROADWAYS AND AFTER PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL FEEDBACK LANGUAGE WAS ADDED TO THIS TO PROVIDE THE CITY ENGINEER DISCRETION AS TO WHEN THOSE SIDEWALKS MAY BE REDUCED FROM 8 TO 6FT. SO WITH THAT I HAVE THE ACTION ON THE SCREEN AND I AM AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. MS. HAS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF SEEING NONE I WILL THEN OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK IF THERE'S ANYONE IN THE CHAMBERS WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY TO THIS ITEM. SEE NO ONE COMING FORWARD. IS THERE ANYBODY ONLINE? OH PARTICIPANTS ONLINE OR STAFF. THANK YOU MS. BROWN. I WILL LOOK THEN FOR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND SECOND MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I OPPOSED A MOTION PASSES SIX ZERO WE'LL MOVE TO DISCUSSION . COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU, CHAIR COME ALTHOUGH I'M FOR ITEM E C ONLY ONE I WANTED TO BRING UP. I THINK THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION AROUND THAT PARTICULAR ONE ON CITY COUNCIL OR AM I MIXING THEM UP? I GUESS I'M HAVING I DIDN'T HAVE THIS NOTEBOOK HERE THAT NIGHT AND REMIND ME AGAIN HOW EVERYONE FELT ABOUT IT. THE ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS FOR ADJOINING COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS CAN WE BACK THE SLIDE UP ALSO TO THE W? I'LL START MR. CUNNINGHAM I BELIEVE I WAS BLOWING A TRUMPET ON MY WAY OUT THE DOOR SEEING ORDINANCE E I'M AN ENORMOUS SUPPORTER OF THIS. WE'VE SEEN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS COME BEFORE US AND WE'VE HAD TO ASK THE APPLICANT TO CHANGE BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO BUILD WHAT THEY WOULD CONSIDER A MODERN BUILDING BUT BECAUSE OF THE CODE THEY HAVE TO ACTUALLY MEET THE STANDARDS OF THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE. AND SO AS OUR INFRASTRUCTURE HAS AGED LIKE MANY HAS, WE ARE THEN ASKING THEM NO, YOU MUST MEET THE STANDARDS OF THE 1980S NOT THE 2020. SORRY ABOUT THAT. AND SO I BELIEVE THIS ORDINANCE ADDRESSES THAT. SO THAT WE'RE GIVING DEVELOPERS MORE FLEXIBILITY IN MY OPINION BY SUPPORTING THAT ORDINANCE. THANK YOU FOR THE REFRESHER UNLESS ANYONE ELSE HAS ANYTHING THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT OR NOTHING FURTHER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THE ONLY THING I NOTICE HERE IS THAT I WAS GLAD WE TABLED THE ORDINANCE ON THE DOUBLE PUBLIC HEARING. WE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATION AND IT WAS A VERY NUANCED CONVERSATION ABOUT 5 OR 6 DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT MAYBE SHOULD NOT HAVE THE DOUBLE PUBLIC HEARING AND I THINK THAT DESERVED A DEEPER DIVE IF WE'RE GOING TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD. SO I WAS PLEASED TO SEE THAT REMOVED AND I'M SUPPORTIVE OF EVERYTHING THAT REMAINS HERE. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? IF NOT, I'LL LOOK FOR A MOTION COMMISSIONER NAME. I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK IF THEY COULD ADVANCE THE SLIDE. I THINK I WILL MAKE THAT WHICH LIST I MOVED TO RECOMMENDED OPT IN ORDINANCE AS A THROUGH O AND Q THROUGH Z AS INCLUDED IN THE MEETING PACKET THEREBY AMENDING CHAPTER 610 1415 1718 2122 AND APPENDIX A OF THE CITY CODE SECOND MOTION IN A SECOND TO APPROVE THIS FIRST MOTION ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I OPPOSED THAT MOTION PASSES SIX ZERO. I'M SURE I MOVED TO RECOMMEND ADOPTING ORDINANCES DOUBLE A THROUGH DOUBLE F EXCUSE ME AS INCLUDED IN THE MEETING PACKET THEREBY AMENDING CHAPTER 21 AND APPENDIX A OF THE CITY CODE SO A SECOND SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THIS SECOND MOTION. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I OPPOSED THAT MOTION PASSES SIX ZERO. THIS MOVE THIS ITEM RATHER WILL MOVE TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS A PUBLIC HEARING ON NOVEMBER 17TH. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WE'LL MOVE THEN. ITEM NUMBER TWO WHICH IS A REVIEW OF THE OFFICIAL BUILDING HEIGHT MAP OF THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON. THE CITY IS THE APPLICANT AND MR. RAMER ALSO HAS THE STAFF REPORT . GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING, MR. WILSON. THAT WAS QUICK. SO THAT WAS OBVIOUSLY THE VIKINGS AROUND. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT . YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. YES. SO THIS IS A STUDY SESSION LOOKING AT THE OFFICIAL BUILDING HEIGHT MAP OF THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON ADVANCES SLIDE. THERE WE GO. AND PART OF THIS IS GOING TO BE GOING THROUGH THE HISTORY OF WHAT OUR CURRENT HEIGHT REGULATIONS ARE. THE REGULATIONS ARE FOR BUILDING HEIGHTS IN THE CITY OF AH I'M SORRY. YEAH. OH, YOUR LORD. I MADE THAT MISTAKE EARLIER TODAY SO I APOLOGIZE WITH WITH THE CALLER ON THE PHONE. SO THAT WAS THAT WAS TERRIFIC. AND I HAVEN'T GOTTEN IT OUT OF MY SYSTEM APPARENTLY. ANYWAYS, LET'S NOT WASTE ANY MORE TIME SO THE IT'S GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THE THE HISTORY OF HOW WE REGULATE BUILDING HEIGHTS IN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON. >> AND AS PART OF THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE PROPOSING OR A STAFF HAS PREPARED SOME PROPOSALS TO ADJUST THOSE BUILDING HEIGHTS JUST FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND THEN WE'LL ALSO BE LOOKING AT SOME OTHER ASPECTS THAT GOVERN BUILDING HEIGHTS IN THE CITY. SO BACKGROUNDS SHOULD BE BACKGROUND. I'M ON A ROLL TODAY. SO THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK THAT CURRENTLY CONTROLS BUILDING HEIGHTS IN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON WILL JUMP ALL THE WAY BACK TO 2010 WHEN AN ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED THAT WHERE YOU SEE OUR CURRENT FRAMEWORK BEING ADOPTED. PART OF THAT ORDINANCE WAS LIMITED LIMITING THE CASTING OF SHADOWS ON PROTECTED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. THERE'S A DEFINITION OF WHAT'S CONSIDERED A OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND THE STAFF REPORT FOR YOU TO CONSIDER. THERE'S ALSO A BUILDING STEP STEP X THAT'S WHERE YOU KNOW YOU INCREASE IN HEIGHT AND THERE'S A GREATER STEP BACK IN THE THE BUILDING ENVELOPE FROM THE YOU KNOW WHATEVER YOU'RE YOU'RE STEPPING BACK FROM THAT COULD BE A PEDESTRIAN STREET IN THIS INSTANCE OR IT COULD BE OTHER PROTECTED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AGAIN GOING BACK TO THAT FRAMEWORK AND THEN THAT LAST BULLET IS THE MAP BASED HEIGHT REGULATION WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING TONIGHT. SO THOSE ARE ALL THE THE REGULATIONS ON BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON AND THIS IS OUR CURRENT BUILDING HEIGHT MAP. THERE ARE FIVE CATEGORIES RIGHT NOW THAT SET THE LIMITS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT. THE LOWEST IS THREE STORIES 50FT, THE LESSER OF WHICH AND THEN IT GOES ALL THE WAY TO NO LIMIT SO WE CAN BUILD HOWEVER TALL YOU WANT BUT YOU ALSO HAVE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THOSE OTHER REGULATIONS THAT I MENTIONED OR THOSE OTHER STANDARDS THAT I MENTIONED THE SHADOW CASTING AND WHATNOT. AND THEN THERE ARE THERE ARE OTHER BUILDING HIGH REGULATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PROXIMITY TO THE AIRPORT THAT NEED TO BE CONSIDERED. SO THOSE ARE IMPOSED BY THE THE MINNEAPOLIS ST. PAUL ZONING FOR ZONING CODE OR YES SORRY MINNEAPOLIS ST. PAUL AIRPORT ZONING CODE. AND SO WE CONSIDERED A LOT OF INFORMATION AS WE WERE SAYING THIS ISSUE THE IN GOING ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP OF THE THE LAND USE GUIDE PLAN THAT'S IN OUR COMP OUR 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR MOST RECENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WHAT WE FOCUSED ON OR WHAT WE TEASED OUT OF THAT INFORMATION WAS MEDIUM DENSITY AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES OR AREAS OF THE CITY. THOSE WERE CONSIDERED AMONG STAFF FOR YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE HOW DO WE REGULATE BUILDINGS WITHIN THOSE AREAS. AND THEN WE ALSO LOOKED AT PLANNING AREA AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN THE FOCUS OF PLANNING EFFORTS. SO THIS IS A MAP SHOWING THE BOUNDARIES OR THE THE AREAS OF OF THOSE STUDIES. SO NORMALLY DISTRICT A DISTRICT PLAN, THE PAN AMERICAN DISTRICT PLAN, THE LAND AND LYNDALE AVENUE SUBURBAN RETROFIT PLAN AREA AND 98TH STREET STATION AREA AND OF COURSE THE SOUTH LOOP DISTRICT PLAN AREA AND THEN COMPLETED IN 2017 BY THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY A STUDY OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AREAS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. EIGHT WERE IDENTIFIED AND THERE INCLUDED WITHIN OUR THE MOST RECENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN . AND SO WE LOOKED AT THOSE AND THEN WE EXAMINED THOSE LAND USES OF EACH COMMERCIAL AREA IDENTIFIED AND FROM THAT WE CAME UP WITH OUR STAFF CAME UP WITH THIS PROPOSED HEIGHT LIMIT MAP FOR FOUR CHANGES TO WHAT WE SAW WERE COMPATIBLE WITH THE LAND USE AND THOSE PLANNING STUDIES THAT I IDENTIFIED EARLIER THE THE FRAMEWORK THAT WE THAT WE UTILIZED OR THAT WE ADOPTED OR THE APPROACH THAT WE ADOPTED WHEN WE FORMULATED THAT MAP WAS LOOKING AT AGAIN MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS. THERE WERE A LOT OF AREAS THAT ARE GUIDED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL THAT ARE LIMITED TO TWO STORIES OR 40FT. AND BASED ON THE DESCRIPTION OF THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, STAFF FELT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO HAVE EACH AREA THAT IS GOING TO THAT WAY TO HAVE A MINIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT OF AT LEAST THREE STORIES OR 50FT WHICH YOU KNOW THE LESSER OF TWO OF OF EACH. AND WE ALSO MADE EXCEPTIONS BASED ON THE CONTEXT OF WHERE THESE AREAS ARE LOCATED. ARE THEY OR THEY PROXIMATE TO A MAJOR INTERSECTION OR THEY WERE THEY EXAMINED AS PART OF AN EARLIER PLANNING PLANNING EFFORT SO IN WHICH CASE THEY THE MINIMUM HEIGHTS ACTUALLY MIGHT BE GREATER THAN THE THREE STORIES OR 50FT AND THEN THE SAME APPROACH WAS APPLIED TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND THEN WE ALSO LOOKED AT MAX BUILDING HEIGHTS WITHIN AND NEAR A PLANNING AREA THOSE PLANNING AREAS OR AREAS OF THOSE PLANNING STUDIES TO REFLECT THE GOALS AND THE VISION ARTICULATED WITHIN THOSE PLANS . SO THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF KIND OF HOW THAT WORKED STARTING OUT WITH THE CURRENT BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS ICE OR HIGHLIGHTING THOSE PROPERTIES THAT ARE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OR IMMEDIATE OR GUIDED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OR MEDIUM TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND THEN ALSO CONSIDERING YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THIRD PANEL THE PLANNING AREA THAT MIGHT BE NEARBY OR WITHIN OR YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE CITY AND LOOKING AT THAT LAND USE GUIDANCE AND WHAT WAS INTENDED FOR YOU KNOW, THE EXTENT OF THAT PLANNING AREA AND THEN COMING UP WITH A PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT FOR FOR FOR THE CITY USING THIS SORT OF LOGIC FRAMEWORK. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT WE HEARD STAFF HIGHLIGHT SOME ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARE GERMANE TO THIS CONVERSATION. SO THERE IS A RELATIONSHIP WITH WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO THE TO THE INCENTIVES FOR FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE OPPORTUNITY HOUSING ORDINANCE. MY APOLOGIES. WE CONSIDER THAT AND WE CONSIDER THAT WITH OUR COLLEAGUES IN THE HRA AND WE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WE DIDN'T OBSERVE ANY CONFLICTS BETWEEN THOSE INCENTIVES TO TO PROVIDE TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING RIGHT NOW TO GET OR TO TO TO QUALIFY FOR THOSE INCENTIVES FOR INSTANCE FOR THE HEIGHT BONUS YOU NEED TO MEET MINIMUM AFFORDABILITY TARGETS. BUT THAT'S ABOUT WHERE IT ENDS. IT DOESN'T INCENTIVIZE GOING ANY DEEPER INTO AFFORDABILITY. SO YOU WOULD STILL AND IT WOULDN'T CONFLICT WITH WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING BECAUSE YOU WOULD STILL GET THAT ADDITIONAL HEIGHT. SO WE DIDN'T SEE ANY ISSUES WITH ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE OPPORTUNITY HOUSING ORDINANCE AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER THAT YOU KNOW THE PROPOSED CHANGES THAT STAFF HAVE HIGHLIGHTED ON WHAT WE'VE PREPARED AREN'T NECESSARILY GOING TO MATERIALIZE IN BUILDINGS MEETING THOSE THOSE HIGH LIMITS THEY STILL THERE ARE STILL THOSE ZONING STANDARDS THAT WERE MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PRESENTATION THAT WOULD STILL NEED TO BE MET. AND SO SHADOW CASTING AND THEN ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS STANDARDS THAT THE SO THE CITY USES OR IMPOSES ON NEW DEVELOPMENTS SO OFF STREET PARKING, LANDSCAPING ETC. AND THEN THERE'S ALSO MARKET FORCES THAT ARE INFLUENCING THE SHAPE OF DEVELOPMENTS AND THAT MAY THAT MAY INFLUENCE BUILDINGS OR NOT GETTING TO THOSE HEIGHT LIMITS THAT WE THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED AND THEN YOU KNOW THE STATE BUILDING CODE THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED AS THAT REGULATES BUILDING HEIGHT BASED ON