GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THIS FEBRUARY 1ST MEETING OF THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADVISES THE CITY COUNCIL ON DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS LONG RANGE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION ISSUES EACH PLANNING COMMISSIONER HAS BEEN APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO SERVE A THREE YEAR TERM FOR A OF TWO TERMS ON SOME ITEMS THE PLANNING HAS FINAL DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY WELL OTHER ITEMS THE CITY COUNCIL WILL MAKE THE FINAL DECISION AS WE BEGIN THIS EVENING WE'RE GOING START WITH THE PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE ALL RISE THE PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL FOR WE HAVE FIVE ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING. WE HAVE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS AND THREE STUDY ITEMS. THE FIRST TWO ITEMS ARE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS. THE PUBLIC IS ENCOURAGED TO TESTIFY. YOU CAN DO THAT HERE AT CITY HALL AND WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT THAT WHEN IT'S WHEN WE OPEN PUBLIC HEARING AND ITEM NUMBER ONE YOU CAN ALSO TESTIFY REMOTELY IF. YOU'RE AT HOME WATCHING THIS LIVE THIS EVENING. THOSE INSTRUCTIONS WILL BE ON THE BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN SCROLLING AS WE GO THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARINGS WITH THAT WILL BEGIN WITH ITEM NUMBER ONE WHICH IS A PRELIMINARY FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR AN APARTMENT JUST OFF OF 494 I'M SORRY I DON'T HAVE THE ADDRESS BUT MS.. O'DEA, I'M SURE YOU CAN ME WITH THAT AS WE GET STARTED THANK YOU CHAIR AND COMMISSION ITEM ONE ON YOUR AGENDA THIS EVENING IS FOR A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A FIVE STOREY 208 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AND A DETACHED 11,000 SQUARE FOOT DAYCARE AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DAYCARE AT 6701 WEST 78TH STREET TO ORIENT YOU TO THE SITE THIS IS JUST OF 494 BETWEEN EAST AND WEST LAKE ROAD SURROUNDING LAND USES OUR SINGLE FAMILY CITY CITY OF EDINA JURISDICTION TO THE NORTH OFFICES TO THE AND WEST AND THEN FOR 94 TO THE SOUTH. JUST A NOTE ABOUT ZONING. IT IS ON SEA FLOOR AND GATED OFFICE. THE BASE ZONING AND THE GUY PLAN ARE NOT WILL REMAIN UNCHANGED AND THEN JUST A VIEW OF THE CURRENT CONDITION ON THE SITE FROM A STREET VIEW PERSPECTIVE AS YOU CAN SEE IT'S A VACANT LOT WITH LOTS OF VEGETATION, A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ON THE SITE ON THE RIGHT IS A 2003 AERIAL IT WAS A HEALTH CLUB AND IN 2000 2006 IT WAS DEMOLISHED AND THEN SEVERAL LATER CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL FOR A FOUR STOREY 186 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CARE AND SENIOR FACILITY WITH A 100 PERSON DAYCARE. THOSE APPROVALS HAVE EXPIRED AND DEVELOPMENT NEVER TOOK PLACE AND THEN MORE RECENTLY CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A PRIVATELY INITIATED CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO CHANGE DAYCARES FROM LIMITED TO CONDITIONAL USES IN THE C FOUR ZONING DISTRICT ULTIMATELY ALLOWED FOR THE APPLICANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR CURRENT PROPOSAL. A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SITE PLAN OVERALL PROVIDING 208 UNITS 19 OF THOSE WOULD BE AT 60% AREA MEDIAN INCOME WHICH IS THE MINIMUM FOR THE SHELL AND THEN THE REMAINING 189 UNITS WOULD BE MARKET RATE AND THEN JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS TO HIGHLIGHT ON THE SITE PLAN CURRENTLY THERE ARE THREE CURB CUTS ON THE 78TH STREET. THEY'RE PROPOSING TO HAVE THE EASTERNMOST ACCESS BE A WRITE IN WRITE OUT ONLY AND THEN THE WESTERN WOULD BE A FULL WHICH WOULD REQUIRE SOME MEDIAN MODIFICATIONS AND THEN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE IS ON DEVELOPABLE IT'S THE NINE MILE CREEK WETLAND AND THEN JUST TO SHOW THE UNDERGROUND GARAGE ENTRANCES TOWARD THE BACK OF THE SITE AND THEN OF COURSE THE 11,000 SQUARE FOOT DAYCARE WOULD BE LOCATED ON THE WESTERN HALF OF THE SITE AND THEN JUST NOTE OUTDOOR AMENITIES THERE SHOWING AN OUTDOOR POOL AND PLAZA AREA. SO IN THE C FOUR ZONING DISTRICT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE A POINT TO FLOOR AREA RATIO WHICH AMOUNTS TO 61,000 SQUARE FEET OF NONRESIDENTIAL AREA. AND SO IF WE ELIMINATE THE DEVELOPABLE LAND AND THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE, WHAT REMAINS IS 42 ALMOST 42 AND A HALF THOUSAND SQUARE FEET. AND SO WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS THE 11,000 SQUARE FOOT DAYCARE WHICH AMOUNTS TO 0.03 FLOOR AREA RATIO AND THAT'S CONSIDERABLY LESS THAN WHAT'S REQUIRED SO THEY'RE REQUESTING DEVELOPMENT FLEXIBILITY DUE TO REASONS SUCH AS A LARGE PORTION OF THE SITE IS ON DEVELOPABLE AND IT'S FINANCIALLY INFEASIBLE TO PROVIDE 61,000 SQUARE FEET OF NONRESIDENTIAL AREA AND FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVES AND PROVIDING DAYCARE WHICH FILLS A KIND OF GAP IN THE MARKET THIS IS OUR OVERALL BENEFITS IN DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE IT'S BEEN FOR 17 YEARS AND THEN HERE IS A COUPLE OF ELEVATIONS THEY'RE SHOWING BALCONIES FOR SELECT UNITS AND THEN THEY'RE SHOWING FOUR MATERIALS GLASS BRICK CONCRETE METAL SIDING AND FIBER CEMENT BOARD AND THEY ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE FOR THE FIBER CEMENT BOARD WHICH ALLOWS FOR MORE SECONDARY MATERIALS LOCATED ON THE NON STREET FACING SIDE. SO OVERALL THE BUILDING MATERIALS ARE COMPLIANT AND THEN DAY CARE ELEVATION THIS NOT QUALIFY FOR THE INCENTIVE SO THEY HAVE TO MEET THE 15% SECONDARY 85% PRIMARY MATERIALS AND THEY ARE COMPLIANT COMPLIANCE THEY'RE SHOWING METAL SIDING AND FIBER CEMENT BOARD AND THEN HERE'S GOING BACK TO THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING HERE'S THE FIRST FLOOR PLAN AS YOU CAN SEE. THERE'S A STUDIO ONE BEDROOM, TWO BEDROOM, THREE BEDROOM UNITS ON ALL ALL FIVE FLOORS AND THEN ON THE FIRST FLOOR THEY'RE SHOWING AMENITIES SUCH AS GAME ROOM YOGA FITNESS AREA AND THEN OF COURSE THE POOL AND OUTDOOR PLAZA AREA AND THEN THERE'S A ROOFTOP DECK ON THE ON THE TOP LEVEL A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE DAYCARE THAT CODE AMENDMENT MADE DAYCARES A CONDITIONAL IN THE C FOR ZONING DISTRICT SO THEY ARE APPLYING FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TONIGHT. THE APPLICANT HAS NOT IDENTIFIED DAYCARE PROVIDER AT THIS TIME SO THEY HAVE PROVIDED SOME COMPARABLE DAYCARE INFORMATION FOR THIS APPLICATION SO THEY'RE 150 CHILDREN WITH 30 CAREGIVERS AND JUST A NOTE THAT IF IF THAT INCREASES THEY WILL HAVE TO COME BACK FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THEIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THEN THEY'RE ALSO SHOWING A 5000 SQUARE FOOT PLAYGROUND TOWARD THE BACK. SO HERE IS A STANDARD FLOOR PLAN PRETTY STANDARD AND TYPICAL OF DAYCARES. SO SHOWING A MULTI PURPOSE ROOM CLASSROOMS OF COURSE OFFICE AND THEN THE OUTDOOR PLAY AREA BACK TO THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING THERE ARE LANDSCAPING IS CODE COMPLIANT IN TERMS OF QUANTITY OF TREES AND SHRUBS. A COUPLE OF MINOR TWEAKS ARE NEEDED WHICH CAN BE HANDLED AT THE BUILDING PERMIT LEVEL. YOU HAVE TO FILL IN SOME GAPS OF SCREENING LOCATED TOWARD WEST 78TH STREET. THAT HAS TO BE A SOLID SCREEN AND THEN PARKING LOT ISLANDS DO REQUIRE TREES AND SO THEY'RE SHOWING ISLANDS WITHOUT TREES THOSE HAVE TO BE PROVIDED AS FAR AS PARKING GOES 381 STALLS ARE REQUIRED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT ONE APPLYING THE OH 10% PARKING REDUCTION THEY'RE SHOWING 358 STALLS ON SITE 210 OF WHICH ARE IN ONE LEVEL UNDERGROUND GARAGE AND THEN 148 ON THE SURFACE. AND SO THEY ARE REQUESTING DEVELOPMENT FLEXIBILITY FOR THE PARKING AND DUE TO VARYING TIMES THE DAYCARE AND THE RESIDENTIAL USE THE 148 SURFACE STALLS WOULD BE SHARED AND THEN JUST A COUPLE OF MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS FOR FURTHER REVIEW. THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK WIDTH HAS TO BE WIDENED TO EIGHT FEET THEY'RE SHOWING SIX FEET CURRENTLY SO HAS TO BE WIDENED TWO FEET AS WELL AS PHOTOMETRIC PLANS HAVE BE SUBMITTED FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT AND THEN INTERIOR TRASH IS REQUIRED FOR THE DAYCARE SO A COUPLE OF NOTES ON THAT AND THEN I JUST WANTED TO SHOW RENDERINGS OF THE SITE JUST KIND OF GIVE YOU A FLAVOR OF WHAT WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE AND WITH THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND THE APPLICANT IS ONLINE AND I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU MR. DAY ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THE PLANNING COMMISSION ? COMMISSIONER GOTTESMAN THANK YOU CHAIR. I SEE IN THE PLAN FOR THE DAYCARE THAT THERE IS A KITCHEN TO STAFF NO IF THERE'S FOOD PLANNING TO BE PREPARED ON SITE OR IS IT GOING TO BE CATERED CHAIR COMMISSIONER GOLTZMAN I THINK A DAYCARE PROVIDER HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED. THAT'S MAYBE A LITTLE BIT UNKNOWN AT THIS POINT BUT IF THE APPLICANT KNOWS KIND OF WHAT THE FOOD PREPARATION LOOKS LIKE, I ASK THEM TO TO SPEAK TO THAT. OKAY, I'LL WAIT TILL THEY GET THAT OPPORTUNITY. YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF C NONE. WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT I BELIEVE IS ONLINE IF YOU MISS A DAY THE OF THE APPLICANTS DO YOU KNOW US YEP BRIAN AND GRIFFIN JAMISON MR. BACHMAN AND MR. JAMISON I BELIEVE WE WILL ON YOU UNMUTE YOU NOW AND GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO SPEAK OR YOU CAN UNMUTE YOURSELF I BELIEVE MR. BACHMAN OR MR. JAMISON WE CAN'T HEAR YOU YET. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES, WE CAN. GO AHEAD. PERFECT. THANK YOU. MY NAME'S BRIAN BACHMAN. I'M WITH THE ARCADE COMPANIES SO ANSWER THE ONE DIRECT QUESTION. NO, WE WE DON'T HAVE WE'RE WORKING WITH SEVERAL DIFFERENT DAYCARE PROVIDERS RIGHT NOW TO KIND OF FIGURE OUT WHO'S GOING TO FIT BEST ON THE SITE SO WE DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW THE FOOD SERVICE WILL BE HANDLED ON YET BEYOND THAT I THINK LIZ DID A GREAT JOB OF OUTLINING ANYTHING AND DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT MORE TO ADD IN JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND BE ABLE TO CLEAR UP ANYTHING THAT COMES UP VERY WELL. THANK YOU MR. JAMISON. IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK, I'LL GIVE YOU A MINUTE TO TO DO SO IF YOU CHOOSE. GOOD EVENING. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS AND INSCRIPTION JAMISON WITH HOSPITALS AND ARCHITECTS AND HERE JUST TO SAY HELLO TO QUESTIONS I THINK IT'S WELL THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE FOR THE TIME BEING THANK YOU VERY WELL. QUESTIONS NOW FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE COMMISSIONER CURRY. THANK YOU CHAIR IS IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU GUYS ARE ANTICIPATING TO POTENTIALLY SELL OFF THE DAY CARE AFTER THAT'S DEVELOPED SUBDIVIDE THE SITE DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHERE WOULD PLAN TO SUBDIVIDE THE SITE AS A LONG THE SHARED PARKING AT ALL OR CAN YOU GIVE US ANY IDEA ON THAT? WE REALLY HAVEN'T WE'RE WORKING ONE GROUP THAT WANTS US TO DO A BUILD TO SUIT ANOTHER THAT WOULD WANT TO DO THE OTHER AND AND THEN ANOTHER ONE THAT'S KIND OF SAYS EITHER OR THE ANSWER WOULD BE AS I THINK RIGHT NOW AND GRIFFIN CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG I'M PRETTY SURE WHAT WE ALWAYS PLANNED THE THE LOT WOULD BASICALLY RUN RIGHT THE EDGE OF THE PARKING FIELD THAT'S RUNNING ON THE SIDE THAT BUILDING THEY WOULD HAVE THOSE DEDICATED SPOTS IN THE FRONT THEN WE WOULD WORK SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT FOR STAFF AND OTHER PARKING THAT THEY NEEDED ALONG THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING SINCE THE OBVIOUS TIMES FOR THE DAY CARE USES WORK WELL WITH WHEN A GREAT MANY OF OUR TENANTS ARE GOING TO BE WORKING WE FEEL REAL COMFORTABLE THAT WE CAN HANDLE THE THE PARKING THE SHARED PARKING WITH IT WITH BOTH PROPERTIES. MR. CURRY THANK YOU. JUST A QUICK FOLLOW UP THEN. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS HAVE DONE OBVIOUSLY THE FAA IS MUCH LOWER THAN WHAT THE CITY HAS FOR THE ZONING CODE . BUT HAVE YOU DONE ANYORT YOU KNOW, JUST BASIC MATH AS TO WHAT THE AIR WOULD BE ON THAT SUBDIVISION AFTER YOU KNOW, AFTER YOU GUYS SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY, DOES IT BECOME MORE IN LINE WITH CODE ? I HAVEN'T DONE THAT. I'M NOT SURE IF STAFF HAS. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUICK QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER GARY I KNOW I'M GOOD. OKAY. COMMISSIONER HOLTZMAN, THANK YOU. ONE THING THAT I READ IN THE PACKET WAS A CONCERN AROUND SNOW REMOVAL. CAN EITHER STAFF OR THE APPLICANT TALK ABOUT WHAT THE PLANS ARE FOR REMOVAL IF IT EVER SNOWS AGAIN ON THE PROPERTY IN THE SITE? I CAN TAKE THAT. WE OBVIOUSLY GOING TO HAVE SOME SPACES ON THE SITE THAT WE CAN THAT WE CAN STACK SNOW . BUT THIS WOULD BE A NEXT WORK SITE IF WE HAD A WINTER THAT LOOKED ANYTHING LIKE LAST WINTER AS OPPOSED TO THIS WINTER WE IT OUT WHEN WE DON'T WHEN WE CEASE TO HAVE ROOM I THINK SO I'M KIND OF LIKING THIS YEAR MUCH BETTER THAN LAST YEAR. MR. BACHMAN, I HAVE A QUESTION. SO SOUTH FACE OF YOUR PARTICULARLY THE APARTMENT BUILDING FACES 94 A LOT OF THE BUILDINGS ON 494 HAVE A VERY SORT OF DYNAMIC STREET PRESENCE TO ANNOUNCE TO THAT CORRIDOR. IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT YOUR YOUR BUILDING'S GOING TO HAVE THAT. WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION ON YOUR END TO HAVE TYPE OF A DYNAMIC OR COLOR? WOULD YOU WANT LIGHTING ON THE SOUTH FACE OF YOUR BUILDING? THERE IS SOME THERE IS SOME UNIQUE LIGHTING PROSPECT PROJECTED TO BE ON THE ON THE CORNERS OF THE BUILDING THAT ARE GOING BE ON THOSE INSETS. NO, THAT'S ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED THINGS ARE ALREADY BEING PLANNED WITH THE WITH THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC THAT TRAVEL THAT TRAVELS PAST SOME POINT 84. IT'S AN OBVIOUS AREA WHERE WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE BUILDINGS. SO NO, THE THE EXTERIOR AND THE REST THAT WILL CONTINUE TO BE HAMMERED OUT AS WE FINALIZE OUR CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. GREAT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER ALBRECHT THANK YOU CHAIR. MY QUESTION IS BACK TO THE OPPORTUNITY HOUSING ORDINANCE AND, THE PARKING REQUIREMENT. THERE IS A 23 STALL DIFFERENCE. HAVE YOU THROWN AROUND WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE TO INCORPORATE AN ADDITIONAL 23 STALLS AND WHAT ARE THE BARRIERS THERE? TO DO SO WE'D HAVE TO LOSE UNITS WHICH MAKES THE PROJECT THE PROJECT THE PROPERTY NOT FEASIBLE EVEN WITH THE DAYCARE SPACES WE'RE AT ABOUT A 1.6 TO 1 RATIO ON SITE WHICH IS WELL WITHIN TYPICAL UNIT MAKES OUR OUR PROJECTS USUALLY ARE BETWEEN 1.6 AND 1.8 PER UNIT. OUR OTHER PROJECT THAT WE'RE JUST FINISHING UP OVER ON 35 AND CALLED NOBLE IS ACTUALLY HAD A 1.5 TO 1. SO THAT ONE IS EVEN A LITTLE BIT LOWER THAN THIS ONE. SO NO THIS PARKING IS NOT REALLY A CONCERN FOR US. IT'S ACTUALLY THAT'S THE WRONG WAY FOR ME TO SAY PARKING IS A HUGE CONCERN FOR US. IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE KIND OF FIXATE ON EARLY OFTEN DURING OUR DESIGN PROCESS FROM THE VERY SIMPLE FACT THAT UNDERPASS SITES DON'T HAVE REPEAT CUSTOMERS. WE CAN BUILD THE COOLEST APARTMENT IN THE WORLD WITH ALL THE FINESTMENITIES YOU COULD EVER POSSIBLY GET. AND IF PEOPLE DON'T HAVE A PLACE TO PARK, THEY COME HOME AT NIGHT. THEY'RE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO RENEW RIGHT. THEY'RE GOING TO LEAVE. SO IT IS ALWAYS SOMETHING THAT WE STUDY. IT'S ALWAYS SOMETHING THAT WE MANAGE VERY CLOSELY WITH OUR MANAGEMENT TEAM. WE ARE A WE ARE THE DEVELOPER THE CONTRACTOR THE MANAGER AND THE LONG TERM OWNER OF ALL OF OUR PROJECTS. WE NEVER WE DON'T SELL OUR PROJECTS SO WE DON'T WHEN WE DESIGN THINGS WE'RE DESIGNING THEM TO OWN THEM 30 YEARS FROM NOW. SO WE ALWAYS TAKE PARKING AS A VERY STRONG CONSIDERATION AS TO HOW WE CAN A SITE. WE ACTUALLY HAD A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THIS THAT HAD A FEW EXTRA UNITS AND EVEN A LITTLE LESS PARKING AND THIS IS KIND OF WHERE WE SETTLED WE ACTUALLY ADDED ON TO THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT, THE PARKING FOOTPRINT, THE UNDERGROUND PART SO THAT WE CAN PICK UP EVEN MORE PARKING SPOTS. THERE ARE VERY, VERY EXPENSIVE PARKING SPOTS BUT WE ALSO JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COULD GET EVERYBODY COVERED SO WE'RE PRETTY COMFORTABLE WITH WHERE WE ARE ON IT BECAUSE WE'RE AT A 1.71 WITH WITH THE SHARED WITH WITH THE DAY CARE CENTER. SO WE'RE WE'RE PRETTY MUCH OUR SWEET SPOT WITH THAT. COMMISSIONER CURRY FEATURE AGAIN IN TERMS OF PARKING IS THERE I GUESS DO YOU HAVE ANY PLANS TO HAVE GUEST PARKING SPECIFICALLY DEFINED OR IS A PARKING OPEN TO RESIDENTS, GUESTS ALL OF THE UNDERGROUND PARKING IS ASSIGNED AND ALL OF THIS ALL OF THE PARKING IN THE PARKING IS NOT ASSIGNED AT THAT IS JUST OPEN OPEN PARKING WOULD YOU REQUIRE CABS IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE PARKING THERE OVERNIGHT LONGER THAN JUST LIKE A GUEST YOU'LL HAVE A PARKING PASS THAT YOU'LL HANG ON YOUR ON YOUR WINDSHIELD SO THAT WE WE KNOW THAT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON SITE ARE WHO YOU KNOW WHO THE WHICH VEHICLES BELONG TO WHICH UNITS. