. >> GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THIS AUGUST 28TH 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 BE TAKING FORMAL ACTION WELL OTHER ITEMS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION WE HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS WHERE WE ENCOURAGE THE PUBLIC TO TESTIFY ALL SIX ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING ARE STUDY ITEMS SO WE WILL NOT BE HOLDING ANY PUBLIC HEARINGS ON SOME ITEMS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS FINAL DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY WILL OTHER ITEMS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTS AND AN ADVISORY CAPACITY AND THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE MAKING THE FINAL DECISION. WE HAVE ALL SEVEN VOLUNTEER RESIDENTS AS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS HERE THIS EVENING SO WE DO HAVE A QUORUM AND I WILL BEGIN BY ASKING EVERYONE IN THE CHAMBERS TO PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. AS NOTED, WE HAVE SIX ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA AND OF COURSE WE WILL BEGIN WITH ITEM NUMBER ONE WHICH IS A STUDY ITEM. THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON IS THE APPLICANT REGARDING PUBLIC ARTS INCENTIVES PROGRAMS AND MS. HERZBERG, YOU HAVE THE STAFF REPORT. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. YES, LET ME GET SET UP REALLY QUICK. >> OKAY. YEAH. SO ITEM NUMBER ONE TONIGHT IS A STUDY ITEM FOR INCENTIVES FOR OUR IN DEVELOPMENT. >> A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND SO THE BLOOMINGTON CITY WIDE CREATIVE PLACEMAKING PLAN WAS ADOPTED IN MARCH OF 2025 AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME OUT OF THAT PLAN WAS TO POTENTIALLY SEE WHAT TYPES OF UPDATES TO THE ZONING CODE WE COULD DO TO ENCOURAGE THE INTEGRATION OF PUBLIC ARTS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND SO STAFF IS JUST LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK ON THE PROPOSED COACHING JOBS WHICH I WILL GO THROUGH AS FAR AS A TIMELINE GOES I'M PRESENTING AT THE CREATIVE PLACEMAKING COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 3RD AND THEN THIS ITEM WILL ULTIMATELY END UP BEING ADDED AS A MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES AND MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES WILL COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS A PUBLIC HEARING IN OCTOBER AND THEN GO TO COUNCIL FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING IN NOVEMBER. SO THERE ARE FIVE PROPOSED CODE CHANGES. CODE CHANGE NUMBER ONE IS TO CREATE A DEFINITION FOR ART STRUCTURE WHICH IS ON THE SCREEN. I WON'T READ IT ALL. THERE'S CURRENTLY NO DEFINITION FOR ART IN THE ZONING CODE OTHER THAN FOR MURALS. SO ADDING A DEFINITION CREATES A FOUNDATION FOR THE REST OF THE CHANGES AND BEING ABLE TO ADD INCENTIVES FOR ART ON PRIVATE PROPERTY CODE CHANGE NUMBER TWO IS TO ALLOW ART STRUCTURES TO ENCROACH INTO REQUIRED STRUCTURES SETBACKS REQUIRED SETBACKS VARY BETWEEN ZONING DISTRICTS A STAFF IS PROPOSING PICKING A SPECIFIC NUMBER SO THAT THE ENCROACHMENT CAN BE APPLIED UNIFORMLY. STAFF IS PROPOSING A REQUIRED MINIMUM TEN FOOT FRONT AND REAR SETBACK AND MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SIDE SETBACK STAFF IS PROPOSING THE DECREASE SETBACK TO ENSURE THAT THE STRUCTURES CAN BE SEEN BY THE PUBLIC FROM STREETS AND SIDEWALKS, THINGS LIKE THAT. AND ADDITIONALLY STAFF IS PROPOSING A TEN FOOT HEIGHT MAXIMUM FOR ART STRUCTURES THAT ARE ENCROACHING INTO THESE SETBACKS . CODE CHANGE NUMBER THREE IS TO ALLOW MURALS TO ACT AS A SUBSTITUTE TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR WINDOWS AND MIXED USE DISTRICTS CURRENT REQUIREMENTS AND MIXED USE DISTRICTS ARE THAT BUILDINGS MUST CONSIST OF WINDOWS ON THE GROUND LEVEL OF THE FACADE BETWEEN 2 AND 10FT. THERE ARE SEVERAL EXISTING EXCEPTIONS FOR THIS INCLUDING EMBELLISHMENT OF THE FACADE OR INSTALLATION OF DISPLAY BOXES SO THE STAFF IS PROPOSING TO ALLOW MURALS SUBJECT TO REVIEW OF SIZE AND SCALE. THE FOURTH PROPOSED CODE CHANGE IS ALLOWING ART STRUCTURES TO ACT AS A SUBSTITUTION FOR UP TO 25% OF LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS EXISTING EXCEPTIONS FOR LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE FEE IN LIEU OF PLANTING AND THERE'S A REDUCTION AVAILABLE FOR MIXED USE DISTRICTS SO STAFF IS PROPOSING ADDING ART STRUCTURES TO A LIST OF EXCEPTIONS. AGAIN WITH THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE ISSUING AUTHORITY. THE LAST PROPOSED PROPOSED CODE CHANGE IS TO ALLOW ART STRUCTURES AND LANDSCAPING YARDS. SO IN ADDITION TO THE PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS INTO REQUIRED SETBACKS THAT I TALKED ABOUT AND CO CHANGE NUMBER TWO STAFF IS PROPOSING TO CLARIFY THAT ART STRUCTURES CAN BE ALLOWED IN THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT LANDSCAPING YARD AND SOME OF THE EXISTING ALLOWANCES INCLUDE RAIN GARDENS, SIDEWALKS AND BUS SHELTERS. SO AGAIN FOR THIS STAFF IS PROPOSING THAT THE ART STRUCTURES BE LESS THAN TEN FEET IN HEIGHT. SO AGAIN THIS IS A STUDY SESSION SO THERE'S NO FORMAL RECOMMENDATION REQUIRED. STAFF IS JUST REQUESTING FEEDBACK ON A FEW QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE BEFORE THAT ITEM GETS ADDED TO THE MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES PROJECT I'M JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH THESE QUESTIONS ONE BY ONE BUT FEEL FREE TO LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS ALONG THE WAY. SO THE FIRST QUESTION IS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED CODE CHANGE. NUMBER TWO SHOULD ART STRUCTURES BE ALLOWED TO ENCROACH INTO REQUIRED SETBACKS? THIS WOULD PROBABLY BE AGAIN DEPENDING ON HEIGHT WHICH KIND OF GETS INTO THE NEXT QUESTION. SO FIRST WE'RE JUST ASKING ARE YOU OKAY WITH ART STRUCTURES HAVING DIFFERENT SETBACKS AND THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING ASPECT? MAY I ASK A QUESTION? YEAH. HAS THIS BEEN REVIEWED BY TRAFFIC A CHAIR COOKED IN IT? >> NO, BUT THIS IS PURELY ON PRIVATE PROPERTY SO IT WOULDN'T BE GOING INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY. I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT BUT IT WILL ONLY BE LIKE UP TO THE SETBACK OF THE PRIVATE PROPERTY LINE. THANK YOU. I THINK WHAT I'M REALLY GETTING AT IS IF THERE'S ONE THING I KNOW THAT TRAFFIC ENGINEERS DON'T LIKE ARE IMMOVABLE OBJECTS CLOSE TO ROADS AND SO CERTAINLY I'M SURE WE'LL DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE ON THAT. BUT YEAH, I WOULD ASK THAT WE MAKE SURE WE DO SO SO WE DON'T RUN INTO ANY PROBLEMS OR OKAY I'M SORRY. EXCUSE ME MR. JOHNSON SURE COOKED AND I WOULD NOTE THAT BRIAN HANSON DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR DID REVIEW SOME OF THE DRAFT CODE AMENDMENTS AS WELL AS THE STAFF REPORT. SO THERE IS SOME TRAFFIC AWARENESS AND A REVIEW ON THE PROJECT. VERY GOOD. ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT ITEM NUMBER ONE YOUR WEIGHT? I HAD A JUST A QUICK QUESTION . I'M NOT BEING AN ATTORNEY. I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE DEFINITION IN NUMBER ONE ABOUT WHAT IS NONCOMMERCIAL REALLY NON COMMERCIALLY PRODUCED. WHEN I THINK ABOUT ART I THINK OF PAYING AN ARTIST TO PRODUCE A PIECE. SO TO ME THAT'S COMMERCIALLY PRODUCED SO I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN BY NON COMMERCIALLY PRODUCED IN THIS CONTEXT. YEAH. CHAIRPERSON AND COMMISSIONER WHITE THIS IS UP TO BE AN EDITED TO I THINK NON COMMERCIALLY WHEN WE THINK OF THAT I GUESS AND THE USE OF LIKE SIGNS OR MURALS IT'S LIKE NOT HAVING THE COMPANIES LIKE NAME LIKE ON A MURAL BUT AGAIN I DON'T THINK WE'RE NECESSARILY TIED TO THIS DEFINITION SO IF SOMEONE SEES AN ISSUE OR DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THAT I THINK WE CAN CHANGE IT TO MR. CHAIR, PLEASE NO, THANK YOU AND I APPRECIATE THAT THAT THAT DOES CLARIFY IT FOR ME. BUT I THINK PROBABLY WORKING ON THE WORDING TO BE MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL BECAUSE I, I DO AGREE THAT JUST MAKING ART ANOTHER VERSION OF A SIGN IS NOT THE INTENT THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO HAVE HERE. SO THANK YOU MR. MUNSTER. IF I COULD JUST SORT OF PIGGYBACK WITH THAT COMMENT. I'M ACTUALLY GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP BECAUSE WHEN I READ NON COMMERCIALLY PRODUCED I WAS THINKING SOMETHING THAT IS MASS PRODUCED IT'S YOU KNOW A SCULPTURE THAT YOU COULD JUST GO ONLINE ORDER AND BOLT DOWN IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. SO YEAH SOME CLARITY ON THAT WOULD BE GREAT. OKAY. CHAIR AGAIN IF I MAY MR. JOHNSON YEAH. THANK YOU CHAIR COOKTOWN AND COMMISSIONER MUNSTER AND WHITE THAT'S THE THINKING IS MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT YOU THE ISSUE THAT YOU JUST RAISED AND WE HAVE THE SAME ISSUE WITH DEFINING THE MURAL AND THAT'S PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT ON ME. I COULD HAVE PROVIDED MORE INPUT ON THAT HAVING BEEN DEALT WITH THE MURALS BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S NOT MASS PRODUCED. IT IS AN ORIGINAL WORK OF ART IF THAT MAKES SENSE. BUT IT IS A DIFFICULT THING TO DEFINE AS WE FOUND WITH MURALS . MR. CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU, CHAIR TO KIND OF FIRST OF ALL LOVE THE SKYMALL SASQUATCH STATUES BUT THAT I UNDERSTAND THE THE NEED FOR ORIGINAL ARTWORK AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF REFRAME BACK TO THIS QUESTION. I AM COMFORTABLE WITH THE SETBACK AS LONG AS TRAFFIC IS COMFORTABLE WITH IT. I WAS THINKING THE EXACT SAME THING ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATES TO PEDESTRIANS BY ROADS AS WELL AND VISION OF CORRIDORS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. WHAT'S MORE HELPFUL FOR YOU TO GET ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS? WOULD YOU LIKE US TO GO DOWN THE LINE TO BE VERY CLEAR WITH YOU OR IS A DISCUSSION SUFFICIENT? YEAH, I THINK SOME OF THEM KIND OF GOING DOWN THE LINE IS HELPFUL. THIS ONE I THINK DISCUSSION IS FINE BUT I. I DO HAVE LIKE 1 OR 2 THAT ARE KIND OF YES OR NO THAT GOING DOWN THE LINE WOULD BE HELPFUL BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY MOVE ON FOR THIS ONE. THANK YOU. SPEAKING FOR MYSELF I AM OKAY WITH THIS MR. RANDY I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY SIR. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS. YEAH, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GO DOWN THE LINE AND JUST GENERALLY IF YOU HAVE NO OPINION OR AN OPINION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER I THINK YEAH, I WOULD CONCUR WITH YOU. YOU BOTH SAID THAT. YEAH. AS LONG AS TRAFFIC IS NOT IMPACTED THEN I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE. YOU KNOW I LIKE OUR YEAH FOR SURE WE AGREED AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T OBSTRUCT THE VIEW ARE WE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT UNDER A SEPARATE QUESTION OKAY CRYSTAL ANY YEAH I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THIS VERY WELL THE MICROPHONE ON FOR THE FOLKS AT HOME YES I'M SUPPORTIVE THANK YOU VERY MUCH COMMISSIONER MUNSTER AGREED SUPPORTIVE AND I WOULD JUST ADD ON THE TRAFFIC NOTE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S ADEQUATE DISTANCE BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE PRIVATE PROPERTY SIDE FROM DRIVEWAYS AND COMMISSIONER SUMMERS I THINK THAT IF THE ART IS AT A MAXIMUM OF TEN FEET THE SETBACK MAKES SENSE. ARE ANY OF THE PICTURES TEN FOOT PIECES OF ART THEY ALL LOOK MUCH LARGER THAN THAT. SO THAT IS WHERE I'M AND I THINK YEAH. CHAIR COMMISSIONERS SUMMERS SO SOME OF THESE PICTURES ARE FROM BLOOMINGTON AND SOME FOUR ARE FROM ST LOUIS PARK WE DON'T FROM THE PICTURES I SAW REALLY HAVE ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES UNDER TEN FEET THAT SEEMED APPLICABLE SO NONE OF THESE PICTURES ARE UNDER TEN FEET AND THEY WOULDN'T BE LIKE THIS HUGE THING? PROBABLY NOT PROBABLY IT WOULDN'T BE LIKE IN A PERMITTED ENCROACHMENT. YEAH IT THIS IS BIG IS THIS DISCUSSION QUESTION INCLUDING THE TEN FOOT THING OR IS THAT A FOLLOWING QUESTION THE HEIGHT YEAH, IT'S KIND OF A FOLLOWING QUESTION THAT'S COMING UP. YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. SO HERE WE ARE. OKAY SO NEXT I JUST WANT TO ASK SHOULD THERE BE A HEIGHT LIMIT ON ART STRUCTURES THAT ARE ENCROACHING INTO THE REQUIRED SETBACKS? SO THERE ARE A FEW DIFFERENT OPTIONS IN THE BULLET POINTS SHOULD IT BE SHOULD SITE STAFF SET A MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIKE THE TEN FEET THAT I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT? SHOULD THE REQUIREMENT JUST BE THAT IT CAN'T EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY OR SHOULD WE JUST LET IT FOLLOW THE HEIGHT MAP ALLOWANCE REALLY? THANK YOU. CHAIR QUESTION FOR YOU. I WANT TO CLARIFY DOES THIS APPLY TO ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ? I CHAIR COMMISSIONER LAND A GOOD QUESTION. THAT'S ALSO A QUESTION THAT WE HAVE IF WE WANT TO INCLUDE LIKE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCES LIKE APARTMENT BUILDINGS IN THIS AND WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE AND WHAT ABOUT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES? I GREW UP NEXT TO A HOUSE THAT HAD A VERY LARGE INSTALLATION IN THE FRONT YARD SO YEAH, WE'RE NOT REALLY THINKING ABOUT THAT RIGHT NOW SO IF WE WERE TO DO RESIDENTIAL IT WOULD PROBABLY BE STRICTLY IN MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL CAN I ASK A PLEASE SECOND QUESTION IS JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE FIRST PROPOSAL AND THE 1010 AS WRITTEN THE TEN FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT THAT IS IF IT'S IN THE ENCROACHMENT AREA BUT IF IT'S BEYOND THE REQUIRED SETBACK THEN THERE IS NO HEIGHT REQUIREMENT. CHAIR COMMISSIONER LANDAY THEN THE IF IT'S BEYOND THE LIKE REQUIRED SETBACK SETBACK FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT THEN IT WOULD BE UP TO THE HEIGHT MAP AND WHAT LIKE HEIGHT LIMIT REQUIREMENTS WE HAVE IN THAT ZONING DISTRICT OR THAT AREA? GREAT. THANK YOU. I THINK I'LL GET STARTED WITH SOME DISCUSSION HERE. I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THE TEN FLOOR THING AND THE THING I KEPT THINKING ABOUT WHEN I READ THIS WAS THAT WEIRD PENCIL THING IN SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS THAT EVERYBODY LOVES AND I'M SURE THAT'S HIGHER TALLER THAN TEN FEET. AND SO I DON'T KNOW I DON'T MUCH LIKE LIMITING THE POTENTIAL OF ART. IF IT'S ART THEN LET'S JUST LET IT GO AS IT PLEASES FOR ME. ANYBODY ELSE? >> COMMISSIONER WINNIE CHAIR I WOULD CONCUR WITH THAT. I THINK THAT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE IS PERHAPS A HEIGHT MAXIMUM THAT'S TIED TO THE DIRECT HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING SO FOR EXAMPLE THAT IT DOESN'T EXCEED THE TOTAL HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING OR IF IT DOES THAT WE SET A MAXIMUM LIMIT I.E. YOU DON'T END UP WITH A 70 FOOT SCULPTURE FOR A PROPERTY THAT'S ONLY A BUILDING THAT'S ONLY 30FT TALL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO THAT'S THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY. BUT OTHER THAN THAT I AGREE TEN FEET SEEMS A LITTLE BIT ARBITRARILY LOW. MR. CUNNINGHAM I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUE'S I DON'T I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF LIMITING THE HEIGHT OF ART EVEN IF IT'S CLOSE TO YOUR HOUSE AND YOU HATED ART SUPPOSED TO EVOKE EMOTION THERE CERTAINLY MAKES A GOOD POINT THAT HAVING SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY ART INSTALLATION IS PROPORTIONAL TO ADJACENT BUILDINGS MIGHT BE A VERY GOOD IDEA. ANYBODY ELSE? MR. MUSSER IF I COULD JUST ASK WHERE DID THE TEN FOOT PROPOSAL COME FROM AS OPPOSED TO 15 OR 12 OR SOMETHING? CHAIR COMMISSIONER. MR.. THAT NUMBER CAME FROM SOME OTHER ITEMS OF PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS WE HAVE. I CAN'T THINK OF EXACTLY WHAT THOSE ARE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD BUT I THINK IT JUST KIND OF CAME FROM COMPARING OTHER THINGS THAT WE ALLOW TO NOT HAVE THE WHOLE SET BACK AND THEN YEAH ALSO LIKE ANYTHING OVER SEVEN FEET REQUIRES A BUILDING PERMIT. SO I THINK ALSO KIND OF REQUIRING THAT POTENTIALLY WITH THE TEN FEET PUSH WE YEAH I GUESS I'M ALSO INCLINED I'M NOT A FAN OF THE TEN FEET THAT SEEMS A LITTLE I GET THAT IT'S IN LINE WITH SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE PERMITTED BUT THE OTHER THINGS AREN'T ART SO I'M I'M I'M NOT AS BIG A FAN OF IT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE I DO THINK THAT POSSIBLY JUST FOLLOWING THE HEIGHT MAP ALLOWANCES WOULD COVER WHAT WE WOULD WANT TO PROTECT THE COMMUNITY FROM IN TERMS OF HAVING SOMETHING WILDLY OUT OF SCALE WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M NOT ALWAYS SURE THAT EVEN YOU KNOW, NOT EXCEEDING THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING OR NOT YOU KNOW, I'M NOT EVEN SURE I REALLY WOULD BE COMFORTABLE GOING THAT FAR. BUT I DO THINK THAT FOLLOWING THE HEIGHT MAP FOR THE COMMUNITY IS PROBABLY I FEELS LIKE THE SAFEST, MOST CONSISTE WAY TO APPLY IT. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON HEIGHT LIMITS? MR. SUMMERS WHEN I THINK ABOUT CREATIVE PLACEMAKING AND THE WAYS THAT ART CAN BE IN AND OF ITSELF A HUGE DRAW FOR OUR PEOPLE TO OUR COMMUNITIES TO VISIT AND SPEND MONEY AND EAT AND ENJOY BLOOMINGTON UM I HAVEN'T MET A LOT OF TEN FOOT SCULPTURES THAT I'VE BEEN AMAZED BY THAT I'VE GONE OUT OF MY WAY AND I THINK THAT THE PENCIL IS LIKE SUCH A GOOD EXAMPLE. I THINK THAT WE DEFINITELY I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TO SAY WE DON'T WANT THINGS THAT ARE OVERTAKING OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. UM AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE BUT I DO KNOW THAT LIKE A LOT OF TEN FOOT OR SMALLER SCULPTURES ARE GOING TO POTENTIALLY BE DROWNED OUT BY EVERYTHING ELSE. SO WHEN WE ARE TALKING A LOT ABOUT HOUSING DENSITY I'M LIKE ART DENSITY ALSO MATTERS. SO IF WE'RE TRYING TO BE A PLACE WHERE ARTISTS CAN MAKE COOL STUFF UM TEN FEET TEN FEET SEEMS PRETTY SMALL BUT MAYBE AN ANALYSIS OF THE STRUCTURES WE HAVE THAT ARE REALLY VALUED IN BLOOMINGTON AND WHAT HEIGHT THOSE ARE AND LEANING MORE TO THAT OR MAYBE TEN FEET OVER THAT WOULD BE A WE ALREADY HAVE STRUCTURES LIKE THIS. THIS IS NOT IN IT IF WE MAKE A RULE THAT WOULD HAVE IMPEDED US HAVING THOSE BELOVED STRUCTURES IS I WOULD BE AGAINST THAT. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? COMMISSIONER LISA THANK YOU CHAIR YOU KNOW, I THINK ART IS IN LIKE THE BEHOLDER. SO LIKE IF IT'S TEN FEET AND LIKE SO THERE'S A SEVEN FOOT WALL AFTER SO FEET THAT GOES TO A REGARDLESS I WOULD BE FINE WITH THAT YOU KNOW ME PERSONALLY SO THANK YOU. OKAY THANK YOU. OKAY SO THIS THE FIRST QUESTION ON HERE KIND OF GETS TO THE POINT IF WE FEEL COMFORTABLE HAVING THESE ON MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES OR IF THEY SHOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED ON NONRESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THIS IF YOU HAVE A LOT OF THOUGHTS ON IT, FEEL FREE TO SAY IT BUT THIS COULD PROBABLY BE A YES OR NO YES JUST CONFIRMING THAT YES MEANS WE'RE OKAY WITH YES ON MULTIFAMILY FROM YES ON MULTIFAMILY FOR ME AS WELL. YOU CAN JUST GO DOWN THE LINE HERE IN A STUDY AREA IS A MURALS OR LIKE ACTUAL ART LIKE STRUCTURES ACTUAL ART STRUCTURES? YEAH BOTH I GUESS. YEAH YES FOR ME AS WELL AN EMPHATIC YES FOR ME YES. I WANT TO SAY YES AND I'M IN MY MIND THINKING ABOUT AS PROPERTIES CHANGE HANDS I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S RULES ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT A STRUCTURE NEEDS TO BE MAINTAINED TOO. SO THAT'S WHERE AM I? ARE YOU CREATING A POTENTIAL SITUATION WHERE SOMEONE IS LETTING SOMETHING GO INTO DISREPAIR THAT IS THE ONLY PLACE WHERE I BE LIKE HMM, THAT COMPLICATES THE MULTIFAMILY BUT FOR THE MOST PART I'M LIKE YEAH ART EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME, YEAH. CHAIR COMMISSIONER SUMMERS I THINK IN THE MURAL SECTION DON'T WE HAVE SOMETHING LIKE REQUIRING CERTAIN UPKEEP? >> PLANNING MANAGER JOHNSON YEAH, YEAH YOU'RE CORRECT AND EMILY YES WE DO THIS ASPECT YES WE DO HAVE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR MURALS AND STRUCTURES IN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE ALTHOUGH I DON'T I DOUBT THEY HAVE A LOT OF CONTENT GEARED TOWARD SCULPTURES AND ART STRUCTURES BUT WE CERTAINLY CAN LOOK INTO THAT IF MAINTENANCE IS IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF THIS WE CERTAINLY COULD INCLUDE SOMETHING IN THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE. ONE CLARIFIER FOR ME IS THE WAY THAT OUR ENCROACHMENTS AND THE SETBACKS ARE BROKEN DOWN IS ACTUALLY IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS NONRESIDENTIAL OR ALL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. SO IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FEEDBACK TONIGHT TO CLARIFY IF YOU FEEL LIKE IT SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES ONLY OR ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. MR. JENSEN I ALWAYS GET A LITTLE CONFUSED WHEN WE SAY THINGS LIKE RESIDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT SO LIKE LIKE I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY SO AM I IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT BECAUSE MY PARCEL IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL OR WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THANKS CHAIR NO YOUR YOUR PROPERTY IS ZONED MIXED USE IT CHECKS ARE NOT TO GET INTO THE WEEDS OF WHERE YOU ARE BUT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS ARE WHERE PRIMARILY IT'S JUST RESIDENTIAL USES