CONSTRUCTION TYPE OCCUPANCY TYPE FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS ,A VARIETY OF CONSIDERATIONS . SO THE NEXT STEPS FOR THIS PROCESS ARE YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO FORMAL MOTION REQUIRED BECAUSE THIS IS A STUDY SESSION BUT WE WILL BE TAKING FEEDBACK FROM YOU ALL AND PRESENTING THAT AS WELL AS ANY CHANGES TO WHAT WE'RE TO OR TO THE MAP THAT WE WOULD THEN PRESENT TO COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 17TH AND THEN AFTER THAT TAKING ALL THAT FEEDBACK WE WOULD PREPARE PREPARING ORDINANCE TO BE CONSIDERED SOMETIME IN LATE DECEMBER AND JANUARY FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS IN FRONT OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL RESPECTIVELY. SO THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS THAT STAFF ARE PREPARED TO KICK OFF THE DISCUSSION BECAUSE THIS IS A STUDY ITEM AND I CAN YOU KNOW I CAN CERTAINLY READ THEM AND WE CAN GO ONE BY ONE OR HOWEVER YOU HOWEVER YOU PROPOSE TO ADDRESS THESE QUESTIONS. OTHERWISE IT COULD BE MORE FULLY FREE FLOWING CONVERSATION AND I'M ALSO HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. SO JUST STARTING OFF THE FIRST ONE DO YOU AGREE WITH STAFF'S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL BUILDING HEIGHT MAP AND YOU KNOW WHY OR WHY NOT? WE REALLY APPRECIATE THAT FEEDBACK. THANK YOU, MR. HAMMER ALSO LET'S START WITH THAT FIRST QUESTION THOUGHTS ON THE AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL BUILDING I MET COMMISSIONER RENE THANK YOU. CHAIR I'M WONDERING CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE THAT HAS THE PLUS PLUS PLUS? >> OKAY. NOW I HAVE TO ADMIT AS I WAS READING THROUGH THE MATERIALS I FOUND THIS A CONFUSING CONCEPT TO GRASP. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. SO IF WE TAKE THE FIRST MAP, THE SECOND MAP, THE THIRD MAP WHICH EQUALS THE FOURTH MAP THE ONE THING I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS HOW IN THE PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS FOR EXAMPLE, WE GET TO THE SO THE ORANGE WOULD BE SIX STOREYS 80FT TALL. CORRECT. CHAIR YEAH, SURE. YES. OKAY. AND BUT THE PLAN I GUESS WHAT I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING IS THE OVERLAY BETWEEN THE PLANNING AREA AND THE AREA THAT WAS DECIDED LIKE WHY ONE AREA WAS SELECTED VERSUS ANOTHER. SO FOR EXAMPLE I'M ASSUMING THIS IS CEDAR AVENUE, RIGHT? IF YOU'RE GOING NORTH ON CEDAR AVENUE IN THAT BLOCK, WHY IS THE ONE THAT'S SHAPED FOR LACK OF A BETTER DESCRIPTION LIKE OKLAHOMA ON ITS SIDE? WHY ISN'T THE GREEN PART ALSO ORANGE LIKE WHAT'S THE LOGIC ON THAT? DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? ANYONE SEE SO I'M I'M JUST HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING HOW THE DECISION WAS MADE LIKE SPECIFICALLY ON WHERE THE LIMITS WOULD END FROM ONE TO THE NEXT. CAN I REPLY OR DID YOU WANT TO KNOW? OKAY. OKAY. YES CHAIR COMMISSIONER SO IT WAS PROXIMITY TO THAT INTERSECTION THAT WAS CONSIDERED. SO IT'S IT'S A MAJOR INTERSECTION AND IT'S HAD A LOT OF ATTENTION DEVOTED TO IT BY THE OTHER DIVISIONS WITHIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. YOU KNOW, SO IT IS A PRIME LOCATION FOR REDEVELOPMENT AND GETTING CLOSER TO THAT INTERSECTION ALLOWING BUILDING HEIGHTS TO INCREASE, SEEING THAT AS AN ASSET TO BEING CLOSER TO THAT INTERSECTION AND THEN SHORTENING BUILDING HEIGHTS AS YOU MOVE AWAY BUT UP CEDAR SO KEEPING IT STILL OFFERING THOSE BUILDING HEIGHTS AND YOU KNOW IN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FRAMEWORK THAT WE ADOPTED FOR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AS YOU'LL SEE ON WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING BUT IT REALLY WAS THAT PROXIMITY TO THE INTERSECTION THAT INFLUENCED WHAT WE SAW WAS IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA. >> OKAY. SO THERE ISN'T A SPECIFIC REASON FOR EXAMPLE WHY THAT THE PANHANDLE OF OKLAHOMA IS NOT INCLUDED IN THAT I JUST AS AN EXIT IT'S I'M NOT OVERLY FIXATED ON THAT PARTICULAR SPACE. I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE DECISIONS WERE MADE WHEN FOR EXAMPLE ACROSS THE STREET THAT IS LISTED AS THE SIX FEET, SIX STOREYS, 80FT. SO IT'S JUST TRYING TO GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE HOW THE DECISION IS MADE ON WHERE TO MAKE THE CUT OFF. >> YES CHAIR COMMISSIONER THAT JUST IT THAT PANHANDLE PORTION OF THE GEOMETRY LOOKED LIKE A GOOD CUT OFF POINT FOR AGAIN STEPPING DOWN THOSE BUILDING HEIGHTS AS WE MOVED AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION THE NOT REALLY A THERE ON THE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF OLD CEDAR SO AGAIN WITH THAT'S HOW THAT'S WHERE OUR TREATMENT WAS GRANTED WE ALSO WANT TO WE ALSO WANT TO CLARIFY THAT SOME OF THIS STUFF IS IS IS A LOT OF ART AS WELL AS WELL AS SCIENCE. YOU KNOW, WE'RE THINKING WHAT LOOKS APPROPRIATE FROM FROM A MAPPING PERSPECTIVE BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO GET INTO MORE DETAIL IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT MAYBE SOME OF THESE DECISIONS SEEM A LITTLE TOO ARBITRARY AND WE COULD MAYBE STRENGTHEN SOME OF THE LOGIC THAT WE'RE APPLYING TO PREPARE THE THE THE PROPOSED HEIGHTS CORRECT. THANK YOU. GO AHEAD. HAVE A SECOND UNRELATED QUESTION AND IT'S MORE TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS HERE. AT WHAT POINT DOES DO CONVERSATIONS WITH THE SCHOOLS HAPPEN OBVIOUSLY IF THERE WERE SUDDENLY REALLY LARGE SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OR YOU KNOW, THIS INTERSECTION OR SOME OF THE OTHER INTERSECTIONS, AT WHAT POINT DO THE CONVERSATIONS START TO HAVE WITH THE SCHOOLS? I ASK THIS PURELY FROM A PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE IN ANOTHER CITY WHERE THE EXPLOSION OF HIGH DENSITY REAL ESTATE WAS NEVER RESIDENTIAL, REAL ESTATE WAS NEVER REALLY COORDINATED WITH THE SCHOOLS AND THEY ENDED UP WITH A HUGE SCHOOL PRESSURE DOWN THE ROAD . AND SO JUST CURIOUS IN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON WHERE THAT HAPPENS IN THE PROCESS I WILL HAVE TO DEFER TO NICK OUR PLANNING MANAGER NICK JOHNSON. AND WITH REGARD TO THAT QUESTION, MR. JOHNSON YEAH. THANK YOU, TOM. THANK YOU, CHAIR. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER LANIER FOR THE QUESTION. SO THE POINT AT WHICH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT REVIEWS THE CITY'S LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES MOSTLY OCCURS WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO THEY ARE ONE OF OUR ADJACENT JURISDICTIONS ARE AFFECTED JURISDICTIONS. SO EVERY INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY THAT GETS RECITED IN OUR COMP PLAN THEY WOULD TYPICALLY GET A NOTICE OF THAT AS WELL AS WHEN THE CITY UPDATES ITS WHEN IT DOES ITS DECENNIAL UPDATE ITS TENURE UPDATE THE BLOOMINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS CERTAINLY IS ONE OF THE ENTITIES THAT WE NOTIFY AND ENGAGE ALONG THE WAY AND REVIEW THAT LAND. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP CHANGES. IN ADDITION TO THAT I'D LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THAT WE HAVE A PRETTY STRONG WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT SO WE DEFINITELY ARE TRYING TO COORDINATE THOSE THINGS. I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THAT THEY ARE INVOLVED IN EVERY DISCUSSION ON EVERY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN BLOOMINGTON BUT WE ARE REQUIRED UNDER STATE LAW TO NOTIFY THEM OF COMP PLAN CHANGES. THIS IS NOT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CHANGE THIS IS PART OF THE ZONING CODE BUT JUST A HEADS UP ABOUT THAT AND IF I MAY ADD TO THAT CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER WE HAVE DENSITY STANDARDS WITH THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE LAND USE GUIDANCE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SO THE BUILDING HEIGHTS DO NOT CHANGE THE AMOUNT OF OR THE DENSITY OF UNITS ON THE ON THE PROPERTY. IT JUST CHANGES THE BUILDING HEIGHT SO IT KIND OF SHIFTS WITH BUILDING HEIGHTS. THERE'S GOING TO BE PROBABLY UNIQUE ARRANGEMENTS OF BUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTIES BUT IT DOESN'T WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING DOES NOT TOUCH THOSE DENSITIES THAT WE'VE ARTICULATED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. GREAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHAIR. MR. CHAIRMAN, I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION IS THERE REALLY DIRECTLY RELATED TO YOUR FIRST GUIDING QUESTION? BUT I'M STRUGGLING WITH THE NOMENCLATURE OF JUST SAY THREE STORIES 50FT OR FOUR STORIES 60FT AND WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS THE LESSER OF THOSE TWO, CORRECT? CORRECT. WHY INCLUDE THE STORIES? SO IF WE'RE ALLOWING 60FT, WHY DO WE EVEN CARE IF IT'S FOUR STORIES OR FIVE STORIES OR SIX STORIES? WHY WHY PUT THAT ON TOP OF IT IF WE'RE ALLOWING 60FT FOR SHADOW REASONS, WHAT DOES IT MATTER HOW MANY STORIES THERE ARE? CHAIR I, I ACTUALLY CAN'T ANSWER THAT BECAUSE I UNFORTUNATELY WITHIN THE THE MEETING MINUTES WHERE THEY ADOPTED THESE HEIGHT CATEGORIES THAT ARE PART OF THE MAP BASED APPROACH THAT WE THAT THE CITY USES WHEN GOVERNING BUILDING HEIGHTS THERE WAS NOTHING IN THERE THAT THAT ADDRESSED THE THIS THIS MEASUREMENT THAT WE'VE PROPOSED WHERE OR THAT THAT'S THAT'S BEEN PART OF PRACTICE WITH STORIES VERSUS FEET YOU'RE RIGHT I MEAN IF YOU CAN BUILD UP TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FEET THAT'S THE THAT'S THE MAIN CONCERN THAT'S ULTIMATELY DICTATING YOUR HEIGHT. IT'S NOT THE STORIES OR THAT'S THAT'S A CLEANER IT'S ARTICULATION OF YOUR HEIGHT IS THE ACTUAL FEET, NOT THE STORIES. SO I'M NOT SURE IF PLANNING MANAGER NICK JOHNSON CAN PROVIDE ANY MORE BACKGROUND ON THAT. BUT AGAIN THIS IS IF WE ARE LOOKING AT YOU KNOW, AN ORDINANCE THAT CAN AMEND THESE STANDARDS SO IF WE IF YOU FEEL IT'S APPROPRIATE TO ACTUALLY CHANGE THIS TO A SYSTEM IT'S DISREGARDING STORIES AND MORE FOCUSED ON FEET THAN THIS IS THE TIME TO DO IT. I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT. I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK INTO THAT ESPECIALLY I MEAN EVEN FOR STORIES 60FT DOESN'T QUITE ADD UP. I THINK YOU COULD EASILY GET FIVE STORIES OUT OF A 60 FOOT BUILDING SO WE'RE ARTIFICIALLY LOWERING THE NUMBER OF STORIES AND DENSITY YOU COULD GET OUT OF A BUILDING BY THIS. WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE REDUNDANT AND INEFFECTIVE NOMENCLATURE WE HAVE HERE. SO I WOULD ASK THAT STAFF TAKES A LOOK AT THAT IF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AGREE THAT WE SHOULD TAKE A LOOK AT THAT BEFORE THIS COMES BACK TO US TO SEE IF THERE'S SOME REASON I'M NOT THINKING OF AS TO WHY WE'RE DOING THAT. I'LL LOOK FOR FURTHER COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU. EXCUSE ME. THANK YOU CHAIR KIND OF FOLLOWING IN THAT ON THAT I'M ALSO IN AGREEMENT THAT I THINK THAT JUST HAVING A FOOTAGE IS A GOOD THE GOOD FRAMEWORK FOR THIS I WOULD ENCOURAGE STAFF TO LOOK AT SECTION 21.301 .10-I-1 WHERE WE'RE MEASURING IT'S THE PRESCRIPTIVE PART OF THE CODE THAT MEASURES WHAT IS THE ACTUAL HEIGHT OF A BUILDING? HOW DO YOU HOW DO WE LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD AND SAY HOW IT ALL GOES AND IT INCLUDES ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT ANTENNAS, LIGHTNING RODS AS PART OF THE STRUCTURE HEIGHT AND IT MIGHT BE BENEFICIAL IF WE'RE TRYING TO DRIVE DENSITY AND OVERALL HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS TO EXEMPT CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE TOP OF BUILDINGS THAT WOULDN'T THROW MAJOR SHADOW IF THAT'S THE PRIMARY CONCERN IN CALCULATING BUILDING HEIGHT. THANKS. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM. COMMISSIONER LISA THANK YOU CHAIR. I DEFINITELY AGREE WITH YOU CHAIR ON THAT AND ALSO SECOND WHAT COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM SAID ON THE EXEMPTIONS OF ANY LIKE OBSTACLE THAT OR ANTENNA THAT MAY NOT CAUSE A SHADOW FOR EXAMPLE. SO LET'S SAY THAT THANK YOU MR. MOSER THANK YOU. I JUST I DO WANT TO AGREE, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT THE NUMBER REALLY THE FOOT HEIGHT NEEDS TO BE THE DICTATING FACTOR. I'VE SEEN THE SAME STANDARD IN OTHER STATES THAT I'VE WORKED IN. IT'S COMMON IN PLANNING TERMS BUT IT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID IF WHAT WE CARE ABOUT IS THE OVERALL HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING THEN LET'S JUST CARE ABOUT THE OVERALL HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING . AND THEN JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM'S COMMENT ABOUT THINGS THAT SHOULD NOT COUNT AND I AND I HAVE NOT LOOKED AT THAT EXACT SECTION SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN THERE. BUT I WOULD ALSO INCLUDE NOT ONLY ANTENNAS BUT THINGS LIKE ELEVATOR PENTHOUSES AS THINGS THAT GO ABOVE THE ROOFLINE. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. MR.. MR.. AND WE'RE ALSO WE APOLOGIZE FOR THE DETOUR THERE CAN WE GO BACK TO YOUR GUIDING QUESTION NUMBER ONE TO ENSURE WE HAVE ADDRESSED YOUR QUESTION? HAPPY TO REPORT PERHAPS NO WITH THE GOOD STUFF. OKAY. WE GET SO DO WE AGREE WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS? I DO IN PRINCIPLE AGREE WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE OFFICIAL HEIGHT MAP. I LIKE THAT WE'RE INCREASING THE DENSITY AT BOTH OLD CEDAR AVENUE AND OLD CHICOPEE ROAD. THAT'S ON MY LIST OF AREAS I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT AND ALSO ALONG LYNDALE AVENUE. I WAS PLEASED TO SEE THAT AS WELL. I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION THOUGH I COULD GO BACK TO THE PROPOSED MAP AT SO THE LYNDALE AVENUE RETROFIT PLAN RECOMMENDED TO DEVELOPMENT NODES AS SORT OF THE CATALYST FOR DEVELOPMENT ON LYNDALE IT WAS 98TH AND LYNDALE AND I BELIEVE IT WAS 84TH AND LYNDALE CHARLES 86TH THANK YOU 86TH WAS THERE CONSIDERATION TO NO LIMIT AT 86TH IN LYNDALE AS OPPOSED TO 80FT? CHAIR BETWEEN 98TH AND 86 90TH IS IS THE GREATER ACTIVITY NODE AND WE IT'S SORRY ONE SECOND LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT IT OKAY SO RIGHT NOW IT'S IT'S CAPPED AT FOUR STORIES 60FT AND WE ARE PROPOSING TO RAISE IT UP TO SIX STORIES 80FT SO WE ARE GIVING SOME THOUGHT OF THE DEVELOPMENT POSSIBILITIES AROUND 8698 DEFINITELY SHOWS MORE POTENTIAL GIVEN THE ASSETS WITHIN THAT AREA 86 RIGHT NOW DOESN'T HAVE THOSE SAME KIND OF ASSETS. SO KEEPING IT AT AT A MODEST HEIGHT OF 80FT SEEMED APPROPRIATE. WE WERE NOT CONSIDERING THE SAME SORT OF TREATMENT THAT WE WERE APPLYING TO 98. AGAIN, DIFFERENT CONTEXT YIELD DIFFERENT APPROACHES. SO THAT'S WHAT OUR WHAT OUR THINKING WAS BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO RECONSIDER WHAT WILL BE PRESENTED IF YOU FEEL WE SHOULD PERHAPS INVESTIGATE NO, NO NO LIMIT HEIGHT OR YEAH NO HEIGHT LIMIT AT THAT AT THAT INTERSECTION. WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT. THANK YOU. MR. MILLS OTHER THOUGHTS ESPECIALLY THANK YOU CHAIR. I HAVE NO OPPOSITION TO GOING TO NO HEIGHT LIMIT AT 86. BELINDA I MEAN I DO THINK THERE'S A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF POTENTIAL THERE. I DO SEE STAFF'S POINT THAT THERE'S PROBABLY MORE POTENTIAL AT 90TH AND LYNDALE PARTICULARLY JUST LOOKING AT WHAT'S WHAT'S THERE. SO TO YOUR POINT CHAIR THAT FEELING. CHAIR IF I MAY, THERE'S ALSO JUST A IT'S MORE PROXIMATE TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND SO THE ADD ON THE APPLICATION OF A NO HEIGHT LIMIT MIGHT BE BLUNTED BY JUST THOSE SURROUNDING LAND USES WHICH WOULD GREATLY LIMIT THE POTENTIAL FOR HEIGHT. BUT I MEAN WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO TAKE THAT OFF THE TABLE IF THAT IS IF THAT'S THE CITY'S APPETITE FOR, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA SO WE COULD RECONSIDER WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. I'M LOOKING AT THE MAP HERE AND I AGREE WITH YOU THAT ON THE WEST SIDE WE'RE PRETTY CLOSE TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. BUT ON THE EAST SIDE I WOULDN'T HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT. THERE'S A LOT OF INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL USES OVER THERE SO I WOULD BE POTENTIALLY INTERESTED IN THE NORTH EAST AND SOUTHEAST QUADRANTS OF 86TH AND LYNDALE THERE'S NO LIMIT AND I THINK IT'S PRETTY UNLIKELY WE'RE GOING TO GET A BUILDING OVER 80FT IN THERE. BUT I'D RATHER JUST ALLOW THE MARKET IF HEY, IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO PUT 100 OR 100 FOOT BUILDING THERE, I WOULDN'T WANT TO RESTRICT IT IT WHILE WE'RE CONSIDERING ONE OF THE TWO KEY NODES ON LYNDALE AND YOU OF THE THOUGHTS AND GUIDING QUESTION NUMBER ONE LET'S MOVE THEN TO DISCUSSION QUESTION NUMBER TWO. THANK YOU CHAIR. SO I FEEL LIKE THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN PART OF THE CONVERSATION ALREADY. IF IF YOU HAVE ANY WORRIES, CONCERNS, QUALMS WITH WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING OR WITH THE LOGIC FRAMEWORK THAT WE APPLIED TO THE PROPOSED MAP, WE'RE HAPPY TO RECONSIDER ALTERING IT. IT'S NOT A IT'S NOT SET IN STONE. IT'S NOT A HARD AND FAST RULE THAT WE'VE WE'VE ADOPTED SO IT CAN CERTAINLY VARY. YOU KNOW, THE CITY HAS YOU KNOW, IT'S A IT HAS AN INTERESTING LANDSCAPE. SO WHAT WHAT MAY SEEM APPROPRIATE IN ONE AREA IS YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO TAKE A LOCATION IN THE CONTEXT ESSENTIALLY SORRY I WAS ABOUT A RAMBLE BUT THAT'S THE SHORT AND SWEET OF IT IS THAT WE REALLY WANT TO TAKE LOCATION INTO CONSIDERATION BECAUSE JUST ONE AREA IS NOT LIKE THE OTHER AND SO HOW DO WE HOW DO WE HANDLE THAT THOSE DISTINCTIONS AND SO IF IF YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT YOU KNOW WHAT WE USED FOR FRANCE OR I MEAN HERE I HAVE IT SPECIFICALLY FOR MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BUT AGAIN WE WERE LOOKING AT EVEN THE PLANNING AREAS AND TRYING TO APPLY A FRAMEWORK OF YOU KNOW, WHAT DO THOSE PLANS SAY ABOUT DEVELOPMENT IN THOSE AREAS AND DO YOU HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH WITH THAT APPROACH ISRAELI RULES AND COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE MAP? I BELIEVE YOU HAVE ONE THAT SHOWS THE MEDIUM DENSITY AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS THAT'S COMMISSIONER MUNSTER. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION AND I HELD OFF ON THE LAST ONE. THEY CAN GET FIT BETTER HERE. I HAVE NO ISSUE AS FAR AS THE GUIDING QUESTION I THINK THIS IS THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE WAY OF GOING. I JUST WANT TO BE SURE THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING. YOU SAID THAT THERE'S NO CONFLICT WITH THE OPPORTUNITY HOUSING ORDINANCE. SO JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY HOW THAT APPLIES ESSENTIALLY IF YOU MEET THE THRESHOLD FOR AFFORDABILITY YOU JUST GET AN EXTRA TEN FEET OR ONE STORY. YEAH. SO THE MAP ESSENTIALLY REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE MAP SAYS, YOU JUST GET TEN FEET ON TOP. GOT IT. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE CERTAINLY JERICHO SURE. YES. I SHOULD PROBABLY SAY YES INSTEAD OF NOT SO WE CAN ACTUALLY TYPE SOMETHING IN THE MEAN IN MINUTES REGARDING THIS QUESTION SPECIFIC TO MEDIUM AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL I THINK I COULD GET MYSELF TO A PLACE WHERE WE JUST SAY BOTH ARE ALLOWED AT THE I BELIEVE IT'S SIX STORIES 80FT. I'M PRETTY BULLISH ON INCREASING DENSITY IN THE CITY AND I JUST THE PARCELS I'M LOOKING AT HERE I THINK I COULD GET THERE THAT LOOK IF WE'RE GOING TO ADD MORE RESIDENTS AND PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE HERE WE'VE GOT TO BUILD UPWARDS AND I DON'T THINK A SIX STOREY BUILDING IS TREMENDOUSLY ONEROUS ON THE SURROUNDING USE WHETHER IT'S NOT THAT FAR FROM RESIDENTIAL OR NOT. SO IF IF OTHERS FELT THE SAME WAY, I THINK I COULD GET TO A PLACE WHERE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ALSO FALLS UNDER SIX STOREYS 80FT. HOWEVER I THINK A FAIR COUNTERPOINT TO THAT IS THAT I'M NOT SURE THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IS KNOCKING ON THE DOOR SO LOUDLY THAT THE PARCELS WE'VE IDENTIFIED FOR SIX STORIES 80FT IS IS PLENTY