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT SEEING NONE. MR. BACHMAN MR. JAMISON THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW AND AGAIN FOLKS HERE AT THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO TESTIFY IF THEY SO CHOOSE. THE WAY THIS WILL WORK IS WILL GIVE EACH SPEAKER ABOUT 3 MINUTES TO SPEAK THAT MAKE SURE WE GIVE EVERYBODY A CHANCE. THERE'S A SIGN IN SHEET ON THE DAIS. WE'LL ASK YOU TO MAKE SURE YOU SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE SO THE FOLKS ON TV CAN HEAR YOU AND A NOTE OF CLARIFICATION. THE WAY THIS GENERALLY IS IT'S A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND NOT AS MUCH OF A PUBLIC QUESTION AND PERIOD THAT KEEPS THINGS MOVING AND GIVES EVERYBODY A CHANCE TO SPEAK. YOU ARE WELCOME TO ASK US QUESTIONS. YOU CAN DIRECT THOSE TO ME THE CHAIR THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MAKE NOTE OF THOSE QUESTIONS AND WE'LL DECIDE HOW WE WANT TO ADDRESS THOSE ONCE THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. WITH THAT IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY THIS ITEM PLEASE COME FORWARD AND SIGN IN . HELLO. I'M ALREADY SIGNED IN . THANK YOU. IF WE CAN HAVE YOUR NAME WOODROW PINTER. THANK YOU. THANKS FOR ALLOWING TO TO SPEAK HERE TONIGHT. MY NAME IS WOODROW PINTER. I'M A BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE WITH THE NORTH CENTRAL STATES REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS . THE NC US RTC REPRESENTS OVER 27,000 MEN AND WOMEN CARPENTERS IN OUR SIX STATE COUNCIL WHICH MINNESOTA, IOWA, WISCONSIN, NEBRASKA, NORTH AND SOUTH DAKOTA. I'VE BEEN ON STAFF FOR NINE YEARS WITH MY PRIMARY FOCUS BEING THE DIRECTOR OF TWIN CITIES WAGE THEFT AND EXPLOITATION TEAM IN THAT ROLE MYSELF AND OTHERS TRACK PROJECTS FOR SUBCONTRACTORS AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR CONTRACTORS USE BELOW BOARD NUMBERS OBTAINED BY PRACTICES THAT INVOLVE CASH PAYMENTS TO WORKERS ON PAID OVERTIME MISCLASSIFY AND WORKER'S COMPENSATION FRAUD. THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED PRACTICES TYPICALLY TARGETING A IMMIGRANT WORKFORCE AND IN SOME CASES HAVE GONE AS FAR AS TRAFFICKING WORKERS AND NARCOTICS AGAINST US. RCC HAS BEEN WORKING WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT, STATE AND CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS AND OTHER TO SHINE BRIGHT LIGHT ON THESE EXPLOITIVE PRACTICES THAT PREY ON WORKERS AND TAX DOLLARS. DESPITE THESE EFFORTS OVER THE LAST SEVEN YEARS THERE CONTINUES TO BE A GROUP OF DEVELOPERS AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR THAT LOOK THE OTHER WAY TO GAIN A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE ON PRICE PROFIT AT THE EXPENSE OF WORKERS DIGNITY IN OUR TAX DOLLARS. I'M HERE TONIGHT SPEAKING ON THE ENCLAVE PROPOSAL AT 67 ON ONE WEST 78TH STREET ENCLAVE IS DEVELOPER G.C. CAMPBELL, ORIGINALLY BASED IN NORTH DAKOTA. THEY ENTERED THE TWIN CITIES MARKET IN THE TAIL END OF 2019. RED FLAGS WERE RAISED IMMEDIATELY UPON THEIR ARRIVAL IN REGARDS TO WAY OUT OF STATE WOOD FRAME SUBCONTRACTOR CONSTRUCTION WHO HAD SEVERAL FEDERAL OCEAN LABOR ENCLAVE AND HIRED THEM ON THEIR FIRST THREE PROJECTS THE NCC. RCC TRIED REACHING OUT TO ENCLAVE TO DISCUSS THE ISSUES BUT RECEIVED NOTHING BUT RADIO SILENCE. IT WAS NOT UNTIL A PROPOSAL IN BROOKLYN PARK WITH THE ENCLAVE WHERE THEY WERE REQUESTING A $2.4 MILLION TAX INCREMENT FINANCING FOR A 146 UNIT BUILDING THE ENCLAVE WOULD HAVE TO RESPOND. SOME OF THESE PRACTICES BEING REPORTED BY WORKERS THEIR PROJECTS AFTER TESTIMONY WAS GIVEN IN REGARDS TO RED FLAGS OF EXPLOITIVE PRACTICES ON ENCLAVE PROJECTS THE CITY BROOKLYN PARK DECIDED NOT TO AWARD THE TURF. IT WAS NOT UNTIL THEN THAT ENCLAVE REACHED OUT TO THE INSISTS NCIS RCC JUST TO DISCUSS OF THE PROBLEMS ARTICULATED IN THE TESTIMONIES IT THAT PROGRESS HAD BEEN MADE THE PROJECT IN BROOKLYN PARK MOVED ON HAD SHRUNK IN SIZE WITH A $2.4 MILLION UNTIL ENCLAVE MOVED ON TO ANOTHER SUBCONTRACTOR THAT ALTHOUGH DIFFERENT AND NAMED UTILIZE THE SAME BUSINESS MODEL OF CONSTRUCTION INC. WAS AWARDED THE FRAMING PACKAGE AND DESPITE ENCLAVE MOVED ON WITH THEM SUBSEQUENTLY LABOR THE LABOR BROKER NELSON LOPEZ WHO HAD PROVIDED WOLF WITH THE LABOR FORCE ON THAT PROJECT WAS CHARGED AND PLED GUILTY TO WORKER'S COMP PREMIUM FROM LAST YEAR. THE STAR TRIBUNE RAN A STORY ON THE CASE AND ACTUALLY MENTIONED THAT BROOKLYN PARK PROJECT AND THE STORY ENCLAVE MADE SOME ATTEMPTS TO CLEAN UP THE SUBCONTRACTORS THEY HIRED BY HIRING A WOOD FRAME COMPANY THAT PAYS AREA STANDARDS IN WAGES AND BENEFITS FOR THEIR INITIAL BLOOMINGTON PROJECT SINCE THINGS HAVE TURNED IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION AND ONGOING PROJECTS THE TWIN CITIES MINDAT COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES LLC INNOVATED SERVICES AND ABSOLUTE DRYWALL INC. HAVE BEEN HIRED ON RECENT AND ONGOING PROJECTS. WORKERS. ALL THREE OF THESE COMPANIES HAVE REPORTED BEING PAID CASH ,NOT BEING PAID OVERTIME AND NOT BEING COVERED BY A WORKMAN'S COMP WORKER'S COMP POLICY THAT WOULD COMPENSATE THEM IF INJURY OCCURRED. IN FACT ABSOLUE DRYWALL INC. HAS ONE FEDERAL AND TWO STATE FINDINGS DEPICTING CHILD LABOR UNPAID OVERTIME AND MISCLASSIFICATION. MR. PINDER WE'VE GOT 3 MINUTES HERE TONIGHT HOPING THAT THIS TESTIMONY HELPS PROVIDE A PATHWAY FOR THIS PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE GOOD MIDDLE CLASS JOBS AND NOT A RACE TO THE BOTTOM FOR WORKERS IN BLOOMINGTON AND THE TWIN CITIES. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY . YOU'RE WELCOME. THANK YOU. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK SEEING NO ONE STEPPING FORWARD DO WE HAVE ANYONE ON LINE? MR. MARK OCCURRED. JAD COOKED IN EVERYONE ON LINE AS THE APPLICANT OR CITY STAFF VERY WELL LOOKED FOR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO MOVED A SECOND MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I OPPOSED WE WILL NOW MOVE TO PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION I ACTUALLY A QUESTION FOR STAFF I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY MS. O'DAY SO IN THE STAFF REPORT I NOTICED THE NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC NOTIFICATION THAT WE INCLUDED HE DENIES A NEW THING. I THOUGHT WE DIDN'T NOTIFY SISTER IS THAT CHANGED? CHAIR WE DID NOTIFY EDINA STAFF AND I. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST. WE BE MR. NO IT'S A CHAIR OFTEN. WE DID NOTIFY WITHIN 500 FEET INCLUDING THE DINER. THANK YOU. AND MR. DE I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT EMAILING YOU EARLIER ABOUT THIS BUT THERE WAS ONE CONDITION OR SOMETHING I COULD ASK YOU ABOUT WHICH IS CONDITION NUMBER NINE WHICH I JUST READ HERE. COMPLIANCE WITH MR. CHAPTER 73 NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL IS REQUIRED. THERE WAS A NOTE IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT NOISE MAY BE A CONCERN WITH THE PROXIMITY 494 WHEN WE'VE HAD NOISE APPLICATIONS BEFORE. SO IT WAS ALWAYS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT AN APPLICANT'S SURROUNDING USES ARE NOT SOMETHING RIGHT THERE. THE NOISE THAT SURROUNDS THEM IS NOT SOMETHING THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT THAT THEY'RE REALLY KIND OF RESPONSIBLE TO THEMSELVES. COULD YOU MAYBE JUST TALK LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT? CHAIR YEAH. SO THERE IS A CONDITION THAT THE NOISE HAS TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THE MINNESOTA STATUTE. I'M KIND OF STRUGGLING TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION PERHAPS MAYBE I'LL ASK IS THAT BOILERPLATE LANGUAGE OR IS THAT SOMETHING UNIQUE THIS SITE? THAT'S BOILERPLATE LANGUAGE. OKAY. YEAH. NOT THAT WE DIDN'T THINK ABOUT IT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. NOW WE WILL INTO ADDITIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION . COMMISSIONER CURRY, I GUESS JUST IN LIGHT OF THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. MY FIRST QUESTION I GUESS FOR THE CITY AS DO WE ARE ANY ANY OF THE TOPICS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP IS THAT WITHIN OUR PURVIEW TO THINK ABOUT OR DISCUSS. WHAT DO WE SAIDOMETHING WE SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT? PERHAPS IT'S A QUESTION FOR MR. HOSKING. YEAH. YOU HAVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. SO THOSE ARE WHAT ARE CALLED JUDICIAL TYPE OF APPLICATION. SO YOU APPLY THE FACTS THEY'VE BEEN LAID OUT TO WHAT THE STANDARDS ARE IN THE ORDINANCE AND THAT'S ALL TO CONSIDER. SO THEY MEET ALL THOSE STANDARDS IN THE ORDINANCE THEN YOU COULD APPROVE THE THE APPLICATION, THE THINGS THAT ARE EXTRANEOUS THAT NO YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO CONSIDER THOSE AS PART OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY KEVIN TASKING FOR THE DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER GOLDMAN THANK YOU CHAIR. JUST TALKINGBOUT THE APPLICATION FRONT OF US HERE AS THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON IS ALWAYS LOOKING FOR MORE HOUSING, I WAS EXCITED TO SEE THIS APPLICATION AGAIN. I'VE SEEN IT IN 2018 WHEN I WAS ON THE COMMISSION AND WAS HAPPY TO SEE INCREASED INTEREST FROM 160 ODD UNITS TO HUNDRED EIGHT UNITS. SO GREAT TO SEE THAT THAT IS AN ADDITION MORE HOUSING STOCK FOR OUR COMMUNITY. MY ALSO VERY HAPPY WITH THE 19 AFFORDABLE UNITS AS WELL. I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT THAT'S THEIR THE OTHER THING I WAS REALLY EXCITED TO SEE IS THE MIX OF STUDIO ONE, TWO AND THREE BEDROOM UNITS I THINK THREE BEDROOMS ARE SOMETHING THAT WE WE NEED MORE OF FOR GROWING FAMILIES AND LOOKING AT THE ADJACENT USE OF A DAYCARE WHAT A GREAT AMENITY FOR A FAMILY THAT POTENTIALLY COULD BE YOU KNOW WORKING REMOTE AND KIDS SORT OF DAYCARE THERE. SO I THINK IT WOULD BE GREAT TO HAVE THOSE TWO USES ON ONE ON ONE PROPERTY. OVERALL I THINK YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE SOME OF MY COMMENTS ON THE ON THE DEVELOPMENT AS A WHOLE AND I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS. I THINK OVERALL I'M IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER ALBERT THANK YOU CHAIR. GIVEN COMMISSIONER CURRY'S QUESTION ABOUT THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, I DON'T WANT TO GLOSS OVER THAT. I APPRECIATE THE INFORMATION COMING FORWARD AND WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO TESTIFY THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AS WELL WHERE THEY HAVE A LITTLE MORE DISCRETION ON SOME OF THESE ISSUES BECAUSE SIMILAR TO COMMISSIONER GOLTZMAN, THE FINDINGS HERE ARE MADE AND I WHEREAS I AM CONCERNED ABOUT SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT YOU BROUGHT UP THAT OUR DISCRETION IS KIND OF MINIMAL IN TERMS OF WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DO. HOWEVER, ADDITIONAL HOUSING LIKE COMMISSIONER GOLTZMAN SAID IMPORTANT FOR THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON I THINK ALSO DAYCARE AND SAFE FACILITIES FORUR KIDS ALSO VERY, VERY IMPORTANT AND THE DEMAND FOR DAYCARE FACILITIES IS VERY HIGH. SO GOOD TO SEE BOTH OF THESE TWO USES FOR THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON ESPECIALLY IN SUCH A AN AREA WHERE IT'S EASY TO GET TO AND FROM FOR A LOT OF JOBS ELSEWHERE. SO I AM IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION AND WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR THE CITY COUNCIL. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ALBRECHT. A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I THOUGHT ABOUT WHEN I WAS REVIEWING THIS. YOU KNOW, I GENERALLY FIND TO BE A GOOD PROPOSAL. AS MUCH AS I WISH AN OFFICE TOWER COULD GO HERE, IT'S REASONABLE TO THINK THAT IT'S BEEN VACANT FOR 17 YEARS. WE ALL KNOW THE OFFICE MARKET IS THAT RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. AND SO I THINK THIS A FINE APPLICATION. I AM A LITTLE SENSITIVE TO THE FLEXIBILITY REQUESTED ON DENSITY. YOU KNOW, WHEN I THINK ABOUT. I'M MORE SENSITIVE TO SOME PLACES THAN OTHERS AND FOR THOSE PLANNING COMMISSION SUPERFANS OUT THERE THEY MIGHT KNOW THAT I'M VERY SENSITIVE IT IN BUILDINGS IN CENTRAL STATION AND IN SOUTH LOOP ANOTHER PLACE I AM SENSITIVE TO IT IS ALONG 494 THAT IS A PLACE FOR HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT IT'S A IT'S THE RIGHT TYPE OF PROJECT IN THE RIGHT LOCATION AND I DO FIND THAT THOSE ARE THOSE PARCELS OF BUYING FOR FOUR ARE THE MOST WELCOMING TOWARDS HIGH DENSITY. SO AS MUCH AS I WISH THIS MET ALL OUR FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PLANS LOOK AT IT PRACTICALLY I THINK THERE'S NOT THAT BIG AND IT'S ALMOST JUST MORE OF A IT'S A QUIRKY SITE AND I THINK THERE'S JUSTIFICATION FOR NOT MEETING THE DENSITY THERE. SURE I WISH IT MET IFR BUT I THINK THE PUBLIC BENEFIT HERE IS GREATER THAN ANY LOSS IN DENSITY THAT WE MIGHT SEE THE OTHER FLEXIBILITY BEING REQUESTED AS THE PARKING DEVIATION I THINK PARTICULARLY NOTING THE APPLICANT SAID THEY PLAN TO HANG ON TO THIS AND OPERATE IT THEMSELVES. THINK THAT'S THAT'S GOOD JUSTIFICATION THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PARK THEIR OWN SITE PARTICULARLY IN A PLACE WHERE THERE IS LITERALLY ZERO STREET PARKING AVAILABLE SO I TRUST THE APPLICANT HAS DONE THEIR HOMEWORK AND IS NOT GOING TO PARK THEIR OWN SITE. SO AT THAT I AM SUPPORTIVE OF THIS APPLICATION TODAY. COMMISSIONER THANK YOU CHAIR. YEAH I GUESS I VEER COMMISSIONER HOLBROOKE'S COMMENTS AND I FULLY APPRECIATE THE COMMENTARY MADE TONIGHT AND YOU KNOW IT'S NOT IT'S NOT I GUESS THAT WE CAN GET INTO. SO I'D ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO SPEAK WITH THE CITY COUNCIL AS WELL IN TERMS OF THE APPLICATION SPECIFIC CLEAR THE FLOOR AREA RATIO SHORTAGE. MY QUESTIONS EARLIER REGARDING THE SUBDIVISION WERE KIND OF INTENT WERE DIRECTED TOWARDS WHAT WAS ULTIMATELY THE FLORIDA AREA BECOMING I THINK AND I GUESS I DON'T REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT I THINK THAT YOU KNOW AT SOME POINT IT'S GOING TO BE MUCH CLOSER TO WHAT IT'S INTENDED. BE SO IN TERMS OF PARKING I THINK YOU KNOW THE TWO USES KIND OF COMPLEMENT EACH OTHER IN TERMS OF THE TIMES THAT PARKING IS NEEDED DURING THE DAY AND IT SOUNDS LIKE GUEST PARKING WHICH I HAVE ACTUALLY HEARD OF PROJECT THAT I HAVE HAD SOME INVOLVEMENT WITH I DIDN'T CREATED OR ANYTHING BUT I HEARD SOME COMPLAINTS TENANTS THAT THERE WAS NO GUEST PARKING AND THAT WAS A MAJOR PROBLEM SO I APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT'S COMMENTS REGARDING GUEST PARKING AND THAT AND THEIR CONCERN ABOUT SORT OF PARKING SHORTAGE. SO NO CONCERNS ABOUT THE PARKING THERE AND ALSO THINK YOU KNOW, WE DEFINITELY NEED MORE HOUSING IN BLOOMINGTON. SO I IN SUPPORT VERY WELL WE'VE ALL HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK DOES ANYONE HAVE A SECOND GO HERE COMMISSIONER ALBERT THANK YOU CHAIR I'M HAPPY TO MAKE A PLEASE IN CASE PEOPLE 2023-193. HAVING BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS I MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT FOR A FIVE STOREY 208 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AND DETACHED 11,000 SQUARE FOOT DAYCARE SPACE AT 6701 WEST 78TH STREET. SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND CODE REQUIREMENTS ATTACHED THE STAFF REPORT. SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL RECOMMENDED APPVAL OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS AT 6701 WEST 78TH STREET. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN SAY I I OPPOSED THE MOTION PASSES FOR ZERO. COMMISSIONER ALBERT THANK YOU CHAIR IN CASE P.L. CHOOSES 23-193. HAVING BEEN ABLE TO MAKE REQUIRED FINDINGS, I MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN 11,000 SQUARE FOOT DAYCARE AT 6701 WEST 78TH STREET. SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND CODE REQUIREMENTS ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT. COND, WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE AT THE SAME SITE. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I. I OPPOSED THAT MOTION FOR ZERO. THIS ITEM WILL MOVE TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 12TH AS A CONSENT ITEM AND I WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT THAT MEANS. THE CITY COUNCIL AS OPPOSED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS SOME OTHER IT HAS CONSENT WHICH MEANS THEY'RE NOT BROUGHT UP FOR DISCUSSION. HOWEVER, AN ITEM CAN BE TAKEN OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA WHERE THERE WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THAT TESTIMONY WE HEARD THIS EVENING WHICH HAS BEEN ENCOURAGED SO IF YOU ARE HOPING TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE WAY THAT WOULD WORK IS YOU WOULD REACH OUT TO A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER AND ASK THEM TO THAT FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA SO YOU CAN PROVIDE THEIR TESTIMONY AND THOSE EMAIL ADDRESSES ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE AND CERTAINLY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT COULD ALSO HELP YOU WITH THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. PLANNING COMMISSION WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER TWO WHICH IS ALSO A PUBLIC HEARING AND THAT'S BY THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON AS THE APPLICANT. IT'S A CITY CODE AMENDMENTS FOR THESE SIGN CODE UPDATES. SENIOR PLANNER NICK JOHNSON, WE HAVE YOU HERE AT CITY HALL. WELCOME. GOOD TO SEE YOU ALL. THANK YOU. ACTING CHAIR PULL UP MY SLIDES HERE WHILE I'M DOING OOPS WE JUST HAD LINDELL'S RETIREMENT PARTY SO MONDALE PIECE FOR THE SUPERFANS. YEAH JUST ENDED A LONG AND GREAT CAREER HERE FOR 30 YEARS SO THANKS TO HIM AND HE HELPED WITH THIS PROJECT A LOT TO I'M SORRY OKAY HERE WE GO THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE. SO THIS IS THE THIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING THIS IS THE THIRD TIME WE'VE BEEN BEFORE YOU ON THE SIGN ORDINANCE PROJECT. WE'VE DONE TWO PRIOR STUDY SESSIONS AND THE REASON THAT WE'RE DOING THIS IS THAT A THE PROJECT IS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN FOR 2023 AND 2024 BUT AS YOU KNOW THE PLANT THE CITY SIGN ORDINANCE HAS NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY UPDATED SINCE 1996 AND THERE'S BEEN A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF CHANGES IN CASE LAW SURROUNDING EXPRESSION BUT ALSO JUST CHANGES IN BEST PRACTICES CHANGES AND TECHNOLOGY CHANGES IN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT TOUCH ON SIGNAGE AND JUST FOR THE AUDIENCE AND FOR AS A REMINDER FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION THE BALANCE POINTS TYPICAL AND SIGNED ORDINANCES IS A BALANCE TWEEN EXPRESSION WHICH IN MANY CASES GOOD BOTH COMMERCIAL AND NONCOMMERCIAL MESSAGES ARE REALLY HELPFUL AND IMPORTANT BUT ALSO TRYING TO STRIKE A BALANCE OF PUBLIC SAFETY THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, THE ESTHETICS OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND, TRYING TO MANAGE VISUAL CLUTTER AND LIMIT COMMERCIALISM AND NONCOMMERCIAL AREAS. THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS TO THINK ABOUT AS WE GO THROUGH THIS. SO HERE IS A BASIC AGENDA OF WHAT I INTEND TO TALK ABOUT BECAUSE WE DID A PRETTY ROBUST PRESENTATION OF THE DRAFT SIGN CODE BACK IN NOVEMBER. I'M GOING TO TRY AND FOCUS MORE ON SOME OF THE CHANGES AND SOME OF THE BIG PICTURE POLICY THAT THIS ORDINANCE WOULD BRING TO YOU IF ADOPTED. SO HERE'S A BASIC AGENDA THE THINGS WE'LL ON JUST LOOKING AT THE PROCESS AND TIMELINE THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH. SO AGAIN THIS PROCESS REALLY STARTED IN 2022 WITH THE INITIAL ENGAGEMENT AND RESEARCH COMPONENTS BUT WE CAME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL IN JANUARY OF 2023. AT THAT STUDY SESSION WE ATTEMPTED TO ESTABLISH A KIND OF BROAD OR HIGH LEVEL POLICY DIRECTION AND A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT QUESTIONS THAT PERTAIN TO SCIENCE. WE USE THAT DIRECTION. WE DID A POLLING EXERCISE AND WE USE SOME OF THAT DIRECTION TO KIND OF HELP SHARPEN THE DECISION POINTS THAT WE MADE TERMS OF DRAFTING AND RESEARCHING THE SIGN CODE . SO FROM FEBRUARY SEPTEMBER JUST THAT'S REALLY THE HEART OF THE RESEARCH AND DRAFTING PERIOD WE DID DO A LITTLE BIT OF A WE TOOK A LITTLE BIT OF A RIGHT AND WORKED ON MURAL STANDARDS MURALS WERE EMBEDDED IN THE SIGN CODE AND WE MADE A DETERMINATION THAT WAS PRUDENT TO TAKE MURALS OUT OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE AND ESTABLISH SEPARATE MURAL STANDARDS. AND WE DID THAT IN AUGUST OF LAST YEAR AND IT WENT THROUGH ITS OWN PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS. YOU ALL WERE INVOLVED IN THAT JUST RECENTLY IN NOVEMBER WE PRESENTED THE FIRST FULL DRAFT OUR NEW SIGN CODE VOTE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL. I'LL ADD THAT WE'VE BEEN PRETTY CONSISTENT TRYING TO REACH DIFFERENT SECTORS OF THE PUBLIC AS PART OF THIS PROCESS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRETY OF THE YEAR AND HAVE GOTTEN A LOT OF FEEDBACK, SOME GOOD FEEDBACK SO CERTAINLY APPRECIATIVE OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE LEANED IN AND PROVIDED ENGAGEMENT IN THAT REGARD. AND THEN HERE HERE WE ARE TONIGHT PUBLIC HEARINGS IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR AND SOMETHING I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT AT THE END OF MY PRESENTATION BUT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING CIRCLING BACK ON THIS POLICY PROBABLY A YEAR OUT SHOULD THE CITY ADOPT THE NEW SANCTION BUT I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT SO WE'VE PRESENTED THIS SLIDE ALL THREE TIMES FORGIVE ME FOR THE DUPLICATION BUT I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT THE DECISION POINTS THAT WE'VE MADE THROUGHOUT PROCESS HAVE ATTEMPTED TO CHECK THE BOX OR ADVANCE THE BALL ON THESE THREE MATTERS. ONE, WE WANT TO CONFORM WITH CURRENT LEGAL STANDARDS. WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE THE ASPECT THE LEGAL ASPECTS IN A MOMENT WE WANT TO IMPROVE THE CLARITY AND REDUCE COMPLEXITY AS STAFF OF UTILIZING THIS ORDINANCE. OVER THE YEARS WE'VE KNOWN A NUMBER OF TIMES WHERE THERE CAN BE CONFLICTING PROVISIONS OR JUST IT'S JUST TOO TO FIND THE INFORMATION THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. AND ON THAT NOTE WE DID TO IMPROVE THE ORGANIZATION AND FORMATTING IMPROVE THE USER EXPERIENCE AND ADOPT KIND OF AN ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE THAT'S MORE CONSISTENT WITH MODEL ORDINANCES OR BEST PRACTICES THAT WE'VE OBSERVED OBTAINED. SO I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THESE THREE THINGS ON THE LEGAL FRONT. SO THIS IS THE FIRST ORDINANCE I'VE WORKED ON WHERE THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT WAS A DIRECT PARTNER IN THE DRAFTING AND THAT HAS TO DO JUST WITH THE COMPLEXITY AROUND THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND EXPRESSION AND THIS IS SIGNED ORDINANCE IS AN INTERSECTION OF FIRST AMENDMENT AND EXPRESSION LAND USE LAW. SO THAT'S WHAT REALLY RAMPS UP THE COMPLEXITY IS THAT NOT ONLY ARE YOU DEALING WITH ZONING MATTERS BUT YOU'RE DEALING WITH SOME OF THESE CONSTITUTION MATTERS THAT MAKE IT COMPLICATED. SO THERE'S BEEN SOME RECENT CASE CASES AS I MENTIONED EVEN UP TO THE SUPREME COURT UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT THAT HAVE FORCED REQUIRED CITIES TO REEXAMINE SIGNAGE ORDINANCES AND MAKE SURE THAT A, THEY'RE NOT CREATING DIFFERENT STANDARDS BASED ON THAT THEY'RE TREATING NON COMMERCIAL SPEECH JUST FAVORABLY IF NOT MORE FAVORABLY THAN COMMERCIAL SPEECH AND THAT THERE'S NOT DISCRETION IN SOME OF THE CITY'S DECISION MAKING BASED ON CONTENT OF SIGNS BASICALLY SO NOT ONLY WERE WE DIRECTLY PARTNERING THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT KEVIN TASK WITH MYSELF WE ALSO CONTRACTED WITH A NATIONALLY EXPERT JOHN BAKER WITH GREENSBORO HE ONLY REVIEWED OUR EXISTING SIGN CODE IN KIND OF THE MIDPOINT OF THE YEAR AND POINTED OUT SEVERAL OF THE RED FLAGS THAT DON'T PASS TODAY'S KIND OF LEGAL LANDSCAPE. HE ALSO REVIEWED OUR DRAFT ORDINANCE AND SOME OF THE CHANGES I'LL TALK ABOUT SINCE WE HE DID THAT IN DECEMBER SOME OF THE UPDATES I'LL TALK ABOUT FROM YOUR LAST DRAFT YOU REVIEWED IN NOVEMBER AS A DIRECT RESULT OF HIS REVIEW JUST KIND OF AND CLEANING SOME THINGS UP. SO YEAH I REALLY GOOD ABOUT THIS ASPECT I THINK WE'VE APPROACHED IT WITH THE URGENCY AND THE CAUTION THAT IT REQUIRES. SO THE ORDINANCE ITSELF IS 140 PAGES LONG. IT'S A LONG DOCUMENT MOST OF IT IS THE DELETION OF THE EXISTING SIGNED ORDINANCE WHICH IS OVER 80 PAGES LONG. SO THAT TELLS YOU SOMETHING OUR EXISTING SIGN CODE BUT IN ORDER KIND OF HELP THE PUBLIC CONSUMPTION OF THE FULL ORDINANCE WE DID CREATE A SUMMARY TABLE OF JUST ALL THE DIFFERENT CHANGES OF ALL THE DIFFERENT CODE SECTIONS THAT WERE AMENDED BUT WE DID WANT TO A SUMMARY AS WELL AND SOME OF THE MOST MAYBE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES SO WE DID MOVE THE CURRENTLY THE VARIANCE PROVISIONS BOTH FOR ZONING ZONING VARIANCES ARE IN CHAPTER TWO UNDER THE PLANNING COMMISSION SECTION WE DID CREATE SOME SPECIFIC FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS THAT RELATE TO SIGN VARIANCES AND WE MOVE THAT INTO THE SIGN ORDINANCE. WE DID A FEW DEFINITION CHANGES. THERE WERE A FEW THINGS THAT WERE REDUNDANT BETWEEN OUR GENERAL DEFINITIONS SECTION OR JUST NEEDED TO BE SOME UNDEFINED TERMS OR SOME OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AS IT RELATED TO SCIENCE. AND THEN WE DID DELETE BOTH THE FULL EXISTING BILLBOARD SECTION AND THE SIGN CODE IN CHAPTER 19 AND THEN OF COURSE WE HAVE THE NEW SANCO AD WHICH DOES INCLUDE BILLBOARD STANDARDS PROPOSED IN CHAPTER 21. IN ADDITION TO THAT THE MAJORITY OF CHANGES ARE JUST A LOT OF CROSS-REFERENCES THE SIGN CODE IS REFERENCED IN MANY DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE FULL CITY CODE AS WELL THE APPENDIX SAY WHICH IS THE FEE SCHEDULE SO THERE'S SOME PROCEDURAL OR PROCESS THINGS THAT ALSO HAD TO BE UPDATED. SO IN TERMS OF WHAT SOME OF THE NOTABLE NOTABLE POLICY CHANGES ARE FROM THE NEW SIGN TO OUR EXISTING SIGN CODE , I DON'T INTEND TO TOUCH ON ALL THESE TOPICS. I JUST ADD THEM HERE FOR BULLETS FOR CONSIDERATION AND IF YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC IF YOU OR THE PUBLIC HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THESE THINGS I CAN CERTAINLY GO INTO MORE DETAIL IN TERMS WHAT THEY MEAN BUT THE BULLETED LIST FRONT OF YOU ARE WHAT WE DEEMED AS KIND OF A SIGNIFICANT DEPARTURE FROM HOW THE EXISTING SIGN CODE DEALS WITH SIGNS IN VARIOUS WAYS. SO SINCE YOU REVIEWED THE FULL DRAFT IN NOVEMBER, I WANTED TO POINT OUT SOME OF THESE CHANGES THAT WE MADE. WE DID MOVE ALL OF THE TEMPORARY SIGN PROVISIONS THOSE KIND OF FOLLOWED IN A LIST FORMAT SIMILAR TO OUR EXISTING SIGN CODE AND WE MOVE THOSE INTO A TABLE. IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE DIGESTIBLE AND EASIER TO READ . CIRCLING BACK TO THE JOHN BAKER REVIEW CONTRACTED ATTORNEY, HE DID NOTE FEW INSTANCES WHERE THERE WAS POSSIBILITY OF COMMERCIAL SPEECH ACTUALLY EXCEEDING NON ALLOWANCES FOR NONCOMMERCIAL SPEECH AND SO THAT'S A NO NO IN TODAY'S ENVIRONMENT AND SO WE DID TO MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO THE SIZE ALLOWANCES AND IN SOME CASES THE NUMBER ALLOWANCES TO OUR TEMPORARY SIGNS SO I DON'T HAVE EXACTLY EVERY SPECIFIC SIGN TYPE OF THE TEMPORARY SIGNS BUT IN EFFECT WHAT THE DRAFT IN FRONT OF YOU DOES IS THAT IT ENSURES THAT FOR EVERY COMMERCIAL TYPE OF TEMPORARY SIGN THERE'S ALSO ALLOWANCES FOR NON COMMERCIAL SPEECH THOSE LINES AND THAT'S IN THE NEW LEGAL ENVIRONMENT THAT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT CITIES ARE REALLY GOING TO HAVE TO LIVE WITH AND EMBRACE AND BE OKAY AND THAT'S OKAY EXPRESSION FOR THE MOST PART IS GOOD. SO YEAH ELECTRONIC COPY DWELL TIME THIS WAS A THIS WAS A CLARIFICATION THAT IN THE PREVIOUS DRAFT OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE THE EXISTING SIGN CODE ESTABLISHES SEVERAL TIMES NOT JUST BY CHANGEABLE COPY AND ELECTRONIC GRAPHIC DISPLAY. IT ALSO ACTUALLY HAS A STIPULATION THAT THE CHANGEABLE COPY SIGNS MUST BE TEN WORDS OR LESS AND THE RESEARCHER THE REASONING BEHIND IS THAT BACK WHEN THOSE AMENDMENTS WERE MADE IN 2006 ACTUALLY WHEN THE CITY UPDATED ITS ELECTRONIC SIGN AND THE RESEARCH REFLECTS THIS TODAY AS WELL IT'S JUST THAT MORE LONGER MESSAGES OR MESSAGES WITH MORE TEXT MORE WORDS HAVE A HIGHER PROPENSITY OF DRIVER DISTRACTION OR CONCERNS ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY FOR THE TRAVELING PUBLIC. AND SO THE CITY ADOPTED THOSE STANDARDS 2006 WE INTEND TO ATTEMPTED TO PRESENT CARRY THOSE SAME CONSIDERATIONS FORWARD IN OUR NOVEMBER DRAFT BUT WE ON BECAUSE WE WERE STRIVING TO CREATE LESS COMPLEXITY WE ADMITTED THAT COMPONENT BUT IT TURNS OUT THAT COMPONENT IS ACTUALLY FAIRLY IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF HOW THAT STANDARD WAS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED. SO WE ADDED THAT BACK IN AND SO IT WOULD BE CHANGEABLE COPY TEN WORDS OR LESS OR SHORTER MESSAGES ARE SUBJECT TO THAT 8 SECONDS THE LONGER MESSAGES AND GRAPHICS WOULD BE REDUCED TO 10 MINUTES LIKELY LIKE WE PREVIOUSLY TALKED ABOUT IN ESSENCE WHAT THAT DECISION POINT WAS IN 2006 IS IT REFLECTED A COMPROMISE IN TERMS OF TRYING TO MAINTAIN YOU KNOW, CONTROL OF PUBLIC SAFETY TO A DEGREE? AGAIN, TRAFFIC SAFETY BEING THE MOST IMPORTANT THING BUT ALSO HAVE SOME ALLOWANCES FOR SHORTER TRAVEL TIMES FOR MORE LIMITED MESSAGES WHICH ARE USED BY PRIVATE AND THE PUBLIC ACTORS AS WELL SO BILLBOARD ELECTRONIC CONVERSION THAT ONE ADDITIONAL UPDATE SINCE YOUR SINCE YOUR REVIEW IN NOVEMBER AND I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO FAR IN THE WEEDS BUT BASICALLY WHAT IT HAD TO DO WITH IS WHEN IT HAD A CONNECTION POINT TO NON-CONFORMITY STANDARDS FOR SIGNS WHEN YOU INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE CABINET OF A EXISTING BILLBOARD THAT IS IN EFFECT NON-CONFORMITY CONSIDERATIONS YOU'RE INCREASING THE SIZE OF IT, YOU'RE EXPANDING IT. AND SO WHAT WE THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL THAT THERE SHOULD BE MECHANISMS TO ALLOW FOR ELECTRONIC CONVERSION OF OUR FOR EXISTING BILLBOARDS IN BLOOMINGTON. SO IN EFFECT WHAT WE DID IS WE CREATED AN EXCEPTION FOR THE CONVERSION OF EXISTING BILLBOARDS TO ELECTRONIC SO THAT'S THAT'S IN THE DRAFT THOSE ARE THE MAIN UPDATES. OTHERWISE THE DRAFT FOR THE MOST PART REFLECTS WHAT YOU SAW IN NOVEMBER. THERE'S YOU KNOW LITTLE TWEAKS HERE AND THERE BUT I JUST THAT'S KIND OF THE BIGGER ITEMS. SO AT PLANNING COMMISSION LAST TIME THERE A REQUEST IN ORDER TO PROVIDE WE PROVIDED SOME OF THIS ANECDOTALLY AS WELL AS JUST IN THE TEXT OF OUR STAFF REPORT BUT THE COMMISSION REQUESTED THIS THAT WE PROVIDE A SUMMARY TABLE OF DWELL TIME STATE AND ELECTRONIC SIGNS STANDARDS FOR VARIOUS COMMUNITIES. SO DWELL TIME IS A BIG CERTAINLY A BIG PIECE OF THAT . I WILL SAY THAT SOME CITIES HAVE DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR BILLBOARDS, YOU KNOW, IN OTHER ASPECTS OF THEIR CODE SEPARATE FROM THEIR SIGN. SO WE DID TRY TO CAPTURE THOSE IN THOSE COMMUNITIES BUT ACKNOWLEDGED IT'S POSSIBLE THAT SOME OF THE CITIES STUDIED MAY HAVE STANDARDS THAT WE DID NOT CATCH BUT THIS IS MORE FOCUSED SIGN ORDINANCES ALTHOUGH FOR CITIES WE WERE AWARE OF SEPARATE BILLBOARD STANDARDS WE DID INCLUDE THAT AND HOW THIS IS REFLECTED BUT THIS IS JUST A SAMPLING OF 14 CITIES. IT GIVES YOU, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT TO LOOK AT. ONE THING I WOULD NOTE IS THAT WHILE SOME CITIES HAVE VERY MINIMAL DWELL TIME. SOME OF THOSE CITIES ALSO REALLY LIMIT THE SIZE OF THAT ELECTRONIC CAN BE SOME OF THEM HAVE PROPORTIONALITY REQUIREMENTS STATING THAT ELECTRONIC CAN ONLY BE A CERTAIN PROPORTION OF A FREESTANDING SIGN. FOR EXAMPLE. AND SO IT'S KIND OF EASY TO LOOK APPLES TO APPLES AT THE DWELL TIME ALONE WITHOUT SEEING THIS OTHER STUFF THAT'S HAPPENING KIND BEHIND THE CURTAIN LIKE SAINT LOUIS PARK FOR EXAMPLE. I DON'T WANT TO PICK ON THEM 30 SECONDS THAT'S A VERY LOW DWELL TIME. THEY ALSO HAVE VERY STRONG LIMITATIONS ABOUT WHERE ELECTRONIC SIGNS CAN BE AND HOW BIG THEY CAN BE. THEY WERE ONE OF THOSE CITIES THAT HAS A PROPORTIONALITY FOR EXAMPLE SO JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT AND THEN JUST FOR A SUMMARY ASPECT AS FAR WHAT THIS DRAFT REFLECTS FOR ELECTRONIC SCIENCE, AGAIN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A MAX HUNDRED AND 50 SQUARE FOOT SIZE, THE DWELL TIME OF LIMITED 8 SECONDS GRAPHICS AND LARGER TEXT 10 MINUTES A BUFFER OF RESIDENTIAL TO RESIDENTIAL USES OF 100 FEET AND THEN A NIGHTTIME RESTRICTION WHEN LOCATED WITHIN 150 FEET OF RESIDENTIAL USES. SO THAT'S WHAT THE DRAFT SAYS LOOKING AT THIS A DIFFERENT WAY THIS IS KIND OF THE ENVIRONMENT REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT ABOUT SPECIFIC TO DWELL TIMES RIGHT AROUND BLOOMINGTON. SO YOU SEE A VERY RANGE LIKE I'VE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF CITIES ARE AT 60 MINUTES WHICH IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME IN PRAIRIE AT 20 MINUTES AND THEN YOU HAVE A COLLECTION CITIES SAVAGE AT 20 MINUTES AND THEN YOU HAVE BURNSVILLE RICHFIELD, THE MAC PROPERTY THAT HAVE LOWER DWELL TIMES AND IN SOME CASES ALLOW DWELL TIMES THROUGH WHAT'S CALLED AN ENHANCED DYNAMIC DISPLAY OR OTHER MECHANISMS THAT BASICALLY INCENTIVIZE, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN ACTIVITIES OR ACTIONS ON PART OF APPLICANTS EITHER BY REDUCING OR LOCATING SIGNAGE IN ORDER TO GAIN LOWER TO ALL TIMES. BUT YEAH THOSE ARE THOSE KIND OF THE NUMBERS I STATE THAT BECAUSE PEOPLE DRIVE ON THE THEY WALK ON THE STREETS OR THEY SAY WHY IS IT DIFFERENT RIGHT THERE BUT IT'S NOT RIGHT THERE. AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS HAVE AUTHORITY OVER THIS AND THEY REGULATE IT ALL DIFFERENTLY. YOU WILL HEAR PEOPLE TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN FEDERAL STANDARDS OR STATE STANDARDS AND THAT'S NOT TO DISCREDIT THINGS BUT IT'S NOT A PREEMPTION TYPE ISSUE WHERE A IS SET AND THEN LOCAL JURISDICTIONS CAN'T REGULATE CITIES HAVE THE TO REGULATE THIS ISSUE AND MANY DO AND ONCE AGAIN SIMILAR TO 26 OR 1996 THE CITY WILL HAVE TO MAKE AECISION ABOUT IT WANTS TO GO AND AGAIN JUST THINKING ABOUT THAT BALANCE BETWEEN EXPRESSION AND THEN TRAFFIC SAFETY YOU KNOW IT'S IT'S KIND OF BALANCE THERE SO WE'VE DONE A FAIR AMOUNT OF PUBLIC AS PART OF THIS PROCESS. WE'VE ENGAGED A LOT WITH INTERNAL PARTNERS. AGAIN, AS I'VE AS I KIND OF MENTIONED THAT SCIENCE TOUCH ALL DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE CITY CODE IT TOUCHES ALL OF OUR DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS TO YOU KNOW ELECTION SCIENCE PER PARK SCIENCE BUILDING ADDRESSING WITH KNOW PUBLIC SAFETY PROFESSIONALS THERE'S JUST A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS OUR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH STAFF RUNS OUR TEMPORARY ASSIGNED PERMIT PROCESS AND AS I MENTIONED THE TRAFFIC STAFF. SO THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT PLAYERS IN THIS ON THE EXTERNAL SIDE WE'VE DONE A NUMBER OF SURVEYS WITH OTHER CITIES. WE'VE SURVEYED OUR SCIENCE INSTALLERS. THAT WORK WAS ALL DONE KIND OF EARLIER LAST YEAR BUT SINCE THAT TIME WE'VE REACHED OUT DIRECTLY TO A LOT OF TRADE ASSOCIATIONS THAT HAVE AN INTEREST IN SIGNAGE. YOU CAN SOME OF THEIR LOGOS THERE ON THE LEFT AND THEN SIMILAR TO OTHER LONG RANGE PLANNING PROJECTS WE'VE HAD A CONSISTENT ONLINE ENGAGEMENT PRESENCE. WE HAVE HAD SOME ENGAGEMENT THROUGH THAT AS WELL AND WE'VE TRIED TO BE DILIGENT ABOUT PROVIDING PROJECT UPDATES ON THAT PAGE AND THEN SINCE THAT TIME THANKFULLY WE'RE HAPPY WHEN PEOPLE REACH OUT TO US AND WANT TO TALK TO US ABOUT OUR DRAFT CODES. WE'VE HAD A FEW MEETINGS DIRECTLY WITH PEOPLE AND WE APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK THAT THEY'VE PROVIDED US AND SO THAT THAT'S HELPFUL. WE HAVE RECEIVED SOME CORRESPONDENCE WE'VE GOTTEN FIVE LETTERS ON THE DRAFT SIGN CODE . THE STAFF REPORT TRIED TO PROVIDE A SUMMARY AND KIND OF JUST GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE ABOUT KIND OF THE THINGS THAT SOME OF THESE PARTIES ARE