ALLOWED. THERE ARE SOME INSTITUTIONAL USES ALLOWED AND SOME ARE GOVERNMENT USES ALLOWED IN, SOME RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS BUT I'M THINKING OUR ONE ALL THE WAY UP THROUGH OUR M 100 IS EFFECTIVELY OUR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS SO IT'D BE JUST HELPFUL FEEDBACK IN TERMS OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK IT'S OKAY AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTS IN ADDITION TO HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTS DOES THAT COMMISSIONER LIVING AT THAT ACTUALLY GETS TO THE EXACT POINT REASON WHY I WAS ASKING THE SINGLE FAMILY QUITE THE QUESTION AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE THAT WAS THE DYNAMIC IN MINNEAPOLIS AT ONE POINT WAS YOU COULD HAVE RESIDENT YOU COULD HAVE STRUCTURES IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES BUT VERY FEW REALTORS KNEW THAT THEY HAD TO DEAL WITH IT ON THE SALE TRANSACTION. SO YOU STARTED TO HAVE THE ORIGINAL OWNER PUT IT IN THE NEW PERSON BOUGHT IT. THEY HAD NO IDEA WHAT THEY WERE GETTING INTO AND THEN IT BECAME THIS ONGOING ISSUE IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS. SO I DO THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT THING. I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A STRONG OPINION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER BUT I DO THINK THAT IF WE MAKE THE DECISION THAT THEY'RE ALLOWED IN I WOULD SAY SINGLE FAMILY OR NON NON MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERATION OF HOW THAT FACTORS IN WHEN THERE IS A TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP IN PARTICULAR I THINK IT'S LESS OF AN ISSUE IN HIGH DENSITY BIG APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND WHATNOT WHERE THERE'S A LOT OF YOU KNOW WHERE YOU HAVE PROFESSIONAL FACILITIES STAFFS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO YEAH, I THINK YOU CHAIR I THINK IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE BECAUSE IT'S THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY AND BUT AS FAR AS UPKEEP WHEN IT COMES TO LIKE ESPECIALLY MULTIFAMILY AT LEAST I FEEL LIKE IT WOULD MY OPINION I GUESS IT WAS THE PROBLEM I THINK NATURALLY THEY WOULD WANT TO UPKEEP IT JUST BECAUSE IT'S LIKE AN ATTRACTION TO THE PROPERTY. IT'S LIKE ALMOST LIKE LANDSCAPING YOU'D WANT TO HAVE MESSED UP LANDSCAPING OR ELSE YOU KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE HARD TO LEASE OUT YOUR PLACE. SO THAT'S I YEAH, I FEEL LIKE THAT MAY SOLVE ITSELF IN THAT SENSE FOR THE MOST PART BUT JUST MY OPINION. THANK YOU MR. MUNSTER. SO JUST I'M JUST CURIOUS HOW IT WOULD WORK TODAY. SO OKAY IF I'M IF I'M READING OUR CODE CORRECTLY WE HAVE A 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN OUR ONE IF TODAY I WANTED TO PUT A SCULPTURE IN MY FRONT YARD THAT EXCEEDS SEVEN FEET YOU KNOW LET'S SAY TEN CAN ONLY CHAIR. COMMISSIONER MUNSTER I MEAN WE DON'T HAVE A DEFINITE REASON FOR IT IF IT'S A STRUCTURE OR AGAIN IT WOULD HAVE TO MEET REQUIRED SETBACKS ALL PLANNING MANAGER JOHNSON TAKE THAT. YEAH. MR. JOHNSON YEAH. THANK YOU, EMILY CORRECT. SO IT'S A MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURE AND IF IT WAS OVER A CERTAIN HEIGHT IT WOULD HAVE TO MEET PRINCIPAL BUILDING SETBACKS SO YOU'D BE SUBJECT TO THAT 30 FOOT FRONT YARD, 30 FOOT REAR YARD, TEN FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK AND THAT'S KIND OF THE WHOLE POINT AROUND DEVELOPING A SPECIAL SETBACK IS THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT FAR AWAY IS NOT GOING TO BE HIGHLY VISIBLE TO THE PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY OR FOR THE ENJOYMENT BY THE PUBLIC OR CAN I HAVE NOT AS MUCH IMPACT FROM A VIBRANCY OR PLACEMAKING STANDPOINT. SO THAT WAS ONE OF TH THINGS THAT KIND OF INFORMED LOOKING AT THE REDUCE SETBACKS. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THE FIRST QUESTION SEEING NONE. THANK YOU AGAIN THIS COULD PROBABLY BE A YES OR NO UNLESS YOU HAVE STRONG OPINIONS ABOUT IT. SHOULD MURALS BE ALLOWED TO ACT AS AN EXCEPTION TO WINDOW REQUIREMENTS AND MIXED USE DISTRICTS? MR. SPEAKER, I HAVE A QUESTION ON DO WE ARE COULD WE REQUIRE MURALS TO BE LIT AT NIGHT? HMM I CHAIR I OKAY. MR. DUNCAN YEAH. CHURCH AND WE DO NOT KNOW THAT CURRENTLY WE DO NOT CURRENTLY WOULD WE YOU CERTAINLY DEPENDING ON THE CONTEXT IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE TO DO THAT. YOU'RE SAYING IF IT WAS UTILIZED WELL, I'M GETTING AHEAD OF MYSELF. THAT'S A FUTURE QUESTION. THE WINDOWS TRANSPARENCY ISSUE. OH, YOU'RE ALREADY UP THERE. I'M SORRY. YOU CERTAINLY COULD IF IT WAS TO TAKE THE PLACE OF REQUIRED TRANSPARENCY, YOU CERTAINLY COULD REQUIRE IT TO BE LIT. OKAY. MY OPINION ON THIS I THINK IS A BIT NUANCED IN GENERAL I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS. I WOULD LIKE IT TO BE LIT AT NIGHT. THAT'S KIND OF PART OF THIS IS IS HAVING, YOU KNOW, AN ATTRACTIVE EVENING ENVIRONMENT. I DON'T KNOW IF I'M IN FAVOR OF ALLOWING IT UNIVERSALLY LIKE MAYBE 50% OF THE TRANSPARENCY SO YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE COULD BE SWAPPED OUT FOR A MURAL BUT I'M NOT SURE I CAN GET THERE FOR 100%. PART OF THE REASON WE HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT IS TO IT'S JUST LIKE A PUBLIC SAFETY TYPE THING AND IT MAKES IT MORE WALKABLE WHEN YOU FEEL LIKE OTHER PEOPLE ARE SEEING YOU. SO I DON'T KNOW IF I COULD GET THERE AT A FULL 100%. MR. CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU CHAIR MY NOTE WAS I'M OKAY WITH IT TO A PERCENT AND CLEARLY DEFINING WHAT THAT IS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT GETTING CONCRETE BOXES THAT ARE VERY BEAUTIFUL MURALS ON THE OUTSIDE BUT NO OTHER DIMENSIONALITY TO THE FACADE. THANKS. MR. WHITE YEAH, I WOULD CONCUR. I MEAN MY CONCERN WOULD BE YOU BUILD THE BUILDING WITHOUT THE WINDOW AND THE MURAL GOES AWAY IN TEN YEARS YOU'RE NOW LEFT WITH A BUILDING WITH NO WINDOWS SO YOU KNOW IT'S A COMMITMENT TO CONTINUE THEN TO HAVE A MURAL FOR THE IN PERPETUITY ESSENTIALLY. BUT I DO I WOULD BE OKAY WITH SOME PERCENTAGE OF REPLACEMENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTWORK. BUT AGAIN I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT THAT THEN COMMITS THAT PROPERTY OWNER TO MAINTAINING A MURAL FOR THE LIFETIME OF THE BUILDING. SO ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? OKAY. OKAY. SO THIS IS THE LAST DISCUSSION QUESTION I HAVE IS THE PROPOSED IS A PERCENTAGE APPROPRIATE FOR LANDSCAPING MATERIAL REDUCTION. I'M AGAIN THE PROPOSED PERCENTAGE WAS 25% AND JUST FOR REFERENCE THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING MATERIALS ARE ONE TREE PER 20 500FT OF DEVELOPABLE DEVELOPABLE LANDSCAPING AREA AND ONE SHRUB PER 1000FT OF DEVELOPABLE LANDSCAPING AREA. THAT'S MR. WHITE NO I GUESS IS THE SHORTEST WAY FOR ME TO SAY THIS LOVE ART AS AS WAS STATED ART EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME IS GREAT BUT I DON'T THINK ART SHOULD BE A REPLACEMENT FOR SHRUBS AND TREES. I THINK PARTICULARLY GIVEN OUR NEED FOR CLIMATE ABATEMENT I THINK ANYTHING THAT REPLACES TREES AND SHRUBS WITH AN IMPERMEABLE SURFACE IS A BAD IDEA. SO MY NOTES HERE'S THAT I WANT TO HEAR WHAT COMMISSIONER WHITE HAS TO SAY AND IN GENERAL I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU IN THE OTHER THING I WAS THINKING ABOUT IS LIKE I WORK WITH INCENTIVIZING THIS BUT I DON'T WANT TO INCENTIVIZE IT WAS SOMETHING ELSE WE ALREADY LIKE SOMETHING WE WANT LIKE I WOULD RATHER INCENTIVIZE IT WITH SOMETHING WE DON'T WANT LIKE PARKING OR I DON'T KNOW BUT WHY TRADE OFF SOMETHING ELSE? WE WANT TO SELL SOMETHING WE DON'T REALLY WANT SO I WOULD RATHER TRADE IT OFF FOR AND I KNOW THAT GETS COMPLICATED WITH THE OPPORTUNITY HOUSING ORDINANCE WHERE WE ARE ALREADY DOING A LOT OF THAT STUFF AND SO YOU KNOW BUT I'M NOT REALLY IN I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF TRADING OFF LANDSCAPING FOR FOR ART. MR. CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU. CHAIR YOU TALKED A LOT ABOUT INCENTIVIZING I'M 99% CERTAIN THAT THIS PIECE OF ART ON SCREEN IS THAT EXCELSIOR AND GRAND AND ST LOUIS PARK AND I'M 99% CERTAIN THAT THIS ARTWORK AND ROUNDABOUT WAS PART OF A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND THE CITY A THE TIFF NOTE THAT WAS ISSUED FOR THE PARCEL. SO MAYBE THAT WOULD BE A BETTER WAY TO INCENTIVIZE ART AS A CONDITION OF A TIFF NOTE APPROVAL SINCE WE SEEM TO BE HAVING A LOT OF THOSE IN THE CITY. JUST A JUST A THOUGHT BUT I CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUES AND WE REALLY WANT TO PUSH GREEN SPACE ESPECIALLY IN AREAS WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO DRIVE DENSITY. YOU HAVE ENOUGH HARD SURFACE ALREADY AND WITH THE TIGHTER SETBACKS ESPECIALLY IN SOUTH LOOP I THINK THAT ART IS GREAT BUT HAVING SOME GREENERY IS BETTER. THANK YOU. OTHER THOUGHTS COMMISSIONER SILVERS THANK YOU CHAIR I AM I AGREE WITH A LOT OF THE SENTIMENTS HERE THAT I'M AGAINST GREEN SPACE BEING MINIMIZED. I THINK ESPECIALLY IN A CITY LIKE BLOOMINGTON WHERE WE HAVE A LOT OF PAVEMENT AND HARD SPACES THE OVER TIME NOT HAVING THE TREE COVER WILL MAKE OUR CITY HOTTER. SO A PART FROM THE WAY THAT TREES AND GREENERY HELP PROCESS POLLUTION IT ALSO FOR ME IS AN ISSUE FOR ENERGY USE BECAUSE OR FOR IF PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD AIR CONDITIONING THAT THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD BEING SEVERAL DEGREES 1 OR 2 DEGREES HOTTER MAKES A HUGE IMPACT AND WE SEE THAT IN CITIES LIKE SAINT PAUL WHERE THE FROGTOWN MIDWAY AREA HAS A SIGNIFICANT LACK OF TREE COVER AND HAS TAKEN A HUGE CONCERTED EFFORT BETWEEN THE CITY AND NONPROFITS TO RECOUP THAT TREE COVER. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? COMMISSIONER ISSA MY TAKE IT OR THANK YOU CHAIR I THINK MY TAKE IS IT'S FINE EXCEPT FOR PLACES IN THE CITY THAT ARE HIGHER ON LIKE THE HEAT INDEX AND SO REQUIRING NOT BASICALLY I WOULD AGREE IF IT'S IF IT'S RELATIVELY IT'S NOT LIKE A HEAT ISLAND I GUESS PER SE RELATIVELY SO YEAH THANK YOU. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS, MR. MOSER IF YOU'RE STILL LOOKING FOR YES. NO, I CONCUR WITH THE CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONER MIKE VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER AND EXCELLENT. SO THAT WAS MY LAST DISCUSSION QUESTION IS THERE DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT STOOD OUT FOR YOU THAT YOU ALL WANT TO DISCUSS NOT SEEING ANY THANK YOU. >> SO AGAIN YOU'LL SEE THIS AGAIN AT THE MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES PUBLIC HEARING WHICH IS SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 23RD. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL STUDY THIS ON SEPTEMBER 29TH. OH YES AT THE MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES. THANK YOU. I WAS CONFUSED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE WILL MOVE THEN TO ITEM NUMBER TWO. THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON AGAIN IS THE APPLICANT. WE WILL BE STUDYING COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. MS. DURLING NAVARRO YOU HAVE OUR STAFF REPORT. GOOD EVENING CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS DUDLEY NAVARRO AND I WILL BE PRESENTING COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TONIGHT FOR OUR AGENDA. WE ARE GOING TO DO A QUICK PROJECT OVERVIEW THE PURPOSE WHY THE GOALS OF THE PROJECT. WE'RE GOING TO REVIEW THE BLOOMINGTON'S GRANT ALLOWANCE PEER CITIES REVIEW COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FEEDBACK FROM PRIDE EVENT AND LESTER BLOOMINGTON PAGE. WE WILL ALSO BE REVIEWING SOME COMMERCIAL VEHICLE VIOLATIONS ISSUED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION AND WE'RE GOING TO END WITH THE OPEN DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS AND THE PROJECT TIMELINE. SO THE WHY OF THE PROJECT THE ZONING CODE LIMITS WHAT TYPE OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND TRAILERS CAN BE PARK OR STORE IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES. THESE STANDARDS HAVE INCREASINGLY BECOME THE SUBJECT OF IMPORTANT CASES FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION AS THE SIZE, HIGH DESIGN AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND TRAILERS CONTINUE TO CHANGE OVER TIME AND THE GOAL OF THIS PROJECT IS TO ENSURE THAT CURRENT STANDARDS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE TYPE OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES USED OR THE WANT TO BE USED IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND AT THE SAME TIME WE WANT TO INCREASE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPORT SMALL BUSINESSES WHO MAY NEED TO STORE WORK RELATED VEHICLES AT THEIR RESIDENCE. >> SO I WANTED TO ADD THIS SUMMARY TABLE OF THE ZONING CODE SECTION 21.30 1.20 WHICH IS BAGELS AND TRAILER PARKING AND HISTORIC AND RESIDENTIAL SOUNDS TO REFLECT THE COMPLEXITY OF OUR CURRENT CODE. IT IS A LITTLE BIT HARD TO UNDERSTAND BUT THE MAIN POINT OF THIS ORDINANCE THAT WE CURRENTLY ALLOWED ARE TYPE ONE BECAUSE THESE ARE THESE ARE BAGELS UP TO A FEEDING HEIGHT AND 22FT IN LENGTH. WE ALSO ALLOWED TYPE TWO VEHICLES THESE ARE TAXIS, LIMOUSINES OR IS NOT CLOSE A KEEP EQUIP VEHICLES ARE THE SAME SIZE AS TYPE ONE VEHICLES AND TRAILERS UP TO SIX FEET IN HEIGHT AND 8.6FT IN LENGTH. WE PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL VEHICLES EIGHT OR ANY TYPE THREE OR OVERSIZE VEHICLES. I WILL GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ABOUT THE MAXIMUM QUANTITY ALLOWED LATER ON THE PRESENTATION. SO STAFF REACHED OUT TO THE CITIES OF A DYNA BURNSVILLE BROOKLYN PARK, BLAINE LAKE BILL AND SON LOUIS PARK TO SEE HOW THEY HANDLE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS ARENA IS VERY STRICT NO COMMERCIAL VEHICLES ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL LOTS. BERN'S BILL IS A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBLE ONE VEHICLE UP TO 22FT IF USED DAILY WITH SOME RULES FOR TRAILERS AND NO OVERNIGHT PARKING. BROOKLYN PARK ALLOWS ONE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PER HOME BUT THEY DON'T ALLOW ANY BIG TRUCKS OR SEMI TRUCKS. BLAINE ALLOWED TO BE EQUALS UNDER 12,000 POUNDS IF THEIR LICENSE AND WORKING LAKE BILL ALLOW SOME MEETS I SIZE BAGELS AND SOME ARBY'S BUT NO STREET PARKING AND LESS LOADING AND UNLOADING AND LASTLY SAN LUIS PARK ALLOWS TWO UP TO TWO BAGELS AND THEY HAVE SIZE AND WEIGHT LIMITS SO OVERALL EACH CITY HAS DIFFERENT RULES. THE MAIN DIFFERENCE ARE ABOUT VEHICLE SIZE WEIGHT HOW MANY VEHICLES ARE ALLOWED PER PROPERTY AND WHERE THEY CAN PARK. BUT THE BIG TAKEAWAY IS THE CITY'S TRY TO BALANCE THE NEEDS FOR WORK VEHICLES WITH KEEPING NEIGHBORHOOD SAFES HEALTHY AND POLICING. >> SO A STAFF CONDUCTED COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THROUGH TABLING AT THE BLOOMINGTON PRIDE EVENT WHERE WE ASKED RESIDENTS DO YOU FEEL THIS TYPE OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES ARE APPROPRIATE TO BE A STORE OR PARKING RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND DID THEY ANSWER THE QUESTIONS BY PLACING STICKERS WHERE THEY FEEL APPROPRIATE? SO YES OR NO AND MAYBE WITH RESTRICTIONS. SO THANKS TO OUR BLOOM IN BLOOMINGTON IN WE WERE ABLE TO COUNT ALL THE STICKERS FROM THE EVENT AND SERIAL RESPONSE RESPONDER BOYS SUPPORT FOR ALLOWING COMMONLY USED WORK VEHICLES WHICH ARE BANNED SPEAK UP AS SMALL TRAILERS AND ESPECIALLY WHEN USED BY RESIDENTS AND IS STORED NEATLY IN PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS. THERE WAS A STRONG INTEREST IN SUPPORTING RESIDENTS OWNED BUSINESSES AND A NEED OF CLEAR RULES OF OUR ORDINANCE AS WE GET TO BIGGER COMMERCIAL VEHICLES SUCH AS SHIPPING CONTAINERS AND SAM, I SEND MY TRUCKS RESPONDERS WERE NOT IN SUPPORT OF ALLOWING PARKING OR STORAGE IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. WE ALSO DID A PUBLIC SURVEY AVAILABLE ON THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON. THEY TOOK A PAGE FROM JUNE 26TH TO JULY 31ST WE RECEIVED TEN RESPONSES AND THE REPORT WAS INCLUDED IN THE AGENDA PACKET FOR TONIGHT. >> MANY MANY RESPONDERS SUPPORT ALIGN WORK VEHICLES AND TRAILERS AT A HOME ESPECIALLY FOR CONTRACTORS, TRADESPEOPLE AND SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS. THEY EXPRESS THE VEHICLES SHOULD BE WELL KEPT REASONABLE SIZE AND NOT BLOCK VIEWS OR DRIVEWAYS RESIDENTS ONE FLEXIBILITY SINCE THESE VEHICLES ARE ESSENTIAL FOR THEM TO WORK AND SOME PEOPLE SHARE CONCERNS ABOUT THE COST AND INCONVENIENCE WHEN VEHICLES CANNOT BE PARKED AT A HOME YOU KNOW SOMETIMES RENTING OF SAY STORAGE IS EXPENSIVE TIME CONSUMING AND LESS OFFENSE EFFICIENT AND IN SOME CASES IT EVEN INCREASES FUEL USE AND EMISSIONS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT . SO IN SUMMARY OUR RESIDENTS ARE ASKING FOR A BALANCE APPROACH ONE THAT RESPECTS NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS BUT ALSO MAKES LIFE EASIER FOR PEOPLE WHO DEPEND ON WORK VEHICLES EVERY DAY. >> SO IN 2020 FOR BLOOMINGTON'S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION ISSUED ABOUT 280 VIOLATIONS FOR PARKING ON HISTORIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLES OR TRAILERS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. MOST OF THESE VIOLATIONS HAPPENS HAPPENED BECAUSE THE VEHICLES WERE TOO TALL TO TOO LONG OR NOT ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM THAT WE CAN SEE IS OVERSIGHT ICE TRAILERS OVER HALF OF THE CASES WITH 141 VIOLATIONS AND THEN OTHER COMMON VIOLATIONS WHERE FLATBED TRAILERS DUMP TRUCKS AND CARGO BOX TRUCKS AND THESE ARE OFTEN USED BY CONTRACTORS OR SERVICE PROVIDERS. WE ALSO SAW EQUIPMENT HEAVY BECAUSE USUALLY TIED TO LANDSCAPING OR CONSTRUCTION WORK AND THEN WE HAVE LESS COMMON BUT STILL NOT ABLE STEP VANS, FOOD TRUCKS, TOW TRUCKS AND SEMI TRUCKS. SO WE LOOKED AT HOW THE SIZES OF TO LIGHT TO THESE VEHICLES COMPARED TO BLOOMINGTON'S CURRENT RULES WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT MANY MODERN VEHICLES ARE SIMPLY BIGGER THAN OUR RULES ALLOWED FOR EXAMPLE IS MORE B EQUALS THAT TAXES ARE ABOUT THE SAME SIZE AS NORMAL CARS AND THEN WE HAVE CAR CARGO BANDS WHICH ARE BIGGER USUALLY 10 TO 20FT LONG AND ABOUT SEVEN FEET TALL. SO MANY NEWER VEHICLES NOW GO OVER EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT WITH TRIGGERS VIOLATIONS UNDER OUR CURRENT RULES AND UTILITY TRAILERS THAT ARE OFTEN LONGER THAN 8.6FT. SO THEY ALSO BREAK OUR CURRENT LIMITS AND THEN BOX TRUCK BOX TRUCKS AND FOOD TRUCKS CAN BE ANYWHERE FROM 16 TO 26FT FEET LONG AND THE HEIGHT COULD BE UP TO 12FT. SO THE MAIN TAKE AWAY BY DOING THIS RESEARCH IS THAT MANY COMMON VEHICLES TODAY ARE BIGGER THAN BLOOMINGTON SQUARE IN SIZE LIMITS ALLOWED. SO THIS MEANS THERE ARE RULES. OUR RULES NO LONGER FIT REALITY AND THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO RETHINK THE SIZE LIMITS DEFINITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS IN OUR ORDINANCE SO THEY CAN BE UP TO ENFORCEABLE AND REFLECT HOW VEHICLES ARE BUILT AND USED TOO LATE BUT A RESIDENCE. SO AGAIN THIS IS A STUDY ITEM SO NO FORMAL ACTION IS REQUESTED FROM THE PLANNING PLANNING COMMISSION AT THIS TIME STAFF IS JUST SEEKING DIRECTION ON KEY QUESTIONS AND IF DIRECTED BY CITY COUNCIL THE ORDINANCE WILL BE DRAFTED AND PRESENTED LATER THIS YEAR. >> THANK YOU. MS. NAVARRO WHY DON'T WE START WITH ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SURE. MR.. THE ONLY THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS THE ON THE COMPLAINT INFORMATION IS IT TRACKED WHETHER THOSE VIOLATIONS ARE THE RESULT OF COMPLAINTS OR PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT? CHAIR COMMISSIONERS THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. SO I ACTUALLY RECEIVED A SPREADSHEET FROM ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SO IT COULD BE BOTH. >> IT COULD BE CONCERNS YOU KNOW, CONCERNS FOR FROM OTHER NEIGHBORS OR JUST ENFORCEMENT OF ENFORCEMENT CASES BUT FROM THE THE COMMUTE THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THAT WE DID AT PRIDE, I THINK THE COMMON THEME WAS MORE OF LIKE ENFORCEMENT INFORMANTS, CASES, PEOPLE WERE MORE UPSET ABOUT OUR RULES THAN NEIGHBORS PARKING THEIR WORK RELATED VEHICLE ARE THE PROPERTIES FOR SHAWNEE. THANK YOU CHAIR. A FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO THAT. DO WE KNOW IF ALL OF THE COMPLAINTS ON THE SPREADSHEET ARE INITIAL COMPLAINTS OR SOME OF THEM COMPLAINTS REPEAT COMPLAINTS AGAINST REPEAT OFFENDERS? >> CHAIR COMMISSIONERS THOSE VIOLATIONS ARE JUST FOR ONE PROPERTY SO THEY'RE NOT REPEATED COMPLAINTS. WE SHOULD WAIT. I'D BE CURIOUS COULD YOU REMIND US IF POSSIBLE LIKE WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE FOR FOR OUR VEHICLES THAT ARE ALLOWED TO BE PARKED ON PROPERTIES ARE REASON AND TRAIL LIKE SPORTS TRAILERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I REMEMBER THAT BEING QUITE A DISCUSSION. YEAH. CHAIR COMMISSIONERS THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION. SO FOR ARBY'S AND IS YOU KNOW IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A TOUGH TOPIC BECAUSE THAT CAME UP ON LIKE DURING OUR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT WHERE PEOPLE WERE UPSET ABOUT TRAILERS BEING BIGGER THAN SOMETIMES THEIR WORK RELATED BECAUSE SO ON TOP OF MY HEAD ARBY'S THEY CAN BE LET ME ACTUALLY CHAIR THE HANDOUT WITH YOU IF I CAN . SO WE HAVE SETBACKS FOR THE ARBY'S AND THEN THEY MUST NOT EXCEED 11 FEEDING HEIGHT AT ANY POINT AND THEY MUST NOT EXCEED 25FT IN LENGTH . DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT ARBY'S? >> NO, THANK YOU, LISA. THANK YOU, CHAIR QUEST AND THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION BY THE WAY, AS I SAY, THE FOOD FOR THE RV OR THE TRAILER LENGTH TO 25FT HOW DID HOW IS THAT DETERMINED BECAUSE YEAH, I GUESS THAT'S MY QUESTION FIRST CHAIR COMMISSIONER, YOU SAY THAT YOU MEAN FOR THE CURRENT RULES SO WE HAVE YEAH FOR THE CURRENT RULES I WILL DEFER TO THE PLANNING MANAGER. I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE HISTORY AND HOW THAT NUMBER HOW WE CAME UP WITH A NUMBER AT THAT TIME. MR. JOHNSON JUST TO CLARIFY THANK YOU CHAIR YOUR CLARIFY QUESTION IS THIS QUESTION DO I WANT RECREATIONAL VEHICLES OR COMMERCIAL TRAILERS JUST TO CLARIFY, WE HAVE DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR BOTH THE 25 FOR WHAT'S FOR TRAILERS, RIGHT? 