FOR A WHILE AND ONCE WE FILL ALL THOSE UP WITH SIX STORY BUILDINGS AND WE LOOK AT MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND IN 15 OR 20 YEARS OR WHATEVER SO I THINK I COULD GO EITHER WAY ON IT BUT I'M OPEN TO THE IDEA OF EXPLORING MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AT SIX STORIES 80FT BUT I'LL LOOK FOR OTHER THAT'S COMMERCIAL IN IT I'LL MR. LITTLES OH YEAH CHAIR SORRY WE'RE MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING BECAUSE OUR OUR IDEA IS TO TREAT MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AS HAVING HAVING IT HAVE A HEIGHT LIMIT OF THREE STORIES 50FT. SO IF WE ARE HAPPY TO GO TALLER BASED ON YOUR GUIDANCE AND AND TO LOOK AT THAT I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY I MEAN IF I WAS NOT CLEAR AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS I WANT I WANT TO BE CLEAR IS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING THAT ALL HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HAVE A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF AT LEAST FOUR STOREYS 60FT MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL THREE STORIES, 50FT IF YOU'D LIKE THEM TO BOTH GO TO SIX STOREYS, 80FT THEN THEN WE'RE HAPPY TO LOOK AT THAT ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION. THE WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE ARE MAXIMUM HEIGHTS, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. MR. JOHNSON THANK YOU, CHAIR EXCEPT FOR HOW YOU CAN APPLY JUST WITH THAT CAVEAT AND THE ONLY POINT I WAS GOING TO MAKE ABOUT THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY JUST AS A REMINDER TO FOLKS IN THE COMP PLAN, IT HAS A MAXIMUM DENSITY LIMIT OF 15 UNITS TO THE ACRE RIGHT NOW THAT MIGHT CHANGE IN THE NEXT COMP PLAN CERTAINLY BUT THAT'S THE MAXIMUM DENSITY. SO IN TERMS OF SEEING A BUILDING OF THAT HEIGHT, YOU KNOW IT'S LIKELY THAT IT WOULD EXCEED THE MAXIMUM DENSITY ALLOWANCE OF THE COMP PLAN. THE OTHER THING I'D POINT OUT ABOUT THE MEDIUM DENSITY CATEGORY IS THAT THERE ARE QUITE QUITE A FEW ACTUAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREAS THAT ARE GUIDED MEDIUM DENSITY BECAUSE THE CITY HAS IDENTIFIED THEM AS AN AREA OF TRANSITION. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT HIGHER STRUCTURE HEIGHT IS INAPPROPRIATE IN THAT AREA NECESSARILY BUT JUST CLARIFYING THAT THERE ARE SOME MEDIUM DENSITY AREAS THAT ARE CURRENTLY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES AND ARE SURROUNDED BY SUCH IN TERMS OF THE MDR MIX IN THE CITY A LOT OF THEM ARE TOWNHOMES. THERE ARE SOME LOW RISE APARTMENTS AS WELL BUT THE COMP PLAN EXPLICITLY DOES STATE THAT APARTMENTS ARE AN ACCEPTABLE OR APPROPRIATE USE FOR MEDIUM. SO THAT'S WHY THE SUGGESTED INCREASE IN THE HEIGHT LIMIT SHALL NOW COME BACK TO YOU IN A SECOND. BUT I WANT TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON THIS SO IF I'M UNDERSTANDING MR. JOHNSON CORRECTLY THAT IF WE IF THE COMMISSION DESIRED THAT MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL COULD BE AT A FOUR STORY 60FT THE COMP PLAN DOES IS THIS I'M SORRY WHICH DOCUMENT WOULD NOT CURRENTLY ALLOW THAT? CHAIR IF I CAN CLARIFY I THINK THE MORE THAN LIKELY A FOUR STOREY MULTIFAMILY BUILDING WOULD LIKELY EXCEED THE DENSITY LIMITATIONS OF THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY AS IT'S CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED DOESN'T MEAN THAT COULDN'T CHANGE IN THE FUTURE BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S LIMITED TO 15 UNITS PER ACRE, RIGHT? SO THAT DENSITY LIMIT WOULD YOU ENCOURAGE PLANNING COMMISSION TO WAIT UNTIL WE ARE REVIEWING THE OH SORRY RESPONSE IS THAT THE ZONING CODE THAT PRECLUDES THAT DENSITY IT NO CHAIR IT'S THE COMP PLAN IS THE COMP SO WOULD YOU ADVISE THE PLANNING COMMISSION IF WE DESIRED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR AN INCREASE IN NC WOULD YOU ADVISE US TO WAIT UNTIL WE'RE UP THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR IF THAT WAS A STRONG DESIRE OF THE COMMISSION NOW COULD THAT BE WRAPPED INTO THIS EFFORT? CHAIR COMMISSIONERS I WOULD LIKELY WAIT UNTIL THE COMP PLAN IS UPDATED TO EFFECTUATE THE ZONING CODE FROM A SEQUENCE STANDPOINT YOU TYPICALLY WANT TO AMEND YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BEFORE UPDATING THE ZONING STANDARDS. ONE THING I WILL SAY RELATED TO THAT THOUGH IS THAT AS PART OF AN INTERNAL CONVERSATION WE'VE BEEN HAVING A STAFF ABOUT THIS TOOL IS THAT THE LAST TIME WE LOOKED AT THIS WAS 2010 FORMALLY AND SO 15 YEARS IS PROBABLY TOO LONG OF A TIME TO NOT MAKE ANY MORE INTENTIONAL CHANGES TO THIS REGULATORY TOOL. SO WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WAYS TO KIND OF BUILD IN MORE FREQUENT KIND OF AKIN TO MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES ALMOST IN A WAY OF DOING A MORE ROUTINE AUDIT OR LOOK AT THIS MAP YOU KNOW WE HAVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT SEEK TO RE GUIDE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES. IS THAT IS THAT A TIME FOR EXAMPLE TO LOOK AT INCREASING THE HEIGHT LIMITS MAP FOR THOSE PROPERTIES TO KIND OF CORRESPOND WITH THIS LOGIC FRAMEWORK AS TOM HAS BEEN DESCRIBING? SO MY RECOMMENDATION IN SHORT TO YOUR QUESTION WOULD BE I WOULD AMEND THE COMPLAINT FIRST. THAT'S WHY I THINK WE THINK THREE STORIES OR IF WE ARE 50FT IS APPROPRIATE LIMIT FOR THESE MDR AREAS THAT CURRENTLY ARE CAPPED AT TWO. SO MOST OF THESE AREAS ARE CURRENTLY CAPPED AT A 40 FOOT FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT. THANK YOU. MR. JOHNSON THANK YOU COMMISSIONER RAY FOR YOUR PATIENCE. THANK YOU, CHAIR. I THINK I GO ON THE RECORD TO SAY THAT I'D BE HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO SUPPORT THAT. I THINK ONE THING TO NOTE I BELIEVE I'M CORRECT ON THIS IS THAT PARTICULARLY IN THIS 98TH AND NORMANDALE CORRIDOR, SEVERAL OF THOSE LOW DENSITY REAL OR MEDIUM DENSITY BACK UP DIRECTLY TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES A SHARE SO OUR HOUSE BACKS UP AND I THINK THAT WOULD REALLY CHANGE THE CHARACTER PARTICULARLY IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. I KNOW BASED ON A FEW OF THEM SURROUNDING ARMIDALE WHATEVER THE SHOPPING CENTER AND I NOTICE IN ARMIDALE IS CALLED ALSO THOSE ALSO BACK UP TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND I THINK THAT I'D HAVE SOME REAL CONCERNS ABOUT HAVING A WHOLE BLOCK OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES HAVE TO HAVE SIX STORY APARTMENTS IF THEY WANTED TO SUDDENLY NOW OR CONDOS OVERLOOKING THEM SO I'D BE A HARD BE HARD TO GET ME ON BOARD FOR THAT VERY WELL THOUGH NOT IMPOSSIBLE AND I THINK TO MR. JOHNSON'S POINT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS A GOOD TIME TO RELOOK AT THAT OR YOU CAN STEP THE ZONING DOWN. SO IF WE DID DESIRE SIX STORIES THAT THOSE AT THOSE LOCATIONS YOU COULD THEN STEP IT DOWN TO MAYBE THREE STOREY TOWNHOUSES NEXT TO THAT AND THEN YOU GET BACK TO THE SINGLE FAMILY ZONE. SO THAT'S PROBABLY A BETTER TIME TO DO THAT THAN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS EVENING . ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THIS QUESTION OF RECOMMENDED DENSITIES FOR MEDIUM AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL VERSUS SEE NONE? OKAY. THE CHAIR SO THE LAST QUESTION PERHAPS I SHOULD REORDER THESE QUESTIONS BUT BECAUSE MAYBE THIS ANSWERS THE OTHER I MEAN THIS WOULD APPLY TO THE OTHER TWO IS IS THE OFFICIAL BUILDING HEIGHT MAP THE PREFERRED APPROACH TO REGULATING BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE CITY ALTERNATIVES INCLUDE WITHIN THE ZONING DISTRICT HAVING A HEIGHT LIMIT BY USE AS OPPOSED TO WHERE WE REALLY ARE. YOU KNOW OUR APPROACH IS IS PARTLY BASED ON LOCATION. SO WHERE ARE THESE AREAS LOCATED THAT WHERE WHERE WE FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE HEIGHT THAT WE'RE PROPOSING. SO THERE'S YOU KNOW SO YOU HAVE THAT NOT EXACTLY DUELING BECAUSE THEY CAN BE COMPLEMENTARY BUT SO IT'S LOCATION OR IT'S MORE USE BASED HEIGHT LIMITS A AN EXAMPLE OF THIS IS IF YOU'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH FORM BASED CODES SO THOSE ARE CODES THAT ARE STRICTLY FOCUSED ON THE FORM OF THE BUILDING AND NOT SO MUCH ON THE USE OF THE BUILDING. SO THAT'S WHERE YOU SEE THAT THAT KIND OF TENSION BEING DEALT WITH IN YOU KNOW SO CITIES HAVE IN THE UNITED STATES HAVE ADOPTED A FORM BASED CODE WHERE THEY'RE YOU KNOW, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE USE THEY ALLOW A CERTAIN BUILDING FORM WHERE THEY WANT A CERTAIN BUILDING FORM TO PROLIFERATE. BUT THERE I MEAN THERE'S THERE'S PROS AND CONS TO BOTH APPROACHES. THE WAY THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON OPERATES IS IT'S IT'S KIND OF A A HYBRID OF THOSE TWO. SO THERE ARE THERE ARE AREAS THAT ARE OOPS SORRY WE WERE USES DON'T ALLOW A CERTAIN HEIGHT TO BE EXCEEDED AND THEN WE WE'VE GONE INTO GREAT DETAIL ON CERTAIN GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATIONS OF THE CITY WHERE WE HAVE A CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT VISION WHERE THE CITY HAS A CERTAIN THEY'VE ADOPTED A CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT DIVISION VISION FOR AN AREA THAT MAY ACTUALLY AGAIN IRRESPECTIVE OF USE WANT TALLER BUILDINGS BECAUSE THAT FITS THE FORM OF OF WHAT'S BEING DESIRED IN THAT AREA. SO THERE THERE THOSE VISIONS OF YOU KNOW, HOW TO REGULATE BUILDING HEIGHT STAFF'S PREFERENCES WE ARE TO TO MAINTAIN THE APPROACH THAT WE HAVE WHERE WE DO TAKE LOCATION INTO CONSIDERATION BUT HAPPY TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK ON ON WHAT THE APPROACH HAS BEEN SO FAR SINCE 2010. THAT'S COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU CHAIR. I I'D LIKE THE MAP. I THINK IT'S GOOD FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE LOOKING TO DEVELOP PROPERTY TO BE ABLE TO FIND EASILY FIND THE THE MAP ON THE WEBSITE NOT ON THE ZONING MAP BUT NEXT DOOR I JUST PULLED IT UP TRYING TO LITTLE LAYER BUT I THINK THAT IT'S A GOOD WAY TO VISUALLY SEE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR FOR HEIGHT MAXIMUMS IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE CITY FOR SOMEONE LOOKING TO DEVELOP THANK YOU I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM. I LIKE THE MAP. I THINK THE REASON I LIKE IT THE MOST IS IT ALLOWS FOR NUANCE AND JUST TAKING A YOU KNOW, TREATING IN IN AN INDIVIDUAL PARCEL AS IT IS YOU KNOW, AS I WAS BROUGHT UP NOT ALL THREE PARCELS ARE THE SAME. I MEAN THAT'S WHAT MY MOM ALWAYS TAUGHT ME. AND SO I'M GLAD WE ARE TAKING A LOOK AT THIS ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS WITH THE MAP. I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT WAY TO GO. OTHERS SO IF I MAY CHAIR REALLY QUICKLY SO I GUESS AN ARGUMENT TO CONSIDER IS JUST APPLICATION. YOU KNOW IF YOU HAVE A USE BASED HEIGHT LIMIT THAT IS IT'S A LITTLE EASIER TO APPLY BECAUSE YOU WOULD JUST LOOK AT THE USE IT TELLS YOU THE HEIGHT LIMIT AND THAT'S IT. YOU HAVE THE MAP YOU HAVE TO FIND OUT YOU KNOW, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE USE WHERE WHERE YOU'RE WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED AND DOES IT MAKE SENSE AND WHY IS IN HAVING AN ARGUMENT BASED ON LIKE A USE OVER THERE I'M I'M PROPOSING THE SAME USE HERE I HAVE A LITTLE LOWER HEIGHT LIMIT I'M IMAGINING THE PERSPECTIVE OF A DEVELOPER BUT AGAIN THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. STAFF WE'VE WERE OUR PERSPECTIVE IS IS THAT WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF SUCCESS WITH OUR CURRENT APPROACH BUT THERE'S AGAIN THERE'S THERE'S ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST AND SO I JUST WANT TO BE FAIR TO TO THE APPROACHES. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE GUIDING QUESTIONS FOR US, MR. CHAIR NO, THAT'S THAT'S IT. SO ANY FINAL THOUGHTS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER LISA THANK YOU CHAIR. I JUST WANT TO SAY I KNOW IT TAKES A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT ON TO TO HAVE THESE PRESENTATIONS CITY STAFF SO THANK YOU AND THE REST OF THE STAFF THAT WORKED ON THIS. MY OVERALL SUMMARY OR I GUESS WHAT I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH IS KIND OF ON POINT ONE WHAT THE CHAIR RECOMMENDED AS WELL AS COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM. SO THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER FINAL THOUGHTS ON THIS ITEM? CHAIR CAN I CLARIFY JUST FOR THE RECORD THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO ELIMINATING LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF STORIES BUT JUST FAVORING A HEIGHT ONLY REGULATION IN COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM'S THOUGHTS ON REAL TIME EQUIPMENT? THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ANYTHING ELSE FOR US, MR. EMERSON UH, NO, NO, ACTUALLY THAT'S THAT'S GOOD. THANK YOU FOR THE FEEDBACK. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOU GAVE US A LOT TO THINK ABOUT AND YEAH, SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO CITY COUNCIL IN NOVEMBER. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IN FACT, IT'LL BE NOVEMBER 17TH. YOU WILL BE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL AS A STUDY ITEM WE WILL MOVE THAT ITEM NUMBER THREE CONSIDERING CONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9TH. DO I HAVE A MOTION, MR. CUNNINGHAM? I MOVE TO ADOPT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 9TH, 2025. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND I WILL NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER SUMMERS AND COMMISSIONER WHITE WERE ABSENT. THEY MAY WISH TO ABSTAIN FROM THIS ITEM. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I OPPOSED ABSTAIN ONE ABSTENTION FROM COMMISSIONER SUMMERS. WE WILL MOVE THEN TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR THE PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY AND ISSUES UPDATE MR. JOHNSON THANK YOU CHAIR KOKTAN JUST PREVIEWING YOUR NEXT TWO MEETINGS IN NOVEMBER SO NOVEMBER THE 6TH I SHOULD SAY BOTH MEETINGS LIKE RELATIVELY BUSY AGENDAS ON NOVEMBER 6TH THERE ARE THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNED INITIATED CITY CODE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO EXISTING REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING FACILITIES A CITY CODE AMENDMENT RELATED TO REFUSE AND RECYCLING STANDARDS. IF YOU RECALL WE PREVIOUSLY HAD A STUDY SESSION ON THAT ITEM A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE AMERICAN BOULEVARD TRANSIT STUDY TRANSPORTATION STAFF WILL BE COMING TO YOU SEEKING A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION ON THE FINDINGS OF THAT STUDY THE ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE CITY'S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SO THAT'S AN ITEM THAT WE BRING TO YOU EVERY YEAR AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW TO REVIEW THE CITY'S CIP BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL TAKES ACTION ON IT. THE LAST ITEM WOULD BE A POTENTIALLY AN ACTION ITEM WE'RE LOOKING AT FOR STUDY WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTS THEIR FINAL MEETING SCHEDULE FOR NEXT YEAR BUT SHORTLY THEREAFTER WE BRING TO YOU A PROPOSED MEETING CALENDAR A MEETING SCHEDULED FOR 2026. SO THAT COULD BE ON THE NOVEMBER 6TH AGENDA AND COULD BE AN ACTION ITEM FOR THOSE THAT HAVE PARTICIPATED THAT IN BEFORE WE HAD 28 SCHEDULED MEETINGS THIS YEAR. SO THAT IS SEVEN PER QUARTER EFFECTIVELY MOST MONTHS HAVE TWO MEETINGS OCCASIONALLY A MONTH WITH THREE MEETINGS WE'LL CERTAINLY BRING THAT KIND OF PAST APPROACH BACK TO YOU FOR YOUR FEEDBACK AND WE'LL GO FROM THERE ON NOVEMBER 20TH. THERE'S ALSO THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS CURRENTLY PLANNED THE FIRST ONE FIRE STATION SIX BUNKHOUSE THE CITY WILL BE THE APPLICANT IN THAT ONE SEEKING A VARIANCE SETBACK VARIANCE IN FINAL SAY IN BUILDING PLANS FOR FIRE STATION SIX ON LAKEVIEW ROAD THERE'LL BE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 10901 NESBITT FOR CANNABIS MANUFACTURING AND THEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR A REMOTE AIRPORT PARKING AT 79 AND ONE INTERNATIONAL DRI. IN ADDITION TO THAT TO STUDY ITEMS ARE PLANNED. ONE WOULD BE A INITIAL REVIEW OF THE CITY'S FENCE ORDINANCE THAT'S A PROJECT ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN AND THEN DAKOTA CAST AND DAY PLANS TO BRING TO YOU THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN AS A STUDY ITEM FOR YOUR FEEDBACK. SO THAT'S THE THE NEXT TWO UPCOMING MEETINGS UNLESS THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OF THAT I DO HAVE ONE OTHER UPDATE BUT I CAN PAUSE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS. I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION MR. JOHNSON THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN MIGHT THAT REFLECT THE RECENT CONVERSATION WE HAD ABOUT THE SOUTH DISTRICT? YES, I WILL. I HAVE REITERATED THAT TO DAKOTAH HE IS AWARE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL'S ADOPTED GUIDANCE IN THE SOUTH LOOP DISTRICT PLAN UPDATE STUDY STRUCTURE HEIGHT AND FOR A RATIO IT'S IN MY INBOX. I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT IT QUITE YET. I BELIEVE IT IS IN THE DRAFT BUT I WILL CONFIRM THAT WITH HIM TOMORROW. THANK YOU. DID I SEE A HAND OVER HERE? COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU CHAIR. I MIGHT HAVE MISSED WRITTEN SOMETHING. WE HAVE A BLOOMINGTON FERRY ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY SLATED FOR SOMETIME IN THE NEAR FUTURE. WE CHAIR COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM. THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. THEY REMOVE THAT ITEM FROM NOVEMBER SIXTH. IT IS GOING TO COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION THERE RIGHT NOW DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING EITHER HERE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR AT THE CITY COUNCIL. SO THE SCHEDULE IS A LITTLE BIT UP IN THE AIR BUT IT WILL BE COMING BACK TO YOU FOR A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION IN TERMS OF A FOLLOW UP TO THAT STUDY ITEM. THANK YOU. FORGIVE ME. THAT'LL EITHER BE ON NOVEMBER 20TH. I BELIEVE OR THE FIRST MEETING IN DECEMBER. OKAY. SO YEAH, THANK YOU CHAIR. THE LAST ITEM I WAS JUST GOING TO BRING UP TO YOU AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HASN'T HAPPENED FOR SOME YEARS BUT GIVEN TRANSITIONS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE TENURE OF ALL THE MEMBERS WE WERE CONTEMPLATE ING SOME ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AT BLOOMINGTON HAVE HAD AN ANNUAL RETREAT. WE HAVEN'T DONE ONE FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN SOME TIME. WE CERTAINLY WOULD WANT TO COLLECT YOUR FEEDBACK IF YOU WERE INTERESTED IN DOING SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF A RETREAT FROM OTHER TOPICS OR QUESTIONS THAT BOARDS HAVE ANSWERED IS WHY DO WE DO THIS WORK? SEEMS LIKE A SIMPLE QUESTION BUT WITHOUT ACTUALLY GETTING AROUND A TABLE AND DISCUSSING IT WITH ONE ANOTHER SOMETIMES IT CAN BE LAST OR GO AND SAID SO SOMETIMES THOSE ARE NICE THINGS TO CONNECT WITH ONE ANOTHER ABOUT. BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT I THINK IT'S JUST AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONNECT AS BOARD MEMBERS OUTSIDE OF THE FORMAL MEETING CONSTRUCT OR OUTSIDE OF THIS SPACE. SO I'LL BE SENDING OUT EITHER A MICROSOFT FORM OR A SURVEY TOOL TO YOU ALL TO SEE IF THIS IS OF THIS ACTIVITY WOULD BE SOMETHING OF INTEREST TO YOU. I THINK WE'D BE LOOKING TO ROLL IT OUT IN JANUARY AND LIKELY GET TRAINED FACILITATORS TO HELP US PARTICIPATE IN A POTENTIAL RETREAT OR A WORKSHOP ALONG THOSE LINES. SO IF YOU HAVE ANY FEEDBACK FOR THAT NOW THAT'S GREAT I WELCOME IT BUT I WILL BE SENDING OUT A SURVEY TOOL ON THAT HERE IN THE COMING WEEKS . ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT FOR MR. JOHNSON WE WILL LOOK FOR THAT EMAIL. SOUNDS GOOD. THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR YOU. VERY WELL. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS EVENING? SEEING NONE WE WILL CONCLUDE THIS OCTOBER 23RD MEETING OF THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION. >> GOOD NIGHT