ASKING FOR WHILE THE TOYOTA INQUIRING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF SIGNS AND PARKING STRUCTURES CLEAR CHANNEL ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABILITY FOR BILLBOARD DIGITAL CONVERSION, I THINK THE NEW CODE MIGHT LAY THAT ISSUE TO REST THINK IT DOES LAY THAT ISSUE TO REST BUT JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT THEY DID SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT SIGN BRIGHTNESS AND THEN THERE IS SOME REQUEST TO REDUCE ELECTRONIC SIGN DWELL TIMES AND I ON THIS POINT CLEAR CHANNEL OPERATES IN THE BILLBOARD SPACE AND I DO WANT TO NOTE THE SYNCHRO DOES HAVE DIFFERENT STANDARDS IT'S A FLAT 10 MINUTES NOT NOT A 8 SECONDS FOR REDUCED AMOUNTS OF TEXT AND SO THAT'S ALSO A CONSIDERATION ABOUT THE SIZE OF THOSE SIGNS AND THAT'S A CARRYOVER FROM PREVIOUS THE EXISTING SIGN CODE WHICH CURRENTLY IS 20 MINUTES BUT THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT GO INTO THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE SIGN SIZE, THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC THAT ARE SEEING THOSE AND THE SPEEDS THAT THEY'RE OPERATING AT AS FAR AS CROWDS, ANDERSON HAD A GOOD MEETING WITH THEM. THEY HAD FIVE ISSUES OR WAS IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN SIX FIVE ISSUES THAT THEY IDENTIFIED TEMPORARY SIGNS FOR COMMERCIAL PROMOTIONS. YOU KNOW, THIS IS AN AREA IF YOU READ THEIR LETTER SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE CAN BE A LITTLE BIT MORE AND CREATIVE ABOUT IN TERMS OF EXPANDING THE DAYS ALLOWANCE BASED ON THE NUMBER OF TENANTS IF IT'S OF INTEREST TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, I'LL CERTAINLY WAIT UNTIL LATER IF REQUESTED BUT IF IT'S OF INTEREST TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THAT ISSUE I THINK I A CONCEPT OF SOMETHING THAT COULD GET CLOSER TO WHAT I THINK CAROL SANDERSON IS LOOKING FOR. WE MAY NOT BE IN PERFECT ALIGNMENT THE NUMBER OF DAYS BUT WE'RE GETTING CLOSER THE MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL BUILDING SIGN SIZE THAT IS A NOTABLE POLICY CHANGE FROM THE EXISTING CODE ACTUALLY ESTABLISHING A MAXIMUM FOR AN INDIVIDUAL SIGN BUILDING ALLOWANCE IN THE CLASS FIVE SIGN DISTRICT. SO THAT'S OUR MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICTS THE MAXIMUM MONUMENT OR PYLON SIGN SIZE THE CAP AND THEN ELECTRONIC SIGN SIZE AND DWELL TIMES AS WELL AS AND IS THE AREA OF INTEREST FOR THEM AND FAST AND I KNOW SOME OF THOSE FOLKS ARE HERE TONIGHT SO I SHOULDN'T SPEAK FOR THEM MORE THAN I ALREADY HAVE. SO FORGIVE ME BUT FIRST SIGNS ALSO PROVIDED A LETTER. THEY ARE A LOCAL SIGN INSTALLER THEY HAD INQUIRY ABOUT THE ELECTRONIC SIGN DWELL TIME. THEY HAD AN INTERESTING CONSIDERATION ABOUT VERY DWELL WITHIN AN INDIVIDUAL SIGN IF YOU VARY THE MESSAGE WITHIN THE ACTUAL ELECTRONIC MESSAGE WHICH WAS CREATIVE BUT I THINK DIFFICULT FROM A REGULATORY PERSPECTIVE VARIED. THEY DID MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THE VERY DWELL TIMES IN TERMS OF THE QUANTITY TEXT AND THEY HAD A QUESTION ABOUT FEATHER FLAGS. FEATHER FLAGS ARE PERMITTED IN THE EXISTING ORDINANCE I BELIEVE AND CERTAIN AND FOR SURE ARE IN THE NEW SIGN CODE . SO I THINK THAT ISSUE IS LIKELY RESOLVED AS WELL. AND THEN FINALLY EARLIER TODAY THE MINNEAPOLIS REGIONAL CHAMBER ALSO SUBMITTED A LETTER THAT EMAILED TO YOU I THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE A PRINTED COPY OF IT. THANK YOU, ELLIOT. THAT THEY ALSO RECOMMEND REDUCING THE DWELL TIME ON DIGITAL BILLBOARDS TO 8 SECONDS SO IN TERMS OF NEXT STEPS YOU KNOW FOLLOWING THE HEARING THAT YOU HOLD HERE THIS EVENING SHOULD YOU MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT WE WOULD HAVE TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE CITY COUNCIL IF YOU WERE TO TAKE ACTION TONIGHT THAT WOULD BE ON FEBRUARY 26TH IF THE COUNCIL MOVES TO ADOPT A NEW SCIENCE STANDARDS OR THE NEW SIGN CODE , WE THEN WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS OF UPDATING A LOT OF OUR PERMITTING PROCESSES AND KIND OF INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS ON OUR WEBSITE. WE HAVE A LOT OF STUFF OUT THERE ON OUR EXISTING SIGN CODE AND THEN FINALLY THE THING THAT I PUT IN BOLD IS JUST THAT WITH WHEN YOU'RE REPLACING KIND OF A POLICY THAT IS AS OR EXPANSIVE AS SOMETHING LIKE SCIENCE WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CHANGING THE METHODOLOGY METHODOLOGIES BY WHICH HOW SIGNS ARE CALCULATED DOING A LOT OF NEW DIFFERENT THINGS IN TERMS OF A DEPARTURE THE EXISTING CODE I THINK IT'S PRUDENT IN THIS CASE TO HAVE TO COMMIT TO THE PUBLIC AND COMMIT TO PROPERTY OWNERS BUSINESSES TO DO A LOOK A REVIEW ONE YEAR AFTER THE FACT AND WHAT WE WOULD DO BASICALLY OVER THE COURSE OF THAT YEAR IS TRACK THE VARIOUS SAME PERMITS WE REVIEWED AND TAKE SPECIAL NOTE OF INSTANCES WHERE IF WE HAD ANY DIFFICULTIES WITH THE NEW PROVISIONS IN TERMS OF INCONSISTENCY WITH THE DESIRED SIGNAGE OUTCOMES OR PROPOSALS OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS WE'D BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU THE CITY COUNCIL THAT INFORMATION IN SOME FORM AND THEN THAT TIME IF YOU KNOW IF DIRECTED BY PLANNING COMMISSIONER AND COUNCIL IF WE HAD NEEDED MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS WE CERTAINLY COULD DO THAT. SO I DO WANT TO THAT WITH THAT I DO HAVE A RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE AND I'M HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS. GREAT. THANK YOU, MR. JOHNSON. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING SO WE'LL GO THROUGH OUR NORMAL PROCESS STARTING WITH QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER. ALBRECHT THANK YOU, CHAIR MR. JOHNSON. MY QUESTION IS RELATED TO THE DIGITAL CONVERSION OF BILLBOARDS AND THE RECOMMENDATION IS AROUND A CERTAIN NUMBER OF FEET FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. WAS THERE A DISCUSSION AROUND THE PROXIMITY TO HOTELS GIVEN THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF THEM ON THE FRONT END FOR CORRIDOR DIRECTLY ABUTTING BILLBOARDS YEAH. THANK YOU CHAIR COMMISSIONER ALBRECHT SO THERE WASN'T DISCUSSION SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THAT AGAIN WE HAVE FOUR LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING IN BLOOMINGTON. THE NEW SIGN DOES NOT PROPOSE TO EXPAND THAT ALLOWANCE IN TERMS OF ADDING NEW ONES SO THE EXISTING POLICY AND IF THE DRAFT POLICY WERE FOUR IS KIND OF THE NUMBER BUT WE DIDN'T LOOK HOTELS I WOULD I WOULD SHARE THAT WHAT KIND OF GOVERNS HOTELS CURRENTLY ARE IN A USE FROM A PROXIMITY STANDPOINT OUR CURRENT SIGN CODE THAT WARRANT SPECIAL CONSIDERATION WITH RESPECT TO THE OPERATION OF DIGITAL SIGNS SO THAT WOULD BE A NEW POLICY IF WE WERE TO LOOK AT THAT. THE OTHER THING I WAS GOING TO SHARE IS THAT THE CITY'S LIGHTING ORDINANCE SO YOU ACTUALLY SOMETIMES SOME CROSS REFERENCES IN THE SIGN CODE TO THE LIGHTING ORDINANCE AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT OUR BRIGHTNESS RESTRICTIONS ARE ACTUALLY NOT IN THE SAME CODE THEY'RE IN THE LIGHTING ORDINANCE AND THE CONSIDERATION OF THOSE BRIGHTNESS ELEMENTS THERE IS REDUCTIONS IN BRIGHTNESS WHEN IN PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL USES BUT THERE'S CURRENTLY NO CONSIDERATION FOR HOTELS IN OUR LIGHTING ORDINANCE. YOU KNOW, MR. JOHNSON, I A QUESTION GOING BACK TO THE BILLBOARDS AND YOU MENTIONED THAT THE THE LAST TIME THIS CAME BEFORE US IT WAS NOT ON THE TABLE TO ALLOW THEM TO CONVERT TO DIGITAL AND NOW IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY ARE AND I BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT WAS THAT THE WISHES OF THE COUNCIL SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT POINT SOME OF THE THINGS YOU'VE PRESENTED BEFORE US WE'RE DOING FOR LEGAL IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS MAY NOT BE A LEGAL REASON THAT ARE ALLOWING TO THAT DIGITAL CONVERSION IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH. CHAIR THANK YOU COMMISSIONER COOKSON SO WITH RESPECT TO THE LEGAL ANALYSIS THIS IS GETTING INTO T WEEDS OF NON-CONFORMITY BUT YOU COULD ENVISION THAT YOU COULD BE NOT EXPANDING THE ACTUAL WIDTH OR HEIGHT OF A BILLBOARD BUT BECAUSE THE CABINET SIZE HAS TO INCREASE TECHNICALLY IT IS A PHYSICAL EXPANSION AND SO WE AS A STAFF BEFORE WE EVEN EXPLORED THIS MATTER KIND OF MORE DILIGENTLY UNSURE IN TERMS OF WHAT STATE NON-CONFORMITY STANDARDS WOULD ABOUT THE CONVERSION OF AN ELECTRONIC SIGN, WHETHER OR NOT WE WERE WE WERE KIND OF OPERATING UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THE POTENTIAL ASSUMPTION THAT THERE COULD BE MERITS A CONVERSION IF YOU'RE JUST GOING BASED OFF THE THE STANDARD STATE STATUTE AND SO WE LOOKED INTO THAT THAT'S KIND OF WHERE YOU CUT US THAT WE DIDN'T THINK YOU COULD DO IT BECAUSE IT IS A EXPANSION IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT UNDER THE LAW. AND SO AND AS WE WERE DISCUSSING THAT WITH CITY COUNCIL I THINK THERE WAS AND I DON'T WANT TO STATE THAT THEY DIDN'T TAKE A FORMAL VOTE ON IT OR A SEPARATE MOTION LIKE WE WANT TO ALLOW FOR THE CONVERSION OF DIGITAL BILLBOARDS. IT'S JUST THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ON IT. STAFF INTERPRETED THAT DISCUSSION TO BE THAT WE SHOULD LOOK AT IT SO WE CHANGED IT IN THE DRAFT. IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT HAVE TO GO FORWARD WITH THAT. IT'S JUST WE WERE TRYING TO READ WHAT THE POLICY DIRECTION WAS. WE'RE BEING. MR. TUSK THANKS CHAIR COMMISSIONERS I CAN JUST ADD A LITTLE BIT TO THE STATE NON-CONFORMITY LAW DOES SPECIFICALLY ALLOW CITIES TO ALLOW EXPANSIONS OF NON-CONFORMITY BY ORDINANCE SO THAT'S WHAT YOU SEE IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE. SO IT IS IT'S ALLOWING IT EXPANSION TO DIGITAL DISPLAYS PROVIDED IT MEETS ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS THE ORDINANCE SO THERE'S A MAXIMUM SIZE THERE'S A LENGTH BRIGHTNESS ALL THOSE DIFFERENT THINGS WILL HAVE TO MEET BUT IT WOULD BE ALLOWED WITHOUT VIOLATING THEIR NON-CONFORMITY SECTION. SO JUST TO ADD CONTEXT TO THAT THANKS TO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER GOLTZMAN. THANK YOU CHAIR. JUST TO CLARIFY ON I'VE GOT TWO QUESTIONS BUT TO CLARIFY IN THE BILLBOARD REGARDLESS OF NUMBER OF WORDS ON IT, THE GRAPHICS AGNOSTIC OF THAT IT WOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED TO CHANGE EVERY 10 MINUTES IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH. CHAIR MR. GOLTZMAN THAT'S CORRECT. IF THE NEW CODE WAS ADOPTED CURRENTLY THE IS 20 MINUTES. OKAY. IF I MAY ASK PLEASE. THANK YOU. ONE THING THAT YOU DIDN'T COVER TONIGHT THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS IS REALLY THE ALLOWANCE OF MULTIPLE SIGN TYPES ON THE FRONT OF PROPERTIES MULTITENANT PROPERTIES I.E. LIKE A STRIP MALL. CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE HISTORICAL DISCUSSIONS AROUND DIFFERENT SIGN TYPES BEING ALLOWED VERSUS CURRENTLY THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED? YEAH. THANK YOU MR. GOLTZMAN. SO I CAN'T I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS WITHIN THE 1996 VERSION OF THE CODE IT DATES ALL THE WAY BACK TO OR IF IT HAS BEEN A SUBSEQUENT CHANGED SINCE THEN I DON'T KNOW THAT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD BUT BASICALLY WHAT YOU WILL SEE IN SOME ORDINANCES OF CERTAIN COMMUNITIES THAT THEY WILL REQUIRE UNIFORMITY OF SIGN TYPE WHEN MOUNTED ON A MULTI-TENANT BUILDING SO THEY DON'T HAVE KIND OF VARYING ESTHETICS OF THEIR SIGN TYPES ON A ON A GIVEN BUILDING AND THEN YOU WILL SEE OTHER CITIES THAT DON'T REGULATE THAT WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION WITH YOU OF COURSE BUT WE ALSO HAD THIS DISCUSSION AND THE REASON THAT IT WAS CONTINUED TO NOT INCLUDE THAT REQUIREMENT WHEREAS OUR EXISTING SINGLE INCLUDE UNIFORMITY OF SIGN CONSTRUCTION TODAY IS THAT CITY COUNCIL DID PROVIDE CLEAR POLICY GUIDANCE IN THAT REGARD BASED ON THEIR TO TO ELIMINATE THAT AND I THINK HAD A SIX POINT PLAN AS TO WHY STAFF THINKS THAT THAT'S WISE I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN RECITE ALL SIX POINTS BUT I CAN TELL YOU IS IN ORDER TO REGULATE UNIFORMITY OF CONSTRUCTION BASICALLY YOU TO HAVE A WHAT'S CURRENTLY CALLED AS A UNIFORM SIGN DESIGN PLAN BUT YOU HAVE TO ESTABLISH A REGULATORY MECHANISM AND APPROVAL ON A PROPERTY THAT SITE THAT STAFF CAN USE AND THAT DISALLOWS SITE INSTALLERS FROM INSTALLING CERTAIN SIGN TYPES. SO THAT'S ONE PIECE THAT'S JUST ADDED REGULATORY COMPLEXITY AND COST OF GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS ALSO IT'S TIME TO ESTABLISH THOSE. THE SECOND PIECE OF IT WAS JUST THAT SOME BUSINESS LOGO TYPES OR DON'T MATCH UP WELL WITH CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION TYPES THEY LITERALLY NEED A CABINET AND UNDER OUR EXISTING CODE CAP THE CABINET COMPONENT OF A SIGN IS LIMITED TO 25% OF THE FULL SIGN AREA AND SO BASICALLY DOESN'T TRANSLATE WELL TO CERTAIN BUSINESSES. ONE OF THE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT AT CITY COUNCIL IS THAT THOSE SIGN TYPES JUST BY THE NATURE OF THEIR CONSTRUCTION TEND TO BE QUITE A BIT MORE EXPENSIVE THAN CABINET TYPES. SO STAFF HAD EQUITY CONCERNS ABOUT THAT IN OF IS IT REALLY A VALUABLE OR LEGITIMATE USE OF I GUESS GOVERNMENT POWER FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM TO BE DICTATING WHAT TYPES OF SIGNS BUSINESSES WOULD HAVE TO INSTALL ON THEIR BUILDING? THERE WAS A COUPLE OTHER ONES I'M FAILING TO FORGET MY SIX POINT PLAN I WOULDN'T BE A GOOD ELECTED OFFICIAL GUESS BUT I DON'T KNOW IF I'M EQUITY NOW. YEAH WE TALKED ABOUT THAT. OH YES. YEAH SO I KIND OF PRESENTED THOSE FACTS TO YOU AND THE CITY COUNCIL BEFORE AND THEY AGREED TO MOVE FORWARD THAT WE RECOGNIZED THAT IN SOME THERE IS SOME POTENTIAL HARMS TO THE YOU KNOW, ESTHETIC THAT CAN OCCUR BUT SOME OF THOSE THINGS CAN BE MORE PREFERENTIAL THAN SUBJECTIVE. SO THAT A FAIR SUMMARY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER CURRY THANK YOU CHAIR COUPLE OF QUESTIONS SO THE CROSS ANDERSON LETTER I MEAN I'VE READ THIS POINT UNDERSTAND THAT FOR BUILDINGS WITH MULTIPLE TENANTS I DON'T KNOW PROBABLY THREE OR MORE FIVE OR MORE THE UPDATE COULD BE TOO RESTRICTIVE. SO WHAT IS THE PLAN? IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU GUYS ARE MAYBE STILL WORKING ON SOMETHING OR THAT FINALIZED AND IS THERE A POINT AT WHICH THAT MIGHT NEED BE REVIEWED IN THE FUTURE? JUST EXPLAIN THAT FURTHER. YEAH. CHAIR COMMISSIONER CURRY SO WHAT WE DID IS WE HAD SOME MEETINGS. CROUSE AND WE HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH. CROUSE AND SO WE HAD A VERY GOOD OPEN DIALOG AND THEY EXPRESSED SOME CONCERNS ABOUT HOW SOME OF THE NEW STANDARDS COULD IMPACT SOME OF THEIR MULTITENANT RETAIL PROPERTIES IN BLOOMINGTON. AND I VALUE THEIR FEEDBACK ON WHAT WE TRIED TO DO IN THE STAFF REPORT IS TO TRY AND PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF KIND OF WHERE STAFF KIND OF MORE IN ALIGNMENT MAYBE WITH WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING AND. I THINK THAT FOCUSES MORE ON THE TEMPORARY SIGN PROPOSAL AND THEN WHAT THEY EXPRESSED ELSEWHERE IS, YOU KNOW, A CONCERN MAXIMUM SIZE OF FREESTANDING SIGNS NOT ALONG THE HIGHWAY OF 100 SQUARE FEET. AND I DO HAVE SOME EXAMPLES OF KIND OF SIGN AREAS OF SOME DIFFERENT SIGNS IN TOWN IF YOU WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THEM AS AN EXTRA SLIDE. BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT ALSO THAT ON OUR BUILDING SIGNS THEY HAVE SOME CENTERS THAT ARE IN WOULD BE IN THE NEW CLASS THREE SIGN DISTRICT WHICH IS OUR B TWO OUR GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS BUT THEY ALSO HAVE LOCATED THAT ZONE BEFORE WHICH IS ONE OF THE CITY'S MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICTS AND ONE OF THE CONCEPTS THE ORDINANCE HAS FOR BUILDING SIGNS THAT IT'S A SLIGHTLY LOWER ALLOWANCE FOR SIGN AREA AND A MIXED ENVIRONMENT THAN A GENERAL COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENT MORE OUT ORIENTED TYPE DEVELOPMENT THAT MAKES SENSE. AND SO WE WE RECOGNIZE THOSE THINGS AND SOME OF SOME OF THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE ZONED MIXED USE TODAY, YOU KNOW, MAY BE ENVISIONED TO BE A DISTRICT PLAN OR THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO TAKE ON A NEW FORM. TIME GOES ON AND REDEVELOPMENT OCCURS BUT MIGHT HAVE A MORE OUT ORIENTED SITE TODAY I MEAN THAT'S THAT'S OF THE NATURE OF PLANNING RIGHT IS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE RESTRICTIONS OR PLANS THAT DON'T PERFECTLY MARRY UP WITH THE EXISTING WHAT I'VE TRIED TO EXPRESS TO CARL SANDERSON AND OTHERS IS THAT HEY ALL THE EXISTING SIGNS YOU HAVE IF THE CITY WERE TO ADOPT THIS ORDINANCE ARE GOING TO BE LEGALLY AND SO AS LONG AS YOU REPLACE THEM IN A SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT WAY YOU CAN CONTINUE TO HAVE BIGGER SIGNS BE OF THE SIGNS THAT EXIST IN THE COMMUNITY ACTUALLY EXCEED THE EXISTING SIGN CODE THAT WAS HAD THAT HAPPENED THROUGH PD FLEXIBILITY OR VARIANCES OR OTHER TOOLS THAT ARE STILL AVAILABLE TO PROPERTY OWNERS TODAY. AND SO DON'T DON'T AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME OTHER WORDS THAT ALL THE SIGNS THAT EXIST IN BLOOMINGTON TODAY MEET THE EXISTING SIGN CODE BECAUSE THAT'S NOT TRUE THERE HAS BEEN VARIANCES AND OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE AND THEN THE OTHER I MEAN THE OTHER THING I DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE A BIG DEAL OUT ABOUT THIS BUT THE ENVIRONMENT OF SIGNS FROM THE 1990S TO RIGHT NOW IS JUST VERY DIFFERENT. EVERYONE HAS A COMPUTER IN THEIR POCKET WITH A MAP APP THAT TELLS THEM WHICH APP WHERE EVERY SINGLE BUSINESS IS AND SO IT'S NOT TO DEVALUE THE NEED FOR COMMERCIAL MESSAGES. COMMERCIAL MESSAGES ARE OBVIOUSLY VERY IMPORTANT FOR BUSINESSES TO BE SUCCESSFUL BUT THE ENVIRONMENTS THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENTS OF THE 1990S IS JUST DIFFERENT