25FT IN LENGTH IS FOR RECREATIONAL AND RECREATIONAL. OKAY. YEAH. I GUESS FOR THAT AS WELL AS THE OTHER ONE TOO. BUT CURIOUS ABOUT THAT. YEAH THE MEASUREMENT WOULD EFFECTIVELY HAPPEN FROM THE TIME OF THE TRAILER TO THE KIND OF FURTHEST BACK PORTION OF IT SO IT'D BE THE FULL EXTENT AND SO THERE INEVITABLY THERE'S ALWAYS SOME PORTION OF IT THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE RIGGING OR THE ATTACHMENT COMPONENT TO THE VEHICLE TOWING IT. SO IT'S NOT THAT THE FLAT PORTION OF THE TRAILER OR THE USABLE PORTION OF THE TRAILER IS 25FT. IT'S TYPICALLY IT'S THE FULL LENGTH OF THE APPARATUS. MR. JOHNSON DO YOU KNOW HOW WE ARRIVED AT 25FT? YEAH. CHAIR I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS BUT I DO KNOW THAT WHEN THE CITY ESTABLISHED REGULATIONS AROUND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES SIMILAR TO THE EXERCISE THAT MR. BARR WAS DOING THIS EVENING, WE DID A LOT OF RESEARCH ABOUT KIND OF COMMON RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AT THAT TIME SIMILAR TO COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND TRAILERS. IT'S CHANGED A LOT IN THE LAST MANY YEARS. THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE ORDINANCE I BELIEVE WAS A UPDATED AND I WANT TO SAY 2019 OR 20 BY PLANNING MANAGER GLEN MARKING HEARD AND THERE WAS A LOT OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND ACTIVITY ON THAT ONE SO I BELIEVE THEY REEVALUATED SOME OF THOSE SIZE THRESHOLDS AS PART OF THAT MOST RECENT UPDATE THERE IS SOME INTERACTION BETWEEN THE RV ORDINANCE AND THESE STANDARDS SO WE DO NEED TO KIND OF MITIGATE OR RECTIFY SOME OF THE PROBLEMS PROBLEM POINTS BETWEEN THE TWO STANDARDS. BUT OTHER THAN THAT WE'RE TRYING TO NOT KIND OF OPEN THAT CAN OF WORMS FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM AND I SEE WELL I'LL LET THE CHAIR RUN THE TRAFFIC. SORRY MR. TUSKY HAS TURNED HIS CAMERA AND YOU HAVE A COMMENT MR. TUSKY YEAH, I DO. THANKS. CHAIR AND COMMISSION. GOOD. GOOD EVENING. AND I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THE RV ORDINANCE IS PRETTY IT'S KIND OF SIMILAR TO THE VEHICLE ORDINANCE THAT SETS OUT TWO CLASSES OF RVS. >> SO CLASS ONE IS A REC VEHICLE WITH A LENGTH OF LESS THAN 20FT A HEIGHT OF LESS THAN SIX FEET AND THEN A CLASS TWO RV IS ANYTHING WITH A LENGTH OF 20FT OR MORE A HEIGHT OF SIX FEET OR MORE. YOU CAN'T HAVE ANY RV OVER 40FT THAT'S PROHIBITED AND THEN THERE'S CERTAIN STANDARDS ABOUT WHERE YOU CAN PARK THEM ,YOU KNOW, ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE SETBACKS, THINGS LIKE THAT. >> BUT IT LIKE THE PLANNING MANAGER DISCUSSED IT WORKS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE VEHICLE ORDINANCE AND THE TRAILER ORDINANCE. >> SO THERE'S INTERACTION THERE. SO WE JUST HAVE TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT BUT IT'S PRETTY SIMILAR AND KIND OF HOW IT SETS OUT THE DIFFERENT RV CLASSES AND STUFF. THANK YOU MR. DARCY COMMISSIONER LISA I THINK I DON'T WANT TO OPEN THE CAN OF WORMS BUT LIKE I THINK POTENTIALLY A BETTER APPROACH MAY BE LIKE BASED OFF DRIVEWAY LENGTH SPECIFICALLY TO DRIVEWAYS. I FEEL LIKE IF THERE'S IF IT IF SOMEONE HAS A TRAILER AND IT COULD FIT IN THEIR DRIVEWAY BUT IT'S TECHNICALLY NOT WITHIN CODE, YOU KNOW I THINK LIKE AND OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN'T FOR THE THE CAR DETACHING WHATEVER LENGTH AND SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE A BETTER APPROACH IN THIS HAVING A SPECIFIC NUMBER YOU KNOW AND I THINK CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG AND YOU MENTIONED THAT LIKE THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE RULES THAN THEIR NEIGHBORS THAT LIKE CHAIR COMMISSION YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT. >> SO A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE EXPRESSING THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT THEM GETTING THEIR VIOLATIONS OR YOU KNOW, THEIR RULES OUR CURRENT RULES THEN JUST LETTING PEOPLE PARK THEIR WORK RELATED VEHICLES OR TRAILERS IN THEIR PROPERTY. MR. WHITE YOU KNOW, THIS IS ALWAYS SUCH A TOUGH THING BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO REALLY HATE TO SIT AND LOOK AT THEIR NEIGHBORS DRIVEWAY FULL OF VEHICLES AND THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DON'T CARE. AND SO TRYING TO FIND THAT THAT MIDDLE THRESHOLD OF KEEPING THE COMMUNITY LOOKING NICE BUT ALSO RECOGNIZING THAT PEOPLE LIVE HERE AND THIS IS THEIR PROPERTY AND AND YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN NEEDS IS THAT CONSTANT BALANCE THAT I FEEL LIKE THE CITY'S CALLED UPON TO MAINTAIN. SO I HAVE A LOT OF SYMPATHY FOR THAT AS SOMEONE WHO PARKED SEVERAL VEHICLES IN MY DRIVEWAY ON A REGULAR BASIS. SO I GUESS MY PERSONAL OPINION IS THAT IT DEFINITELY DOES NEED TO BE UPDATED. I THINK IF IF YOU'RE ALLOWING PEOPLE TO PARK LARGE RECREATIONAL VEHICLES IN THEIR DRIVEWAY, THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PARK A WORK TRAILER OR WORK VEHICLE AS LONG AS IT'S MAINTAINED AND IT'S FUNCTIONAL AND IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, PRESENTING A DANGER OF BLOCKING SIDEWALKS OR BLOCKING VIEWS, YOU KNOW, FOR FOR FOLKS, YOU KNOW, IN AN INTERSECTION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, ALL THOSE THINGS THAT YOU LOOK AT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT PARKING REGULATIONS. SO YOU KNOW I DON'T HOWEVER THINK THAT PARKING SEMIS OR BUSSES OR YOU KNOW HUGE OBVIOUSLY VERY LARGE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES DON'T BELONG IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN MY OPINION. I DON'T THINK THE STREETS ARE BUILT FOR IT. I DON'T THINK THE DRIVEWAYS ARE BUILT FOR IT AND I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S IT'S FAIR TO THE NEIGHBORS TO EXPECT THOSE THAT KIND OF TRAFFIC IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON A DAILY BASIS SO YOU KNOW, WE CAN GO THROUGH AND DRAW THE LINE HOWEVER THAT YOU KNOW THAT NEEDS TO BE DRAWN BUT I GUESS FOR YOU KNOW, TRAILERS AND SMALLER COMMERCIAL VEHICLES ARE THE PEOPLE ARE THE OWNERS ARE LIVING THERE AND THEY NEED THAT THAT VEHICLE EVERY DAY. I'M SYMPATHETIC TO THAT AND I'M INCLINED TO TO UPDATE THOSE RESTRICTIONS TO BE MORE FLEXIBLE. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. WAIT. I THINK COMMISSIONER I STARTED IT AND I'LL ASK THAT WE START TO GUIDE OUR CONVERSATION TO THE THREE GUIDING QUESTIONS BEING ASKED OF US HERE SO PERHAPS I'LL START WITH QUESTION ONE THERE WHICH WAS THE OVERALL SIZE SORRY MS. NOVARRO CAN WE GO BACK TO SLIDE? THANK YOU. ARE THE VEHICLE AND TRAILER SIZE THRESHOLDS I HATE TO BE SUCH A STICK IN THE MUD BUT I'M KIND OF IN FAVOR OF WHAT HE IS DOING. I DON'T REALLY LIKE SEEING LIKE IF I LIVED IN A SMALL AND QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD I THINK I WOULD BE ANNOYED IF SOMEBODY HAD THEIR CONSTRUCTION TRAILER AND STUFF PARKED OUT ON THE STREET. BUT I WILL SAY OF THE THE STICKER DIAGRAM THAT WE GOT FROM THE PRIDE EVENT THAT WAS LIKE SOME OF THE BEST PUBLIC FEEDBACK WE'VE EVER GOT. I LEARNED SO MUCH FROM THAT AND IT LOOKS LIKE 87% OF BLOOMINGTON RESIDENTS DISAGREE WITH ME ON THAT AND SO I CAN SUPPORT THIS EVEN THOUGH I DON'T PERSONALLY THINK I WOULD LIKE IT. I THINK THAT THE FEEDBACK WE GOT FROM RESIDENTS WAS PRETTY CLEAR ON QUITE A FEW OF THESE ITEMS. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M AT. COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU CHAIR I CONCUR THAT I DO LIVE IN A QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD AND I I'M IN FAVOR OF IT HELPING OUT PEOPLE THAT HAVE SMALL BUSINESSES THAT THEY RUN OUT OF THEIR HOMES. I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE YOUR TRAILER OR YOUR MATERIALS THERE AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO INCUR THAT EXTRA COST KIND OF A LOWER LOWER THEARRIERS TO ENTRY TO HAVE YOUR OWN BUSINESS. SO I'M I'M FINE WITH THIS. MR. SUMMERS THANK YOU CHAIR I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM A SMALL OWNED BUSINESS THAT IS PARKING ON THE STREET AND I ALSO LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WITHOUT STOP SIGNS AND SIDEWALKS. SO WHEN I THINK ABOUT THE VEHICLE AND TRAILER SIDE THRESHOLDS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M KICKING AROUND IS LARGER VEHICLES BEING NOT AS SAFE FOR THE KIDDOS WALKING AROUND OR BIKING AROUND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH ALSO REPRESENTS THAT ADULTS COULD GET HIT BY A VEHICLE AS WELL AND I USUALLY ASSUME THAT PEOPLE ARE OPERATING THEIR LARGE THEY DON'T WANT TO HIT ANYBODY THEY'RE OPERATING THEM SAFELY. SO FOR ME THE SIZE THRESHOLD I WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S THE INTERACTION WITH THE SAFETY FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING IN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS? I THINK WHAT I SAW IN A LOT OF THE COMMUNITY FEEDBACK WAS THAT PEOPLE REALLY CARED ABOUT THESE SMALL BUSINESSES THAT ARE IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE OPERATING IN THIS WAY THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO MAKE SPACE FOR. I, I DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT A FOOD TRUCK BUT I WOULD BE WILLING TO MAKE SPACE FOR A FOOD TRUCK IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A NEIGHBOR THAT I CARED ABOUT HAVING A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH AND SMALL BUSINESSES HELP COMMUNITIES THRIVE. SO I THINK THE MAIN THING FOR ME WITH SIZE IS WHAT IS SAFE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WALKING AND BIKING AROUND. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SUMMERS COMMISSIONER, LET ME I GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF IT OF ALLOWING THIS. I ALSO HAVE LIVED IN A VERY, VERY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD BUT HAVE A YOUNG NEIGHBOR THAT JUST STARTED A CONTRACTING BUSINESS AND IT'S BEEN VERY CONVENIENT TO HAVE HIM ACROSS THE STREET. BUT WHAT I WILL SAY IS I DO THINK THAT THERE NEEDS WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS A LINKAGE BETWEEN THE BUSINESS AND THE RESIDENT. I SHOULDN'T SAY NEED. I THINK WE SHOULD CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT SAYS FOR LARGER VEHICLES OVER A CERTAIN SIZE THEY MUST BE REGISTERED TO ONE OF THE PEOPLE IN THE RESIDENCE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT BECAUSE I THINK WHAT WE WANT TO AVOID AND THIS HAS BEEN AN ISSUE IN SOME CITIES I'VE LIVED IN IS PEOPLE CHOOSING TO PARK THEIR FOOD TRUCK THERE BECAUSE IT'S CONVENIENT TO WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO GO THE NEXT DAY VERSUS THEY ACTUALLY LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I THINK THAT FROM THE FEEDBACK AND FROM THE CONVERSATION WE'RE HAVING HERE TODAY, I THINK WE'RE ALL SUPPORTIVE OF MAKING IT OR I SHOULDN'T SAY ALL BUT MOST OF US ARE SUPPORTIVE OF MAKING IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE IN BLOOMINGTON TO START THESE BUSINESSES AND RUN THESE BUSINESSES. BUT WHAT I DON'T WANT TO HAVE IS PEOPLE WHO LIVE, YOU KNOW, 30 MILES BEYOND BLOOMINGTON PARKING THEIR STUFF HERE SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO BURN THE FUEL ON THEIR LOW MILEAGE TRUCKS. THEY CAN TAKE THEIR LIKE ELECTRIC CARS TO GET HERE AND THEN SWAP THEM OUT DURING THE DAY. AND I THINK AS THE METRO AREA GETS BIGGER AND BIGGER THAT BECOMES A BIGGER AND BIGGER RISK. SO I'D LIKE TO SEE SOME SORT OF CORRELATION BETWEEN A RESIDENT IN BLOOMINGTON, HER OWNER A BUSINESS OWNER IN BLOOMINGTON OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT FOR THE LARGER VEHICLES THAT WE CONSIDER. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER LEE. MS. NAVARRO, DID I JUMP AHEAD IN YOUR PRESENTATION HERE AND YOU HAVE MORE SLIDES OR I DO HAVE SURE I DO HAVE MORE SLIDES AND THEY'RE MORE LIKE A QUESTION SO I WANT YOUR FEEDBACK ON LIKE SITES STUFF LIKE THAT. >> WHY DON'T WE SKIP AHEAD THE US ARE MOVING AHEAD FINE. OKAY SO THE FIRST QUESTION THAT I HAVE AND BUILD BASED ON WHAT WE'VE LEARNED SO WE DEVELOP A SERIES OR OF YOU KNOW RANGES FROM MORE RISK RESTRICTIVE OPTION TO LESS RESTRICTIVE OPTION. SO MY QUESTION MY FIRST QUESTION IS WHAT HEIGHT AND LENGTH LIMITS DO YOU FEEL ARE APPROPRIATE FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND TRAILERS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS GIVEN THE TYPE OF VEHICLES COMMONLY USED TODAY AND JUST AS A REMINDER, WE WE ARE CURRENTLY CURRENTLY ALLOWED EIGHT FEET HIGH, 22FT LONG FOR VEHICLES AND SIX FEET HEIGHT AND 8.6FT LONG FOR TRAILERS. AND JUST REMINDER WE DON'T ALLOW ANY COMMERCIAL VEHICLES THAT'S COMMISSIONER MUNSTER RIGHT THANKS. AND THIS IS ACTUALLY THE PERFECT PERFECT SITE FOR IT. SO I THINK I'M TO KIND OF GO TO WHERE THE CONVERSATION WAS A MINUTE AGO. I'M GENERALLY IN SUPPORT OF INCREASING THE STANDARD SOMEHOW WHERE I HAVE A PROBLEM ARE THE BOX TRUCKS. SO IN PREVIOUS LIVES I'VE BEEN ON THE ENFORCEMENT SIDE OF THESE THINGS AND YOU KNOW THE GENERAL IDEA OF ALLOWING COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS IS THAT THEY'RE OF A SIMILAR CHARACTER. YOU KNOW, SO IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE PHONE COMPANY VAN, IT'S THE SAME BASIC, YOU KNOW, FORD ECONOLINE THAT A FAMILY MIGHT HAVE. IT'S JUST USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES AND YOU KNOW, SO IN LOOKING AT OUR CURRENT STANDARDS WITH THE EIGHT FEET EIGHT FOOT HEIGHT FOR A VEHICLE A SPRINTER VAN WHICH IS KIND OF THE MOST COMMON THING IS ABOUT NINE FEET HIGH. I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYTHING IS COMPELLING US TO GO ALL THE WAY UP TO 12 TO ALLOW A TRUCK THAT CAN MOVE A THREE ROOM APARTMENT. I THINK WE NEED TO BALANCE THAT INCREASE. YOU KNOW, PERHAPS JUST SCALE IT BACK A BIT FROM SORT OF THE MODERATE OPTION THAT'S PROPOSED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE TRULY ARE CAPTURING THE GENERAL CLASS OF VEHICLES THAT YOU WOULD FIND IN A NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT IT'S NOT THESE TRUCKS THAT ARE 4 OR 5FT OFF THE GROUND. SO NEIGHBORS ARE SORT OF LOOKING AT THE UNDERCARRIAGE AS THEY DRIVE DOWN THE STREET. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. MR. COMMISSIONER LISA UH, THANK YOU, CHAIR. UH, I INITIALLY MY INITIAL TAKE UH I USUALLY LIKE TO WAIT UNTIL THE END TO GIVE MY TAKE JUST TO HEAR MORE FEEDBACK BUT I WOULD GO WITH THE LESS RESTRICTIVE OPTION ONE BECAUSE ANECDOTALLY IF LIKE YOU MENTIONED, IF MORE NEIGHBORS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT RESTRICTIONS VERSUS THEIR NEIGHBORS HAVING SMALL BUSINESSES THEIR THEIR THEIR THEIR OPERATING VEHICLES THROUGH THEIR HOME, I THINK THAT THAT SAYS SOMETHING THERE . BUT ALSO LIKE IF YOU DO IMAGINE LET'S SAY SOMEONE DOES HAVE SOME OF THESE BOX TRUCKS, RIGHT. AND THEY DO OPERATE A SMALL BUSINESS AND THEY DO LIVE THERE. RIGHT. OF COURSE THEY THEY WOULD HAVE TO PARK IT OFFSITE RIGHT. PAY RENT FOR STORAGE WHICH MOST A LOT OF THESE STORAGE FACILITIES ARE LIKE NATIONAL. SO THEY'RE PAYING THESE NATIONAL COMPANIES THEY WOULD HAVE TO EITHER UBER OR TAKE A FAMILY MEMBER TO DROP THEM OFF EVERY MORNING TO GO THERE RIGHT. WHICH OBVIOUSLY GUESS WHO MONEY WHATEVER. RIGHT. IN THIS ECONOMY THAT'S THINGS ARE GETTING MORE AND MORE EXPENSIVE. I DON'T MORALLY I DON'T THINK THAT'S IF WE WEIGH OH YEAH YOU KNOW I DON'T LIKE SEEING THESE BIG TRUCKS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD VERSUS MY NEIGHBOR THAT'S TRYING TO SURVIVE. I THINK IT'S A NO BRAINER AT LEAST FOR ME PERSONALLY, YOU KNOW. AND SO AND I DON'T THINK EVERY SINGLE PERSON IS OPERATING THAT SMALL BUSINESS SO WE WANT TO SEE IT POP UP IN EVERY LOT . SO I WOULD I WOULD JUST SAY WE SHOULD BE MINDFUL OF THAT AND THINK THINKING THAT WAY YOU KNOW, IF WE IF WE CARE ABOUT UH, SMALL BUSINESSES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO THAT'S MY TAKE. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. HE'S A COMMISSIONER. WAIT. I GUESS I'M SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THE MODERATE AND LESS RESTRICTIVE IN TERMS OF, UM, YOU KNOW, TAXES AND LIMOUSINES AND THE THE TRAILERS. I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THE THE TRAILER HEIGHT AND SIZE AND THINGS LIKE THAT BEING SORT OF SOMEWHERE IN THE RANGE OF WHAT WE CAN OFFER OUR V'S FEELS A LITTLE MORE FAIR TO ME AND AGAIN I SHARE THE CONCERN SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE BIG CARGO TRUCKS. YOU KNOW I THINK THERE'S A DIFFERENCE FOR ME TOO ABOUT IF THEY'RE PARKING ON THE STREET OR PARKING IN THE DRIVEWAY THAT TO ME ALSO MAKES A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENCE TO ME BECAUSE I CARE I GUESS I CARE A LITTLE BIT LESS IF IT'S PARKED IN YOUR DRIVEWAY THAN IF IT'S PARKED ON THE STREET JUST TO BE REALLY HONEST ABOUT IT. BUT I DO SHARE SOME OF THOSE SAME CONCERNS BUT I'M INCLINED TO GO WITH THE LIKE YOU KNOW THE THE LOOSER HEIGHT AND LENGTH RESTRICTIONS BECAUSE I THINK WE'LL JUST BE BACK HERE AGAIN A COUPLE OF YEARS ADJUSTING THEM AGAIN AS THINGS AS THINGS GO SO SO THAT'S WHERE I'M I, I GUESS THAT'S WHERE I AM FOR NOW. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. WAIT. RESTATING MY POSITION I GUESS I'M OFF THE CHARTS HERE AS THE EDINA OPTION OF ALLOWING NOTHING BUT IF I WAS TO LOOK AT SOME COMPROMISING HERE I TOO HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE BOX TRUCK. WHEN I LOOK AT THE DATA COLLECTED FROM THE THE PRIDE EVENT THE BOX TRUCK SCORED VERY SIMILARLY TO SEMIS AND SHIPPING CONTAINERS AND SO THAT THAT TO ME SAYS OUR OUR RESIDENTS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING BOX TRUCKS IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. SO I WOULD I WOULD HESITATE IF I'M GOING TO BE COMPROMISING HERE OR TO ALLOW BOX TRUCKS. MR. CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU CHAIR. I WOULD I, I LIKE THE MODERATE OPTION AND I'M NERVOUS ABOUT DESIGNING. WE'RE NOT THIS IS A STUDY ITEMS WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING FROM THE DAIS HERE BUT THESE THIS STEP UP VANS OR YOU KNOW THE FOOD TRUCKS THAT ARE YOU KNOW THE DRIVABLE FOOD TRUCK YOU SEE A LOT IS SIMILAR IN VOLUME TO A BOX TRUCK AND SO I FEEL LIKE WE'RE SINGLING OUT SOMETHING SMALL THAT YOU KNOW IT CONVOLUTED THE CLARITY OF THE CODE AND I'M RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH YOUR I'M ALSO LOOKING AT THE POLKA DOTS AND THE GREAT PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ON THAT BY THE WAY, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A TON OF MAYBES FOR PEOPLE TO DIDN'T KNOW THERE'S A DEFINITELY A LOT OF NOS ON SHIPPING CONTAINERS AND SEMI-TRUCK CABS AND TRAILERS WHICH I, I AGREE WITH BUT YEAH THERE'S VERY FEW YESES ON BOX TRUCKS BUT A LOT OF MAYBES AND SO I THINK THE MODERATE OPTION IS GOOD AS A AS KIND OF A NEXT STEP SOME I WAS JUST LOOKING ON PENSKE'S WEBSITE AND HERE LOOKS LIKE THEY HAVE 22 TO 26 FOOT BOX TRUCKS FOR RENT FOR SMALL BUSINESSES SO MAYBE GETTING THE SHORTER ONES WOULD BE A GOOD KIND OF FIRST STEP INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT I, I THINK THAT WE SHOULDN'T ELIMINATE A SPECIFIC CLASS OF OF LARGE VEHICLE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE FROM OUR OUR CODE I FEEL LIKE IT MIGHT BE LEGALLY GRAY PLANNING MANAGER JOHNSON MR. JOHNSON THANK YOU CHAIR COOKSON AND I INVITE DORALEE TO ADD ANYTHING SHE WANTS TO TO THIS COMMENT THAT I'LL MAKE HERE BUT I THINK THAT THAT IS OF INTEREST TO THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH STAFF AND LEGAL STAFF IS THAT ONE OF THE THINGS ONE OF THE CHALLENGES OF OUR CURRENT STANDARDS IS THAT WE IDENTIFY SPECIFIC TYPES OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AS NOT ALLOWED KIND OF IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR ACTUAL DIMENSIONS. AND SO WE DO WANT TO TRY AND GET LAND SOMEWHERE WHERE WE'RE BEING MORE CONSISTENT. WE'RE MEASURING THE SAME THING ON EACH TYPE OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLE WHETHER IT BE HEIGHT LENGTH. SOME CITIES USE GROSS WEIGHT OR THERE'S SOME OTHER STANDARDS THAT CAN BE APPLIED BUT I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTARY ON SOME FEEDBACK ON SPECIFIC TYPES OF TRUCKS BUT I JUST WILL SHARE THAT THAT DOES GET KIND OF SOME FRUSTRATED OR SOME FEEDBACK FROM THE PUBLIC WHEN OTHER SIMILAR TYPE VEHICLES OR SIMILARLY SIZED TYPE VEHICLES ARE ALLOWED BUT SPECIFIC ONES ARE NOT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT BUT YEAH . COMMISSIONER ARNIE THANKS SO GENERALLY IN BETWEEN THE MODERATE AND LESS RESTRICTIVE OPTION I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A HUGE ISSUE WITH THE SIZE AS MENTIONED I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE OPERATED BY PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN BLOOMINGTON. AND THEN THE OTHER TWO THINGS I WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE WE CLEARLY SPELL OUT AND THIS MAY ALREADY BE IN THERE ARE THAT THEY BE OPERABLE AND THAT THERE BE A MAXIMUM ON THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES THAT CAN BE TIED TO ANY ONE PARTICULAR RESIDENCE. I THINK WHAT IN THIS DAY AND AGE WHERE PEOPLE ARE MOVING OR HAVE BEEN MOVING AWAY FROM OFFICE SPACE, WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO IS HAVE SOMEONE DE FACTO TURN A HOUSE INTO A PLACE WHERE THEY'RE OPERATING A BUSINESS FOR 30 PEOPLE WITH SEVEN DIFFERENT TRUCKS LINED UP AND PEOPLE COMING TO WORK TO AVOID RENTING COMMERCIAL OFFICE SPACE AND I THINK THAT THAT CAN BE VERY DISADVANTAGEOUS ALSO TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IF FOR EXAMPLE YOU HAVE ONE HOUSE ON THE BLOCK TAKING UP 60% OF THE PARKING ON THE STREET FOR WHAT THEIR OPERATIONS ARE. SO I THINK THERE NEED TO BE SOME LIMITS SO THAT WE ENSURE THAT WE ARE HONORING THE COMMITMENT TO ENABLING SMALL BUSINESS BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE NEIGHBORS WHO LIVE THERE HAVING A PLACE TO PARK AND WHEN THEY HAVE VISITORS AND THINGS LIKE THAT OVER AS WELL. MR. FRASER THANK YOU CHAIR AND I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE I WAS LIKE WHEN I WAS OPERATING LIKE AIRBNB IS NOT IN BLOOMINGTON BUT OTHER CITIES AND LIKE I WOULD SOMETIMES RENT IT TO LIKE CONTRACTORS AND THEY WOULD HAVE LIKE A BUNCH OF THE WHOLE CREW BASICALLY AND IT'D BE A NUISANCE. SO I DEFINITELY KNOW WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT THERE AS FAR AS GETTING BACK TO THIS, IT SEEMS AT LEAST WITH THIS CHART THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIKE IF WE QUANTIFY OR OBJECTIFY FOR LACK OF BETTER TERM LIKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MODERATE AND LESS RESTRICTIVE IT'S ONLY THAT ONE WOULD HAVE 26 FOOT BOX TRUCKS BECAUSE THE OTHER THE LENGTH MAX IS 26 AND ALSO ONE THAT THE THE MODERATE OPTION SAYS SOME AND THE LESS RESTRICTIVE PROBABLY MEANING THE 26 FOOT FOOT TRUCKS YOU'D BE ABLE TO OPERATE IT THERE. YOU KNOW SO IF WE'RE IT'S LIKE I GUESS WHAT THIS CHART OR ANALYSIS IT'S BETWEEN THAT FROM RIGHT IF THAT AT LEAST THAT'S HOW I VIEW IT RIGHT AND SO I JUST I THINK ONE I THINK COMMERCIAL COMMISSIONER YOU SAID EARLIER LIKE I DEFINITELY THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME VERIFICATION IF WE WERE TO DO A LESS RESTRICTIVE OF LIKE ANYONE THAT DOES GO TO THAT MAX THAT THEY'RE THERE THEY'RE RESIDENT THERE, THEY LIVE THERE AND YOUR COMMISSIONER SO THAT'S A GREAT POINT. SO FOR THE LESS RESTRICTIVE OPTION WE HAVE SOME BECAUSE FOR TRAILERS THEY CAN GO ANYWHERE FROM 8FT TO 32FT. SO YOU WOULDN'T BE ALL OF THEM ALLOWED IT WILL BE UP TO 26FT IN LENGTH. SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THAT SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE AND THEN TO ADDRESS CUSTOMER TO ADDRESS COMMISSIONER LEONIE COMMENT WE DO HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THE QUANTITY LIMITS LATER ON IN THE PRESENTATION. MR. JOHNSON YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT YOUR COACH AND THANK YOU AND THE CODE ACTUALLY DOES REQUIRE FOR TYPE TWO COMMERCIAL VEHICLES THAT THEY BE TIED TO A RESIDENT OF THE HOME. I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT DOESN'T APPLY ACROSS THE BOARD AND THAT CERTAINLY IS SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK INTO AS TO WHY THEY TIED THAT REQUIREMENT SPECIFICALLY TO TYPE TWO OR NOT TYPE ONE AS WELL. UM, I AGREE WITH YOU. I THINK IT MAKES SENSE THAT IF YOUR PARKING VEHICLE SHOULD BE CONNECTED TO THE RESIDENT AND REALLY MENTIONED THAT THERE IS AN EXISTING RESTRICTION ON THE NUMBER OF OVERALL VEHICLES TIED TO A SITE. SO WE'LL GET INTO THAT LATER. COMMISSIONER WHITE THANK YOU CHAIR. I WOULD IMAGINE THERE'S PROBABLY SOMETHING IN THERE DUE TO THE FACT THAT SOMETIMES FOLKS WILL DRIVE THEIR WORK TRUCK HOME BUT IT'S NOT IN THEIR NAME OR YOU KNOW, THEY MAY NOT ON THE BUSINESS BUT THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE AND USE IT TO GET BACK AND FORTH TO WORK AS A PERK OF THE JOB OR YOU KNOW, AS A FAVOR TO THE BOSS OF PARKING IT IN THEIR HOUSE INSTEAD OF AT THE OFFICE. SO I WOULD IMAGINE THAT MIGHT BE PART OF THE THE CHALLENGE WE WOULD FACE IN DEFINING WHAT TIED TO A RESIDENT MEANS THE THREE COMMISSIONERS. THAT'S CORRECT. WE ACTUALLY HAD A FEW RESIDENTS SHARE THAT CONCERN THAT SOMETIMES MOVE IN ORDER TO WORK FOR THAT COMPANY THEY NEED TO TAKE THAT WORK RELATED VEHICLE AND PARK IT IN THEIR HOME SO IF I MAY BUILD OFF THAT A SECOND CHAIR CORRECTION IS THAT AS FEEDBACK WE'VE GOTTEN THAT YOU KNOW A LOT OF THESE STANDARDS DO RELATE TO SMALL BUSINESSES CERTAINLY BUT WE'VE GOTTEN FEEDBACK FROM A FEW FOLKS INTERESTED IN THIS PROJECT THAT IT REALLY IS CORRECT THAT THEIR COMPANIES ACTUALLY INSTRUCT THEM THAT IF IT IS FURTHER TO DRIVE BACK TO THE TRADE SHOP WHERE THEY ARE WORKING IT MAKES MORE SENSE FOR THEM TO BRING THEIR VEHICLE HOME. SO THEY ARE KIND OF PUT IN BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE WITH RESPECT TO THEIR PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT AND THE CITY REGULATIONS WHICH DO NOT ALLOW THAT BOTH I'M SURE FROM THE BUSINESS STANDPOINT IT'S FUEL COST SAVINGS CERTAINLY BUT THEY'RE PROBABLY IS SOME SUSTAINABILITY BENEFIT IN TERMS OF LESS EMISSIONS OVERALL IN THE REGION AS WELL. THE THING I WAS GOING TO POINT OUT IS THAT LANGUAGE I MENTIONED ABOUT BEING TIED TO THE RESIDENT THAT CURRENTLY SAYS THAT THE VEHICLE IS OWNED OR LEASED OR REGULARLY USED BY THE PERSON RESIDING ON THE PREMISES. SO I THINK THAT ACCOUNTS FOR THAT BUT I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT THAT SHOULD BE MORE UNIFORMLY APPLIED TO ALL COMMERCIAL VEHICLES, NOT JUST ONE SPECIFIC TYPE. COMMISSIONER SILVERS THANK YOU CHAIR. SO WHEN I LOOK AT THE THE THE GRAPH OF PROHIBITED VEHICLE VIOLATIONS, IT APPEARS TO ME LIKE THE OVERSIZE TRAILER ACCOUNTS FOR HALF OF THE VIOLATIONS. SO WHEN I LOOK BETWEEN THE RESTRICTIVE MODERATE AND LESS RESTRICTIVE OPTION AND IF PART OF THIS IS TO REDUCE SOME OF THOSE VIOLATIONS, IT SEEMS LIKE THE OVERSIZE TRAILER IS THE ONE THAT'S COMING UP ALMOST EVERY OTHER DAY. UM, IT'S TOUGH TO KNOW THESE OVERSIZE TRAILERS BECAUSE THEY CAN BE SUCH DIFFERENT SIZES AND I NOTICE THAT THE TRAILERS ON HERE THE RESTRICTIVE OPTION IS 8.6FT. THE NEXT OPTION IS 22FT. IS THAT BECAUSE THEY KIND OF GO FROM ABOUT 8 TO 10FT TO MUCH LARGER CHAIR? COMMISSIONER THAT'S CORRECT. AND I ACTUALLY SO WE HAD A STAFF KICKOFF MEETING OF THIS PROJECT SO THAT WAS A STAFF FROM ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LEGAL ENGINEERING POLICE, DIFFERENT DIVISIONS AND DEPARTMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ACTUALLY SAID THAT THEY WILL THEY ARE WILLING TO INCREASE THE LIMITS FOR TRAILERS UP TO EIGHT FEET AND 22FT LONG AND IT WILL BE EASIER FOR THEM TO ENFORCE. SO THAT'S WHY WE CAME UP WITH THAT NUMBER FOR TRAILERS. GOT IT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MR.. JUST AS AN OBSERVATION, I DON'T THINK OUR GOAL SHOULD BE REDUCING VIOLATIONS OR MAKING IT EASIER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TO ENFORCE YOU KNOW, FEWER COMPLAINTS. I THINK WE JUST NEED TO TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT WHAT IS REASONABLE, NOT WHAT IN A PERFECT WORLD EVERYBODY WOULD LIKE. MS. REASON THANK YOU CHAIR. I JUST TO SUMMARIZE I KNOW I SPOKE A LOT BUT I THINK OBVIOUSLY MORE RESTRICTIVE HAS CAUSED CITY STAFF SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES AND JUST HANDING THESE FINES OR WHATEVER OUT UNNECESSARILY ESPECIALLY WHEN NEIGHBORS DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH IT. IF WE WERE TO GO MODERATE AND VERSUS LESS RESTRICTIVE I REFERRED TO DEBATE THE TWO WOULD SAY I THINK IT'S A FOUR FOOT DIFFERENCE, RIGHT? PEOPLE WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE 26 FOOTERS BASICALLY BOX TRUCKS OR WHATEVER. AND SO I WOULD LEAN MORE TOWARDS HAVING LESS RESTRICTIVE. SEEING HOW THAT PLAYS OUT AND IF NEEDED IF IT'S FINE, NO COMPLAINTS. OKAY COOL. WE'RE AT WE'RE IN A PLACE BUT IF IF THERE ARE THEN MAYBE GOING BACK TO MODERATE BUT KEEPING IT OPEN LIKE THAT AND I DO THINK OUR GOAL SHOULD BE TO FOR CITY STAFF TO HAVE MORE RESOURCES AT THEIR DISPOSAL ALSO IF THROUGH HAVING HOW DO I WORD THIS BASICALLY? I THINK UNNECESSARY FINES ARE NOT NECESSARY SO I WOULD DISAGREE WITH THAT. COMMISSIONER, LET'S TURN ON THAT. YEAH. THANK YOU, MR. TUSK. YOU DO THAT. I SEE YOUR HAND THERE. >> OH, NO, I. I CAN I CAN ADDRESS SOME SOME OF THE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES IF YOU WANTED. >> I WAS GOING TO SPEAK UP BUT JUST CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS, I THINK YEAH, OVERSIZE TRAILERS IS PROBABLY PROBABLY THE BIGGEST COMPLAINT AND WE GET TO ENFORCE ON SO THE WAY THE CITY ENFORCES IT IS THROUGH FINES GENERALLY SO YOU'LL GET A SERIES OF NOTICES IF YOU'RE IN VIOLATION AND IT GETS TO A FINE STAGE AND THE FINE FOR GENERALLY HAVING AN OVERSIZE TRAILER IS $250 AND THEN AND ONCE A FINE IS ESTABLISHED AND IF THE VIOLATION CONTINUES IF ENVIRONMENTAL HAS TO DO QUARTERLY FINES SO JUST FROM OUR FROM LEGAL PERSPECTIVE I GUESS IF THERE'S A DIFFERENCE OF FOUR FEET OR A COUPLE OF FEET AND TRAILER LENGTH THAT CAN HELP YOU KNOW THAT DOESN'T HAVE AN APPRECIABLE EFFECT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD ESTHETICS OR PROPERTY VALUES, THINGS LIKE THAT AND IT REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF FINES THE CITY ISSUES I THINK THAT'S A WIN WIN JUST BECAUSE YOU KNOW SOMEONE'S RIGHTS AND FINANCIAL LIVELIHOOD GET YOU KNOW, AFFECTED WHEN WE ENFORCE AND OUR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DOES A GOOD JOB THEY'LL ENFORCE, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S ON THE BOOKS SO I DO THINK IT'S IT'S RELATIVELY A GOOD THING TO TO HAVE LESS FINES OUT THERE IF IT CAN BE BALANCED WITH REASONABILITY LIKE COMMISSIONER MONSTER TALKED ABOUT. SO THIS MY $0.02 ON WHAT I SEE FROM THE ENFORCEMENT SIDE BECAUSE I DO WORK WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AS WELL THANK YOU MR. TUSK. COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU CHAIR COMMISSIONER YOU SAID I AGREE WITH YOUR SENTIMENT THAT BETWEEN 22 AND 26FT IS NOT A HUGE JUMP. BUT I DISAGREE WHEN YOU WERE SAYING OH IF 26 PROVES TO BE TOO LONG WE CAN CHANGE IT BACK. I FEEL LIKE IT'S EASIER TO GROW THAN TO HAVE TO THEN TO CONSTRICT A REQUIREMENT. SO IF THERE IS NO MEASURABLE LOWERING OF THE NUMBER OF TRAILER FINES IF WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH THE MODERATE OPTION THEN YEAH I'D BE IN FAVOR OF GOING TO 26FT BUT IF IF THAT IF IF KEEPING IT AT 22FT ELIMINATES 90% OF THE ISSUES AND A MAJORITY OF THE TICKETS THAT ARE THEN BEING SENT TO OUR YOU KNOW FOR LIKE A 40 FOOT INTERMODAL SHIPPING CONTAINER TRAILER THEN I THINK THAT YOU KNOW WE WANT TO SLOWLY GROW AS OPPOSED TO GROW AND THEN BACKTRACK ON IT FROM A OPTICS IF THIS HAS BEEN FRUSTRATING TO MEMBERS OF THE CITY AS PLANNING MANAGER JOHNSON MENTIONED, I THINK THAT SLOWLY GROWING AS OPPOSED TO GROWING AND THEN CONSTRICTING WOULD BE THE BETTER PATH. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. THANK YOU CHAIR. I THINK TO BUILD ON THAT I THINK ONE OF THE QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE STATE IS AVAILABLE WHEN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ISSUES THE CITATIONS DO THEY INDICATE THE SIZE OF THE TRUCK LIKE IF SOMEONE PARKS A TRUCK DO LIKE WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO GET THE DATA ON HOW MANY OF THE VIOLATIONS WERE ISSUED FOR TRUCKS IN THE 16 TO 20 FOOT RANGE VERSUS HOW MANY WERE IN 20 PLUS? BECAUSE I THINK THAT WOULD BE USEFUL IF IT'S YOU KNOW, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT THE NUMBER OF CITATIONS ISSUED WAS BUT IF IT WAS 70 CITATIONS WERE ISSUED AND 68 OF THEM WERE FOR TRUCKS THAT WERE, YOU KNOW, 18FT LONG, THEN I THINK THAT IS A VERY DIFFERENT CONVERSATION THAN IF IT'S 70 CITATIONS WERESSUED AND 60 OF THEM WERE TRUCKS 26FT OR LONGER. I THINK THAT MIGHT BE USEFUL DATA SINCE THIS IS JUST A STUDY SESSION TO HELP GET TO THE RIGHT POINT MAYBE CHAIR COMMISSIONERS SO I DID ASK ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH FOR THAT DATA. >> I KNOW THE DATA THAT THEY SENT ME DIDN'T HAVE ANY MEASUREMENTS ON THE VEHICLES. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE THAT AVAILABLE OR MAYBE IF KEVIN TUSKY CAN TALK ABOUT IT SINCE HE YOU KNOW, WORKS CLOSELY WITH THE MENTAL HEALTH DIVISION. >> MR. TUSKY IN HIGH CHAIR COMMISSIONERS IT'S GENERALLY THE IT'S AN UP OR DOWN KIND OF YES OR NO QUESTION THEY DON'T TRACK BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GET ON PRIVATE PROPERTY TO MEASURE OBVIOUSLY. SO IT'S KIND OF A GUESSWORK ALMOST AND WE DON'T HAVE ACTUALLY THAT MANY TRAILERS THAT ARE CLOSE TO THE LIMIT. >> A LOT OF THEM ARE THE ENCLOSED TRAILERS ON THE HEIGHT AND THAT'S THE BIG THING WITH THOSE ENCLOSED TRAILERS THAT HAVE A ROOF ON THEM. THE HEIGHT IS ALWAYS THE BIG THING. SO IF THEY'RE YOU KNOW, OVER GENERALLY THEY'RE OVER EIGHT FEET TALL AND THAT'S WHERE THE FINE GETS IN TROUBLE. BUT THEY DON'T TRACK THE THE LENGTH OF THE TRAILER OR THE HEIGHT OF THE TRAILER JUST BECAUSE IT'S TOO HARD TO YOU'D HAVE TO GET ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND DO THAT AND OBVIOUSLY THEY TAKE PICTURES FROM THE ROAD OR WITH THE CONSENT OF THE NEIGHBOR THEY TAKE PICTURES FROM THERE BUT UNLESS SOMEONE WELCOMES YOU ONTO THE PROPERTY FOR A MEASUREMENT IT'S HARD TO GET THAT DATA. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. TUSKY. MR. JOHNSON? NOPE. HE SAID IT. I'M GOOD. VERY GOOD. OTHER FEEDBACK I THINK THIS IS CLEAR AS WE CAN BE. >> OKAY. ON TO THE NEXT QUESTION HOW SHOULD THE ORDINANCE ADDRESS VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH WORK RELATED ATTACHMENTS SUCH A LADDER TOOLBOXES ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT AND SHOULD THOSE ATTACHMENT COUNT TOWARDS VEHICLE HEIGHT AND LENGTH LIMITS? AND I PUT SOME PICTURES AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SLIDE TO SEE HOW YOU KNOW THOSE EQUIPMENTS MIGHT LOOK LIKE FISHER MONSTER JUST A QUESTION IS THERE A STANDARD IN THE CODE NOW FOR HOW VEHICLE HEIGHT IS MEASURED FROM THE GROUND TO SOMETHING I DON'T REMEMBER ON TOP OF MY HEAD? SO I THINK MANAGER MR. JOHNSON SURE CHAIR COACH AND COMMISSIONER MUNSTER THERE IS AND I BELIEVE IT'S FROM THE GROUND UP TO THE TALLEST PERMANENT ATTACHMENT. BUT LET ME GET YOU THE PRECISE AND MAYBE IF WE CAN CIRCLE BACK. >> THANK YOU. THE CHAIR AND CHAIR COMMISSIONERS I HAVE IT PULLED UP SO I CAN IT'S THE HEIGHT OF IT. I'M JUST QUOTING HERE FROM CITY CODE THE HEIGHT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE AS MEASURED FROM THE AS THE VERTICAL DISTANCE BETWEEN THE LOWEST PART OF THE TIRES TO THE TOP OF THE HIGHEST PART OF THE VEHICLE. >> SO THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS RIGHT NOW AND THEN THE LENGTH AS MEASURED AS THE HORIZONTAL DISTANCE BETWEEN THE FRONT AND EDGE OF THE VEHICLE TO THE REAR EDGE OF THE VEHICLE AND THEN IT SAYS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEASUREMENT ACCESSORIES, ATTACHMENTS AND MATERIALS FIXED OR CARRIED UPON A VEHICLE WILL BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE VEHICLE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF AERIAL ANTENNAS AND ATTACHED TRAILERS. SO THERE YOU HAVE IT. SO JUST TO CLARIFY SO THE MORE RESTRICTIVE OPTION THAT WE'RE SEEING ON THE SCREEN IS BASICALLY THE DEFINITION TODAY CORRECT? OKAY. THANK YOU . ANYBODY? MR. WHITE I THINK THE CHALLENGE ABOUT THIS ONE IS WHAT DEFINES PERMANENT. YOU KNOW, I MEAN TECHNICALLY LADDERS CAN BE REMOVED BUT IF THEY'RE ALWAYS THERE I WOULD CONSIDER THEM PERMANENT IF THE YOU KNOW, IN THE PICTURE YOU HAVE HERE YOU HAVE THE TRAILER WITH THE PIECE OF EQUIPMENT ON IT, YOU KNOW GENERALLY I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TRAILER BUT IF THE EQUIPMENT IS ALWAYS ON IT THEN YOU KNOW IT SEEMS UNFAIR NOT TO FACTOR THE EQUIPMENT IN SO THAT THAT'S I THINK THE CHALLENGE OF THIS AND I'M I GUESS I TEND TO THINK THAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE HEIGHT OF THE THE WITH THE THINGS ATTACHED TO IT AND YOU KNOW NOT NOT JUST PRETEND THEY'RE NOT THERE BUT I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY THE DEFINITION OF PERMANENT IF IT CAN BE REMOVED. I KNOW THAT'S A TRICKY ONE PROBABLY MR. MUNSTER THAT'S THE SAME THOUGHT I HAVE. I MEAN MY INCLINATION IS MODERATE OPTION BUT AGAIN WHAT IS PERMANENT? IF WE LOOK AT THE LITTLE PICKUP TRUCK IN THE TOP LEFT CORNER THERE THAT THE BLACK RACK ON THE BACK OF IT CAN BE REMOVED I MEAN NOT ON A DAILY BASIS THAT WOULD BE CRAZY BUT IT COULD BE SO WOULD THAT COUNT AS PERMANENT? SO I THINK WE NEED TO SORT OF KNOW MORE HOW THAT WOULD BE DEFINED OR APPLIED SO THANK YOU CHAIR. I WOULD SAY EITHER WE WOULD TO STICK WITH LIKE MORE RESTRICTIVE OR LESS BECAUSE I THINK THE MIDDLE JUST IS GOING TO BE IT'S TOO SUBJECTIVE OR LIKE THAT WOULD CAUSE DISPUTES. SO THAT'S MY TAKE ESPECIALLY JUST DEPENDS ON THE WAVE. OKAY . SHOULD WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT QUESTION? ALL RIGHT. SO HOW MANY TRAILERS AND WORK RELATED VEHICLES SHOULD BE ALLOWED PARISIENNE PROPERTY? SO CURRENTLY WE ALLOWED FOUR VEHICLES OUTSIDE OUR GARAGE AND ONE TRAILER AND NO COMMERCIAL VEHICLES. WELL, MY VOTE REMAINS ZERO BUT THAT'S AGAIN NOT ON THE CHART HERE. COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU CHAIR. >> MY VOTE WOULD BE ONE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE, ONE TRAILER AND THEN SEE IF WE RUN IT ISSUES I'M JUST I'M THINKING ABOUT A LOT OF THIS IS GOING TO BE AN R ONE ZONING A LOT OF THE LOTS HOUSING IS NOT THE DRIVEWAYS ARE VERY LONG THEY'RE NOT VERY BIG SO I'D I'D BE CAUTIOUS TO GO MORE THAN ONE ONE THANK YOU MISS NORA YOU'RE ALLOWED TO PARK ON ANYWHERE ON THE STREET, RIGHT? LIKE IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE JUST IN GENERAL. LIKE IS THERE ANYTHING PRECLUDING YOU FROM PARKING YOUR WORK TRUCK IN FRONT OF YOUR NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE AND CITY YOUR HOUSE? >> CHAIR COMMISSIONERS SO RIGHT NOW PARKING ON THE STREET IS NOT ALLOWED. YOU CAN ONLY PARK ON YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY OR DRIVEWAY. OKAY? MR. JOHNSON YEAH THANKS AND I'LL JUST CORRECT THE RECORD ON A LITTLE BIT. WE DO HAVE A LOT OF STREETS THAT DO HAVE PARKING RESTRICTIONS SO IT'S A POSTED PARKING RESTRICTION ON SOME STREETS SOME STREETS AND STREET PARKING IS ALLOWED. WE DON'T REGULATE THAT YOU'RE PARKING RIGHT IMMEDIATELY IN FRONT OF YOUR RESIDENCE. IT'S EITHER A NO PARKING CONDITION OR A YES PARKING CONDITION AND THE MAXIMUM LENGTH OF PARKING IS 48 HOURS. SO NO, WE DON'T WE DON'T REGULATE THAT. IT HAS TO BE DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF YOUR RIDENCE. IF THAT WAS THE SPECIFIC QUESTION. YES SIR. HOW DO YOU REALLY REGULATE THE 40 HOURS IF THEY MOVE EVERY EIGHT HOURS LET'S SAY? SURE. YOU SAY IT IS ENFORCEMENT CHALLENGE AND I WOULD SAY THAT FOR THAT REASON THAT PARTICULAR PROVISION TYPICALLY ONLY COMES UP IF A VEHICLE CLEARLY HAS BEEN NOT MOVED FOR A VERY LONG PERIOD OF TIME. TYPICALLY EVIDENCE IN THE WINTERTIME BY SNOW REMOVAL OR OTHER THINGS ALONG THOSE LINES THAT'S WHERE IT MOST OFTEN COMES UP. MR. MOSER JUST A QUESTION A FOLLOW UP ON THE ON STREET PARKING. IT PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE UNDER ZONING. IT SHOULDN'T BE UNDER ZONING. BUT IS THERE A MAXIMUM LENGTH OR SIZE OF A VEHICLE THAT CAN BE PARKED ON THE STREET? YEAH. CHAIR COMMISSIONER MUNSTER I MEAN THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SEEING REFLECTED IN THESE STANDARDS IN EFFECT IS THE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE STANDARDS THAT YOU'RE REVIEWING ALSO APPLY TO PARKING WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY AS WELL. SO SO WE'RE APPLYING OUR ZONING ORDINANCE TO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. THE THE ORDINANCE DOES HAVE A LINKAGE TO THAT PARKING THESE STANDARDS DO APPLY TO PARKING IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. TECHNICALLY THIS IS VERY WONKY BUT THE ZONING DISTRICTS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IT DOES GO TO THE CENTER OF THE RIGHT OF WAY TECHNICALLY. SO YES, THESE STANDARDS DO APPLY TO PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY. SO I'M SURE I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS. HOW DO YOU ENFORCE IT IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHOSE TRUCK THAT IS PARKED IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE? YEAH. CHAIR COMMISSIONER MUNSTER I MEAN I'D WELCOME I'D INVITE KEVIN IN TO SPEAK MORE ON THE ENFORCEMENT SIDE OF THINGS BUT FOR THE MOST PART I THINK IT IS PRETTY CLEAR WHO THE VEHICLE IS TIED TO AND MOST OF THEM I'D SAY THE MAJORITY OF THE CITATIONS OR ORDERS THAT ARE ISSUED IT'S NOT ALWAYS A FINE RIGHT AWAY. I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT. THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH STAFF DOES TRY AND WORK WITH PEOPLE TO GAIN COMPLIANCE BEFORE RESORTING TO A FINE BUT USUALLY IT IS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT THESE VEHICLES ARE BEING PARKED FOR THE MOST PART. AND YOU THINK THAT MR. TUSKY THE CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS SO WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT ENFORCEMENT IT'S GENERALLY THEY'RE SEEING THE STUFF OVER THE OVER LIKE A 40 TO 60 DAY PERIOD. SO IT'S REPEATEDLY THEY COME BY AND SEE THE SAME VEHICLES THAT ARE PARKED OUTSIDE AND GENERALLY IT'S BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH SPACE IN THE DRIVEWAY SO THEY START USING THE STREET OUTSIDE AND THEY HAVE ACCESS TO LOOK UP YOU KNOW, OWNERSHIP THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, LOOK UP SO THEY CAN FIGURE OUT WHO THE VEHICLE BELONGS TO AND STUFF LIKE THAT. >> BUT GENERALLY WHEN YOU'RE SEEING IT TIME AFTER TIME AND YOU'RE SENDING FOR 3 TO 4 WRITTEN NOTICES BEFORE YOU GET TO A FINE, IT'S PRETTY EVIDENT WHAT THE PROBLEM IS AT THAT POINT BECAUSE IT HASN'T CHANGED OR ISN'T GETTING BETTER. SO PEOPLE DO TRY TO PLAY GAMES AND AND MOVE THE CARS AROUND AND STUFF BUT YOU KNOW I SUPPOSE GOOD FOR THEM IF THEY CAN IF THEY CAN FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO THAT BUT GENERALLY THEY'RE RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE OR IN THE DRIVEWAY COMMISSARIES IN THANK YOU CHAIR FOR THIS I WOULD SAY LIKE LOOKING AT OTHER CITIES BECAUSE WE HAD LIKE THAT CITY THING LIST THE CITIES PULLED UP AND AND LIKE CONTACTING THEM AND SEEING WHAT WORKS AND DOESN'T WORK AND THEN TAKING THAT BRING IT IN AND THAT AT LEAST HAS SOME DATA THAT YOU KNOW WE COULD SEE WITHOUT DOING OUR OWN EXPERIMENT. YEAH THEY COULD. MR. BARROSO SOMETHING WE ASKED OTHER CITIES IS WHAT THEY REQUIRE ON ON THIS ITEM. CHAIR COMMISSIONERS WE DID ASK THAT AND I DON'T REMEMBER OUT OF MY HEAD SO IF WE COME BACK FOR PUBLIC HEARING I WILL HAVE THE DATA FOR YOU. GREAT. MR. WHITE NOPE. AND A LOT OF FALSE SIGNALS TONIGHT HERE. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER SUMMERS WITH THE INFORMATION PROVIDED THE MORE RESTRICTIVE OPTION SEEMS LIKE IT WORKS THE BEST FOR ME . OKAY. AND I THINK THIS IS A LAST QUESTION AS SHOULD THE ORDINANCE INCLUDE A SPECIFIC SCREENING OR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAILER AND COMMISSION BE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES OR IS REGULATING THE SIZE AND NUMBER OF VEHICLES SUFFICIENT TO ADDRESS SPECIAL IMPACT? THANK YOU. MR. JOHN TERRY IF I MAY PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT HERE SOME RECREATIONAL VEHICLES DEPENDING ON THEIR PARKED LOCATION DO REQUIRE SCREENING AND SO SOME OF THE SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE'RE ASKING IS TRYING TO DETANGLE OR CAN ADDRESS SOME OF THESE ISSUES OF INCONSISTENT APPLICATION OF OUR RV STANDARDS AND OUR COMMERCIAL VEHICLE STANDARDS. RV IS DO NOT HAVE TO BE SCREENED WHEN BEING USED IN THE SEASON. THE SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS APPLY SO IF IT'S A BOAT FOR EXAMPLE AND IT'S PARKED IN THE DRIVEWAY IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE SCREENED DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME FOR EXAMPLE. BUT IF IT WAS PARKED IN THE SIDE OR REAR YARD IT'S KIND OF THE WINTER STORAGE IN THIS EXAMPLE THEN WOULD REQUIRE SOME SCREENING. I'M NOT TRYING TO STEER US BACK TO RV. I'M DEFINITELY NOT TRYING TO DO THAT BUT JUST TRYING TO GIVE YOU CONTEXT AS TO WHY WE'RE ASKING THE QUESTION. COMMISSIONER MUNSTER I WOULD JUST SAY THANK YOU FOR THAT BECAUSE THAT I WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO ASK ABOUT IF WE COULD FLASH THE RV STANDARDS BACK ON THE SCREEN BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT WHAT IT SHOWED WAS THAT THERE WERE THERE WERE SCREENING REQUIRED JUST FROM I DON'T THINK REQUIRING SCREENING FOR ALL COMMERCIAL VEHICLES ALL THE TIME IS A REASONABLE ASK AT ALL. BUT WOULD IT BE FEASIBLE FROM SORT OF THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION SIDE TO SAY THAT IF IT IS ABOVE A CERTAIN LENGTH OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT THEN THE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS COME INTO PLAY OR IT HAS TO BE BEHIND THE FRONT LINE OF THE HOUSE OR IT HAS TO BE X FEET OFF OF THE YOU KNOW OFF THE PROPERTY LINE OR SOME STANDARD TO TO SAY THAT IF IT'S WAY IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE THAT MIGHT NOT BE THE BEST THING. BUT IF YOU PUSH IT BACK FURTHER THEN WE'RE OKAY WITH THE BIGGER THINGS. BUT AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE IT I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER. I DON'T HAVE A PROPOSAL. IT'S REALLY JUST A QUESTION. MR. VERA, YOU'VE GOT A GRAPHIC UP HERE. MAYBE YOU CAN WALK US THROUGH THIS. YEAH. >> CHAIR COMMISSIONER SO THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF SETBACKS FOR OUR BEES. SO AGAIN, LET ME JUST GO BACK TO THIS SLIDE. SO FOR THE MODERATE OPTION THAT'S WILL WE CURRENTLY HAVE FOUR SETBACKS FOR RB SO IT HAS TO BE FIVE FEET FROM ANY PROPERTY LINE AND AT LEAST TEN FEET FROM ANY SIDEWALK AND AT LEAST 20FT FROM THE BACK SIDE OF ANY STREET CURB. MR. ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. SORRY. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR COOKED AND ONE LAST THING I'LL ADD ABOUT THE SCREENING COMPONENT AND THIS COMES UP FREQUENTLY WITH OUR REVIEWS TOO IS THAT IT'S HARD TO EFFECTIVELY SCREEN TALLER RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AND FOR THAT REASON OUR ACTUAL SCREENING STANDARD FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AS YOU KNOW IT HAS TO BE IT'S BASICALLY 50% OF THE VISIBLE MASSING OF THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE NEEDS TO BE SCREENED. SO UM YEAH I THINK FROM GIVEN THE COST AND THE DIFFICULTY OF THE HEIGHT COMPONENT I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S INFORMING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION NOT TO REQUIRE SCREENING FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES BUT AGAIN JUST GIVEN THE DISPARATE OR THE DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR THESE DIFFERENT SIMILAR SIMILAR TYPES OF VEHICLES WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE WORTH ASKING . COMMISSIONER ISA YEAH I WOULD I WOULD DEFINITELY SAY THE LESS RESTRICTIVE OPTION. YOU KNOW I JUST HAVE WHAT YOU GUYS DID SO THAT'S MY TAKE. THANK YOU. OKAY. WHITE THANK YOU CHAIR. I THINK IT DEPENDS ON THE VEHICLE. FOR ME I THINK IF IT'S A WORK TRUCK IT'S A SMALL TRAILER. IT'S THE, YOU KNOW, TAXICAB KIND OF THING THEN I'M ABSOLUTELY FINE WITH THE LESS RESTRICTIVE OPTION IF WE ACTUALLY GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW FOOD TRUCKS OR BOX VANS OR THINGS LIKE THAT TO BE PARKED IN DRIVEWAYS THEN I THINK I WOULD PROBABLY BE INTERESTED IN EXPLORING SOME SCREENING REQUIREMENTS JUST IN THE INTEREST OF NEIGHBORHOOD PEACE POTENTIALLY. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE RIGHT LEVEL IS BUT I THINK FOR THOSE LARGER VEHICLES I THINK THERE IS SOME ARGUMENT TO BE MADE FOR SOME LEVEL OF SCREENING TO BE EXPLORED . ANYBODY ELSE ? OKAY. OKAY. SO THAT WAS A LAST QUESTION. SO FOR THE PROJECT TIMELINE WE AS I SAID WE DID PULLING ENGAGEMENT FROM JUNE 22ND TO JULY 31ST. WE HAD A STAFF MEETING ON JULY 17TH. WE ARE TONIGHT WITH THE STUDY SESSION. WE ARE GOING TO CITY COUNCIL FOR A STUDY SESSION ON SEPTEMBER 15TH AND IF IT'S DIRECTED BY CITY COUNCIL TO UPDATE THE ORDINANCE WE WILL BE BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. TENTATIVE OCTOBER 9TH AND BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 17TH. AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR FEEDBACK. >> THANK YOU. MR.. WE WILL MOVE THEN TO ITEM NUMBER THREE. ITEM NUMBER THREE THIS EVENING THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON AGAIN IS THE APPLICANT. IT'S REGARDING THE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING PHASE TWO APPLICATION. MR. DAKOTA CASSIDY PLANNING SUPERVISOR HAS THE STAFF REPORT FOR US . GOOD EVENING, MR. CASSIDY. GOOD EVENING, CHAIR IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION. NOW I'M GOING TO JUST GIVE A SOME CONTEXT AND THEN GO THROUGH AGAIN IN ANOTHER STUDY SESSION FORMAT TO TALK ABOUT MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING. SO JUST GIVE A QUICK PROJECT BACKGROUND KIND OF WALK THROUGH THE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING TYPES THAT WE'RE EXPLORING JUST TO KIND OF LEVEL SET FOR EVERYONE. KIND OF TOUCH ON WHY WE'RE WE'RE THINKING ABOUT MISSING MIDDLE AND WHY WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT FOR SO LONG. KIND OF WALK THROUGH THE DIFFERENT POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE DIFFERENT TYPES AND THEN OF COURSE AND WITH SOME GUIDING QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION. SO THE PLANNING DIVISION HAS BEEN KIND OF FORMALLY STUDYING MISSING MIDDLE SINCE LATE 20 TO 2023 AND IT'S KIND OF PAUSED A COUPLE OF TIMES AS WE'VE GONE THROUGH SOME DIFFERENT STAFF TRANSITIONS AND THEN THERE'S BEEN SOME MOVEMENT AT THE STATE AND THE LAST TWO LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS RELATED TO MISSING MIDDLE AND THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT ALSO KIND OF PARSE SOME OF THAT. BUT IN ITS CURRENT ITERATION WE KIND OF BROKE THIS UP INTO TWO PHASES. SO THAT FIRST PHASE WAS ADOPTED BACK IN MAY OF 2025. SO THAT WAS FOCUSED ON MISSING MIDDLE TYPES THAT ARE ALREADY CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN BLOOMINGTON. SO THAT INCLUDED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS OR DUPLEXES AND TOWNHOUSES AND JUST MADE SOME MINOR TWEAKS TO THOSE STANDARDS SO THAT GOT ADOPTION PHASE ONE THEN WHAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT HERE IN PHASE TWO IS FOCUSING ON ESTABLISHING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND DEFINITIONS TO PERMIT NEW HOUSING TYPES IN THE CITY AND THE OVERALL GOAL FOR THIS PROJECT IS TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF MORE KINDS OF HOUSING TYPES IN BLOOMINGTON. SO I'M SURE A LOT OF YOU ARE ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH THIS. I DON'T NEED TO SPEND A TON OF TIME BUT JUST TO KIND OF LEVEL. SO THIS IS A REALLY POPULAR IMAGE IMAGE FROM OPTICAL DESIGN AND THAT KIND OF HIGHLIGHTS WHAT IS MISSING MIDDLE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. IT'S OFTEN SOMETIMES COULD BE REFERRED TO AS GENTLE DENSITY HOUSING OR CLUSTERED HOUSING. IT'S KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE IN THAT IT'S BETWEEN KIND OF DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THOSE 4 OR 5 OVER ONE LARGER APARTMENT COMPLEXES SOMETIMES THAT I GUESS WHY THEY REFER TO IT AS MISSING IS A LOT OF CITIES KIND OF PARTICULARLY IN THE KIND OF POST-WORLD WAR TWO SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT BOOM. A LOT OF THESE HOUSING TYPES WERE EITHER OUTRIGHT PROHIBITED OR IT WAS JUST VERY DIFFICULT TO BUILD IN THE CITY. AND SO YOU JUST DON'T SEE A TON OF PROJECTS THAT ARE IN THIS KIND OF TWO UNITS TILL LIKE 20 UNITS KIND OF IN THIS MIDDLE RANGE. SO JUST KIND OF GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE THERE FOR THIS ORDINANCE AND KIND OF BLOOMINGTON SPECIFIC WHERE WE KIND OF LANDED WAS ON FIVE DIFFERENT MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING TYPES TO PROPOSE INTO OUR CITY CODE. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT TRIPLEXES WHICH ARE THREE UNITS FOR PLEX'S OR FOR UNITS MULTIPLEX IN OUR CASE WE DEFINED AS A SMALLER APARTMENT BUILDING THAT'S BETWEEN 5 AND 16 UNITS DETACHED TOWNHOMES OR VILLAS THAT YOU SEE HERE ESSENTIALLY A SINGLE FAMILY HOME BUT JUST ON A MUCH MORE NARROWER LOT THAN WHAT IS OTHERWISE PERMITTED. AND THEN COTTAGE COURTS WHICH ARE KIND OF SMALLER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ORIENTED AROUND A COMMON OPEN SPACE OR COURTYARD . SO WHY HAVE WE BEEN FOCUSING ON MISSING MIDDLE SO MUCH AT THE CORE IT'S TRYING TO PROVIDE A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES FOR ALL PEOPLE AT ALL DIFFERENT STAGES OF LIFE. THESE HOUSING TYPES ARE COMPATIBLE IN TERMS OF THEIR BULK AND DESIGN ARE MEANT TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND IN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS INCREASING THE PRODUCTION OF HOUSING AND IN PARTICULAR THESE KIND OF SMALLER TYPES OF HOUSING CAN POSITIVELY IMPACT HOUSING AVAILABILITY AND AFFORDABILITY. WE'RE PROVIDING MORE FLEXIBILITY AND CHOICE FOR RESIDENTS THESE TYPES OF HOUSING CAN SUPPORT INFILL OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDE ADDITIONAL HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES BEYOND A STANDARD SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND CAN CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESIDENTS TO AGE IN PLACE IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO TOO MUCH DETAIL HERE BUT MORE JUST LIKE AS AN FII THAT THE IN THE 24 AND 2025 LEGISLATIVE SESSION THERE'S BEEN KIND OF A NUMBER OF BILLS RELATED TO INCREASING HOUSING SUPPLY IN MINNESOTA FROM THE STATE AND A LOT OF THOSE WE'RE REALLY KIND OF REGULATING AND REQUIRING YOU MUNICIPALITIES TO REALLY KIND OF REDUCE OR CREATE MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THEIR ZONING CODE, IN THEIR STANDARDS TO PROMOTE PRODUCTION OF HOUSING AND IN PARTICULAR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SO THAT WE CAN IF PEOPLE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THOSE WE CAN CERTAINLY TALK ABOUT IT. BUT I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF HIGHLIGHT FOR SOME CONTEXT THAT THINGS HAVE BEEN HAPPENING AT THE STATE AND HOW WE'RE KIND OF APPROACHING THAT. AS YOU KNOW IT'S KIND OF UNPREDICTABLE WHAT MAY HAPPEN INTO 2026. BUT IMAGINE THESE CONVERSATIONS WILL CONTINUE AT THE STATE LEVEL BUT WE WANT TO JUST KEEP WORKING ON THIS PROJECT AND TRY TO PROACTIVELY PLAN FOR SOME OF THAT AS BEST AS WE CAN KNOWING THAT THINGS MIGHT CHANGE AT THE STATE LEVEL TO KIND OF WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ZONING CODE CAN PERFORMANCE STANDARDS TYPICAL THINGS THAT WE'RE WE'RE LOOKING AT OUR SETBACKS, OUR DENSITY THRESHOLDS FOR AREA SITE AREA BUILDING HEIGHT PARKING ANY KIND OF OPEN SPACE OR LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT OR SOME KIND OF MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE. SO THESE ARE THINGS AGAIN THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIND THAT RIGHT BALANCE OF MAKING SURE THAT SOMETHING ISN'T TOO EXTREME, THAT IT MAKES IT THEN DIFFICULT FOR SOMEONE TO CONSTRUCT HOUSING. AND SO IT'S DEFINITELY A BALANCE AND SOME OF THESE THINGS BUT IF THEY'RE NOT TWEAKED THE RIGHT WAY CAN CREATE A BARRIER TO HOUSING. AND I JUST ALSO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ZONING IS JUST KIND OF ONE PIECE OF THE PUZZLE I WOULD ARGUE IS KIND OF, YOU KNOW, YOUR FIRST STEP AND ESSENTIAL PIECE IF WE DON'T PERMIT SOMETHING IT CAN'T BE BUILT. BUT ONCE YOU THEN KIND OF GET THROUGH THE ZONING AND ALLOW THESE TYPES OF HOUSING TO BE PERMITTED, THERE'S STILL A NUMBER OF FACTORS THAT KIND OF COME INTO PLAY AROUND HOUSING PRODUCTION. SO AVAILABILITY OF PROJECT FINANCING, CONSTRUCTION COST AVAILABILITY OF SKILLED LABOR AND CONSTRUCTION WORKERS TO CONSTRUCT THE HOUSING DEVELOPER INTEREST AND CAPACITY AVAILABILITY OF LAND INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY AND BUILDING CODE STANDARDS ALL KIND OF COME INTO PLAY AND ARE ALL THOSE PIECES TO HOUSING PRODUCTION THE TYPES THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY WE WOULD PRIMARILY BE ALLOWED IN LAND THAT'S GATED AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OR MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. SO THIS IS JUST A MAP OF ALL THE CURRENT LAND. AND IN BLOOMINGTON RIGHT NOW THAT'S GUIDED THAT WAY IN OUR 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THEN IN THIS CURRENT KIND OF STAFF PROPOSAL WHICH WAS KIND OF BASED ON SOME PREVIOUS FEEDBACK FROM STUDY SESSIONS THERE IS MAYBE SOME HESITANCY TO ALLOW SOME OF THESE HOUSING TYPES IN OUR ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND SO THEN WE WERE FOCUSING ON OUR THREE OUR FOUR AND OUR M 12 ZONING DISTRICTS TO KIND OF BE THESE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING DISTRICTS. AND I GUESS WHAT I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT IS THAT YOU CAN SEE THERE'S NOT A TON OF LAND THAT'S CURRENTLY ZONED IN THESE DISTRICTS AND MOST OF THIS IS ALREADY CURRENTLY DEVELOPED OR HAS PROPOSALS TO BE DEVELOPED. I'M JUST YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE IT ON THIS MAP. THERE'S ONLY LIKE ONE PARCEL RIGHT NOW IN THE CITY THAT ZONED R THREE THAT'S THAT PEN LAKE CITY HOME SITE ON 86TH AND PEN JUST AS AN EXAMPLE. SO ONE OF THE THINGS IN KIND OF IN SOME OF OUR GUIDING QUESTIONS AND AND WE'RE STAFF HAS BEEN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE TO LAND YOU KNOW ONE OF THE CHALLENGES OF ONLY ALLOWING IT IN THESE ZONING DISTRICTS IS THAT IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE SOME KIND OF REZONING ZONING ENTITLEMENT PROCESS TO ALLOW THESE. AND SO THAT'S A HIGHLY DISCRETIONARY APPLICATION AND THERE'S A HIGHER COST TO THAT APPLICATION AND AND SO THAT COULD IMPACT OR LIMIT PEOPLE THAT ARE MAYBE WERE INTERESTED IN THAT BUT DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS. SO AGAIN JUST KIND OF SOME OF THOSE CONSIDERATIONS OR TRADEOFFS TO KIND OF CONSIDER TONIGHT ON THIS BUT JUST WANTED SOME CONTEXT ON THOSE CURRENT ZONES IN THE CITY AND THEN I GUESS I JUST WANTED TO WALK THROUGH I'M KIND OF OUR PROPOSED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS I WOULD SAY WHERE THESE PROPOSED STANDARDS ARE AGAIN TO JUST GIVE SOME EXAMPLES TO KIND OF SH WHAT THIS WOULD LOOK LIKE AND THERE'S CERTAINLY NOT FINAL I WOULD SAY A LOT OF THESE KIND OF YOU'LL SEE IN SOME OF THE QUESTIONS AGAIN WE TRY TO OFFER LIKE A SPECTRUM OF OPTIONS. I WOULD SAY WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE IS KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE WHERE I GUESS OUR STAFF RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO NOT GO MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THIS BUT ARE DEFINITELY OPEN IF FOR MORE FLEXIBILITY. BUT AGAIN JUST WANTED TO KIND OF WALK THROUGH IT A LITTLE BIT HERE. SO IN IN THIS KIND OF CURRENT PROPOSAL WE WERE DEFINING TRIPLEXES AGAIN AS A SINGLE STRUCTURE THAT CONTAINS THREE UNITS. WE PROPOSE THOSE TO BE PERMITTED IN THE OUR THREE ZONING DISTRICT HOW WE PROPOSED SHALLOWER SETBACKS THAN WHAT IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN OUR 3 OR 4 IN ROOM 12 ZONING DISTRICTS AGAIN AS A KIND OF TRADE OFF TO CAN JUST MAKE LAND MORE AVAILABLE AND CREATE MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THIS KIND OF HOUSING. THERE'S ALSO A PROPOSAL TO REDUCE THE SITE AREA IN OUR THREE FROM 20,000FT TO 17,500FT. I GUESS THE RATIONALE OR THE MATH THAT WE DID THERE IS BASICALLY IF YOU BUILT A TRIPLEX ON A 17,500 SQUARE FOOT LOT, YOU GET PRETTY CLOSE TO 12 UNITS AN ACRE WHICH IS THE KIND OF THE CAP DENSITY FOR THAT ZONING DISTRICT AND THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL KIND OF GATED LAND HAS A 12 UNIT PER ACRE CAP. SO BASICALLY LIKE JUST DOING SOME QUICK BACK OF THE ENVELOPE MATH KIND OF SEE WHERE WE COULD TWEAK THAT HEIGHT AS KIND OF IT'S REGULATED BY OUR HEIGHT MAP AND THAT IS A SEPARATE PROJECT ON OUR WORK PLAN THIS YEAR AS WELL. SO YOU'LL ACTUALLY HAVE A STUDY SESSION KIND OF NEXT MONTH RELATED TO THAT. SO SOME OPPORTUNITIES THERE. I THINK THE MAIN CONCERN FOR STAFF THAT WE WANT TO ADDRESS THROUGH THE HEIGHT MAP PROJECT IS THAT THERE ARE SOME AREAS IN THE CITY THAT ARE GUIDED THAT MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OR MDR BUT ARE LIMITED TO TWO STOREYS OR 40FT IN OUR HEIGHT MAP WHICH IS KIND OF THREE STORIES 50FT IS KIND OF THE MORE I GUESS TRADITIONAL STANDARD THAT WE HAVE FOR SOME OF OUR MEDIUM AND HIGHER DENSITY PROPERTIES . SO JUST WANTING TO FIND SOME ALIGNMENT THERE ON THAT. SO BUT THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THREE STORIES HERE JUST KIND OF BASED ON IN GENERAL OUR THREE WOULD BE GUIDED THAT WAY . WE ALSO LIMIT OR REGULATE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE BY OUR ZONING DISTRICTS SO THAT 70% IS JUST WHAT THE STANDARD IS IN OUR THREE. ONE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE HAD I GUESS IS THE TRADEOFF OF A LOT OF THESE PROJECTS WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A REZONING PROCESS WAS THAT AS LONG AS THE THE SITE PLAN, THE BUILDING ITSELF OR CODE COMPLYING THAT THAT APPROVAL COULD BE DONE THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE FINAL SITE AND BUILDING PLAN AND THEN OF COURSE IF IT NEEDED FLEXIBILITY THAT GOES THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL PROCESS IN A SIMILAR WAY IT WOULD STILL REQUIRE TO GO THROUGH OUR LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING STANDARDS BUT NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRING THE LIKE FORMAL PLAN THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE BY A LAY LIGHTING CONTRACTOR AND A LANDSCAPING CONTRACTOR AGAIN AS JUST MAYBE ANOTHER TRADEOFF TO KIND OF HELP REDUCE THE COST ONHE APPLICATION FOR THE FOR THE PROJECT AND THEN THE FINAL PROBABLY THE BIG THING THAT WILL BE PART OF THE DISCUSSION AS RELATES TO PARKING HERE STAFF WAS PROPOSING TWO SPACES PER DWELLING WHICH IS MATCHES OUR SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND DUPLEX STANDARD WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT WE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY REQUIRE AN ENCLOSED SPACE IN A GARAGE. AGAIN SOME OF THAT WAS TO THINK ABOUT IF WE'RE GOING TO REQUIRE A GARAGE YOU'RE LIKELY GOING TO SEE MORE OF THIS KIND OF SIDE BY SIDE DESIGN WHICH ESSENTIALLY KIND OF WILL LOOK LIKE A TOWNHOME KIND OF DESIGN WHICH MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY WORK ON EVERY SITE OR EVERY INFILL OPPORTUNITY. SO IF THERE IS A WAY TO NOT REQUIRE A GARAGE, THE THOUGHT WAS THAT MAYBE THAT CREATES SOME MORE OPPORTUNITIES WHERE YOU GET A DESIGN LIKE THIS WHERE YOU HAVE KIND OF TWO UNITS ON THE BOTTOM AND ONE ABOVE AND JUST GIVES MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THE DESIGN AND TWO TO THE SITE CONTEXT. THAT BEING SAID LIKE WE WOULD STILL HAVE THE STANDARDS THAT YOU KNOW IT HAS TO BE SOME KIND OF IMPROVED SURFACE. THERE'S CURB AND GUTTER YOU'LL HAVE LANDSCAPING IN THOSE KINDS OF THINGS TO HELP I GUESS BUFFER THE SITE OF OF PARKED VEHICLES FOURPLEX AS WE KIND OF TREATED IN A VERY SIMILAR WAY. I THINK THE MAIN DIFFERENCE HERE IS THAT THEY'D ALSO BE ALLOWED IN OUR FOUR DISTRICTS. I DON'T WANT TO SPEND TOO MUCH TIME THERE BUT JUST SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT THAT CAN LOOK LIKE AND KIND OF THROUGHOUT THIS ARE KIND OF TREATED BASICALLY TRIPLEXES AND FOURPLEX IS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME. I GUESS ONE OF THE OTHER CHALLENGES OR THINGS TO THAT THAT STAFF HAS BEEN TRYING TO