AND LIKE TODAY IN DIFFERENT IN LIGHT OF WHAT TECHNOLOGY WE ALL HAVE MOST OF US HAVE AND THE ABILITY TO GO TO THOSE PROPERTIES AND NAVIGATE TO THOSE PROPERTIES QUITE EASILY AND LEARN ABOUT BUSINESSES. SO WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE A SIGN ORDINANCE FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS. BUT SO I RECOGNIZE THAT YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE ALLOWANCES MIGHT BE OFF FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF CAROL SANDERSON WHO'S AN IMPORTANT RETAIL PROPERTY OWNER IN BUT THAT'S ALSO PART OF THE REASON WE'RE COMMITTED TO THIS ONE YEAR LOOKBACK IS BECAUSE WE WANT TO ACTUALLY PUT INTO INTO ACTION AND SEE HOW IT PERFORMS. SO THAT WAS PROBABLY A LITTLE MORE THAN BARGAINING FOR YES. THANK YOU. SO I GUESS GOING TO THE MULTITENANT TEMPORARY SIGN SITUATION. YEAH. I MEAN I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THE CITY COUNCIL ACTUALLY ASKED US ABOUT SPECIFICALLY WAS SMALL BUSINESSES AND IF THERE ARE TEMPORARY SIGNS FOR NEW BUSINESSES COMING INTO THE CITY WE OBVIOUSLY WANT TO BE AS SUPPORTIVE AS POSSIBLE SO I GUESS ARE WE A LONG WAYS OFF FROM WHAT THEY'RE THINKING IS APPROPRIATE AND WHAT WE HAVE WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING OR ARE WE RELATIVELY TO THE TEMPORARY SIGN SPECIFICALLY CHAIR COMMERCIAL AREA WHERE I'D SAY WE'RE MORE CLO OR WHERE WE ARE ALIGNED IS THAT WE THINK WE AGREE WITH KRAUS THAT LARGER MULTI-TENANT SITES SHOUL BE CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE MADE FOR THOSE SITES FOR MORE DAYS TEMPORARY SIGNAGE TO BE ALLOWED IN KEEP IN MIND WITH HOW SET UP TO THE EXISTING SIGN CODE TRACKS BOTH DAYS AND OCCURRENCES WE'RE GETTING RID OF THE OCCURRENCES IT'S JUST IT'S IT'S EXTRANEOUS IT'S IT'S OVER IT'S NOT NECESSARY IN MY VIEW SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO IS JUST A DAY STANDARD AND THE WAY THAT THIS IS SET UP IS THAT YOU KNOW YOU MIGHT HAVE FIVE YOU KNOW FIVE TENANTS WHO ALL HAVE BANNERS ON THEIR TENANT SPACE AND IT'S NOT JUST BECAUSE THERE'S FIVE OF THEM IF IT'S ON THE SAME DAY IT STILL COUNTS AS ONE DAY. SO I WANT TO MAKE THAT POINT CLEAR WHERE SO WE'RE WE'RE IN ALIGNMENT THAT MULTITENANT SITES SOUTHTOWN WHICH HAS OVER 30 TENANTS THAT'S UNIQUE RIGHT THAT'S NOT COMMON TO HAVE THAT MANY TENANTS THERE SHOULD BE MORE DAYS SO YOU KNOW THIS IS JUST THIS IS JUST TRACK CHANGED OF THE EXISTING SIGN CODE . YOU KNOW, IT'S AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL. IT'S AN B IF YOU WILL, WHERE STAFF I THINK THE KRAUS LETTER SUGGESTED 240 DAYS WHICH IS WELL OVER HALF THE YEAR STAFF WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF LOOKING AT HALF THE YEAR 180 DAYS. AND I THINK PART OF THAT TOO IS JUST BASED ON THE EXPERIENCE THAT THE EXISTING PROVISIONS THAT EXIST TODAY HAVE NOT BEEN LIMITING NOT THE FEEDBACK WE'VE GOTTEN THAT THAT TODAY'S ORDINANCE IS ABSOLUTELY UNREASONABLE AND TODAY'S ORDINANCE HAS STRONGER RESTRICTIONS THAN WHAT THIS IS THAT I'M SHOWING YOU HERE. SURE. SO WE'RE IN ALIGNMENT THAT CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE PAID FOR MORE MULTITENANT FOR LARGER MULTI-TENANT. IT'S JUST I THINK WE'RE A LITTLE OFF ON THE DAYS BUT I THINK I SEE THAT AS A MINOR DISCREPANCY. OKAY THAT'S GREAT THEN I GUESS MY ONLY OTHER I GUESS IT'S BECAUSE IT'S BEEN A CONCERN OR WAS A CONCERN LAST TIME IS JUST ELECTRONIC SIGNS FACING RESIDENTIAL LIKE WE'VE GOT A 100 FOOT DISTANCE WITH NIGHT NIGHTTIME RESTRICTION I MEAN IS THERE ANYTHING STOPPING SOMEBODY FROM PUTTING UP A SIGN 100 FEET FROM SOMEBODY'S LIVING ROOM THAT JUST DIRECTS RIGHT INTO THEIR LIVING ROOM? YEAH. SO CHAIR COMMISSIONER IT HAS TO BE 101 FEET TO DO THAT. 100 FOOT IS YOU CAN'T BE WITHIN 100 FEET. BUT THIS IS A POLICY CHOICE THAT THE CITY WILL HAVE TO MAKE AND THAT WE SAW CITIES THAT ACTUALLY REQUIRE THE SIGNS TO BE EXTINGUISHED TURNED OFF IF THEY'RE WITHIN 150 FEET AND THAT'S KIND OF OUR CURRENT ORIENTATION STANDARD. SO IF YOU'RE BETWEEN 100 150 FEET, YOU KNOW AND THE DISTANCES ARE DIFFERENT IN OTHER CITIES. SOME OF THEM ARE ONLY 50 OR SOME OF THEM HAVE DIFFERENT DISTANCES BUT THE POINT IS THEY SUGGEST EXTINGUISH THE SIGN DURING THE NIGHT FEW OTHER CITIES WE SAW SAID EXTINGUISH THEM OR, MAKE THEM STATIC MEANING THEY DON'T CHANGE AND THE REASON BEING IS THAT THE CHANGES IT'S THE CHANGING LIGHT AND THE CONSTANT CHANGING MESSAGES THAT BASICALLY CREATE MORE OF THE NUISANCE TO A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY THAN JUST A STATIC AND A KEEPING IN MIND THAT WE HAVE BRIGHTNESS LIMITATIONS WHEN CLOSER TO RESIDENTIAL IT'S THAT'S KIND OF MORE THE ISSUE IS THE CHANGING NATURE OF THE MESSAGE THE DRAFT HAS ALLOWS THEM TO STAY ON BUT THEY HAVE TO BE STATIC AFTER 9 P.M. FROM 9 TO 7 9 P.M. TO 7 A.M.. OKAY THE CITY COULD SORRY THE CITY COULD SUGGEST THAT THEY JUST BE EXTINGUISHED BUT AND MAY BE A CONSIDERATION THE COUNCIL OR JUST IT DOES REQUIRE ENFORCEMENT ON THE PART OF CITY STAFF AT NIGHTTIME WHICH IS NOT TYPICAL OPERATING HOURS AND SO DOING LIKE WE DO LIGHTING INSPECTIONS WE DO ASSIGN BRIGHTNESS INSPECTIONS YOU'RE AN ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL NIGHTTIME ACTIVITY FROM AN NIGHT CODE ENFORCEMENT PERSPECTIVE IF SOME PEOPLE WILL DECIDE NOT TO COMPLY. HAVE THERE BEEN ANY AREAS IN THE CITY THAT PLANNING LOOKED AT THAT HAVE HIGHLIGHTED ANY POTENTIAL SPECIFIC NEIGHBORING USES WHERE THAT BE A CONCERN SUCH AS I DON'T KNOW I THINK MAYBE PINE AVENUE WHERE YOU GOT INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES ON ONE SIDE AND THEN I THINK RESIDENTIAL THE OTHER SIDE IS THAT HAVE YOU GUYS LOOKED AT THAT AT ALL? YES. CHAIR TRICIA CURRY IT HAS COME UP AND THAT'S I MEAN THAT IN EFFECT IS WHY WE HAVE ASSIGNED LIMITATION BECAUSE TYPICALLY ALL THESE SIGNS HAVE DIMMERS ON THEM AND IF LEFT UNREGULATED SOME HAVE SOME NOT ALL BUT SOME PROPERTY OWNERS WILL TURN THEM UP TO BE QUITE BRIGHT. WE'VE HAD ISSUES WITH INTERIOR BUILDING, LIGHTING AND OTHER USES AND THIS ALSO RELATES TO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT A MAXIMUM SIZE AND SIZE TOO ALSO INFORMS THAT BECAUSE SOME OF THE EXPERIENCES WE'VE HAD IN THAT REGARD RELATE TO THAT AS WELL. BUT YES, THAT'S WHY IT'S JUST IMPORTANT TO BE DILIGENT ABOUT SAYING BRIGHTNESS HOW IT CAN IMPACT RESIDENTIAL USERS. BUT MOST OF THE WE GET ARE NOT ABOUT CHANGING MESSAGES OR THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. I MEAN THERE'S NOT MANY ELECTRONIC SIGNS RIGHT IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS I CAN THINK OF A FEW OCCASIONS WITH PLACES OF ASSEMBLY AND THINGS IT'S MORE BRIGHTNESS ISSUES HOW LIGHT IS THROWN OR CAST RIGHT AT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES SO IT'S MORE INTENSITY. OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AND MR. JOHNSON, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION THE SLIDE IN FRONT OF US IS NOT WITHIN THE APPLICATION. THAT'S RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. THAT'S CORRECT. THIS IS A STAFF'S ARBOL OR OPTION B TO LOOK AT IF THE PLANNING IS IN SUPPORT OF EXPANDING ALLOWANCES FOR TEMPORARY OR TEMPORARY SIGNS FOR COMMERCIAL PROMOTIONS. THANK YOU. YEAH. OKAY. IN THIS CASE THE CITY IS THE APPLICANT SO WE'VE HEARD ENOUGH PERHAPS FROM MR. JOHNSON FOR A FEW MINUTES AND I WILL THEN OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'LL FOLLOW THE SAME RULES WE TALKED ABOUT WITH ITEM NUMBER ONE. BUT WE DO THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY SO ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME UP IF YOU HAVEN'T SIGNED IN PLEASE DO SO IF YOU HAVE SIGNED IN STATE YOUR NAME SO WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE AND WE'LL TAKE YOUR TESTIMONY BOTH MICROPHONES. SO COME ON IN . WELL, GOOD EVENING. MY NAME'S KIND OF NGO. I'M WITH CARL SANDERSON AND I HOPE SO I THINK HELLO. YEAH, WE GOT TARGET AND I DON'T I'VE BEEN AROUND A LONG TIME. I GREW UP IN BLOOMINGTON, WORKED IN BLOOMINGTON FOR 35 YEARS EITHER WORKED OR MANAGED PROPERTIES FOR 35 YEARS IN BLOOMINGTON, BEEN INVOLVED WITH A LOT OF DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS. BUT THE BLOOMINGTON CHAMBER STILL CALLED THE BLOOMINGTON CHAMBER BUT WORKED WITH THEM OVER THE 35 YEARS AND BEEN IN FRONT CITY COUNCILS AND PLANNING COMMISSIONS AND WORKED WITH NEC AND GLENN ACTUALLY THROUGH THE BLOOMINGTON CHAMBER WE WOULD MEET WITH GLENN EVERY MONTH ON OUR PUBLIC POLICIES COMMITTEE AND THAT WAS BEFORE COVID AND GOING OVER THINGS THAT GOING ON WITH THE CITY. SO I'VE BEEN A KIND OF A A AND FOLLOWING ALONG FROM THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY ON WHAT ON AND WITH CARL SANDERSON WE DO HAVE A DOZEN PROPERTIES IN BLOOMINGTON AND HAVE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS GOING BACK TO SOUTH TOWN CENTER AND CLOVER CENTER CLOVERS FROM THE 1950S AND SOUTH DOWN OF COURSE 1960 AND WE HAVE A NUMBER OF PROPERTIES IN DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS AROUND B TO B FOR C3CC3, C FOUR AND 35. AND NOW WITH THIS NEW SIGN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD BE CLASSES THREE AND CLASSES FIVE. SO CARL SANDERSON, WHERE WE ARE AS NICK SAID MAY BE GRANDFATHERED IN BASED SOME OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS WE ALREADY HAVE AND ALSO THROUGH THE PDS THAT WE HAVE. BUT WHAT I WANT TO DO IS AS I READ THROUGH THIS IS WHAT'S REASONABLE THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND FOR THE CITY AND SO THAT'S HOW I APPROACHED. AND SO ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT I LOOKED AT OR CAUGHT MY EYE WAS THE TEMPORARY SIGNAGE AND I HAD A LITTLE DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING THAN WHAT THE CURRENT CODE SAYS BECAUSE OF HOW WE'VE APPLIED IT OVER THE YEARS AT VARIOUS PROPERTIES. BUT FOR INSTANCE YOU KNOW A PROPERTY LIKE SOUTHTOWN NOT UNREASONABLE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A MULTIPLE MULTITUDE OF TENANTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE MOVING IN AND OUT THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF A YEAR. FOR ONE EXAMPLE WAS WE HAD HANCOCK FRERICHS MOVE OUT OF THE ONE AND GAP AND THEN WE ENDED UP LEASING HALF OF TO PEOPLE AND THEN WE RELOCATED SCHULER'S INTO THE OTHER HALF OF THEN NOW THAT SCHULER'S HAS GONE FROM WHAT WE CALLED OUR NEW TOWN SECTION WE ENDED UP SELLING THAT IN HALF AND WE PUT IN GUITARISTS CENTER AND FIVE BELOW. SO RIGHT THERE YOU KNOW YOU'D HAVE FOUR TENANTS THAT ARE ALL LOOKING FOR THEIR 60 DAY SIGNAGE THAT'S 240 DAYS JUST WHAT FOUR FOUR TENANTS IN OUR PROPERTY HAVE THE SIZE OF FALCON NOT TO MENTION, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY LIKE PARTY CITY ONE THEY HAVE THEIR HALLOWEENS SIGN OUT, YOU KNOW, OR MAYBE T.J. MACS ARE FAMOUS FOR OR WANT TO DO A SIDEWALK SALE OR SOME OTHER TENANT MOVING IN LIKE YOU KNOW, THE JOINT SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO I JUST FEEL THAT THE THE NUMBER OF DAYS THAT ARE NEEDED FOR TEMPORARY SIGNAGE BE ENHANCED AND NICK HAD THAT SLIDE THERE AND MAYBE IF YOU COULD ADD ANOTHER SECTION THERE AND GET TO THE LARGER SECTION HAVING 242 DAYS, I THINK THAT WOULD BE MORE TO HANDLE A SITUATION LIKE SOUTH DON OR A VALLEY WEST MAY HAVE THE OTHER ITEM THAT I WANTED TO COVER WAS THE SIZE OF THE SIGNAGE. NOW AS YOU READ THROUGH IT BASED ON THE DIFFERENT CLASSES AND I HOPE YOU COULD GET UP TO 250 SQUARE FEET. WELL KOHL'S HAS A SIGN THAT'S 193 AND YOU KNOW IT LOOKS GOOD THERE AND ALSO NOW THAT IT'S KIND OF ON A TWO STORY BUILDING SO THAT ADDS TO, YOU KNOW, HOW THE SIGN LOOKS AND APPEARS. BUT CALLS IS ONLY FIVE LETTERS. WHAT DO I YOU GOT IT NOW IF YOU GO TO SAY BED BATH AND BEYOND YOU KNOW NOW YOU'RE TALKING 18 CHARACTERS BOOKS. WELL BUT I ON WORD VARIABLE BED BATH AND BEYOND YOU KNOW NOW NOW YOU'RE TALKING A LARGE A LARGER SIGN AND THAT ONE SO I WAS RIGHT UP THERE 400 SQUARE FEET SO OBVIOUSLY WELL ABOVE THE 250 THAT THAT WOULD BE THE NEW MAX FOR THE SONGWRITER BUT AGAIN YOU KNOW THAT'S ALMOST A TWO STORY FACADE TO THAT AND YOU KNOW LOOKS VERY AND IT IS SO IMPORTANT FOR THE RETAIL PARTNERS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE SIGNAGE THAT IS VISIBLE TO THE CUSTOMERS AND IN SOME CASES, YOU KNOW, A PASSER BY IS FOR HERBERGER IS NOW AS YOU KNOW THAT THAT HERBERGER BUILDING'S COMING DOWN BUT YOU KNOW ACTUALLY IS BEING DEMOED RIGHT NOW AND BY JUST SHOWING YOU KNOW THE HERBERGER WITH THE DRAWERS YOU'RE TALKING TO SIX OVER 600 SQUARE FEET. SO AGAIN A TWO STORY BUILDING ,YOU KNOW, NEAR THE FREEWAY. YEAH. AGAIN IT DOESN'T LOOK YOU KNOW, IT LOOKS APPROPRIATE FOR FOR THE AREA AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT EXACTLY IS GOING TO GO IN THAT AREA AGAIN. BUT I'M SURE IT'S GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING LARGE AND ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR DEFINITELY MORE THAN A 250 FOOT SIGN FOR THAT AREA. MR. VINGE, YOU HAVE MET YOUR PAST TIME SO I'LL ASK YOU TO WORK ON WRAPPING IT UP HERE IF YOU COULD. OKAY. AND THEN JUST AS FAR AS ANOTHER SLIDE, YOU KNOW I AM TALKING SO OFTEN BUT HAVE EVALUATION YOU HAVE COME FORWARD JUST YOU KNOW, THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND AGAIN LOOK AT THEIR SIGN AND THAT'S 326 SQUARE FEET. SO JUST TRYING TO BE REASONABLE ON THAT LIMIT IS I FEEL THAT 250 IS WAY TOO LOW AND YOU KNOW YOU HAVE SIGNS IN THE CITIES THAT I'M GOING TO I'M SURE ARE SIMILAR IN SIZE. OKAY. I THINK MY LETTER SPEAKS FOR THE REST OF IT SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING CHAIR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS MY NAME IS MATTHEW WHILE I AM WITH CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR WE OWN AND OPERATE THE ONLY BILLBOARDS IN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON FIRST CERTAINLY WANT TO START UP I THINK INNER CITY STAFF NICK'S BEEN GREAT TO WORK WITH CERTAINLY THIS IS A HUGE AND COMPLEX UNDERTAKING YOU GUYS ARE DOING. I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE SUBMITTED THAT HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED. WE ARE EXCITED AND WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO UPGRADE AND MODERNIZE THE BILLBOARDS. WE HAVE IN TOWN REALLY THE ONLY ISSUE THAT I THINK HAVE TO DISCUSS IS THEWELL TIMES APPRECIATE CURRENTLY AT 20 MINUTES YOU'RE RECOMMENDING TEN OR REQUESTING IS 8 SECONDS 8 SECONDS IS OUR INDUSTRY INDUSTRY FOR DWELL TIMES ON BILLBOARDS THIS IS BASED ON OUR SAFETY STUDIES BY THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION SO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ALLOWS IT THE STATE GOVERNMENT ALLOWS IT BUT AS NICK SAID IT IS SUBJECT LOCAL RULES. SAFETY IS OUR TOP PRIORITY IN OPERATING THESE WE KNOW IF THEY DIDN'T OPERATE SAFELY OR IF WE DIDN'T OPERATE SAFELY WE COULDN'T HAVE THEM. THE FIRST DIGITAL SIGNS WE PUT IN WERE BACK 2006 IN MINNETONKA. SO 18 YEARS AGO WE'VE BEEN OPERATING WE CURRENTLY HAVE 82 DIGITAL OFFICES IN 22 COMMUNITIES WITH 80 SECONDS ALL TIMES THE THAT THEY'RE ONE OF THE WAYS WE OPERATE THESE SAFELY IF YOU LOOK AT ANY OF THESE BOARDS THEY HAVE A WEBCAM SITTING OUT IN FRONT OF THEM THAT POINTS BACK THE WEBCAMS NOT ONLY PROVE TO OUR ADVERTISERS WHAT WE'RE ADVERTISING BUT WE'RE ALWAYS MONITORING THOSE BOARDS. SO FOREVER IT WAS ANY ISSUES WITH WE COULD REMOTELY SHUT THEM OFF IN THERE HASN'T BEEN AGAIN WE'VE BEEN OPERATING FOR 18 YEARS AROUND THE COMMUNITY RIGHT NOW WE HAVE THEM IN BURNSVILLE WE HAVE THEM IN MINNEAPOLIS OR IN EAGAN AROUND YOUR COMMUNITY SO YOU CAN SEE HOW THEY OPERATE. WE REALLY DON'T WANT TO HAVE THEM ANY BRIGHTER OPERATE ANY DIFFERENTLY THAN THE OTHER PRINTED SIGNAGE YOU SEE IN THE AREA. OUR BILLBOARDS ARE LOCATED IN GOOD INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS WHICH WE ALSO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT MAIN REASONS WE WANT TO UPGRADE OUR DIGITAL BOARDS NUMBER. IT'S WHERE OUR INDUSTRY IS GOING. IT ALLOWS A LOT MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR OUR ADVERTISER IS THEY CAN CHANGE OUR MESSAGE DURING THE DAY. NUMBER TWO IT ALLOWS US TO GIVE WAY MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOCAL ADVERTISERS IN YOUR COMMUNITY WITHOUT ADDING MORE BILLBOARDS. AND NUMBER THREE IT ALLOWS US TO FURTHER A COMMITMENT TO THE COMMUNITIES WE OPERATE IN EVERY COMMUNITY WE'RE IN WHERE WE HAVE DIGITAL BOARDS WE ALLOW OR PROVIDE PUBLIC MESSAGING CITIES USE IT FOR A VARIETY THINGS FROM THEIR EVENTS, THEIR COMMUNITY CENTERS TO PUBLIC EDUCATION IN ADDITION TO WHAT GIVE TO CITIES WE PARTNER WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICE ONE OF THE FASTEST WAYS TO GET AN AMBER ALERT OUT FOR OR WE PARTNER WITH THE FBI WITH THEIR FUTURES FUGITIVE MOST WANTED TYPE STUFF AND WE STRATEGICALLY PARTNER WITH NONPROFIT THAT'S SO WE'VE CERTAINLY DEMONSTRATED WE CAN OPERATE SAFELY AND I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY YOUR CONSIDERATION REQUEST 8 SECONDS AND I THINK LAST THING THEY POINTED OUT YOU KNOW WE GOT THE SUPPORT OF THE MINNEAPOLIS BLOOMINGTON CHAMBER OF RECOGNIZE WE DO A LOT OF WORK WITH THEM AND PARTNER WITH THEM ON A LOT OF THINGS AND CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THEIR SUPPORT FOR THIS REQUEST AS WELL. SO THANK YOU THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL THE OTHER FOLKS HERE AT CITY HALL, OUR CITY STAFF AND I DON'T SEE ANYONE ONLINE SO I WILL LOOK FOR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION OF CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING SECOND MOTION IN A SECOND TO CLOSE THAT PUBLIC HEARING ANY DISCUSSION ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I I OPPOSED OKAY WE'LL MOVE INTO DISCUSSION LOTS TO UNPACK HERE COMMISSIONER CURRY . THANK YOU CHAIR TO BE HONEST I KIND OF YOU KNOW CROSS THE ANDERSONS TESTIMONY ABOUT THE TEMPORARY SIGNAGE I THINK IS IMPORTANT AND I DON'T KNOW I MEAN I, I THINK GIVEN THE STATE OF WHERE SOUTHTOWN IS OUT TODAY I MEAN I THINK WE CONDEMNED ONE OF THE BUILDINGS RIGHT? SO I THINK WE SHOULD PROBABLY PUT SOME MORE CONSIDERATION INTO THERE AND I DON'T I MEAN THE MOUTH IS BEYOND ME IT'S LIKE MULTIPLE LEVELS BUT HOW MANY DAYS LIKE TENANT DAYS OF TEMPORARY SIGNAGE CAN BE ALLOWED ON MULTI-TENANT PROPERTY LIKE SO I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THAT FURTHER WHICH ROBERT THANK YOU CHAIR I ALSO WAS MOVED BY THE CROSS TO ANDERSON TESTIMONY PARTICULARLY AROUND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF SIGNAGE I KNOW SOME COMPANIES I'M SURE I CAN THINK OF ONE GROCERY CHAIN ACTUALLY HAS VERY SPECIFIC IN WHICH THEY USE TO COME INTO COMMUNITIES OR NOT AND I'M NOT SURE IF SIGNAGE WOULD DETRACT FROM A DECIDING TO BE IN BLOOMINGTON BASED ON HAVE THE REQUIREMENT TO HAVE A SMALLER SIGN. BUT I WOULD BE JUST CONCERNED GENERALLY WITH THAT IDEA ARE WE TO LIMIT BUSINESS GROWTH FOR THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON BECAUSE WE HAVE A STRICT SIGNAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE? THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE. OKAY, COMMISSIONER HOLTZMAN I DON'T I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONES I SHOULD START WITH SO MANY OKAY. SO THE FIRST THING I WROTE DOWN JUST ACKNOWLEDGING SENIOR PLANNER JOHNSON'S WORK AND THE HUGE EFFORT THAT THIS HAS ON WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR A LONG TIME SO I WANT TO JUST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS IS GREAT WORK AND THANK YOU ALL. RIGHT. I ALSO ON THAT TOPIC I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THIS IS ONE OF THE PROJECTS THAT I HAVE BEEN MOST IMPRESSED WITH BY THE OUTREACH SO WE'VE HAD OTHER PROJECTS COME TO US AS A COMMISSION THAT WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN LIKE COULD HAVE DONE A BETTER JOB AND I DON'T FEEL THAT WAY WITH THIS ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF US. I FEEL LIKE WE'VE DONE AN EXCELLENT OF REACHING OUT TO PROPERTY OWNERS TO OTHER CITIES, TO RESIDENTS. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT IN THE COMMISSION MEETINGS SO I JUST FEEL LIKE WE'VE DONE ALL OF THE HOMEWORK WE NEEDED DO HERE A FEW THINGS I LOOK ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE TOPIC I'M ACTUALLY WITH THE SIGNAGE AS PROPOSED AND THE REASON I LOOK AT THAT AS BEING OKAY IS IF A LARGER SIGN IS NEEDED THERE ARE VENUES TO GET APPROVAL FOR THAT LARGER SIGN SO THERE'S SIGNAGE, PLANS FOR PLAN DEVELOPMENTS. THERE ARE YOU KNOW, CONDITIONAL USE ACCEPTANCE IS THERE WITHIN OUR PROCESS THERE'S VARIANCES OPPORTUNITIES THERE. SO I LOOK AT THAT AS BEING AN OKAY VENUE A SIGN THAT IS THAT LARGE AND FOR PURPOSE. AND TO COMMISSIONER ALBRECHT COMMENT I THINK A SMALL BUSINESS OR A LOCAL BUSINESS ISN'T GOING TO BE NEEDING A SIGN THAT LARGE TO PROMOTE THEMSELVES. CERTAINLY SOUNDS LIKE IF I'M OPENING UP A BUSINESS FOR MYSELF AS A SMALL LOCAL COMPANY IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE A SMALLER SCALE THAN 250 SQUARE FEET JUST BECAUSE 250 SQUARE FEET IS HUGE. SO I'M OKAY WITH THAT MAC SITE SIZE KNOWING THAT THERE ARE OTHER VENUES TO MAKE ACCOMMODATIONS. E OTHER THING THAT I HAVE WRITTEN DOWN IS I BRING THIS UP EVERY TIME IT'S MIXED SIGN TYPES AND I UNDERSTAND THE THAT WE'RE GETTING RID OF THE REQUIREMENT TO HAVE THE SAME SIGN TYPE ON OUR COMMERCIAL STRIP MALLS FOR LACK OF BETTER NAME BUT I ALSO IF WHEN I DRIVE BY THE ONE THAT WE HAVE IN TOWN THAT HAS MIXED SIGN TYPES IT LOOKS CLUTTERED IT LOOKS JANKY IT DOESN'T HAVE THAT POLISHED LOOK THAT SAID I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE I BELIEVE THE PORT AUTHORITY HAS A PROJECT THEIR PURVIEW IN THEIR WORK PLAN THAT IS ADDRESSING COMMERCIAL NODE VIABILITY AND PROJECT TO LIFT THOSE COMMERCIAL NODES UP AND I WOULD ASK STAFF WITHIN THE PORT AUTHORITY TO LOOK AT SIGNAGE AS A PART THAT PACKAGE BECAUSE I THINK THAT COULD RAISE THE APPEAL THE VIBRANCY OF THOSE COMMERCIAL NODES AND MAYBE IT CAN BRIDGE THE GAP BETWEEN THIS MIXED USE OR MIXED TYPE OF SIGNAGE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE BUT MAYBE THAT WOULD HELP APPEASE MY JANKY CLUNKY LOOKING NESS OF THAT ONE THAT DOES EXIST. AND THE LAST THING THAT I HAD WRITTEN DOWN I SHOULD DO MORE. I'M SORRY I'M GETTING ALONG WITH IT. I UNDERSTAND COUNCIL'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE ELECTRONIC BILLBOARDS AND I GUESS, I AT FIRST WAS I WROTE A FROWNY FACE ON PAPER. I WASN'T SUPER KEEN ON THAT AT FIRST AS WE TALKED THROUGH IT. I THINK I'VE SWAYED TO BE OKAY WITH IT. I LIKE THE 10 MINUTES AS A FIRST STEP RIGHT NOW WE HAVE FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES A MORATORIUM. WE'RE NOW GOING TO OPEN UP THE DOOR A CRACK TO SEE IF THIS HAPPENS THEN IF IN A YEAR FROM NOW WE DO REANALYZE THIS AND SAY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GETTING ANY CONVERSION BECAUSE NO ONE CAN MAKE THE BUSINESS CASE THAT THE 10 MINUTES DOESN'T GET THE ARE ALIVE TO BUILD THE BILLBOARD AND MAYBE THAT WOULD BE JUSTIFICATION TO BRING IT DOWN. THAT'S A QUESTION I GUESS I'D HAVE FOR THE SIGNAGE TEAM DOES WHAT IS THE ROI FOR BUILDING A NEW SIGN GETTING THE REVENUE FROM THAT SIGN AND HOW OFTEN IT NEEDS TO TURN OVER YOU KNOW FROM A DOLLARS AND CENTS PERSPECTIVE 10 MINUTES MIGHT NOT BE ENOUGH TURNOVER TO PAY FOR THE SIGNAGE ITSELF. ARE WE STILL RESTRICTING IT BECAUSE WE CAN'T GET THE REVENUE FROM IT FAST ENOUGH? AND THE OTHER THING ABOUT BILLBOARDS THAT SOMEWHAT BOTHER ME IS WE TALK ABOUT SIGNAGE IN FRONT HOUSING OR RESIDENCES. ONE OF OUR BILLBOARDS THAT WE HAVE IN WELL NOW THAT ONE'S IN RICHFIELD NEVER MIND I'LL TAKE THAT BACK THE LAST THING I WOULD SAY IS AROUND TEMPORARY SIGNS SO I DO THINK THAT SOME FLEXIBILITY ON TEMPORARY IS PRUDENT. I LIKE THE REMOVAL OF THE OCCUR IT'S MAINLY BECAUSE A LOT OF OUR COMMERCIAL OUR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL NODES THEY'RE GOING THROUGH FACELIFTS OF THE FACADE AND WHEN THEY DO THAT THEY HAVE TO TAKE ALL THE SIGNS OFF AND THEY PUT UP TEMPORARY SIGNS AS THEY PUT ON YOU KNOW, SIDING OR NEW BRICKWORK OR WHATEVER THEY'RE DOING THE FACADE ON AND AND THERE HAS TO BE SOME FLEXIBILITY OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE DOING IT TO ENHANCE THEIR PROPERTY, IMPROVE THE COMMERCIAL NODE AND THAT TEMPORARY SIGN IS JUST THAT IT'S TEMPORARY UNTIL THEY MAKE IT LOOK GREAT AGAIN. SO THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS FOR NOW. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER GROSSMAN. I'LL GO WITH SOME COMMENTS HERE AS WELL IN REGARDS TO THE ELECTRIC BILLBOARDS I MUST SAY I'M JUST NOT A HUGE FAN OF THEM. IT'S NOT THEY'RE NOT ONLY SEEN WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING SOME OF US CAN SEE THEM FROM THEIR HOUSE EVERY WHEN THEY GO TO BED AND IT SWITCHES IN ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORING CITIES EVERY 8 SECONDS AND I MUST SAY IT'S ANNOYING DOESN'T STOP ME FROM SLEEPING BUT I NOTICE IT HAS HAVE A LOT OF HOTELS THAT ARE VERY THEY'RE QUITE VERTICAL IN THE CITY AND OUR HOTEL GUESTS ARE SEEING BILLBOARDS CHANGE AND I THINK THAT'S A IT'S JUST NOT AS GOOD OF AN EXPERIENCE AS IT COULD BE AND SO I'M NOT SUPER TO LOOSEN UP REGULATIONS THAT ALLOW FOR FOUR BILLBOARDS IN BLOOMINGTON TO BE CONVERTED TO ELECTRONIC FACT I'M A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED OF THE CHANGE WE'VE SEEN SINCE THE LAST TIME WE SAW THIS. I WAS HAPPY THAT WE WEREN'T GOING TO HAVE MORE OR ANY ELECTRIC BILLBOARDS IN . BLOOMINGTON AND THAT HAS CHANGED AND IT MAY PREVENT ME FROM SUPPORTING THIS. I'M NOT SURE YET BUT IT MIGHT. I'M NOT A FAN OF THAT AND OH THAT'S ENOUGH OF THAT. THE NEXT THING IS THE THE DWELL TIME OF THOSE I I'M IN FAVOR OF THE LONGER DWELL TIME BASICALLY FOR THE SAME THING. I JUST HOPE PEOPLE ARE TRYING SLEEP AT NIGHT AND YOU CAN SEE THESE AND I THINK A LONGER DWELL TIME IS PRUDENT AND I MUST SAY I ALSO DRIVE PAST THEM EVERY MORNING I TAKE A HIGHWAY TO WORK AND I HAVE TO SAY IT IS DISTRACTING WHEN IT CHANGES AND CAN APPRECIATE THERE'S BEEN SCIENTIFIC STUDIES DONE AND WHATEVER BUT WHEN CHANGES I LOOK AT IT AND I'M IN THE I'M IN THE VIEW OF ONE OF THESE ELECTRONIC BILLBOARDS FOR LONGER THAN 8 SECONDS EVERY MORNING WHEN I DRIVE IT IT CHANGES AT LEAST ONCE AND IT DOES TAKE MY EYES OFF THE ROAD. I'VE NEVER DRIVEN THE ROAD BECAUSE OF IT BUT IT IT DOES CATCH MY EYE. I MUST AND SO I'M IN FAVOR OF A LONGER DWELL TIME AT A VERY MINIMUM AT LEAST A DWELL TIME WHERE IT'S NOT GOING OR IT'S LESS LIKELY TO CHANGE OR IS NOT GUARANTEED TO CHANGE WHILE YOU'RE IN FRONT IT YOU KNOW IF YOU'RE DRIVING 60 MILES AN HOUR YOU'RE ALWAYS GOING TO BE IN FRONT OF A BILLBOARD FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME AND I WISH IT WAS LONGER AT LEAST THAN THAT. SO IT'S IT'S NOT GOING TO EVERY TIME YOU DRIVE PAST IT BUT I'M FINE WITH STAFF'S PROPOSAL OF A LONGER DWELL TIME THEY'RE MOSTLY FOR OUR HOTEL AND SOME OF OUR RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTS AND GUESTS REGARDING THE PROMOTION SIGNS I'M I LIKE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ONE I USED TO TAKE THE BUS EVERY DAY TO WORK AND I HAD A BUS STOP THAT WAS ON 494 IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THAT I WOULD STAND AND WAIT FOR THE BUS AND LOOK BACK TO THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON. AND I REMEMBER ONE OF THE LONGEST GOING OUT OF BUSINESS SALES I CAN EVER REMEMBER AND THAT SIGN BEING THERE FOR EVER AND IT WAS JUST IF BECAME A BIT OF A VISUAL NUISANCE IN MY OPINION AND THE FACT THAT WAS FIVE YEARS AGO AND I STILL REMEMBER THAT VERY YELLOW AND BLACK SIGN IT MADE AN IMPACT ON ME AND I I'M NOT REALLY IN FAVOR OF LOOSENING IT UP. I APPRECIATE WE DON'T WANT TO HAMPER BUSINESS AND ALL OF THOSE BUT I THINK STAFF HAS REACHED A FINE COMPROMISE OF CERTAINLY WILL ALLOW THEM BUT I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF 180 DAYS I THINK THAT'S TOO LONG FOR A BANNER I DON'T THINK THAT'S A BANNER ANYMORE AND FRANKLY BANNERS AREN'T THE THE THE QUALITY OF A NORMAL SIGN. SO AFTER 180 DAYS THEY PROBABLY START LOOKING A LITTLE TATTERED AND AND EVERYTHING ELSE AND WE'RE HOPING TO TAKE THEM DOWN AFTER 180 DAYS BUT MAYBE IT TURNS INTO 250 AND THAT SIGNS GETTING EVEN LITTLE MORE BATTERED AND FADED AND I'M JUST NOT IN FAVOR OF IT. I LIKE WHAT SAYS HAS PROPOSED HERE SO WHETHER OR NOT I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION I'M NOT I'M NOT TOTALLY SURE. MR. CURRY THANK YOU, CHAIR. ALL VERY VALID AND GREAT POINTS BY EVERYBODY HERE. I THINK I MY HAS ACTUALLY LIKE CHANGED TWICE IN THE LAST 2 MINUTES SO ORIGINALLY I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE SMART TO ACTUALLY HAVE A SHORTER DWELL TIME BECAUSE THAT MIGHT MAKE BILLBOARD SIGNAGE MORE ACCESSIBLE TO SMALLER BUSINESSES. BUT YOU KNOW IN RECOGNITION OF ALL THE HOTELS IN THE CITY AND, MY CONCERN ABOUT RESIDENTS BEING ANNOYED BY SIGNAGE I THINK WE PROBABLY I SUPPORT THE CURRENT TEN MINUTE TIME LIMIT THAT WE'VE GOT I MEAN I WAS THINKING FIVE OR 3 MINUTES POTENTIALLY BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO DRIVE BY A BILLBOARD QUICKER THAN THAT LET'S SEE IN TERMS OF THE TEMPORARY SIGNAGE, I THINK IT'S A VALID POINT THAT YOU JUST DON'T WANT THE SIGNS TO STAY UP FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. I APOLOGIZE. DON'T KNOW THE CODE WELL ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND AS TO WHETHER THIS YOU KNOW THE TENANT DAYS HOW THAT AFFECTS THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT A SIGN CAN PUT UP BUT MAYBE THERE SHOULD BE SOME CONSIDERATION PUT INTO TO HOW LONG THE SIGN CAN BE LEFT UP FOR. I MEAN I DO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, MOST BUSINESSES DO NOT SURVIVE ONE YEAR. RIGHT. SO IN TERMS OF RETAIL, THE FIRST 60 DAYS OR WHATEVER IT IS ARE SUPER IMPORTANT. I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT OUR CITY CODE TO LIMIT THE ABILITY FOR A SMALL BUSINESS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE ANY SIGNAGE. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A WAY TO STRIKE A BALANCE THERE MAYBE. WE ALREADY HAVE BUT I GUESS BASED ON WHAT I'M HEARING I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE I DON'T I'M NOT CONFIDENT. AND THEN THE LAST THING I'LL SAY IS I GUESS I'M STILL CONCERNED ABOUT ELECTRONIC SIGNAGE FACING RESIDENTIAL IN MORE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS WITHIN CITY. SO I THINK I DON'T THINK I'M GOING TO PASSING THIS TONIGHT. I THINK THERE ARE SOME THINGS COULD BE LOOKED AT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER AND I JUST LIKE TO UNDERSTAND BETTER BEFORE FEELING COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. COMMISSIONER ONE TO ME ONE QUESTION THAT I HAVE IS THIS PRESENTATION GOING TO COUNSEL AS A FULL PRESENTATION OR WITH WHAT IS THE PLAN ON THIS WILL BE AT THE CITY COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 26TH IN A NORMAL MANNER WILL YOU BE GIVING THE SAME PRESENTATION? JOHNSON YEAH. CHAIR COMMISSIONER GOLTZMAN SO I WOULD LIKELY GIVEN THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ENVIRONMENT PROBABLY PARE A FEW THINGS DOWN BUT I MEAN I'LL FOLLOW DIRECTION AND DISCUSSION ANYWHERE THEY WANT TO TAKE IT . ONE POINT I WOULD MAKE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TONIGHT IS STAFF CERTAINLY CAN MAKE AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAFT THAT'S ONE OF AS ONE OF YOUR DUTIES AT THE ADVISORY BOARD IF THERE ARE ISSUES THAT YOU SPECIFICALLY WANT TO CHANGE IN THIS DOCUMENT YOU CAN DO SO THE EMOTION AND THAT'S THE DRAFT THAT GETS PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL STAFF CERTAINLY PROVIDE ANALYSIS AS TO WHAT INFORMED OUR PREVIOUS DRAFT BUT I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE TO YOU IT'S NOT A TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT PROPOSITION NO ORDINANCE EVER IS THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE CAN'T PAUSE OR COME BACK IF YOU WANT US TO STUDY A PARTICULAR MATTER. BUT WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT IF YOU CAN PLEASE PROVIDE STAFF VERY CLEAR ON WHAT NEEDS ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS IF THAT'S THE ROUTE THAT YOU WANT TO GO. SO YEAH, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT IF THERE ARE A MATTERS OF DISCUSSION THAT YOU KNOW, WARRANT YOU KNOW SIDE MOTIONS ARE SPECIFIC AND I DON'T WANT TO DIRECT YOU ON HOW TO CONDUCT MEETING BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THE POINT THAT STAFF IS READY AND ABLE TO PRESENT THE DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT YOU PUT FORTH. THANK YOU MR. JOHNSON. ONE OTHER ITEM I'LL NOTE WHICH I FORGOT TO MENTION THE LAST TIME YOU KNOW WE HAD A LOT OF PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE WHICH WE DO APPRECIATE AND WE I THINK I'LL READ THROUGH IT AND MR. DID A NICE JOB OF SUMMARIZING IT GENERALLY SPEAKING I, I PREFERRED STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OVER ALL OF THEM WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE REQUEST FROM WALZ OR TOYOTA THAT WAS BASICALLY INCREASING THE NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS BUT KEEPING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWANCE I THAT TO BE A REASONABLE REQUEST AS THEY HAD PROPOSED IT THE REST OF THEM AS I MENTIONED EARLIER I PREFERRED STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OVER WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED TO US SO I THINK WE'RE WE'RE OUT HERE THERE IS A DRAFT ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF US AND A RECOMMENDED MOTION AND I TNK WHAT WE COULD DO BUT I'LL LEAVE IT TO YOU IS WE COULD VOTE ON THE DRAFT AS IT'S BEEN PROPOSED TO US EITHER THUMBS UP OR THUMBS DOWN IF IT'S A THUMBS UP, THAT RECOMMENDATION GOES ON TO CITY COUNCIL. IF IT'S DONE DOWN WE COULD HAVE ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION THERE SOMETHING WE COULD REGULARLY AGREEPON THAT WE WOULD RATHER SEE AND WE COULD TAKE A VOTE ON AN AMENDED DRAFT ORDINANCE. SO IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR WE COULD LOOK FOR A MOTION. COMMISSIONER ALBRECHT THANK YOU CHAIR. ONLY THING THAT I KEEP GOING BACK TO IS GOAL NUMBER TWO OF THIS WHOLE PROCESS WHICH IS TO INCREASE CLARITY AND TO DECREASE COMPLEXITY AND WAY. I TOO AM NOT A HUGE FAN OF DIGITAL BILLBOARDS. I AM ALSO VERY DISTRACTED WHILE DRIVING ACROSS THE RIVER I LOVE THE DIGITAL BILLBOARD CHANGING HOWEVER I DO WANT TO MAKE BLOOMINGTON A LESS COMPLEX PLACE TO DO BUSINESS. SO WHATEVER THAT IS WHATEVER THAT MEANS SOME SORT OF SIMILAR STANDARD TO OTHER COMMUNITIES AND I MR. JOHNSON YOU PULL UP THE SLIDE WITH THE OTHER COMMUNITIES ON THE THIS IS THIS LOOKS TO ME LIKE A MESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WHERE IF YOU'RE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 494 ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 94 THE EAST IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU CAN DO WHERE AND SO MY PERSPECTIVE IS IF THAT IS INDUSTRY STANDARD THE 8 SECONDS THEN THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK I'M COMFORTABLE WITH AS LONG AS WE GET TO REVIEW IT IN A YEAR RATHER THAN GOING TO 10 MINUTES WHICH I DON'T SEE ANYWHERE ON HERE AS AN EXAMPLE WHICH IS FINE CAN DO OUR OWN THING. ABSOLUTELY. HOWEVER THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY DECREASE COMPLEXITY. I ALSO THANK YOU COMMISSIONER GOLTZMAN FOR POINTING OUT THAT THERE IS A SIGNED VARIANCE PROCESS THAT THE COMPLEXITY PART IS WHERE I GET HUNG UP BECAUSE I WANT BLOOMING TO BE FLUENT IN TO BE A PLACE WHERE IT'S EASIER TO DO TO GET THINGS DONE AND HAVING TO GO THROUGH THAT VARIANCE PROCESS THOUGH MINIMAL AND POTENTIALLY A STAFF OKAY I JUST AM HESITANT IS IT DOESN'T MEET THE GOAL OF LESS FOR PEOPLE LOOKING TO BUILD AND DO BUSINESS. I AM SUPPORTIVE OF THE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AROUND TEMPORARY SIGNAGE SO I PERSONALLY WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT AS PROPOSED BUT WOULD CEMENT WOULD WOULD