THINK ABOUT WITH THESE STANDARDS IS THAT WHERE YOU SEE A LOT OF CITIES THAT ARE DOING THIS WORK OR MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE URBAN IN CONTEXT AND HAVE THE BENEFIT OF HAVING MORE ALLEYS WHERE YOU CAN HAVE AN ALLEY LOADED STRUCTURE TO PROVIDE THAT PARKING OR GARAGE AND THEN HAVE LESS IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. AND SO WE DO HAVE SOME AREAS IN EAST BLOOMINGTON THAT DO HAVE ALLEYS WHERE YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET A DESIGN THAT WAY. BUT FOR THE MOST PART PROJECTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE IN BLOOMINGTON ARE PROBABLY GOING TO BE MORE OF THIS FRONT LOADED DESIGN WHERE IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE THE DRIVEWAY TO RUN ALONG THE LENGTH OF THE BUILDING TO GET TO THE PARKING WHICH INCREASES IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ON THE LOT WHICH THEN MIGHT LIMIT KIND OF THE DESIGN OR SIZE OF THE BUILDING IF IF YOU HAVE A PARKING REQUIREMENTS OR JUST AGAIN ONCE YOU THERE'S A LOT OF NUANCE AND ONCE YOU KIND OF GET IN THE DETAILS THERE'S LIKE A LOT OF LITTLE THINGS TO KIND OF THINK ABOUT OUR MULTIPLEXES AGAIN WE WERE KIND OF THINKING ABOUT THIS IN A WAY OF KIND OF 50 OR 5 TO 16 UNITS. I THINK THERE'S FLEXIBILITY THERE THAT WAS JUST KIND OF LOOKING AT OTHER CITIES AND HOW THEY DEFINED IT KIND OF WHERE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THAT 15 AND 20 UNIT MAXIMUM RANGE I THINK ORIGINALLY WE THOUGHT MAYBE LIKE 19 UNITS WOULD BE THE CAP BECAUSE THEN OUR OPPORTUNITY HOUSING ORDINANCE KIND OF COMES INTO EFFECT ONCE THERE'S 20 OR MORE UNITS AND IF THESE PROJECTS DON'T REALLY PENCIL OUT TO BEGIN WITH IT'S PROBABLY EVEN FAR MORE LESS LIKELY THAT THEY'D BE BUILT ONCE THAT KIND OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENT OR REQUIREMENT IS THERE. SO BUT AGAIN KIND OF SOME SOME FLEXIBILITY ON WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. BUT THESE ARE JUST SOME EXAMPLES OF LIKE THERE'S AN ONE IS AN EXISTING EIGHT UNIT MULTIPLEX IN BLOOMINGTON THAT WOULD KIND OF FALL UNDER THIS DEFINITION AND THE OTHER IS AN EXAMPLE OF OF A SIX PLEX THAT WAS BUILT IN THE REGION. I GUESS THE MAIN DIFFERENCE HERE THIS WOULD BE AN HOUR FOR AN HOUR AND 12 AND THEN FOR THE PARKING STANDARD INSTEAD OF THE TWO SPACES PER UNIT WE JUST FOLLOWED THE CURRENT MULTIPLE MULTIPLE FAMILY STANDARD WHERE IT'S KIND OF MORE BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE BEDROOM. PARKING IS ALSO ANOTHER PROJECT THAT'S ON OUR 2025 WORK PLAN SO THERE WILL BE MORE DISCUSSION ON ON PARKING AS WELL. SO YOU KNOW THERE COULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY IF WE SET SOME STANDARDS THROUGH THE MISSING MIDDLE ORDINANCE. YOU KNOW WE COULD ALWAYS TWEAK THAT OR THERE'S ANOTHER CHANCE TO KIND OF LOOK AT THAT TOO. SO YOU KNOW, KIND OF I THINK DEPENDING ON THE DISCUSSION MAYBE DEPENDS ON WHAT PROJECT IT FALLS UNDER. BUT I GUESS ALL THAT TO SAY THAT THERE'LL BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK MORE ABOUT PARKING AS WELL AND JUST MAKING SURE THERE'S ALIGNMENT ON THOSE THOSE TWO PROJECTS FOR MULTIPLEXES. WE DID PROPOSE THAT IT WOULD GO THROUGH A FINAL SITE AND BUILDING PLAN REVIEW THAT WOULD GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN IF IT AGAIN REQUESTED FLEXIBILITY OR DIDN'T MEET A CODE STANDARD THEN THAT GOES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW BUT THEN IT GOES TO THE COUNCIL KIND OF FOR THE FINAL ACTION COTTAGE COURTS I WOULD SAY HERE THE TWO KIND OF DEFINING FACTORS ARE THAT THE THERE'S KIND OF INTENTIONALLY A MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA TO ENSURE THAT THESE ARE SMALLER UNITS KIND OF MORE LIKE COTTAGES. SO IN THIS CASE WE WERE PROPOSING 1500 SQUARE FEET. BUT YOU KNOW LOOKING AT OTHER CITIES, SOME OF THEM LIMIT IT TO 800 OR 900FT. SO THAT'S ONE KIND OF KEY FEATURE. AND THEN THE OTHER IS THAT IT'S ORIENTED AROUND A COMMON OPEN SPACE OR COURTYARD. SO THE IMAGE ON THE KIND OF UPPER RIGHT HERE KIND OF JUST GIVES YOU AN EXAMPLE OR A CONCEPT OF HOW YOU COULD SEE SOMEONE KIND OF REDEVELOPING WHAT WAS TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOTS AND COULD SOME COULD GET A KIND OF 6 OR 7 UNIT COTTAGE DEVELOPMENT AND I JUST PUT A NOTE ON HERE JUST DOING SOME QUICK MATH ON SOME OF OUR DIFFERENT MINIMUM LOT SIZES. IT WOULD MY GUESS IS WHAT YOU'D PROBABLY SEE TYPICALLY IS LIKE 3 TO 7 COTTAGES AS WELL. YOU COULD PROBABLY GET YOU KNOW AGAIN KIND OF DEPENDING ON THE THE LOT SIZE AND THEN THAT KIND OF 12 UNIT PER ACRE DENSITY THRESHOLD COMES INTO PLAY THAT WILL BE THE THE FACTOR THERE. THIS WAS ONE THAT WE DID PROPOSE TO BE PERMITTED IN OUR ONE JUST BECAUSE THE DESIGN OF IT IS REALLY MEANT TO BE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AGAIN IT'S JUST KIND OF INSTEAD OF ORIENTED TOWARDS THE STREET IT'S ORIENTED TOWARDS A COURTYARD. I THINK THERE WAS LIKE SOME PREVIOUS NOTES FROM OTHER STUDY SESSIONS THAT THERE WAS AN OPENNESS TO ALLOW TOWNHOUSES AS AN R-1 AND I GUESS FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE THERE'S NOT REALLY THAT MUCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE COTTAGE COURTS AND DETACHED TOWNHOMES FROM ATTACHED TOWNHOMES. AND SO IF THERE WAS OPENNESS TO ALLOWING TOWNHOMES IN OUR ONE WE WANTED TO PROPOSE ALLOWING THESE IN OUR ONE THINK HERE IS THE PARKING WE'D PROPOSE ONE SPACE PER UNIT AND I GUESS THE REASON THERE WAS JUST BECAUSE THESE ARE MEANT TO BE INTENTIONALLY SMALLER UNITS THE IDEAS THAT MAYBE THE PEOPLE LIVING THERE WILL HAVE LESS VEHICLES OF COURSE WE CAN'T CONTROL THAT OF WHO'S GOING TO LIVE IN THERE. BUT I THINK THE IDEA IS THAT THIS IS MEANT TO KIND OF BE MORE FOR MAYBE SOMEONE AGING IN PLACE IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD WANTING TO DOWNSIZE AS AN EMPTY NESTER DOWNSIZING THEY MIGHT JUST HAVE LESS VEHICLES OR A NEED FOR PARKING AND THEN FINALLY THE DETACHED TOWNHOMES OR VILLAS HERE AGAIN THEY'RE KIND OF I GUESS THE DEFINING FEATURES. THEY'RE BASICALLY A SINGLE FAMILY HOME BUT THEY'RE JUST ON A NARROWER LOT THAN WHAT WE WOULD CURRENTLY ALLOW. SO A LOT OF CITIES WHERE YOU SEE THESE DEVELOPMENTS ARE DONE THROUGH A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KIND OF PROCESS WHERE THEY KIND OF GET GRANTED ALL OF THOSE FLEXIBILITIES FROM SETBACKS AND MINIMUM LOT AREAS AND THINGS AND WE DON'T REALLY HAVE THAT IN BLOOMINGTON. WE HAVE OUR PLAN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY BUT THERE'S STILL SOME LIMITS EVEN ON HOW THE FLEXIBILITY THAT WE CAN GRANT THAT JUST KIND OF CREATES A A CHALLENGE AND SO THE IMAGE ON THE TOP HERE IS ACTUALLY THE EXAMPLE OF A DETACHED TOWNHOME PROPOSAL ALL THAT SOMEONE HAS FOR BLOOMINGTON. BUT WE ULTIMATELY KIND OF MADE A DETERMINATION THAT IT DOESN'T MEET OUR CURRENT SINGLE FAMILY STANDARDS BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW YOU NEED THE 70 800 SQUARE FOOT LOT. IT HAS TO BE ORIENTED TOWARDS THE STREET. THOSE ARE THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. SO IT'S MEANT TO KIND OF CREATE A MORE FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT HERE. I THINK THE KEY THING AGAIN WE WOULD PROPOSE TO ALLOW THESE IN OUR ONE AND KIND OF FOLLOWING SITE AREA ALL THOSE THINGS ARE KIND OF REGULATED BY THE ZONING DISTRICT SO THERE ISN'T REALLY A TON OF CHANGES THERE PARKING ON THIS ONE WE DID SEE TWO SPACES PER UNIT AND AT LEAST ONE OF THEM ENCLOSED. I GUESS THE REASON WHY WE SAID ENCLOSED ON THIS ONE AND OTHER ONES IS I THINK KIND OF THE MARKET FOR THESE WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO BE PROPOSED TYPICALLY HAVE A GARAGE LIKE MOST ATTACHED TOWNHOME PROPOSALS LIKE HAVE SOME KIND OF GARAGE JUST IN THEIR DESIGN SEEMS TO BE KIND OF MORE STANDARD ON ON WHAT THEY ARE BUT YOU KNOW CERTAINLY OPEN TO THAT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING ELSE THERE BUT THAT WAS JUST KIND OF STAFF'S RATIONALE FOR THAT. AND AGAIN THIS WOULD GO THROUGH FINAL SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL OR IF A NEEDED FLEXIBILITY WOULD GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL. SO I THINK WITH THAT I WANT TO JUST PAUSE IF THERE'S ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS AND WAS A LOT OF INFORMATION AND THEN I HAVE SOME GUIDED QUESTIONS HERE AS WELL. SO ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER? MR.. I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION ON SO YOU SAID THAT THE SORT OF THE LOGIC ON COMING UP WITH SOME OF THE UNIT COUNTS AND MINIMUM SIZED LOTS WENT TO THOSE 12 UNITS PER ACRE SORT OF STANDARD OF THE OF THE UNDERLYING PLAN WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO ESSENTIALLY TREATING THE THREE PLEX A FOURPLEX IN THE MULTIPLEX ALL THE SAME AND JUST APPLYING THE 12 UNITS PER ACRE STANDARD AND HOWEVER MANY UNITS FIT ON THE LOT WITH ALL OF OUR OTHER REQUIREMENTS THEN THAT'S WHAT YOU GET? YEAH. CHAIR CAPTAIN. COMMISSIONER MUNSTER YEAH. YEAH WE DID THINK ABOUT THAT I THINK I GUESS WHY I USE THE EXAMPLE OF THE TRIPLEX WAS JUST ASSUMING THAT'S KIND OF LIKE THE SMALLEST PRODUCT THAT WOULD BE BUILT AND THEN HOW WHAT'S THAT LIKE KIND OF MAXIMUM NUMBER I GUESS YOU CAN GET IT WAS WHERE WE LANDED ON THE 17,500 BUT I GUESS YEAH THAT IS I GUESS I DON'T KNOW LIKE IF THAT'S CERTAINLY AN OPTION TO WHERE LIKE IT DOESN'T WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO HAVE THAT STANDARD BECAUSE THERE ARE GOING TO BE SO MANY THINGS THAT ALREADY KIND OF CONTROL THAT OR IN WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET SO I DON'T THINK I'M REALLY ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION BUT I GUESS I WAS CERTAINLY OPEN JUST THE OUR TREATING IT ALL THE SAME AND THEN YEAH THE DENSITY THRESHOLD IS JUST GOING TO KIND OF LIMIT WHAT YOU GET THERE CERTAINLY AS POSSIBLE OR THAT'S THE OPTION TO. MR. JOHNSON YEAH THANKS TO YOUR AND I CAN ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE TO TO THAT AND YOU KNOW A PREVIOUS STUDY SESSIONS WE'VE GONE THROUGH A COUPLE OF STUDY SESSIONS HERE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL AND ONE OF THEM WHERE WE WERE DOING SOME OF THIS LEVEL SETTING THERE WAS A CLEAR DISTINCTION IN TERMS OF THE DIRECTION WE INITIALLY RECEIVED THAT TWO UNITS ON OUR ONE LOT FELT COMFORTABLE IT WAS A PRODUCT OR A THAT BLOOMINGTON WAS USED TO IN THAT FELT CONFIDENTLY WORKED IN A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRONMENT AND SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT'S INFORMING SOME OF THE USE ALLOWANCES IN TERMS OF SOME OF THESE OTHER DISTRICTS IS THERE'S A POINT OF DEMARCATION FROM 2 TO 3 UNITS. STAFF TOOK THAT DIRECTION ALTHOUGH AS DAKOTA PRESENTED AGAIN THE CHALLENGE WITH THAT IS THAT ANY PROJECT THAT'S SEEKING A TRIPLEX ARE ABOVE THEN IS GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH A REZONING PROCESS WHICH FOR SMALLER PROJECTS IS A SIGNIFICANT BARRIER TO MOVING FORWARD. SO THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT INFORMED SOME OF THAT. I MEAN WE DEFINITELY OUR JOB IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ZONING ALLOWANCES ARE COMPLIANT WITH THE COMP PLAN AND SO THAT'S WHAT'S KIND OF WHAT THE CODE IS PRESENTING TO YOU HERE. WE'VE DEFINITELY HAVE SOME MORE OPENNESS TO ALLOWING SOME OF THESE OTHER USE TYPES IN THE R ONE IF YOU WANT TO SEE THIS HOUSING PRODUCT, THIS HOUSING TYPE BUILT IN BLOOMINGTON AND THAT'S A GETTING TO THE POINT AROUND BARRIERS BUT IT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION. I THINK WHAT IT'S TIED TO IS WHAT IS THE SCALE, WHAT IS THE MASSING, WHAT IS KIND OF THE THE HOW DOES THAT LEVEL OF DENSITY OR MASS FEEL IN A LOW DENSITY ENVIRONMENT AND YOU'RE GOING TO GET DIFFERENT ANSWERS FROM DIFFERENT PEOPLE ON THAT, THAT'S FOR SURE. COMMISSIONER. MR.. JUST AS A FOLLOW UP TO THAT AND I DON'T WANT TO I DON'T WANT TO DRAG OUR ONE INTO THE MIX BECAUSE HE I SORT OF LOOKED AT THE HISTORY AND THAT'S THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT THING. BUT IN TERMS OF WHAT'S ALLOWED IN THE R THREE VERSUS WHAT'S ALLOWED IN THE R THREE IN THE R FOUR VERSUS WHAT'S ALLOWED IN THE R FOUR VERSUS THE R M 12 TO JUST SAY OKAY 12 UNITS PER ACRE AND I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT THERE'S NOT MUCH LAND THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT THAT ANY OF THIS APPLIES TO BUT IT'S JUST YOU KNOW, IT'S A QUESTION THAT IF YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE AN R FOUR LOT THAT UNDER 12 UNITS AN ACRE WOULD FIT SIX OR I GUESS THAT'S A BAD EXAMPLE BECAUSE YOU COULD DO THAT BUT YOU KNOW WHEN WE'RE IN OUR THREE LOT LET'S SAY THAT WOULD HAPPEN TO PROVIDE YOU THE DENSITY TO FIT SIX UNITS. IS THERE NECESSARILY A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIMITING IT TO THREE AND LETTING IT BE SIX IF THAT'S WHAT THE PLAN ALLOWS? SURE. YEAH. AND I GUESS THE WAY I'D RESPOND TO THAT IS I THINK THE VALUE IN CREATING THESE DIFFERENT USE TYPES IS THEN YOU CAN APPLY DIFFERENT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS TO THEM. SO IF YOU KNOW A MULTI A THREE UNIT MULTIPLEX IT WOULD JUST BE A TRIPLEX BUT YOU KNOW A FIVE UNIT MULTIPLEX VERSUS A QUAD OR A TRIPLEX. THE CHARACTERISTICS ARE FAIRLY SIMILAR BUT 18 UNIT MULTIPLEX OBVIOUSLY THE CHARACTERISTICS ARE QUITE A BIT DIFFERENT AND SO THAT'S KIND OF THE CHALLENGE THERE IS WHERE DO YOU DRAW THESE LINES AND WHAT IS THE SCALE, THE IMPACT? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE GET TO THE GATED QUESTIONS BRUCE RIZZO MIGHT HAVE TO TAKE YOUR CHAIR MIGHT HAVE TO THE GUY QUESTIONS BUT SINCE WE'RE HERE, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE IF THE PARKING OVER PEOPLE ACT WERE TO PASS HOW DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD AFFECT LIKE FRONT LOADED VERSUS ALLEY LOADED DILEMMA OR NOT DILEMMA BUT YOU KNOW SURE YEAH YEAH CHAIR COOKED IN COMMISSIONER YOU SAY YEAH I GUESS SO THAT THE PEOPLE OVER PARKING ACT WAS ONE THAT WAS GOING TO INTRODUCED IN THE LEGISLATURE THIS LAST SESSION AND AND REALLY WHAT IT SAYS IS IF IF IT WOULD PASS OR LIKE THAT THE I GUESS THE ITERATION THAT'S THERE WOULD JUST SAY THAT THIS MUNICIPALITIES CAN'T ACTUALLY IMPOSE A MINIMUM PARKING MANDATE FOR ANY RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY. SO IF IF THAT WERE TO PASS AND THAT WITH THAT LANGUAGE BASICALLY THEN THE OUR FIRST GATED QUESTION HERE ON WHAT THE PARKING STANDARD SHOULD BE IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE WE CAN'T REGULATE A PARKING STANDARD. SO IT'S JUST KIND OF MORE OF A MARKET DRIVEN DECISION THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD CHOOSE. THEY DON'T HAVE TO BUILD PARKING BUT MAYBE THEY STILL WANT TO TO MAKE IT MARKETABLE TO A TO RENT OUT OR TO TO LEASE. BUT YEAH WE JUST AS A CITY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO LIKE SET A STANDARD YEAH OKAY I THINK WE'RE READY FOR THE GUIDED QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT SO YEAH THE FIRST ONE JUST RELATES TO TWO PARKING SO I GUESS JUST ANY FEEDBACK OR DIRECTION ON WHAT YOU THINK AN APPROPRIATE PARKING STANDARD IS AND HERE IN THIS CASE I KIND OF COMBINED TRIPLEX FOURPLEX MULTIPLEX COTTAGE COURTS AS ONE AND THEN DETACHED AS ANOTHER I WOULD SAY OH LIKE KIND OF WHAT'S PROPOSED HERE BY STAFF IS KIND OF THAT OPTION C OR AGAIN KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE. SO WE'RE KIND OF GOING WITH THE TWO SPACES PER UNIT OR OUR CURRENT MULTIFAMILY STANDARD WITH NO GARAGE REQUIREMENT. YOU KNOW SORT OF KIND OF FEEDBACK ON DO YOU LIKE THAT YOU WANT IT LAST, DO YOU WANT A GARAGE? ANY ANY FEEDBACK IS HELPFUL. MR. CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU CHAIR I'M LEANING KIND OF TOWARDS OPTION B AT LEAST FOR TRY FOR MULTIPLEXES AND COTTAGE COURTS. I THINK THAT HAVING SOMETHING IN THE CODE ABOUT NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRING BUT MAYBE ASSISTING WITH EASE OF COVERED PARKING SINCE WE GET A LOT OF SNOW MAYBE SOME SORT OF LESS STRICT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR ESSENTIALLY CARPORTS. I THINK MY SISTER MY SISTER LIVES IN A I WOULD SAY A HYBRID BETWEEN A COTTAGE COURT AND A DETACHED TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT IN BOULDER AND SHE HAS ONE GARAGE SPACE AND THEN ONE COVERED SPACE AND IT INTEGRATES WITH THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING REALLY NICELY AND I THINK IT FITS WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUT STILL ALLOWS THEM THEIR OWN TWO CARS AND SO I THINK THAT ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO HELP COVERED PARKING TO EASE RISK TO RESIDENTS WITH SNOW REMOVAL AND JUST ISSUES WITH PLOWING WOULD BE HELPFUL AND THE DETACHED TOWNHOMES I THINK THAT GARAGE JUST KIND OF NATURALLY COME BUT I'D BE INTERESTED TO HEAR WHAT OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE TO SAY THANK YOU GERSHUNI JUST TO BUILD ON THAT I THINK I'M IT'S I HAVE BEEN PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION TO TOWNHOUSES RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I'M CURRENTLY LOOKING FOR ONE AND I DO THINK THAT A HUGE MARKET WHEN I LOOK AT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LOOKING IN THIS GETS TO THE MISSING MIDDLE IS PEOPLE WHO ARE DOWNSIZING OLDER PEOPLE WHERE THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO CARS IS A LITTLE BIT LOWER THAN IT IS IN OTHER PEOPLE. SO SO I DEFINITELY THINK ONE SPACE PER UNIT AS A REQUIREMENT IS SUFFICIENT. I THINK THE DEVELOPERS DEPENDING ON THE PRICE POINT TO IS MORE LIKELY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO CHOOSE TO BUILD FOR MARKETABILITY. BUT I DON'T THINK THE REQUIREMENT NEEDS TO BE AT TWO. SO I GUESS I WOULD SAY I LEAN TOWARDS TOWARDS B ALSO AND FOR THE SAME THING FOR SAME REASONS THAT COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM SAID BUT FOR SPECIFICALLY FOR DETACHED TOWNHOUSES I WOULD SAY REQUIREMENT OF ONLY ONE SPOT. THANK YOU. I TOO AM LIKING OPTION B THE MOST I THINK OPTION IS JUST TOO AGGRESSIVE FOR LIKE A FOURPLEX I THINK I DON'T THINK WE'RE READY FOR THAT BUT I'M OKAY WITH OPTION B IS A MINIMUM IN THE MARKET WILL DETERMINE IF THEY WANT TO ADD MORE SPACES THAN THAT OR NOT BUT AS A REQUIREMENT I'M IN FAVOR OF OPTION B SINCE I'M NOT SEEING SOME HEAD NODS I THINK WE'RE GOOD THERE. ALL RIGHT, MR. CUNNINGHAM. EXCUSE ME. APOLOGIES FOR DOUBLE DIPPING ON THIS QUESTION. I THINK THAT HAVING AN AT A CERTAIN THRESHOLD OF SIZE I THINK HAVING DEDICATED GUEST PARKING OR JUST ADDITIONAL PARKING BEYOND ONE LIKE 1.25 MIGHT BE BENEFICIAL FOR THE RESIDENTS LONG TERM. JUST I THOUGHT THANK YOU THANKS FOR THE THROW MY I GUESS A VOTE OUT THERE AS WELL. THANK YOU CHAIR I WOULD SAY OPTION A AND LET THE MARKET SIDE SO THAT'S GOOD. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT AND THEN YEAH THE SECOND QUESTION HERE IS KIND OF WHAT ZONING DISTRICTS SHOULD THEY BE PERMITTED? SO AGAIN KIND OF OUR WHAT'S HERE PROPOSED IS KIND OF THAT OPTION C OF JUST FOCUSING ON OUR 3 OR 4 OUR M 12 SO IF YOU KIND OF WHAT YOU FEEL THERE AND THEN IF YOU THINK SHOULD CERTAIN TYPES BE PERMITTED IN R ONE OR NOT AND AND I GUESS MAYBE I CAN FOR KIND OF I GUESS FOR OPTION A THERE WHEN I SAY LIKE LIMITED SLASH UNIQUE STANDARDS SO THAT HOUSING TYPE I GUESS I'M THINKING FOR A FOURPLEX FOR EXAMPLE IF IT WAS ALLOWED IN R ONE IT WOULD HAVE LIKE THAT 20 FOOT SETBACK THAT'S PROPOSED VERSUS LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME RIGHT NOW HAS A 30 FOOT SETBACK. SO I GUESS THAT'S KIND OF WHAT OPTION IS GETTING OUR OPTION B WOULD BE IF YOU ARE OKAY WITH IT AN R ONE BUT AS LONG AS IT FOLLOWS THE SETBACKS AND KIND OF THE STANDARDS OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT THAT'S GETTING AT. IF THERE WAS MAYBE JUST TO CLARIFY. MR. CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU CHAIR A POINT OF ORDER QUESTION DOES R ONE ENCOMPASS THE R. S ONE ZONING DISTRICT OR IS THAT TOTALLY SEPARATE? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR BEFORE MAKING ANY COMMENT. YEAH. YEP. CHAIR CAPTAIN. COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM THAT IS SEPARATE. SO YEAH THERE'S THE RS1 ZONING DISTRICT AND THEN LIKE R1A THOSE ARE NOT INCLUDED HERE WE'RE JUST FOCUSING ON R ONE. THANK YOU. SO YEAH, JUST A QUESTION. THANK YOU CHAIR WHEN YOU SAY YOU MIGHT HAVE STATED THIS BUT JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT DOES IT MEAN SPECIFICALLY OR WHAT DO YOU MEAN SPECIFICALLY WITH STANDARDS THAT MATCH LIKE FOR EXAMPLE OPTION B BASICALLY YEP. YEAH. SO CHAIR KICKED IN COMMISSIONER YOU SAY PROBABLY SOME OF THOSE KEY STANDARDS I'M THINKING ARE LIKE SETBACK AND HEIGHT ARE PROBABLY THE KEY ONES SO WE KIND OF PROPOSED LIKE A 20 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE STREET SO THAT WOULD KIND OF BE OPTION A AND OUR ONE OPTION B IS SAYING THE SETBACK HAS TO FOLLOW THE STANDARD FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME. SO IN THIS CASE IT'S A 30 FOOT SETBACK FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME FROM THE STREET. SO THAT'S KIND OF LIKE THE MAIN DIFFERENCE THERE OR AND THEN THE HEIGHT FOR EXAMPLE LIKE OUR ONE CURRENTLY IT'S TWO STORIES OR 40FT SO THAT WOULD KIND OF BE OPTION B AND THEN OPTION A WOULD BE YOU'RE OKAY WITH THEM IN R ONE BUT THEN YOU'RE ALSO OKAY IF IT'S LIKE 33 STORIES OR 50FT KIND OF IS THERE I WOULD SAY GOODBYE TO PROBABLY BIG DIFFERENCES THERE BUT BASICALLY ARE YOU OKAY WITH A SHALLOWER SETBA AND A TALLER STRUCTURE IN R ONE OR DO YOU WANT THEM TO MEET THE THE BULK AND SETBACK STANDARDS OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN R ONE IS KIND OF IF THAT'S HELPFUL OKAY SO IT WOULD THESE LIKE IF IT WERE TO BE ALLOWED THEY TRIPLEXES FOR PLACES COTTAGE COURTS IT WOULD BE IN UNISON IN TERMS OF SETBACKS WITH THE EXISTING R-1 RIGHT SINGLE FAMILY ZONING YEP YEP. DOESN'T THAT KIND OF LIKE DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF LIKE THE I GUESS A PURPOSE OF MIDDLE YOU KNOW STRUCTURALLY IT'S STILL MM. MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING BUT LIKE IN TERMS OF I GUESS THE LOOKS OF IT BUT I DON'T THAT'S A QUESTION I GUESS MAYBE IT'S SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT BUT YEAH YEAH I GUESS JUST CHAIR CAPTAIN COMMISSIONER YOU SAY YEAH I THINK A LOT OF THIS IS KIND OF RELATIVE TO HOW PEOPLE FEEL OR WHEN YOU LOOK AT SOMETHING I THINK YEAH IT'S JUST A MATTER OF OPINION I GUESS WHEN I SEE A YOU KNOW FOR THIS EXAMPLE LIKE DO I THINK THAT TWO STOREY TRIPLEX IS ALL THAT DIFFERENT THAN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME? I DON'T BUT THAT'S NOT HOW EVERYONE FEELS. SO I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHERE SOME OF THAT IS COMING FROM AND LIKE OUR ONE LIKE IF I IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH IT IN OUR ONE DO YOU WANT IT TO KIND OF BE AT THE SAME LIKE SETBACKS AND THINGS OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR ARE YOU OKAY WITH THEM BEING A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE STREET POTENTIALLY A LITTLE BIT TALLER THAN THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME? SO I THINK IT'S KIND OF RELATIVE VISUALLY THEY THANK YOU. CHAIR THIS IS A TECHNICAL QUESTION JUST TO BACK UP TO BASIC SAME UNDERSTANDING. SO IN THIS MODEL ARE WE TALKING TRIPLEXES FOURPLEX IS THREE DIFFERENT OWNERS, NOT ONE OWNER RENTING OUT ALL THREE UNITS? THAT'S QUESTION ONE. IF THE ANSWER IS YES IT'S THREE SEPARATELY DEEDED PROPERTIES YES THEN I'M WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF OPTION A OR B IF IT IS OPTION IF IT IS ONE PROPERTY OWNED AND THEN RENTED OUT THEN I WOULD SAY I WOULD ADVOCATE FOR EASING INTO THIS A LITTLE. I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A TOUGH SELL IN CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS AND I THINK THAT I'D BE MORE CAUTIOUS IF IT WAS LAND SPECIFICALLY PREDOMINANTLY LANDLORD BASED. I SAY THIS HAVING LIVED IN CHICAGO FOR A LONG TIME THOSE ARE TWO VERY, VERY DIFFERENT WAYS OF BOTH EXIST IN LARGE NUMBERS IN THE CITY AND THEY OFFER A VERY DIFFERENT FLAVOR FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IF YOU HAVE OWNER OCCUPIED FOR EACH UNIT VERSUS RENTAL PROPERTIES PREDOMINANTLY RENT OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN'T COMPLETELY CONTROL YOU KNOW SOMEONE COULD BUY ALL THREE I GET THAT. BUT YEAH YEAH. CHAIR COOKED IN COMMISSIONER LANIER YEAH I WOULD SAY FOR ANY OF THESE TYPES I DO THINK THERE'S A POSSIBILITY WHERE THEY COULD BE ALL OWNER OCCUPIED OR RENTED I GUESS JUST FOR A TRIPLEX FOR AN EXAMPLE. I KNOW I GUESS I DON'T KNOW MAYBE IN BLOOMINGTON BUT THERE'S PROBABLY A CASE WHERE YOU CAN KIND OF ESSENTIALLY LIKE A CONDO KIND OF STYLE SUBDIVISION OF A TRIPLEX OR IT COULD BE THE CASE WHERE MAYBE SOMEONE BUYS THE TRIPLEX AND LIVES IN ONE OF THE UNITS AND THEN RENTS OUT TWO OF THE UNITS KIND OF SAME FOR FOURPLEX IS COTTAGE COURTS. I THINK THERE'S EXAMPLES OF BOTH WHERE THEY'VE EITHER BEEN SIMILAR TO A TOWNHOUSE WHERE THE EACH COTTAGE IS ON ITS OWN INDIVIDUAL LOT AND OWNER OCCUPIED AND THEN THERE'S SOME KIND OF YOU KNOW HOA OR SOMETHING THAT'S KIND OF TAKING CARE OF THAT COMMON SPACE OR THE COURTYARD AND THEN DETACHED TOWNHOMES I THINK IS KIND OF SIMILAR TO TO THAT WHERE IT COULD BE THERE COULD BE AN INDIVIDUAL LOTS WHERE THEY ARE OWNER OCCUPIED BUT THEY COULD ALSO ALL BE RENTALS. SO I THINK THERE'S OPTIONS FOR BOTH AND IT YEAH IT'S A LITTLE HARD FOR US TO KIND OF REGULATE SOME OF THAT OR KNOW WHAT EXACTLY IS GOING TO COME FROM THOSE TYPES. YEAH YEAH THERE'S A GOOD GOOD QUESTION YEAH. MR. CASSIDY AM I RIGHT THAT ATTACHED TOWNHOMES ARE NOT ALLOWED IN R-1 ONE TODAY IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH. CHAIR COOKED IN THAT IS CORRECT. I BELIEVE THEY ARE THREE AND R FOUR IS THAT PART OF THIS TO OPEN THAT UP TO REGULAR TOWNHOUSES IS TO BE AVAILABLE IN OUR ONE YEAH CHAIR COOKED IN THAT IS CORRECT I THINK THAT WAS PART OF THE CONSIDERATION I GUESS PLANNING MANAGER JUST SAID AS WE ATTACHED NO OKAY THAT IS NOT CHAIR SORRY GO AHEAD MR. CHAIR KIRKTON YEAH. SO NO THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY BEING CONSIDERED AS PART OF THIS IN EFFECT YOU KNOW A TRIPLEX OR ACQUIRED DEPENDING ON IT'S CONFIGURATION OR ARRANGEMENT IS A FORM OF IT IS SIMILAR TO AN ATTACHED TOWNHOME CERTAINLY BUT NO THAT WAS NOT ONE OF THE MISSING MIDDLE TYPES BECAUSE THE CITY ALREADY HAS STANDARDS FOR TOWNHOMES. IT WASN'T A MISSING METAL TYPE THAT WE EXPLORED I BELIEVE EXTENSIVELY AT OUR PREVIOUS STUDY SESSIONS PEOPLE WERE INTERESTED AND DETACHED TOWNHOMES OR VILLA HOMES BECAUSE THAT IS BECOMING AN INCREASINGLY POPULAR OR PRODUCT TYPE OF INTEREST PARTICULARLY FOR OLDER RESIDENTS. YEAH I WOULD SAY YEAH. SO I GUESS IT'S NOT IN THIS PROPOSAL NOW BUT I GUESS IF THE DIRECTION WAS THAT WE WOULD ALLOW DETACHED TOWNHOUSES OR COTTAGE COURTS IN OUR ONE I THINK AND FOLKS WERE COMFORTABLE WE CAN CERTAINLY I WOULD SAY PUT ATTACHED TOWNHOUSES IN THE ENTIRE ONE AS PART OF THE PROJECT BUT IT'S NOT A PART OF THIS LIKE SCOPE RIGHT NOW IS JUST TRYING TO FOCUS ON THE I GUESS THE NEW TYPES THAT WE WERE ESTABLISHING THERE. YEAH I THINK THAT SOME LIMITS YEAH. THANK YOU MR. CASSIDY THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M AT IF WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW DETACHED IN R1I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULDN'T ALLOW ATTACHED AN R WHEN I GUESS THEY'RE A LITTLE DIFFERENT BUT NOT FOR ME. I THINK IT'S THE SAME IN GENERAL I'M IN FAVOR OF OPTION A HERE BUT JUST TAKING A STEP BACK A LITTLE BIT AND I IT'S NOT THE SPECIFIC QUESTION BEING ASKED TO US BUT THE COTTAGE COURT'S OBVIOUS I DON'T KNOW IF BLOOMINGTON IS READY FOR COTTAGE COURTS. THAT TO ME IS DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT THAN A DETACHED TOWNHOME. I THINK FOR ME WHEN THE HOUSE IS FACING THE STREET THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A HOW DO I SAY IT? BUT I THINK YOU'RE MORE CONVINCED TO KEEP HER PROPERTY A LITTLE NICER WHEN EVERYBODY'S LOOKING AT IT BUT WHEN IT'S KIND OF TUCKED IN THERE I DON'T KNOW THE LESS EYES ON THE HOUSE, LESS EYES ON I DON'T KNOW. I JUST PERSONALLY I WOULD TAKE COLLEGE COURSE OUT OF THIS WHOLE THING AND I'M REALLY AGGRESSIVE ON INTENSIFYING HOUSING AND EVERYTHING BUT FOR ME I'VE NEVER QUITE GOTTEN THERE WITH COTTAGE COURT SO I'M IN FAVOR OF OPTION A BUT FOR ME I WOULD STROKE COTTAGE COURTS COMPLETELY. I KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO DO MISSING MIDDLE. I'M IN FAVOR OF ALL THE MISSING MIDDLE STUFF BUT COTTAGE COURTS I'M NOT THERE YET WAS RESET YEAH I WOULD AGREE WITH OPTION A BUT I WOULD DISAGREE AND I WOULD WANT TO SEE COTTAGE COURTS. YEAH AND IT'S EASIER BECAUSE YOU'RE CUTTING YOU I THINK OPTION B IS MAYBE A BETTER APPROACH IN MY OPINION CLEARLY JUST PURELY BECAUSE OF THE A I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO DESCRIBE IT. THE OVERALL ESTHETIC OF A NEIGHBORHOOD TO MATCH THE LIKE I'M FINE WITH IT BEING IN OUR ONE I LIVE IN R ONE I'M FINE I'D BE HAPPY TO HAVE THIS I HAVE A DUPLEX GOING UP RIGHT DOWN THE STREET FROM MY HOUSE PRETTY EXCITED. IT'S A REALLY BEAUTIFUL BUILDING BUT I THINK KEEPING WITH THE MASSING AND LOOK AND CHARACTER OF A NEIGHBORHOOD IS IMPORTANT AS WE DENSIFY TO NOT HAVE KIND OF A HODGEPODGE OF DIFFERENT BUILDING TYPES SETBACKS HEIGHTS THE OVERALL SQUARE FOOTAGE IS THINGS ALONG THOSE LINES. SO FOR THAT REASON I'M IN FAVOR OF OPTION B BUT INTERESTED TO HEAR EVERYONE ELSE'S OPINION. MR. SUMMERS I THINK THAT OH THANK YOU CHAIR FOR THE MOST PART I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM. I THINK ANOTHER ASPECT OF OPTION B THAT I'M THINKING ABOUT IS DO WE AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS IS DO WE THINK THAT A LOT OF CONTRACTORS MIGHT SEEK TO ADJUST OR AMEND WHAT THEIR SPECIFIC BUILDING TYPE LIKE WOULD THEY WOULD WE CONSISTENTLY HAVE PROPOSALS IN FRONT OF US PUSHING US TOWARDS OPTION A BECAUSE AS CONTRACTORS AND BUILDERS WERE SAYING THAT THE STANDARDS OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES DON'T MATCH THE BUILDINGS THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO BUILD BECAUSE I THINK IF WE ARE GOING TOWARDS OPTION B AND THINKING WE MIGHT BE CREATING A LOT OF EXTRA WORK, IS THAT IDEAL OR IS IT ENOUGH OF A DETERRENT BECAUSE IT'S ANNOYING TO DO THAT? MM HMM. YEAH, MAYBE I GUESS YEAH. CHAIR CAPTAIN COMMISSIONER SUMMERS I GUESS. YEAH. ONE ONE THAT COMES TO MIND ON THAT I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IMPORTANT THING TO THINK ABOUT IF THAT WERE THE CASE I THINK WHEN THEY MEET WITH STAFF WE WOULD CERTAINLY FIRST LIKE ENCOURAGE THEM TO TRY TO MAKE THAT STANDARDORK SO THEY WOULDN'T NEED FLEXIBILITY. BUT THEN I GUESS THEY COULD TRY TO DO LIKE A PD OVERLAY AND GET FLEXIBILITY. ANOTHER OPTION IS LIKE MAYBE DEPENDING ON THE SITE AND ITS LOCATION MAYBE THAT IS A CANDIDATE TO ARIZONA TO OUR THREE I KNOW WE JUST TALKED ABOUT LIKE DON'T WANT TO NECESSARILY HAVE THEM GO THROUGH A MORE DISCRETIONARY PROCESS BUT LIKE THAT COULD BE ANOTHER WAY OF MAYBE IF IT DOESN'T QUITE WORK IN OUR ONE MAYBE THERE IS A WAY THEY'RE KIND OF REZONE IT OR THREE THAT'S SOMETHING LIKE WE CAN TALK WITH APPLICANTS AND KIND OF HELP THEM WEIGH OUT THOSE OPTIONS TO SEE WHAT MAKES SENSE FOR THEM. BUT YEAH, WE'D CERTAINLY FIRST WANT TO JUST ENCOURAGE THEM TO MEET THE THE STANDARD AND MAKE IT WORK GOOD YOU'RE CUTTING IT I, I WORK FOR A DEVELOPER AND HAVE TEN YEARS EXPERIENCE AS A COMMERCIAL GENERAL CONTRACTOR SO DEFINITELY IN THAT CASE YOU'D WOULD WORK WITH THE CITY BUT IF THERE'S A WAY TO INCREASE DENSITY TO LOWER YOUR PER UNIT COST A PRIVATE DEVELOPER WOULD DO THAT TO DRIVE MORE REVENUE. AND SO THAT'S WHY I'M I'M MORE CAUTIOUS ABOUT OPTION A BECAUSE I WOULD MAX OUT THE LOT IF I COULD. >> SORRY COLLEAGUES IN THE INDUSTRY THAT ARE WATCHING THIS FROM ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON QUESTION NUMBER TWO COMMISSIONER WAIT I THINK THERE'S A NUMBER OF CHALLENGES WITH THIS IDEA OF ALLOWING IT AN R ONE AND THE SIZE OF THE LOT AND I THINK I THINK WITH TRIPLEXES AND FOURPLEX IT'S A LITTLE EASIER TO BLEND. IT'S A LITTLE EASIER TO GO WITH OPTION B, I THINK IT'S IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO GO WITH OPTION B BECAUSE THEY FIT INTO THE LOTS A LITTLE BIT BETTER THAT YOU KNOW I KNOW WE'RE ALSO TALKING RIGHT NOW ABOUT A FAIRLY LOW NUMBER OF SPOTS IN THE CITY BUT IF IT IS A PERMITTED USE IN R ONE THAT OPENS UP THE POTENTIAL FOR YOU KNOW AS HOMES AGE OUT AND ARE REPLACED, YOU KNOW FOR THIS TO BECOME A MORE COMMON WAY TO YOU KNOW, ONCE A HOUSE IS READY TO GO REPLACE IT WITH SOMETHING THAT HAS MORE DENSITY THE COTTAGE COURTS IN THE DETACHED TOWNHOMES, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE JUST SO DIFFERENT IN CHARACTER FROM A SINGLE HOME, A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT I THINK YOU ALMOST HAVE TO GO WITH AN OPTION AND THOSE CASES IN ORDER TO MAKE THEM WORK. SO I GUESS I'M A LITTLE BIT LIKE OPTION B FOR TRIPLEXES AND FOR PLEXUS AN OPTION FOR COTTAGE COURTS AND DETACHED TOWNHOMES. I AGREE. I'M NOT SURE THE BLOOMINGTON'S THERE ON THE COTTAGE COURTS BUT I'M OPEN TO SOMEBODY CONVINCING ME THEY'VE GOT A GOOD PLAN FOR IT SO YOU KNOW I DON'T WANT TO CLOSE THE DOOR ON THAT SO THAT'S MY THOUGHT. MR. CUNNINGHAM SO YOU HAVE COMMISSIONER WHITE A CLARIFYING QUESTION ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU'RE FINE WITH ALL OF THESE USES BEING IN OUR ONE? I THINK SO. I HAVE TO LOOK AT THE MAPS AGAIN TO BE ABSOLUTELY SURE. BUT I THINK IN CONCEPT I'M OKAY WITH IT. I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, A BIG DETACHED TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT BEING INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT AGAIN IT'S IS THERE SPACE FOR IT? YOU KNOW, I MEAN I THINK THAT'S THE YOU KNOW, THAT'S ULTIMATELY WHAT IT'S GOING TO COME DOWN TO. I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN THERE IS CERTAINLY ALWAYS THAT FEAR OF OUR DEVELOPERS GOING TO START BUYING UP PERFECTLY GOOD SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES AND TEARING THEM DOWN TO PUT IN, YOU KNOW, COTTAGE COURTS OR DETACHED TOWNHOMES BECAUSE THEY CAN MAKE MORE MONEY OFF OF THEM. I DO HAVE THOSE CONCERNS BUT I ALSO WE NEED MORE DENSITY AND WE NEED MORE HOUSING AND WE NEED MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SO MAYBE THAT'S NOT AN ENTIRELY BAD THING. THANK YOU. WITH THAT THATAID, I AM WORRIED ABOUT I LIKE THE IDEA OF COTTAGE COURTS. I REALIZE THAT THERE I DON'T KNOW I'VE SEEN THEM IN A LOT OF PLANNING ARTICLES OVER THE YEARS. I HAVEN'T SEEN A LOT OF THEM BUILT BUT I LIKE THE IDEA AND YOU SEE A LOT OF TOWN HOMES TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENTS GOING INTO AREAS YOU KNOW WITH KIND OF TARGETED DENSITY. I WORRY ABOUT HAVING THEM BE A PERMITTED USE IN OUR ONE CONDITIONAL TOTALLY FINE WITH BUT PERMITTED BEING A CONCERN WHERE YOU KNOW YOU JUST REPLANT TWO LOTS AND THEN YOU HAVE ENOUGH SPACE TO BUILD IT WITHOUT THE REZONING EFFORT. JUST WONDER IF THAT THE REASON CHECK AND BALANCE WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT THE CITY WOULD WANT TO HOLD ON TO KNOWING THAT MISSING MIDDLE IS IS A YOU KNOW, A CRITICAL ISSUE FOR THE CITY. WE NEED MORE HOUSING. SO THANK YOU. YEAH I THINK YOU KNOW IF THERE'S ONE THING I'VE LEARNED IN MY FIVE IS AROUND THIS COMMISSION IS THAT PEOPLE GET WE GET THE MOST PUBLIC TESTIMONY WHEN SOMETHING IS RIGHT NEXT TO SOMEBODY'S HOUSE. YOU KNOW, WE CAN PUT UP AN APARTMENT TOWER AS TALL AS WE WANT AND NOBODY CARES BUT IF YOU PUT SOMETHING NEXT TO SOMEONE'S HOME THAT'S WHEN THEY REALLY GET INTERESTED AND THAT'S MY CONCERN AT THE COTTAGE COURTS IS AS A CONCEPT I'M I THINK IT'S GREAT BUT MAN I JUST THINK IF YOU PUT THIS IN IN OUR ONE'S OWN NEXT TO SOMEBODY'S HOUSE I THINK THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY COULD BE EXPLOSIVE IF WE GOT LIKE EIGHT HOUSES NEXT TO SOMEBODY SINGLE FAMILY HOME I THINK YOU COULD HAVE A RIOT IN HERE AND I JUST I AM WORRIED ABOUT ALLOWING THAT IN R-1 I COULD GET THERE IN OUR 3 OR 4 BUT I WORRY ABOUT COTTAGE COURTS IN OUR ONE AND YOUR THOUGHTS COMMISSIONER MOSER OKAY. I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT COMPLICATED. I THINK SO. I MEAN JUST AGAIN SORT OF LOOKING AT THE HISTORY OF THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION, THERE DOESN'T REALLY SEEM TO BE THE APPETITE TO BRING TRIPLEXES AND FOURPLEX INTO R ONE. SO I MEAN I THINK THERE I'M ON OPTION C AND I ALSO SHARE THE CHAIRMAN'S CONCERN ABOUT COTTAGE COURTS THOSE ARE I HAVE SEEN THOSE DEVELOPED NOT RECENTLY THEY'RE OLDER ONES AND THEY THEY DO SORT OF BECOME SORT OF THIS INSULAR SITUATION THAT ISN'T THE BEST FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD. HOWEVER I WOULD I WOULD GO WITH OPTION A ON DETACHED TOWNHOMES SO THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHTS. I THINK THAT'S FAIR. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS, COMMISSIONER ISSA JUST TO ASK AS FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND CHAIR THANK YOU CHAIR IS ALL THE WHAT ISSUES DO YOU GUYS THINK THE COTTAGE COURTS WOULD BRING? IS IT JUST LIKE MORE TRAFFIC, MORE NOISE, MORE LIKE INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS COMING IN AND LIKE BUYING UP LOTS KIND OF LIKE MAYBE YOU'LL DO IT FOR ME I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A POTENTIAL NUISANCE CHARACTERISTICS WHETHER IT BE JUST UPKEEP OF THE YARD OR YOU KNOW LIKE A A GATHERING OF PEOPLE THAT THEY'RE KIND OF TUCKED IN THERE AND SO THE PUBLIC ISN'T ABLE TO KIND OF BE WITH THEM AND JUST SORT OF THE SELF-POLICING NESS OF A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE YOU'RE RIGHT NEXT TO SOMEBODY'S HOUSE WHEN IT'S KIND OF TUCKED BACK THERE ARE THERE ARE MULTIPLE THINGS BACK THERE THAT YOU CAN'T QUITE SEE OR THAT YOU YOU DON'T HAVE GREAT EYES ON. I THINK THERE'S JUST A A LESSENING OF PERSONAL SAFETY WITH THAT IS JUST MY EXPERIENCE BUT IT'S JUST MY OWN THOUGHT ON IT, YOU KNOW AND I, I THINK THAT'S PART OF IT FOR ME AND AGAIN I THINK I COULD GET THERE WITH THE COUCH COORDINATOR 3 OR 4 ARE ONE IS WHAT CONCERNS ME BUT THEN I THINK ABOUT WHAT ARE 3 OR 4 I'D RATHER JUST HAVE AN APARTMENT BUILDING. I MEAN IT'S WAY MORE DENSE TO HAVE AN APARTMENT BUILDING SO I'D RATHER JUST HAVE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING THAN A COTTAGE COURT IF WE'RE GOING FOR 3 OR 4. COMMISSIONER MOSER AND IF I JUST MAY FOLLOW UP PLEASE YOUR QUESTION WHAT I'VE SEEN IS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE CHAIRMAN SAID THAT SORT OF FROM A MAINTENANCE PERSPECTIVE WHEN IT'S EVERYBODY'S JOB IT'S NOBODY'S JOB. SO THINGS JUST DON'T GET DONE. THINGS DON'T GET KEPT UP AND ALSO DEPENDING ON THE DESIGN OF IT YOU END UP WITH A HUGE PROBLEM WITH WITH EYES ON THE STREET THAT IF YOU HAVE A BUILDING IN THE FRONT AND THEN SORT OF THINGS AROUND THE BACK YOU HAVE THE SORT OF INTERNAL COURTYARD THAT PEOPLE DON'T NECESSARILY FEEL SAFE IN THE RIGHT I MEAN IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR DENSITY JUST PUT UP APARTMENTS YOU'RE NOT REALLY GOING TO GET ANY ADDITIONAL BENEFIT WITH THE COTTAGE COURT VERSUS JUST BUILDING AN APARTMENT, DON'T YOU THINK? THANK YOU BOTH FOR THAT INSIGHT AND YOUR THOUGHTS ON QUESTION TWO COMMISSIONER SUMMERS I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WITH SHOULD CERTAIN TYPES BE PERMITTED IN OUR ONE OR NOT THAT I'M THINKING ABOUT IS ARE THERE A LOT OF PARCELS THAT COULD BE PURCHASED ON THEIR OWN AND TURNED INTO A TRIPLEX? SO I'M THINKING ABOUT THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR TO MINE IS PURCHASED AND IS TURNED INTO A TRIPLEX IS THAT SOMETHING THAT COULD HAPPEN? I FEEL LIKE IT'S DIFFERENT IF SOMEONE HAS TO BUY MULTIPLE PARCELS BECAUSE THAT'S KIND OF A WAITING GAME FOR AN INVESTOR BUT THAT THERE WOULD POTENTIALLY BE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO NEIGHBORHOODS AND NEIGHBORS WOULD COME HERE TO TALK ABOUT IT IF THEY WERE LIKE THERE'S A FOURPLEX MOVING IN NEXT DOOR AND IT FEELS IT FEELS CLOSE. YEAH. CHAIR CAPTAIN. COMMISSIONER SUMMERS YEAH, I CAN DEFINITELY KIND OF DIG INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT AND HAVE THAT IF AT THE NEXT STUDY SESSION OR PUBLIC HEARING I WOULD JUST SAY IN GENERAL LIKE KIND OF WHAT'S GOING TO COME INTO PLAY SO SAY FOR AN INTERIOR LOT WE CURRENTLY HAVE 70 800FT AS THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IF YOU'D ALLOW THIS IN OUR ONE IN THEORY IF YOU HAD A 70 800 SQUARE FOOT LOT YOU COULD PUT A TRIPLEX. BUT THEN THE CAVEAT IS IT'S STILL GOT TO MEET THE SETBACKS AND THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AND THEN YOU HAVE THAT 12 UNITS AN ACRE KIND OF CALCULATION. AND SO I THINK IT HAS TO BE MORE THAN 70 800FT TO GET THAT I DON'T KNOW THE MATH OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD VOTE TO DO LIKE THE QUICK SO LIKE 3000 LIKE 600 SOMETHING PER UNIT I THINK AT THAT LIKE 12 UNITS AN ACRE. SO IN THEORY YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST PROBABLY 10,000 OR MORE SQUARE FOOT LOT BUT THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE POSSIBLE IF THEY COULD MEET SETBACKS AND THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TOO. SO IT'S KIND OF IT'S A LOT OF A LOT OF MATH AND LIKE KIND OF WEIGHING OUT THE DIFFERENT STANDARDS. YEAH. ANYTHING TO ADD? MR. JONES? NO, I THINK HE HIT IT VERY GOOD. SO YEAH, I JUST A QUESTION THANK YOU CHAIR IS SO FOR LIKE COTTAGE COURTS I KNOW YOU BROUGHT UP THE POTENTIAL FOR THINGS TO BE HAD AND LIKE CERTAIN STANDARDS NOT TO BE. MY QUESTION BASICALLY IS WOULD THE CITY WOULD STILL APPLY THE SAME STANDARDS IN TERMS OF LIKE ESTHETICS FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM BUT YOU KNOW LIKE BUSHES, THINGS LIKE THAT MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS NICE AND CUTE. YEAH. YEAH. CHAIR CAPTAIN COMMISSIONER YOU SAY YEAH WE WOULD PROPOSE THAT THAT THESE FOLLOW OUR LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS LIKE LIKE TOWNHOMES AND OTHER MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES THERE'D BE LIGHTING STANDARDS FOR FOR PARKING THAT'S GOT TO BE CURBED AND THINGS I THINK WHERE THE UNIQUENESS OF THE COTTAGE COURT THEN IS SOME OF THOSE ADDITIONAL STANDARDS THAT IT WASN'T IN THIS THIS PACKET BECAUSE THERE'S JUST ALREADY SO MUCH HERE. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS WE WERE KIND OF THINKING ABOUT IS LIKE THAT THE COURT ITSELF LIKE KIND OF HAS TO LIKE FACE THE STREET OR THERE HAS TO BE AN OPENING FROM THE STREET TO SEE INTO THE COURTYARD AND THEN ALL OF THE HOUSES DO HAVE TO LIKE FRONT THE COURTYARD IN SOME WAY AND AGAIN IT'S KIND OF A BALANCE OF SOME OF THOSE THINGS SERVE A GOOD PURPOSE TO DO THAT. BUT THEN DOES IT KIND OF LIMIT WHAT SOMEONE MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO ON THE LOT AND KIND OF WEIGHING THOSE THINGS? SO THERE DEFINITELY BE STANDARDS I GUESS JUST IN GENERAL THAT IT STILL HAS TO MEET ALL OF OUR STANDARDS NOW AND THEN THERE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL STANDARDS KIND OF AROUND THE COURTYARD JUST BECAUSE IT IS KIND OF UNIQUE TO OTHER HOUSING TYPES THAT CAN BE SURE. SO YEAH, THANK YOU. I THANK YOU FOR THAT THAT THAT MAKES SO MUCH SENSE. THANK YOU FOR THE EXPLANATION ON I GUESS FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND CHAIR ONE THING JUST I GUESS TO WRAP UP THIS DISCUSSION BECAUSE I'M CURIOUS RIGHT YOU KNOW THIS WOULD INCREASE HOUSING OR DENSITY RIGHT? THE COTTAGE COURTS FOR EXAMPLE AND IF STANDARDS IF THERE IS CHECKS AND BALANCES FOR STANDARDS TO BE YOU KNOW AS IS ,YOU'RE RIGHT. OKAY. SO AGAIN OBJECTIVELY IT'D BE MORE HOUSING BUT POTENTIALLY THERE COULD BE ISSUES WITH PEOPLE NOT FOLLOWING THEIR STANDARDS OR DEVELOPERS OR WHATNOT. RIGHT. WOULDN'T WANT ME PERSONALLY MY OPINION IS LIKE THE HOUSING MORE HAVING MORE HOUSING OUTWEIGHS THE POTENTIAL FOR SOMETHING THAT COULD HAPPEN YOU KNOW WHAT ARE YOU GUYS IT'S NOT ON THAT I THINK FOR ME I LIKE DETACHED TOWNHOMES TO ME DOESN'T SEEM THAT MUCH DIFFERENT EXCEPT THEY FACE THE STREET WHICH TO ME ADDRESSES THE NEW SYSTEM COMPLAINTS OR I'D RATHER JUST HAVE APARTMENTS SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M AT. BUT MR. CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU CHAIR I TEND TO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER COOK THEN I FEEL LIKE THE FACING THE STREET AND DEPENDING ON THE LOT SIZE YOU KNOW KIND OF MIGHT DRIVE YOU IN MORE DENSITY WITH TOWNHOMES OR SLIGHTLY LARGER BUILDINGS. I AM COGNIZANT OF WHAT COMMISSIONER ROWLAND SAID A HALF HOUR AGO ABOUT SMALLER SINGLE STOREY HOMES THAT ALLOW RESIDENTS TO AGE IN PLACE IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED DOING SOME QUICK NET NAPKIN MATH AND AT THE RISK OF DERAILING OUR CONVERSATION IF YOU WERE TO BUY TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OFF MARKET IN REPLIED THE LOT TO BE A SINGLE ONE TO PUT AN EIGHT UNIT COTTAGE QUARTER SESSION DEVELOPMENT ON AT YOU KNOW AVERAGE PRICE FOR THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON YOUR LAND BASIS PER UNIT IS GOING TO BE ALMOST $100,000. SO THE ECONOMICS OF THAT IN THE MARKET RIGHT NOW ARE PRETTY TOUGH OR THESE COTTAGE COURTS WILL BE VERY EXPENSIVE BECAUSE THAT'S JUST THE LAND BEFORE YOU TEAR DOWN THE BUILDINGS OR BUILD ANYTHING BACK UP LET ALONE, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING ELSE THAT GOES INTO IT. SO JUST SOMETHING TO BE COGNIZANT OF THAT THESE ARE THESE ARE DIFFICULT DEVELOPMENTS TO DO THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE. WELL, I DON'T KNOW BUT I WOULD ASSUME WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE 50 OF THEM NEXT YEAR IF THIS ORDINANCE IS ADOPTED. THANK YOU. YEAH, THERE'S A WHOLE NOTHER CONVERSATION I THINK WE SHOULD CURTAIL IT. NO KNOW WE'VE HAD THAT CONVERSATION BEFORE ABOUT HOW MUCH THIS IS REALLY HOW MUCH IMPACT IS THIS REALLY GOING TO HAVE AND IS IT WORTH THE STAFF TIME? BUT I DON'T WANT TO REHASH THAT ONE TONIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS SPECIFIC TO ITEM NUMBER TWO OR SHALL WE MOVE ON TO NUMBER THREE HERE? LET'S GO TO NUMBER THREE. OKAY GREAT. I THINK THESE NEXT TWO ARE HOPEFULLY A LITTLE LESS COMPLICATED. I APOLOGIZE. SO THE NEXT ONE MY SCREEN IS NOT ADVANCING BUT IT WAS RELATED TO THE SITE AREA SO WE KIND OF PROPOSED THE REDUCTION FROM 20,000FT TO 17,500 FOR OUR THREE. SO IT WAS MORE I GUESS JUST KIND OF MORE MAYBE MORE OF A YES OR NO OF LIKE ARE YOU OKAY IF THE DIRECTION WE WENT IS TO REDUCE SOME OF THE LIGHT SIZES ON SOME OF THOSE MISSING MIDDLE ZONING DISTRICTS OR NOT OR IF YEAH IS REQUESTED WE'VE DONE SO MUCH THIS YEAR IT GETS A LITTLE FUZZY IN MY HEAD BUT HAVE WE REDUCED THE MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENT IN OUR THREE AND OUR FOUR BEFORE OR IS IT ONLY BEEN IN OUR ONE CHAIR COOKED IN AND PLANNING COMMISSION? I BELIEVE AT LEAST THE LAST FEW YEARS IT'S REALLY JUST BEEN OUR ONE. I THINK THE THE 20,000 IN OUR THREE AND OUR FOUR AND THEN IS A 40,000 FOR OUR M 12 I THINK I'VE BEEN PRETTY STANDARD FOR A WHILE SO WE HAVEN'T HAVEN'T CHIPPED AWAY AT IT LIKE WE HAVE OUR ONE MR. JONES JURISDICTION THAT'S CORRECT THE SITE AREA REDUCTIONS HAVE ONLY BEEN APPLIED TO THERE WE GO THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT AND THE MINIMUM AREA FOR TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS WITHIN OUR ONE. SO THOSE ARE THE ONLY SITE AREA AND WITH REDUCTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED THUS FAR THANK YOU FOR THAT. I WANTED TO JUST MAKE SURE WE WEREN'T WHITTLING DOWN AND WHITTLING DOWN EVERY TIME WE JUST TAKE A COUPLE MORE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET AWAY. IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT'S THE CASE. WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED TO ME I THINK IS PRUDENT AND I'M FINE WITH IT. MR. CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU, CHAIR I'M FINE WITH IT. ANYBODY ELSE? COMMISSIONER WAIT. OKAY. I'M JUST I'M VERY GOOD. OKAY. SEEING SOME OTHER THUMBS UP? ANYBODY ELSE WITH COMMENTS? IF I CAN PROVIDE ONE MORE PIECE OF CONTEXT A LOT OF THIS IS JUST ABOUT CREATING MORE CANDIDATE LOTS AND WE CERTAINLY CAN PROVIDE THIS ANALYSIS AROUND OUR SITE AREAS IN OUR IN OUR ONES ON LOTS IN OUR LOW DENSITY AREAS. BUT WE'RE JUST YOU KNOW, THIS WAS A THEME OF OUR 2022 ZONING REFORM AS WE WERE TRYING TO CREATE MORE CANDIDATE LOTS COMMISSION MR. WAS LIKE OKAY JUST A QUESTION ON THE PROPOSED STANDARD FOR OUR FOR THAT IS BASED ON THE 12 UNITS PER ACRE AT FOUR UNITS RIGHT YES I BELIEVE SO THAT WAS THE MATH I DID YEAH. BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE LIKE THE LOWEST UNIT YOU COULD BUILD. SO I THINK THAT'S AGAIN WE'RE KIND OF BUILDING A FOURPLEX ON A 33,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT GETS YOU LIKE RIGHT AT THAT LIKE 12 UNITS AN ACRE THRESHOLD. YEAH THAT WAS MY QUESTION WAS SORT OF IN THE NATURE OF CAN WE MAKE IT LESS? OH SURE. YEAH NO I THINK I THINK I WAS TRYING TO DO ALL THAT MATH TO KIND OF JUST GET TO THE POINT OF LIKE WHAT IS THE MINIMUM YOU COULD HAVE AND I THINK FROM FOR THINKING ABOUT THAT 12 UNITS AN ACRE THAT WAS KIND OF WHERE I WHERE I GOT TO IS LIKE THAT SMALLEST NUMBER. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON QUESTION THREE? ALL RIGHT. I'LL GO TO THE NEXT ONE. OKAY. FINAL ONE AND I THANKS FOR STICKING WITH IT FOR THREE STUDY SESSIONS AND SO THIS FINAL ONE I JUST HAD IN A SIMILAR VEIN JUST RELATED TO THE SETBACK. SO AGAIN, WE WERE KIND OF PROPOSING 20FT FROM THE STREET, 25FT REAR SETBACK AND THEN TEN FOOT SIDE IF YOU'RE KIND OF OKAY WITH REDUCING THE SETBACKS AGAIN I GUESS JUST IN THAT NATURE OF CREATING MORE CANDIDATE LOTS YOU WANT IT TO BE SOMETHING ELSE. YOU DON'T WANT TO CHANGE THE SETBACKS ANY ANY THOUGHTS YOU HAVE AS GREAT MR. CASSIDY THE PROPOSED STANDARD FOR THESE IS THAT MATCHING MULTIFAMILY HOUSING I KNOW YOU CHAIR COOKED IN PLANNING COMMISSION IT'S NOT I THINK WHERE WE LANDED ON THE 20FT IS KIND OF BEEN ON SOME RECENT TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE GOTTEN FLEXIBILITY HAVE ASKED FOR A 20 FOOT SETBACK. SO I THINK THAT'S JUST WHERE WE WENT DOWN TO 20 MR. JOHNSON CHAIR IN AND MEMBERS I'M GOING TO MAKE ONE COMMENT BROADER ABOUT ALL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND THEN KIND OF TYING IT TO PUBLIC SAFETY TO OUR FIRE PREVENTION IS THAT ALL OF OUR MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS RIGHT NOW CURRENTLY INCLUDE A 40 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK. SO IT'S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT SETBACK AND WHAT EFFECTIVELY THAT DOES IS OFTEN PUSH THE BUILDING FURTHER BACK INTO THE SITE IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE NUMBER OF DENSITY TO MAKE THE PROJECT PENCIL IS COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM REFERENCED ACTUALLY TOWARDS NEIGHBORS IN EFFECT AND SO I THINK IT'S BEEN A VERY COMMON POINT OF OR DEVELOPER SEEKING FLEXIBILITY AS TO THAT FRONT YARD SETBACK OVERALL. I MEAN I KNOW WE'RE FOCUSED ON MISSING MENTAL HOUSING TONIGHT AND THAT'S WHERE THE FOCUS NEEDS TO BE FOR THIS PROJECT. BUT STAFF WOULD NOT SHY AWAY FROM JUST A BROADER ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF ALL OF OUR STRUCTURE SETBACKS, PARTICULARLY IN OUR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS BUT KIND OF ACROSS DISTRICTS. SO MAYBE YOU KNOW, MAYBE NOT NEXT YEAR'S WORK PLAN BUT A FUTURE WORK PLAN THAT WORK DOES NEED TO BE DONE AND IN EFFECT OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT ACTUALLY PREFERS THE BUILDING CLOSER TO THE STREET IF THERE IS NOT A FIRE LANE OR SOME ACCESS LANE THAT GIVES THEM CLOSER ACCESS TO THE BUILDING . SO JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS TO THINK ABOUT SET BACK. THAT'S RIGHT. SO YEAH, IN THAT CASE I DEFINITELY BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE REDUCED SETBACKS AS PROPOSED MEASURE, RIGHT? AND I'M SUPPORTIVE IN CONCEPT. I DON'T KNOW IF 20 IS THE RIGHT NUMBER. I TRUST THE STAFF MY MY CONCERN AND THINKING ABOUT 20FT FROM THE STREET IS BY THE TIME YOU HAVE SOME RIGHT AWAY AND SOME SIDEWALK IT DOESN'T LEAVE MUCH IN THE WAY OF OF GREEN SPACE IN FRONT OF A BUILDING OR WHATEVER THEY WANT TO PUT IN FRONT OF A BUILDING. SO I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED WE END UP WITH JUST A LOT MORE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SO THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY CONCERN IS IF WE'RE LOSING SOME FILTRATION THERE BECAUSE. MR. CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU CHAIR QUICK QUESTION A KIND OF PIGGYBACKING OFF COMMISSIONER WHITE'S COMMENT THESE SETBACKS ARE NOT LINKED IN ANY WAY TO THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATIONS FOR A LOT IN THIS ZONING DISTRICT. RIGHT. THEY STILL HAVE TO MEET IT WAS AT 70%. I CAN'T READ WATER OR MAXIMUM IS 70% COVERAGE WITH IMPERVIOUS YEAH CHAIR COOKED IN COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM YEAH THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO MEET OR BE UNDER THE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS LIMIT I THINK IN OUR THREE IT'S 70% AND THEN OUR FOUR AND OUR M 12 IS 80% SO GOT IT. YEAH. SO THEY WOULD STILL EVEN WITH THAT SETBACK STILL HAVE TO HAVE TO BE UNDER THAT IMPERVIOUS THRESHOLD. YEP. GOT IT. WITH THAT BEING SAID I'M STILL I KNOW YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT WHERE THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACES AND LIKE WHERE THE PRETTY LANDSCAPING IS BUT AT LEAST PUTS MY MIND A LITTLE BIT OF THESE. I COULD GET ON BOARD WITH THIS PROPOSED STANDARD I THINK FOR ME ARE 3 OR 4 AND 12. THOSE ARE STARTING TO BECOME MORE URBAN ZONES AND WHENEVER THEY'RE AT BUSY INTERSECTIONS WHATEVER SO I'M OKAY BEING MORE AGGRESSIVE WITH THE REDUCTION IN SETBACK. SO I THINK I'M OKAY WITH THIS. IT'S ALWAYS KIND OF HARD TO JUST LOOK AT A PAGE OF NUMBERS AND KNOW IF YOU'RE MAKING THE RIGHT THING. BUT I THINK AT LEAST IN CONCEPT I'M OKAY WITH THIS. MR.. MR.. I WAS DEBATING WHETHER IT WAS ANYTHING THANK YOU. SO JUST AS A AS A QUESTION. THESE SETBACKS WOULD ONLY APPLY TO THE THREE PLEX FOURPLEX ETC. THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOT THE ZONING DISTRICT GENERALLY NO CHAIR COOKED IN COMMISSIONER MUNSTER THIS WOULD APPLY TO THE DISTRICTS OVERALL. SO YEAH, THE WAY THAT OUR SETBACKS ARE CURRENTLY REGULATED IN OUR CODE OR BASED ON THE ZONING DISTRICT. SO FOR THE R THREE JUST AS AN EXAMPLE IF SOMEONE WAS PUTTING A TRIPLEX OR A COTTAGE COURT OR IF THEY WERE BUILDING A MULTIFAMILY BUILDING IT WOULD BE THE SAME SETBACK FOR THAT ZONING DISTRICT OR SINGLE JUST FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT. YEAH YEP YEP YEP YEP YEP. IT WAS BECAUSE THAT BRINGS UP A BIT OF A QUESTION FOR ME THEN BECAUSE MR. JOHNSON IS THAT R3 IS THE NEW ONE. R THREE IS THE MOST RECENTLY CREATED DISTRICT TO BEEN APPLIED TO ONE SITE WAS CREATED IN 2015 SO WE'VE NEVER EVEN DEVELOPED SOMETHING ON R THREE AND SO WE'RE TAKING A DECISION THAT WAS MADE JUST LIKE A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO AND WE'RE ALREADY CHANGING IT. I IT SEEMS A LITTLE OFF TO ME YO CHAIR CORRECT. AND THAT'S NOT NOT AN UNWISE OR UNFAIR OBSERVATION I WOULD SAY I THINK GENERALLY SPEAKING THE THE HIGHER THE SETBACKS ARE AND TO COMMISSIONER WHITE'S POINT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE STARTING TO SEE SOME OF THE IMPACTS OF SOME OF THOSE SETBACKS THAT IT ALSO TYPICALLY INVOLVES OR RESULTS IN INCREASED DRIVEWAY PUSHING THE STRUCTURES BACK FURTHER AWAY FROM THE STREET CAN LEAD TO MORE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IN SOME WAYS. BUT YEAH I MEAN I THINK IT GETS TO THE POINT THAT YOU'RE MAKING AROUND CHANGING CHARACTER TO YOU KNOW THE BLOOMINGTON WAS EFFECTIVELY DEVELOPED MOSTLY WITH 30 TO 40 FOOT SETBACKS AND IF YOU'RE TRYING TO CREATE MORE INFILL DEVELOPMENT AND INCREASE DENSITY, UTILIZE THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS THERE, THEN YOU DO NEED TO MAKE MORE CREATE MORE FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF THE USE OF THE LOT OVERALL. YEAH, THIS IS PROBABLY A PHONE OR FRIEND FOR MR. MARK BUT WHAT YEAR WAS OUR THREE CREATED? 25 EXCUSE ME 20 1515 OKAY SO I GUESS THAT'S TEN YEARS AGO. I MEAN EVEN IN THE LAST TEN YEARS I THINK THIS MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING THING IS THOUGHT OF MUCH DIFFERENTLY EVEN THAN TEN YEARS AGO. SO I THAT MAKES ME FEEL BETTER THAT WE'RE BEING MORE AGGRESSIVE THAN EVEN TEN YEARS AGO. I THINK THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE IN MINDSET IN THE LAST TEN YEARS IS THIS TYPE OF THIS TYPE OF HOUSING. SO I CAN GET THERE AND FOR OUR THREE IS WAS IT THE THE PEN LAKE OR AND THAT'S OKAY I THINK IT ANYBODY ELSE FOR GUIDING QUESTION NUMBER FOUR OKAY ALL RIGHT YEAH THAT'S ALL I HAVE I GUESS NEXT STEPS WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING SOME STUDY SESSIONS WITH HRA BOARD AS WELL AS THE COUNCIL IN SEPTEMBER AND THEN I THINK KIND OF BASED ON FEEDBACK FROM ALL THE BODIES WILL KIND OF CONTINUE TO WORK AT IT AND IF DIRECTED WE'LL BRING IN ORDINANCE MAYBE THIS YEAR OR EARLY NEXT YEAR. SO BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS JUST LET ME KNOW. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, MR. CASSIDY AND IF THE PUBLIC WANTS TO CONTINUE MONITORING THIS, HE WILL GO BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL THE STUDY ITEM ON SEPTEMBER 29TH WE WILL MOVE TO OUR NEXT STUDY ITEM ITEM NUMBER FOUR WHICH IS OUR ANNUAL REVIEW OF RULES OF PROCEDURE PLANNING MANAGER MR. JOHNSON THANK YOU. CHAIR COOKED IN PART TWO IF I MAY. SO JUST A QUICK SUMMARY OF WHAT BROUGHT US HERE. AGAIN, WE COMPLETED THE INITIAL REVIEW OF OUR RULES AS REQUIRED IN AUGUST OF EVERY YEAR. WE DID SO ON AUGUST OF THE 14TH STAFF PRESENTED SIX RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO YOU THAT WHERE WE FELT THE RULES WERE SILENT OR COULD IMPROVE FROM SOME ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION THE MAJORITY OF THOSE CHANGES WERE SUPPORTED. TWO ADDITIONAL CHANGES WERE REQUESTED AND THIS EVENING WE'RE PRESENTING THOSE REVISED RULES. I'M TRYING TO BE ATTENTIVE TO THE DIRECTION THAT YOU PROVIDED US AT YOUR LAST MEETING SO THE TWO ADDITIONAL CHANGES THAT YOU REQUESTED WERE CLARIFYING THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES AROUND THE ALLOWANCE FOR THE CHAIR TO ESTABLISH A TIME LIMIT. IF YOU RECALL IN OUR INITIAL DRAFT WE PROPOSED A THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT. THE BODY FELT THAT NOT HAVING A PRECISE NUMBER WOULD BE A BETTER APPROACH SO WE DID REVISE THAT LANGUAGE TO REFLECT THAT IN ADDITION, COMMISSIONER LANIER SUGGESTED THAT YOU KNOW ADDITIONAL ATTEMPTS AT PROVIDING TESTIMONY SOME WORD WORDING WHICH WE AGREED WAS AN IMPROVEMENT BE AUTHORIZED BY THE CHAIR AS OPPOSED TO INVITED I BELIEVE WAS THE PREVIOUS LANGUAGE. SO THIS IS THE REVISED LANGUAGE BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN. I CERTAINLY CAN READ IT IF THAT'S PREFERRED OR DESIRED. BUT JUST IN SUMMARY WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS KIND OF MEETING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REQUEST OF HAVING THE ABILITY TO ESTABLISH A TIME LIMIT BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. THE SECOND QUESTION I CAN TAKE QUESTIONS AT THE END IF THERE ARE ANY. THE SECOND CHANGE WAS JUST A OBSERVATION THAT ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER DOES ALLOW FOR THE SUSPENSION OF RULES BY A TWO THIRDS SUPERMAJORITY VOTE AS OPPOSED TO A UNANIMOUS VOTE AND SO WE DID LOOK INTO THAT AND I CONCUR THAT DOES REFLECT ROBERT'S RULES. SO I WOULD PROPOSE TO MAKE THAT CHANGE AS WELL. THIS DOESN'T COME UP VERY OFTEN I SHOULD SUGGEST OR BY THE WAY ON THE ONLY TIME I OBSERVE IT AT CITY COUNCIL IS AGAIN THEY HAVE A 9 P.M. TIME LIMIT AND SO WHEN THEY HAVE TO SUSPEND THE RULES IT'S EXTENDING THEIR TIME PAST 10:00 WHICH HAS HAPPENED A COUPLE OF TIMES RECENTLY. I'M FORGIVE ME I DIDN'T MEAN TO ADVANCE. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT KIND OF THOSE TWO ADDITIONAL CHANGES AND IF NOT I CAN PRESENT A MOTION FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION QUESTIONS FOR STAFF SEEING NONE. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT AND HERE'S A SUGGESTED MOTION AND JUST TO REITERATE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL THE CITY CODE REQUIRES THE COUNCIL TO ADOPT THE REVISED RULES. SO IF YOU TOOK ACTION THIS EVENING WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO SCHEDULE THIS ITEM ON THE SEPTEMBER 8TH CONSENT AGENDA AT CITY COUNCIL. SO JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION? MR. CUNNINGHAM I MOVE ARE WE ENTERTAINING A MOTION? YEAH, I CERTAINLY AM. I MOVED TO ADOPT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE AS PRESENTED AT THE AUGUST 28TH REGULAR MEETING. >> I SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND TO ADOPT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE AS PRESENTED ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I OPPOSED THE MOTION PASSES SEVEN ZERO AND AS STATED BY MR. JOHNSON THIS WILL GO BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ON SEPTEMBER 8TH ON THEIR CONSENT AGENDA. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE WHICH IS THE CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FROM AUGUST 7TH AND AUGUST 14TH OF 2025. WE WILL TAKE THOSE AS TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS AND BEGIN WITH AUGUST SEVENTH. SO ANY DISCUSSION OR A MOTION FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM AUGUST 7TH? MR. WHITE I MOVED TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SYNOPSIS FROM AUGUST SEVENTH 2025 AS PRESENTED WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL OF AUGUST 7TH. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I OPPOSED THE MOTION PASSES SEVEN ZERO AUGUST 14TH COMMISSIONER WHITE I MOVED TO APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SYNOPSIS FROM AUGUST 14TH 2025 AS PRESENTED THERE A SECOND SECOND I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE OF APPROVAL AND THEN DENIAL AND THEN ABSTENTION. AS ONE OF OUR COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONER MR. WAS ABSTAINING FROM THAT MEETING OR WAS ABSENT RATHER ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF AUGUST 14TH SAY I. I OPPOSED ABSTAIN. MOTION PASSES SIX ZERO WITH ONE ABSTENTION. WE WILL THEN MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER SIX WHICH IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY AND ISSUE UPDATE MR. JOHNSON YEAH THANK YOU CHAIR COOKED IN THE NEXT MEETING BEFORE YOU ON YOUR CALENDAR IS SEPTEMBER THE 4TH WE HAVE NO ITEMS WE OFFICIALLY CANCELED THAT MEETING NEXT WEEK THE TWO FOLLOWING MEETINGS THAT ARE ON SEPTEMBER THE 18TH AND OCTOBER 9TH ON SEPTEMBER THE 18TH WE HAVE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED. THE FIRST IS FINAL SLATE AND BUILDING PLANS FOR THE CITY FLEET MAINTENANCE FACILITY AT 1800 WEST 96TH STREET JUST NORTH OF CIVIC PLAZA HERE IT'S A 40,000 ROUGHLY 40,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AS PART OF THE CITY'S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE NORMANDALE LAKE DISTRICT PLAN. THERE PREVIOUSLY WAS A STUDY ITEM ABOUT SPECIFICALLY THE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE THAT THE PLAN CALLS FOR AT 84TH STREET. THE NORMANDALE. SO SOME AMENDMENTS THERE AND THEN A STUDY ITEM IS REVIEWING THE DRAFT COMPONENTS OF THE 2025 MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES ORDINANCE FOR OCTOBER 9TH WE HAVE TWO TO STUDY ITEMS CURRENTLY SCHEDULED. ONE IS THE OFFICIAL HEIGHT LIMITS MAP WHICH DAKOTA REFERENCE AS PART OF HIS PRESENTATION TONIGHT. AND THEN THE SECOND IS OUR TRANSPORTATION AND ENGINEERING STAFF WILL BE BEFORE US TO PRESENT THE ANNUAL PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN UPDATE SO THIS IS GIVING YOU A SNAPSHOT AS TO ALL THE DIFFERENT STREET PROJECTS THAT ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION TRAILS OTHER THINGS RELATED TO THAT PLAN FOR NEXT YEAR. I WOULD NOTE THAT THE OCTOBER 9TH DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION DEADLINE HAS NOT YET PASSED SO THERE COULD BE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS STILL TRACKING TO THAT ONE. SO THAT'S MY ONLY UPDATE. THANK YOU. MR. JOHNSON. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME WE UPDATED THE NORMANDALE LAKE DISTRICT PLAN? YEAH. THANK YOU. CHAIR COOKED IN THE NORMANDALE LAKE DISTRICT PLAN WAS UPDATED IN 2017 AND THAT UPDATE WAS A MORE SIGNIFICANT UPDATE AND IT RELATED TO THE OPENING OF THE WESTBOUND 494 ACCESS FROM EAST BUSH LAKE ROAD AND SO THE REASON THAT WE COMPLETED THAT UPDATE IS THAT THE INTERSECTION OF 84TH AND ARMADALE WHICH ALSO CONNECTS TO THE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE COMPONENT WAS SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER SIZED AS DICTATED BY THE TRAFFIC VOLUMES COMING OUT OF NORMANDY LAKE OFFICE. THE PARK DEVELOPMENT AS A RESULT OF THAT. SO THAT WESTBOUND RAMP EFFECTIVELY DIVERTED SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC UP EAST BUSH LAKE ROAD AS OPPOSED TO ATTRACTING TO NORMANDY. SO THERE WAS A COUPLE OF OTHER MISCELLANEOUS COMPONENTS TO THE UPDATE BUT IT WAS IN 2017. GREAT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP THIS EVENING SEEING NONE THAT WILL CONCLUDE THIS AUGUST 28TH MEETING OF THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION. GOOD NIGHT