SUPPORT CHANGES BASED ON WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT TONIGHT KIRKUK IN QUESTION CLARIFY WHAT EXACTLY THAT LAST POINT WAS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE OPTION THAT I SHOWED ON A SLIDE? OKAY. I JUST WANT MAKE SURE I'M CLEARLY UNDERSTANDING YOU COMMISSIONER ALBRECHT I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER GORTON NO WORRIES. SO I LIKE HOW YOU BROUGHT US BACK TO THE BEGINNING, RIGHT? WHAT ARE OUR I LOVE THE COMPLEXITY PIECE THAT ARE WE ARE WE CREATING COMPLEXITY BECAUSE WE AS A COMMISSION CAN THAT ALL NIGHT LONG IF WE WANTED TO THE THING ABOUT THE BILLBOARDS AND THAT'S FOR RIGHT NOW IS THAT THE THE BIG HANG UP EXCUSE ME I DON'T THINK I CAN GET TO THAT 8 SECONDS THOUGH I DON'T THINK 20 MINUTES IS FEASIBLE LOOKING AT YOU DIANA OR SAVAGE OR YEAH IN PRAIRIE SO TO GET IT TO BE LESS COMPLEX I WOULD ACTUALLY BE IN MORE FAVOR AND BE MORE FAVORABLE TO JUST NOT ALLOWING ELECTRONIC. IT KEEPS IT SIMPLE THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO FIGHT ABOUT HOW OFTEN THEY CAN REFRESH. THEN AGAIN IN A YEAR WE CAN ACTUALLY HAVE THE ROI CONVERSATION WITH THE NUMBERS OF WHAT FINANCIAL SENSE TO BRING THESE IN . YOU KNOW IF IT'S 10 MINUTES AND THAT JUSTIFIES BUILDING AN ELECTRONIC I DON'T KNOW I JUST STRUGGLE WITH IF WE PUT IT AT 10 MINUTES IT MIGHT NOT EVEN MAKE FINANCIAL SENSE TO BUILD SO IT'S LIKE WE'RE PUTTING A MORATORIUM ON IT EVEN THOUGH WE'RE NOT WE'RE SAYING HERE YOU'RE GOING TO YOU CAN HAVE IT BUT DOES IT REALLY MAKE SENSE? SO I IT NEEDS MORE STUDY. WE NEED MORE TIME TO DIG INTO THAT ONE FURTHER. THE OTHER THING TOO IS THERE'S ONLY FOUR OF THEM SO WE MAY BE MAKING A MOUNTAIN OUT OF A MOLEHILL. I DON'T KNOW BUT THOSE ARE MY COUPLE OF COMMENTS BECAUSE REMEMBER IT. THANK YOU CHAIR COMMISSIONER GOES FROM A GOOD POINT YOU KNOW I THINK I GO BACK TO OUR SELF STORAGE CONVERSATION WE HAD WHERE IF WE NARROW THE THE LANE SO MUCH THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING OR ACTUALLY MOVE FORWARD WHAT'S THE POINT AND I KIND OF THERE A REASON WHY BILLBOARDS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE BUILT IN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON AND WHY WE HAVE FOR LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING BECAUSE DON'T WANT ANY ADDITIONAL BILLBOARDS BUT WE'RE DISCUSSING HAVING ELECTRONIC BILLBOARDS WHICH TO ME ARE A BIGGER NUISANCE THAN A FREESTANDING BILLBOARD SO I KIND OF AGREE WITH THAT. I THINK I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF ELIMINATING THE ABILITY TO DO A DIGITAL CONVERSION. LET ASK A QUESTION OF THE TWO OF YOU. YOU KNOW I DO AGREE WITH YOU THAT DATA DRIVEN DECISIONS ARE GOOD ONES FOR US TO MAKE. WE DO WITH WITH DATA DRIVEN DECISIONS IF WE WERE TO LET'S JUST THE HYPOTHETIC SAY HOLD THIS OVER TILL OUR NEXT MEETING TO GET THAT DATA PERHAPS THAT'S MR. JOHNSON COULD WORK WITH TO GET US OUR DATA WOULD YOU BE IN A BETTER POSITION TO MAKE A DECISION OR I'M ALSO HEARING YOUR POTENTIALLY IN FAVOR OF NOT ALLOWING THEM TO BEGIN WITH. DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT THAT? YEAH, MAYBE I'LL START WITH MR. JOHNSON THAT THE TYPE OF INFORMATION YOU COULD PROVIDE IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS OR IS THERE ANOTHER REASON YEAH. YEAH. I GUESS ONE THING I WOULD INDICATE WITH RESPECT TO THAT QUESTION IS THAT THERE IS A LOT OF MATERIALS OUT THERE ON THIS TOPIC AND THERE IS EVEN SOME IN HELPFULLY SO THERE'S EVEN SOME ACADEMIC PAPERS THAT SUMMARIZE A LOT OF STUDIES ABOUT ELECTRONICS AND TIMES AND KIND OF THE IMPACTS THEY CAN HAVE ON DRIVER DISTRACTION AND SOME OF THOSE THINGS. MY GENERAL TAKEAWAYS FROM THOSE THINGS IS THAT THAT COMMUNITY OF DOING THAT RESEARCH HAS NOT LANDED ON ANY ONE INDIVIDUAL STANDARD FOR WHAT IS DEEMED A SAFE STANDARD OF DWELL TIME FOR DRIVERS WHAT THEY WILL TELL YOU IS THAT SHORTER MESSAGES ARE SAFER LONGER MESSAGES THAT GRAPHICS UNDER THEMSELVES CAN BE MORE DISTRACTING THAN SHORTER MESSAGES SO MORE COMPLEX MESSAGES ARE SAFE THAN LESS COMPLEX MESSAGES BUT THEY WON'T LAND ON I UNDERSTAND THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ISSUED THIS ORDER IN THE EARLY 2000 AROUND THE 80 SECONDS. I RECOGNIZE AND RESPECT THAT BUT I THINK YOU WILL NOT FIND UNIFORMITY OF THE TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMUNITY THAT THINK THAT THAT IS A SAFE STANDARD OR THAT WOULD PROPOSE FOR A LOCAL JURISDICTION SO I'M I'M NOT OPPOSED OR I'M NOT I'M CERTAINLY GOING TO COLLECT SOME OF THIS RESEARCH FOR YOU AND TRANSMIT IT TO YOU AND PRESENTED IN A PUBLIC SETTING CERTAINLY CAN DO THAT. BUT WHAT WE'VE ATTEMPTED AND WHAT I'M TRYING COMMUNICATE NOW IS THAT I DON'T THINK YOU'LL FULFILLED BY AS I HAVE NOT FOUND FULFILLED BY DOING THIS INVESTIGATION MYSELF IN THE PAST. WE CERTAINLY HAVE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC STAFF HERE IF YOU WANT TO TALK TO THEM BUT I'VE WHAT I'VE ATTEMPTED TO COMMUNICATE TO DOES REFLECT A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD OVER THIS TIME AND. I KNOW THEIR POSITION IS THAT MUCH LONGER DWELL TIMES ARE SAFE OR ARE BETTER THAN SHORTER DWELL TIMES. COMMISSIONER GARY THANK YOU CHAIR YEAH I WOULD ALSO JUST SUPPORT JUST SKIPPING ELECTRONIC BILLBOARDS IN GENERAL I MEAN OTHERWISE JUST GO BACK AND FORTH ON TIMES FOREVER AND I DON'T KNOW I GUESS I JUST DON'T SEE THE BENEFIT. SO OTHER THAN THE SMALL BUSINESS THING THAT I MENTIONED ABOUT 5 MINUTES AGO BUT YEAH I THINK I WOULD JUST SKIP IT. MR. GROSSMAN SO IF I CAN JUST SURMISE THAT BASED ON WHAT I'M HEARING THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE REMOVING THE BILLBOARD ELECTRIC BILLBOARD ALLOWANCE AND THEN ADDING IN TEMPORARY ALLOWANCES AS PROPOSED AN OPTION B IS THAT I THINK THAT IS AN OPTIONAL MOTION YOU COULD MAKE. I WILL SPEAK FOR MYSELF THAT I DON'T THINK I COULD SUPPORT THE SECOND HALF OF THAT AMENDMENT BUT THAT'S JUST WHERE I'M AT. MR. ALBERT UH MR. CHAIR, IS THERE A WAY WHERE YOU WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE AROUND TEMPORARY SIGNAGE ALLOWANCES AS AS AS ORIGINALLY OPTION A IS COMFORTABLE YOU MR. JOHNSON WHAT IS OPTION AGAIN? FORGIVE ME ME. PULL IT OUT. GIVE ME FOUR FOR THAT. OKAY. IF THIS ISN'T TOO BRAND DAMAGING DAMAGING OOPS I WENT THE WRONG WAY. HERE WE GO. WELL, HE'S DOING THAT I YOU HAVE ONE COMMENT PLEASE. YES. SO WHAT I THINK BILLBOARDS AND NO OFFENSE THE CLEAR CHANNEL FOLKS WHO ARE HERE WHEN I THINK BILLBOARDS I THINK DRIVE THROUGH COMMUNITIES AND I WANT BLOOMINGTON TO BE A DRIVE THRU COMMUNITY I THINK THAT THAT'S WHY IT JUST BUGS ME BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THE CORRIDOR FOR FOUR WHERE THE BILLBOARDS ARE TENDS TO BE A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE DRIVE THROUGH AND I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO DO THERE ARE CHANGES BEING MADE SO FOR FOUR TO HAVE THAT EVEN MORE SO AND SO I JUST I'M SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT I DON'T WANT TO SEE BLOOMINGTON AS A DRIVE THRU COMMUNITY AND HAVING BILLBOARDS LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT I MEAN WHEN I THINK BILLBOARDS I THINK DRIVING UP TO DULUTH AND LOOKING ALL THE BILLBOARDS AS YOU DRIVE UP THERE AND SO I JUST AM I'M OKAY WITH LETTING THEM LIVE THE WAY THAT THEY LIVE BUT NOT ENCOURAGING CHANGE TO THEM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CHAIR KICKED IN AND SO THE EXISTING SIGN ORDINANCE DRAFT HAS THREE CATEGORIES BASED ON NUMBER OF TENANTS IT'S ONE SINGLE TENANT TO TENANTS TO 19 TENANTS AND 20 OR MORE TENANTS AND SO DELIMITATION OF THOSE THREE CATEGORIES RESPECTIVELY IS 60 DAYS 90 DAYS OR 120 DAYS. TO COMMENT I HEARD EARLIER ABOUT THE SAME BUSINESS BEING UP FOR THAT EXTENDED OF TIME THE LANGUAGE BOTH IN THAT THIS DRAFT AND AN OPTION ACTUALLY HAS A 60 DAY LIMITATION FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL TENANT AND I WOULD AGAIN HIGHLIGHT THE POINT ABOUT IF YOU HAVE TENANTS THAT BOTH HAVE SIGNS UP ON THE SAME DAY THAT COUNTS AS ONE DAY NOT MULTIPLE DAYS JUST AGAIN REITERATING THAT POINT AND CAN YOU HELP I'M SURE. YOU SAID IT EARLIER BUT CAN YOU HELP EXPLAIN THE JUST THE JUSTIFICATION REASONING A MULTI-TENANT BUILDING WE THINK IS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR MORE CALENDAR DAYS THAN A SMALLER STRIP CENTER YEAH SO CHAIR IN AS THE PERSON FROM KRAUS PROVIDED A TESTIMONY TESTIMONY TO JUST ABOUT THE GREATER NUMBER BUSINESSES THERE GOING TO BE A GREATER WHEREVER YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT RANGES IT IS SENSICAL AND RATIONAL THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A GREATER DEMAND FOR TEMPORARY SIGNAGE BASED ON SPECIAL SALE EVENTS OR GRAND OPENINGS OR OTHER COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES. SO A TEN TENANT BUILDING VERSUS A TWO TENANT BUILDING IS JUST GOING TO HAVE A GREATER DEMAND FOR THAT SIGNAGE TYPE. SO THIS IS PER BUILDING, CORRECT? YEP. SO IN THE CASE OF JUST SAY SOUTHTOWN, I THINK THERE'S LIKE THREE OR FOUR BUILDINGS THERE. THOSE ARE SEPARATE BUILDINGS. THAT'S INCORRECT. LET ME TAKE THAT. SO IT WOULD BE BASED ON A SITE BASIS. YEAH OKAY. SO WE WOULD WE WOULD CAPTURE THE AMOUNT OF TENANTS ON AN INDIVIDUAL SITE OR PROPERTY OR IN SOME CASES PLANNED DEVELOPMENT BUT. I WOULD SAY THAT THERE'S NOT MANY YOU KNOW, I THINK MY STAFF PRESENTED THIS OPTION B TO YOU TONIGHT IS THAT WE FELT THAT THE EXPANSION OF THE ALLOWANCE ONLY WAS APPLICABLE TO A LIMITED OF PROPERTIES AND LIMITED ON THE BASIS THAT NOT THAT MANY SITES HAVE THAT MANY TENANTS. SO THAT'S WHY WE WERE COMFORTABLE PRESENTING THAT AS AN ALTERNATIVE CAN WE SEE PLAN B AGAIN. YES FORGIVE ME FOR PERHAPS MISUNDERSTAND THIS A LITTLE BIT . OKAY. WELL I DO LIKE THE LANGUAGE OF NO TENANT EXCEEDING 60 DAYS PER CALENDAR YEAR. THAT MAKES ME FEEL SIGNIFICANTLY MORE COMFORTABLE. I APOLOGIZE I MISSED THAT THE FIRST TIME 180 DAYS PER YEAR. SO HALF THE YEAR OF THE YEAR 30 OR MORE 20 IT'S CLOSE ENOUGH WITHIN MY RANGE I DON'T THINK IT WOULD PREVENT ME FROM SUPPORTING IT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION FOR SURE. ALL RIGHT. SO THANK YOU, MR. JOHNSON FOR THAT CLARIFICATION BECAUSE RECURRING SO IN TERMS OF YOU KNOW, IF SKIP THE BILLBOARD I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THIS PLAN B FOR THE TEMPORARY SIGNS I COULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE WHOLE PROJECT OR THE WHOLE PROPOSAL. I SUPPOSE IF I HAD A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF JUST THIS ELECTRONIC SIGNAGE THAT FACES RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE THEY REALLY DON'T WANT THE ONES THE SIGNS THEN IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT WE DO A YEAR FROM NOW SOMEBODY WHO ACROSS THE STREET IT'S LIKE HEY YOU COST ME $10,000 IN PROPERTY VALUE AND I'M REALLY ANNOYED LIVING IN BLOOMINGTON NOW SO I REALLY DON'T WANT PEOPLE YOU KNOW COMING BACK TO US AND SAYING WHAT WERE YOU GUYS DOING? SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A WAY TO BE MORE COMFORTABLE ABOUT THAT TONIGHT BUT I'M STILL CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. SURE. GROSSMAN THANK YOU. I'M STEPH. DO YOU HAVE A MAP OF WHERE THE FOUR BILLBOARDS ARE TODAY? YEAH, I YOU KNOW WHAT? I DON'T HAVE THAT IN MY CURRENT SLIDE DECK BUT ONE IS ON 35 W CLOSE TO FOUR NINE NEAR NO FORGIVE ME I'M MORE ON THE SOUTH SIDE THERE IS ONE OF THE NORTHWEST AND 4094 THERE'S ONE JUST TO THE WEST OF PORTLAND AND FOR 94 AND THERE IS ONE CLOSE TO 494 AND 35 W MATTHEW COULD PROBABLY TELL ME BETTER THAN I CAN AM I CLOSE OKAY. YEAH THERE'S TWO ON I-35W EFFECTIVELY AND TWO ON FORT 94 AT KIND OF ONE ON THE EAST SIDE ONE ON THE WEST SIDE YOU WANT THAT REPEATED PUSH FOR GOALS JUST FOR CLARIFICATION THE ONE ON THE EAST SIDE. MM. THAT IS A BUDDING TWO SEVEN HILLS IS THAT IN RICHFIELD OR IS IN BLOOMINGTON SEVEN HILLS PREP ACADEMY IT'S AN OLD MINNESOTA BUSINESS AND TOURISM IN COMMISSIONER GOTTESMAN THAT ONE IS IN RICHFIELD. OKAY THANK YOU FOR THE LIFELINE. THANK AND WITH RESPECT TO COMMISSIONER KERR'S SO FACING RESIDENTIAL I MEAN FRANKLY THAT'S TO COME UP IN OTHER ELECTRONIC SIGN TYPES MUCH MORE SO THAN BILLBOARDS SO I MEAN I THAT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT BILLBOARDS BUT THE NIGHTTIME ISSUE AND THE NIGHTTIME RESTRICTION ABOUT STATIC OR YOU KNOW I SAID MENTIONED SOME CITIES REQUIRE YOU TO TURN THEM OFF AT NIGHT THAT'S MORE APPLICABLE IT'S WITHIN 150 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL SO NOT MANY BILLBOARDS I DON'T THINK ANY OF THOSE BILLBOARDS ARE WITHIN 150 FEET. THEY MIGHT BE VISIBLE FROM A FURTHER DISTANCE AWAY BUT WITH RESPECT TO THE KIND OF INTERVENTIONS OR THE TWEAKS THAT YOU CAN MAKE IT I MEAN YOU CERTAINLY COULD LOOK AT EXTINGUISHING THEM RIGHT NOW WE HAVE IN EFFECT THE EXISTING CODE HAS AN ORIENTATION WHICH IN EFFECT SERVES AS AN ADDITIONAL SETBACK AT 150 FEET. AND SO THAT'S WHY THAT NUMBER WE'RE TRYING TO CAPTURE THE VALUE OF THAT NUMBER WAS BEFORE BUT PUT SOME RESTRICTIONS, SOME BREAKS ON IT IF YOU WILL BY REQUIRING THAT IT CAN'T CHANGE DURING THE EVENING TIME AND WE DO BRIGHTNESS RESTRICTIONS AS I MENTIONED. SO YOU KNOW, POTENTIAL INTERVENTIONS ARE JUST TO MAKE THE A BUFFER 150 FEET BECAUSE WE HAVE 100 FOOT BUFFER IN THE PROPOSAL OR YOU COULD SAY THEY HAVE TO BE TURNED OFF AT THE EVENING TIME. THAT COMES WITH THE DOWNSIDE ADDITIONAL STAFF CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES AND THOSE THINGS. BUT YOU KNOW, COULD YOU OFFER POTENTIAL OR ASSURANCE OR INTERVENE IN BAD SITUATIONS? BUT YOU KNOW, PART OF THIS DISCUSSION AND THE COMPLEXITY OF ALL THESE TOPICS IS WHY WE'RE RECOMMENDING THE YEAR LOOK BACK ON SOME OF THIS STUFF BECAUSE THESE OPERATIONAL THINGS CAN BE CHANGED. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME PROPERTY OWNERS WHO MIGHT BE UPSET ABOUT SOME OF THESE THINGS IF YOU GO IN ONE DIRECTION OR THE OTHER. BUT YOU KNOW, THESE ARE OPERATIONAL THINGS ONCE THE SIGN IS IN IN THE GROUND AS YOU SAID, COMMISSIONER CURRY, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE OPERATION OF IT CAN'T CHANGE SUBJECT TO A CITY STANDARD. SO JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION IF NOT MR. JOHNSON ASK YOU TO TURN TO THAT RECOMMENDED MOTION SO WE CAN START TO DIGEST HOW TO MOVE FORWARD. YEAH, THANK YOU. AND I'M NOT TRYING TO DRIVE THE CONVERSATION BUT WITH RESPECT TO I WROTE DOWN SIX KIND OF ISSUES THAT WERE QUESTIONS DURING YOUR DISCUSSION BUT YOU WERE THERE WAS SOME ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO RECOMMEND THE CONVERSION OF DIGITAL BILLBOARDS AND IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO GO IN THAT DIRECTION THAT'S YOUR PURVIEW. BUT I JUST WANT TO BE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHICH SPECIFIC PROVISION WITHIN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE YOU WOULD STRIKE OR CHANGE AND THE I SAY THAT IS THAT WE ADDED THAT PROVISION IN NON-CONFORMITY AND IN THE BILLBOARD SECTION. IT'S AN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION SO THAT'S MOST LIKELY WHAT YOU WOULD BE STRIKING. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THE EXISTING BILLBOARD STANDARDS HAS DWELL TIME. NONE OF THEM ARE ELECTRONIC CURRENTLY BUT IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT CONVERSION AND THEN THESE ARE LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING THAT'S THAT NON-CONFORMITY PROVISION THAT YOU WOULD NOT SUPPORT. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT BUT I GO TO THE RECOMMENDATION SLIDE SOMETHING WE'VE DONE IN THE PLAN IN THE PAST COMMISSIONERS HAS MADE A SERIES OF MOTIONS. ONE THING WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST IS THAT WE WOULD MOVE TO NOT RECOMMEND ADOPTION AND THEN MAKE A SUBSEQUENT MOTION OF SOMETHING WE WOULD PREFER AS CHAIR I CAN'T MAKE A MOTION SO THAT'S YOUR PURVIEW OF HOW YOU WANT TO HANDLE THIS I SEE CITY ATTORNEY ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY CASKEY STUCK TO THE DAIS CHECKING IN WITH YOU IF YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS BEFORE WE PROCEED HERE. NO, I WAS CHAIR COMMISSIONERS I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE THE SECTION THAT ALLOWS CONVERSION OF BILLBOARDS JUST SO WE HAD A WRITE CITATION FOR YOU FOR YOUR MOTION SO THAT IS THE 21.30 4.20 SUBSECTION E SO THAT BE THE SECTION AT ISSUE WE GET THAT NUMBER ONE MORE TIME. SURE. 21.30 FOR 0.20 E PRINT E SO LIKE MR. JOHNSON WAS SAYING JUST SO YOU WERE CERTAIN ON WHAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN OUT BEFORE IT GOES TO CITY COUNCIL IF THAT'S YOUR INTENT BE SURE OF IT. THANK YOU. DREW, COULD I MAKE A MOTION STRIKING THAT SUBSECTION AND AMENDING THE LANGUAGE TO OPTION WE CALLED OPTION B DO YOU WANT TO START WITH THAT? DO YOU WANT TO START THE TEMPORARY YES. TO BALANCE WITH WHAT I WAS SAYING EARLIER IS PERHAPS BY MAKING MULTIPLE MOTIONS THERE'S A GREATER IMPACT TO CITY COUNCIL THAT WE DO NOT APPROVE AS IT'S BEEN PROPOSED IN OFFERING A OPTION BUT THAT'S REALLY SEMANTICS. SO HOWEVER YOU'D LIKE TO CRAFT THAT MOTION IS THAT YOUR DISCRETION CHAIR COMMISSIONERS I MIGHT JUST SUGGEST A MOTION SIMILAR TO WHAT MR. JOHNSON HAS AND THEN THE STAFF REPORT JUST STATING WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS OR SOMETHING SO YOU HAVE ONE MOTION TO FOR RECOMMENDATION WITH YOUR CAVEAT IN THE MOTION TO SO YOU JUST HAVE ONE ONE MOTION AND THEN IT SAYS WHAT ALTERATIONS WE WANT MR. MARKER CHAIR KICKED IN WHAT APPROACH THE COMMISSIONERS USED IN THE PAST A FAIR AMOUNT IS TO HAVE SOME KIND OF DISCUSSION BEFORE THE MOTION ON EACH INDIVIDUAL ISSUE WITH SOME KIND OF STRAW POLLING WHERE PEOPLE WERE OUT TO SEE WHICH ISSUES THE MAJORITY WOULD SUPPORT AND POTENTIALLY INCLUDING THAT IN A MOTION OF SUPPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER MR. JONES IF WE WERE TO GO WITH THAT APPROACH I'D ASK FOR YOUR ON ON THE PARTICULAR ISSUES THAT ARE OF INTEREST TO COUNCIL THAT WE HAVE I GOT A LIST OKAY I'LL ASK THE COMMISSION IS THAT AROUND YOU'D LIKE TO TAKE HERE IS A WALK THROUGH THEM ONE BY ONE TO DO SOME PERHAPS INFORMAL STRAW POLL. I'M SEEING SOME NODDING OF HEADS. MR. JOHNSON, PLEASE WALK US THROUGH THAT LIST. THE FIRST ONE WAS THANK YOU CHAIR THE FIRST ONE IS ELECTRONIC BILLBOARD CONVERSION. SO I THINK WE WELL I THINK WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL JUST GO DOWN THE LINE HERE. I WOULD SAY NO, NO, NO, NO OKAY. THE SECOND ONE WAS ELECTRONIC SIGNED DWELL THE ACTUAL STANDARD ITSELF THE DURATION AND I SAY I SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. YES YES. YEAH. OKAY. THE ELECTRONIC SIGN NIGHTTIME RESTRICTION WHEN WITHIN 150 FEET BETWEEN 101 FEET 150 FEET OF RESIDENTIAL USERS. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT ONE A LITTLE MORE? YEAH. SO THE IF A SIGN OF ELECTRONIC SIGN WAS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUFFER REQUIREMENT WHICH IS 100 FEET BUT WITHIN 150 FEET OPERATION THAT SIGN WOULD BE LIMITED TO STATIC DISPLAY MEANING IT CAN'T IT CAN NO LONGER CHANGE AFTER THAT TIME AND NIGHTTIME AS BEING 9 P.M. TO 7 A.M. OR BE TURNED OFF THAT GIVES THE SIGN OWNER OPERATOR TWO CHOICES TO MAKE OPERATIONALLY SPEAKING I WOULD SAY I HAVE NO OPINION ABSOLUTELY YES. YES I YES SUPPORT THE RESTRICTION. OKAY. THE NEXT ONE WAS PARKING STRUCTURE SIGNS WAS ARE TOYOTA SUBMITTED A LETTER ABOUT INCREASING THE NUMBER OF BUILDING SIGNS CURRENTLY THE DRAFT HAS A LIMITATION OF ONE INDIVIDUAL SIGN A NUMBER OF ONE AND 150 SQUARE FOOT CAP IN THEIR PROPOSALS TO KEEP THE SQUARE FOOTAGE CAPITAL L MULTIPLE CORRECT TO SIGN ON AN ELEVATION FACING A PUBLIC STREET I'M FAVOR OF THAT ONE I'M INDIFFERENT GOOD I'M ALSO INDIFFERENT I'M SORRY I WAS THINKING ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL AREA SO CURRENTLY WHERE BUILDING SIGNS ARE ALLOWED ON PARKING STRUCTURES IN BLOOMINGTON THEY'RE ONLY ALLOWED IN A FEW ONE OR TWO SIGN DISTRICTS I THINK AND SO AND AGAIN TRYING TO CREATE MORE CONTINUITY OR LESS COMPLEXITY WE'RE SAYING THEY'RE ALLOWED ON PARKING STRUCTURES THREE STORIES ARE TALLER BUT YOU'RE LIMITED TO ONE SIGN FOR ELEVATION FACING A STREET OF 250 SQUARE FEET WALLS ARE TOYOTA SUPPORTS THAT GENERAL PROPOSAL BUT WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE TO BUILDING SIGNS ON THAT ELEVATION NOT CHANGING THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED BUT JUST THE NUMBER OF THEM? NO FROM 1 TO 2 NO. BUT WHAT'S THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS SINGLE SIGN IT'S A SINGLE SIGN BUT I GUESS AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT THIS IS NOT ONE THAT BREAKS OUR BACK SO TO SPEAK. OKAY. YEAH THAT THAT'S OKAY. YEAH FOR CLARITY SINGLE SIGN WITH THAT. SO I SUPPORT THOSE RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU. OKAY. THE COMMERCIAL PROMOTIONS OPTION B DISCUSSION TEMPORARY SIGNS I LEAN YES, YES YES. YES. OKAY THANK YOU AND THEN THE LAST IS THERE IS DISCUSSION AROUND THE INDIVIDUAL MAXIMUM BUILDING SIGN SIZE OF 250 WHICH IS 250 SQUARE FEET IN THE CLASS THREE SIGN DISTRICT AND 150 SQUARE FEET IN THE CLASS FIVE SIGN DISTRICT AND WE DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF STAFF RESPONSE THAT ONE HERE DURING THE MEETING. BUT JUST FROM A PERSPECTIVE IN MIND THE ASPECTS AROUND NON-CONFORMITY YES YOU CAN SEEK VARIANCES TO AN INDIVIDUAL TO THAT STANDARD HOWEVER AND I'M NOT TRYING TO CONFUSE THE MATTERS BUT CURRENTLY THE PD THE TOOLS AND THE PD WOULD NOT ALLOW FLEXIBILITY THAT SO IF YOU WANTED TO CREATE A PATHWAY TO HAVE PD FLEXIBILITY TO THAT STANDARD WE WOULD NEED TO AMEND THE THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ALLOWANCES WHICH IF THAT'S YOUR KIND OF LEGISLATIVE DIRECTION I KNOW HOW I WOULD DO THAT AND I WOULD BE ABLE TO CAPTURE SPIRIT BUT IT'S JUST WHERE WHERE SHOULD THE CAP BE FOR A MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL SIGN? AND THEN THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY TOO IS THAT OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE AS MANY SIGNS AS YOU WANT ON A WALL THAT FILLS IN YOUR OVERALL SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWANCE. I KNOW THAT THIS HAS BEEN A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING IN THE PAST SO FORGIVE ME BUT WHAT THE 250 SQUARE FEET IS IT'S AN INDIVIDUAL SIGN. IT'S NOT THAT YOU ONLY GET 250 SQUARE FEET ON AN ELEVATION SO YOU CAN HAVE TEN SIGNS ON AN ELEVATION OF VARIOUS SIZES. WHAT THIS IS SAYING IS THAT IT'S CREATING A CAP OF THE INDIVIDUAL SIGNS. OKAY, THANK YOU. I SUPPORTS THE RECOMMENDATION IN THE STAFF REPORT. I DO AS WELL. YES I DO AS WELL. YEAH ME TOO. OKAY. THANK ALL AND THAT WAS THAT WAS THE SIX ITEMS THAT I WROTE DOWN. OKAY. SO ON WHAT YOU'VE WRITTEN DOWN THERE, WHICH ONES WOULD WOULD BE NEEDED TO MAKE A MOTION BASED ON WHAT WE JUST TOLD YOU ? I LOOK TO ATTORNEY TO ASK YOU TO FILL IN MY BLANKS. I THINK THE MOTION YOU WOULD MAKE IS I MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE AMENDMENTS AS AGREED UPON AS PART OF PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND OUTLINED IN THESE ITEMS. DO WE KEEP IT THERE GENERALLY? DO WE NEED TO LIST YOU ON A LIST OF JUST THE ONES THAT CHANGE? YEAH THOSE TWO I THINK SO SO OPTION FORGIVE ME TEMPORARY OPTION BE CHANGED AND THE PARKING STRUCTURE SIGN CHANGED FROM 1 TO 2 AND THE CONVERSION THOSE ARE THE THREE AMENDMENTS. OKAY SO DON'T FOLLOW THE STAFF RECOMMENDATI THAT WAS A DEAL FOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ARE NOT CONVERTING TO DIGITAL SIGNS THE WALLS OR TOYOTA OF ALLOWING TWO INSTEAD OF ONE AND THE OPTION B FOR THE PROMOTIONAL TEMPORARY SIGNAGE AS SHOWN ON STAFF SLIDE THAT'S SHOWN IN WHAT WE'RE CALLING NUMBER LETTER B WHICH WILL BE AS PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD . ARE MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS CLEAR ON ON ALL THAT YOU WANT TO GO FOR IT I'LL DO MY BEST COMMISSIONER GOLDMAN THANK YOU, CHAIR IN CASE PEOPLE 2023-205I MOVE TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING NEW STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR SIGNS THEREBY AMENDING CHAPTERS 1 TO 12, 14, 17, 19 AND 21 AND APPENDIX A OF THE CITY CODE WITH THE AMENDMENTS OF STRIKING THE CONVERSION EXISTING DIGITAL BOARDS 21.3 04. 20E CHANGING THE PARKING STRUCTURES SIGN REQUIREMENTS FROM 1 TO 2 AND IMPLEMENTING A TEMPORARY SIGN THE PLAN IN THE TABLE FROM THE STAFF REPORT WE HAVE A SECOND SECOND ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR CLARIFICATION ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION AS PROPOSED TO I I OPPOSED THAT MOTION PASSES FOUR ZERO THIS WILL MOVE ON TO CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 26TH AS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM A SPECIAL THANK YOU TO MR. TOSCHI MR. JOHNSON MR. MARKER FOR HELPING US THROUGH THAT ONE. THAT WAS COMPLICATED BUT WE WE DID A LOT A FINE JOB SO THANK YOU TO THE THREE OF YOU. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER THREE IS A STUDY ITEM. THE APPLICANT IS THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS REVIEW MICHELLE LINCOLN IS OUR PLANNER ON THIS ONE. MS. LINCOLN IS THIS THE FIRST TIME YOU'VE PRESENTED BEFORE US CHAIRING COMMISSION? NO. I HAVE PRESENTED THE ANNUAL HOUSING REPORT INFORMATION. OKAY. WELL WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU BACK AND PLEASE CONTINUE FORWARD THIS ONE MOMENT WHILE I PREPARE COMMISSIONER ROBERT THANK YOU CHAIR. COMMISSIONER CURRY WANT TO USE THE RESTROOM? I WONDER IF WE COULD JUST DO SECOND TWO MINUTE BREAK FOR A RESTROOM BREAK? I THINK WE'LL DO A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AND WE'LL WE WILL RESTART AT 827. THANK YOU. YOU CALL OKAY. WE'RE BACK. MS.. LINCOLN, PLEASE PROCEED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. THANK YOU TO OUR COMMISSION. I AM EXCITED TO. SHARE WITH YOU THE WORK AND RESEARCH THAT I'VE DONE IN ORDER PRESENT SOME OPTIONS AND FOR THIS ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS REVIEW FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SO THERE'S A AS YOU MIGHT HAVE SEEN IN THE REPORT IT'S RATHER LARGE THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION AND I'M GOING TO STRUCTURE THIS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN THE HOW THE REPORT IS STRUCTURED. SO I'LL TAKE YOU THROUGH BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY BRIEFLY SO YOU CAN KIND OF GO TO THE LAY OF THE LAND OF WHERE MY REASONING WAS AND THE RESOURCES THAT I CONSULTED AND THEN I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THE THE NATURAL FEATURES THAT I REVIEWED BOTH AS THE BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS AND POLICY ACTIONS ALL TOGETHER AND THEN I WILL FOR QUESTIONS AND SO THAT WHEN YOU HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO ASK FOR CLARIFICATION BECAUSE I DID CHOOSE TO BE AS CONCISE AS I CAN WHILE PROVIDING RELEVANT DETAILS IN ORDER FOR YOU TO DISCUSSION. BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOUR QUESTIONS ARE ANSWERED THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS SO THERE WILL BE OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH THESE FEATURES WHERE I WILL PAUSE SO THAT YOU CAN ASK THOSE QUESTIONS AND THEN AFTER WE'VE KIND OF REVIEWED EACH OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES WE'LL A SUMMARY WHERE I WILL KIND OF GO OVER WHAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS MAKE NOTES OF ANY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU HAVE THAT MAY DIFFER FROM STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEN DOCUMENT THOSE SO THAT WAY THEY CAN BE IN THE STAFF REPORT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION. THIS IS GOING PLANNING COMMISSION ON CURRENTLY ON FEBRUARY 12TH SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE I CAPTURE ALL OF YOUR DISCUSSION IN THAT ADDITION TO MY REPORT AND THEN THERE'LL BE TIME FOR ADDITIONAL AND DISCUSSION IF THERE'S OTHER THINGS YOU WANT TO COVER THAT I DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY COVER IN THESE ITEMS. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE ROADMAP FOR MY PRESENTATION. SO WITH THE BACKGROUND METHODOLOGY THE THIS PROJECT DEVELOPED FROM COURTESY ITERATIONS FROM THE SINGLE TWO FAMILY AMENDMENTS THAT WERE ADOPTED IN MAY 2023, COUNSEL HAD RECOMMENDED THAT PLANNING PLANNING STAFF PURSUE RESEARCH IN ORDER UNDERSTAND ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND HOW THEY INTERSECT AND WHAT OUR ACTIONS WE COULD TAKE JUST TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE A BALANCE PROTECTING OUR PRECIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES BUT ALSO MAKING THAT WE ARE RESPONDING TO THE HOUSING NEED IN BLOOMINGTON WHICH IS CRITICAL AS YOU HEARD FROM ME FROM THE ANNUAL HOUSING REPORT YEAR ALSO THE ORIGINAL PROJECT PLAN INCLUDED A REVIEW OF NATIVE LANDSCAPING THAT IS ACTUALLY A PROJECT THAT IS BEING LED BY PUBLIC WORKS AND THE SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION. THEY ARE KIND OF PULLING TOGETHER A NATIVE LANDSCAPING A NATIVE AND MANAGED LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE AND THAT'S IN PROGRESS SO THERE'S ALWAYS OPPORTUNITIES FOR ME TO COLLABORATE WITH GROUP BASED ON DISCUSSION HERE TODAY BUT I WON'T BE COVERING WHAT THEY'RE COVERING CURRENTLY. YOU'LL HEAR ABOUT THAT PROJECT MORE AT A LATER DATE. SO THE ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS REVIEW COVERS TREES, SLOPES AND WILDLIFE AND HABITAT AND THOSE ARE THE THREE ITEMS THAT I WILL BE COVERING TO THE REST THE PRESENTATION. SO FOR MY METHODOLOGY WHEN I CONDUCTED THIS I FIRST STARTED WITH I'M CONSULTING ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND RESEARCH. I REALLY WANTED TO UNDERSTAND THE ACTUAL ECOSYSTEM ELEMENTS AND WHAT THERE'S ASSESSED SUSCEPTIBLE AND VULNERABLE TO JUST BY EXISTING AS ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES. SO I DUG DEEP INTO THE SCIENCE OF THOSE THINGS AND THEN STARTED LAYERING IN THE COMPLEXITY WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE HUMAN IMPACT AND VULNERABLE ON THOSE VULNERABILITIES AND SUSCEPTIBILITY AS WELL AS LAND USE AND THEN LAND USE POLICY. SO THERE'S KIND OF A LOT OF LAYERS GOING THERE AND I LAYERED THAT IN ON TOP OF WHAT IS A WHAT IS A TREE CANOPY THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. I ALSO CONDUCTED A REVIEW WHERE I COMPARED TEN MINNESOTA CITY CODES ACROSS THESE THREE FEATURES REALLY FOCUSING ON THOSE KIND OF LIKE FOUNDATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THOSE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES AND HOW WHERE THEY INTERSECT WITH POLICY JUST TO UNDERSTAND WHERE BLOOMINGTON IS IN COMPARISON SIMILAR CITIES OR CITIES WHO ARE CLOSE PROXIMITY I COLLABORATED WITH RELEVANT INTERNAL STAFF WHICH INCLUDED PUBLIC WORKS WHICH THE CITY FORESTRY ENGINEERING STORMWATER LEGAL TO MAKE SURE THAT I REALLY UNDERSTANDING HOW OUR STANDARDS OR THESE TYPES OF STANDARDS INTERACTED WITH OTHER CHAPTERS THAT PLANNING MAY NOT HAVE AN INFLUENCE IN BUT COULD LEARN FROM OR MAY NEED TO WORK WITH IN THE FUTURE IN ORDER TO MAKE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT WAS DONE THROUGH THE OUR LET'S TALK BLOOMINGTON PAGE WHERE I DESCRIBE ENVIRONMENTAL AND KIND OF OUR GOALS IN PROTECTING THEM AS WELL AS BALANCING THAT WITH HOUSING NEED AND INFILL DEVELOPMENT WE HAD ONE COMMENT THAT WAS JUST KIND OF YOU KNOW LIKE I'M GLAD THAT DOING THIS I REALLY LOVE VEGETATION IN MANAGING SOIL EROSION AND I LOVE IT TOO. SO THAT'S DOCUMENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND. YOU'LL HEAR A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHERE THOSE VEGETATION COMES IN FOR ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES AND PROTECTION. AND THEN I ALSO PERFORMED SOME BLOOMINGTON SPECIFIC ANALYSIS AND MAPPING SO REALLY LOOKING AT THE BLOOMINGTON CODE FOR ITSELF AND HOW IT INTERACTS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES. SO IN DETERMINING THE INTERVENTIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL I KIND OF LOOKED AT EVERYTHING THAT WE DO ALREADY THAT ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS AND GIVES US DISCRETION AND AUTHORITY TO PROTECT ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES. I'VE LISTED THEM HERE IN THREE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES AND SOME OF THEM MIGHT OVERLAP YOU KNOW, A LITTLE BIT. THERE MIGHT HAVE MORE THAN ONE ONE IS A REVIEW BUT IT'S ALSO A POLICY DOCUMENT BUT IT'S ALSO WHAT BUT I JUST KIND OF GENERALLY PUT THESE IN CATEGORIES FOR EASY READING AND THROUGH THIS THROUGH THESE GENERAL CATEGORIES THERE'S 18 INTERVENTIONS AND THESE ARE JUST CATEGORIES EVEN THERE'S EVEN MORE INTERVENTIONS THAT WE DO IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE PAYING ATTENTION TO OUR FEATURES THROUGH LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. SO THIS IS A KIND OF A SIMPLE TABLE FOR THE CITY CODE REVIEW . SO THESE ARE THE OTHER CITIES THAT LOOKED AT THE TREE PRESERVATION. ALL CITIES I LOOKED AT HAD SOME SORT OF GENERAL TREE PRESERVATION FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SOME OF THAT THOSE THINGS KIND VARIED BASED ON THE CITY'S DISCRETION VARY KIND OF LIKE THERE'S A RANGE THAT IS ACCEPTABLE FOR SLOPES AND PROTECTIONS. BLOOMINGTON THE ONLY ONE LISTED HERE I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT OTHER CITIES HAVE SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL POLICIES. BLOOMINGTON WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT HAD ACTUAL STEEP SLOPES SO WE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED STEEP SLOPES IN OUR IN OUR CODE WHILE OTHER CITIES DIDN'T DO THAT THEY STILL HAD SLOPES PROTECTIONS BUT IT MIGHT BE MORE SPREAD OUT OR NOT MAYBE AS CLEAR OR DIRECT AS WHAT BLOOMINGTON HAS IN OUR CODE AND THEN WILDLIFE AND HABITAT SAINT PAUL VERY SPECIFICALLY HAS A DISTRICT CALLED R.L. AND THAT IS ACTUALLY HAS AS LISTED THE PURPOSE WILDLIFE AND HABITAT PRESERVATION OR MAINTENANCE WHEREAS BLOOMINGTON AND BURNSVILLE WE HAVE NON RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS SO RESIDENTIAL IS NOT ALLOWED IN OUR CONSERVATION DISTRICT ZONING IT IS NOT VERY COMMON EVEN NATIONALLY TO HAVE WILDLIFE AND HABITAT ORDINANCES SO WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY OUT OF SYNC WITH TREND ALTHOUGH THAT COULD BE CHANGING BUT THERE'S NOT NECESSARILY A LOT OF DATA CURRENTLY LOCALLY ON ON WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE MIGHT BE FORGING A NEW PATH IF WE DECIDE TO GO THAT WAY SO WE LOOK AT TREES SO TYPICAL STANDARDS COVER FOR MAJOR THINGS PROTECTION OF EXISTING TREES, REPLACEMENTS OF TREES THAT HAVE BEEN REMOVED REMOVAL ACTIVITIES AND WHEN AND HOW MANY TREES CAN BE REMOVED AND PROHIBITED SPECIES. SO WHAT CAN BE PLANTED IT WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS ALSO TREE SURVEYS, PRESERVATION PLANS PLANS ENSURE THAT TREES ARE ACCOUNTED FOR DURING PLAT OR DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY ONLY PLAT OR SUBDIVISION WE ALSO HAVE THINGS IN PLACE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES WHERE WE ARE PAYING ATTENTION TO YOU KNOW WHERE ARE LOCATED ON A PROPERTY. SO OUR CURRENT TREE PRESERVATION STANDARDS SO BLOOMINGTON HAS SOME OF THE MORE EXTENSIVE TREE PRESERVATION STANDARDS COMPARED TO THE OTHER CITIES WE HAVE A TREE PRESERVATION SECTION SO IT'S CALLED VERY SPECIFICALLY 21 301. 04I THINK IS AS OUR TREE CALLING FROM MEMORY BUT IT'S IT'S CHAPTER 21 AND IT COVERS THE MAIN ACTIVITIES THAT I MENTIONED THE PROHIBITED SPECIES PROTECTION REMOVAL AND REPLANTING AND IT ALSO COVERS LIKE HAVING THRESHOLDS FOR THOSE THINGS SINGLE FAMILY SOME OR EXCUSE ME IN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NOT NECESSARILY SINGLE FAMILY OVER THAT A LITTLE BIT AND ALSO THINGS LIKE SPECIFIC TREE SPECIES OR TREE AMOUNTS AND THAT OTHER CITIES DIDN'T NECESSARILY GET INTO THAT TYPE OF GRANULAR DETAIL. SOME DID BUT IT'S ON WE'RE ON THAT END WITH THE CITIES THAT DID ON MORE EXTENSIVE THERE. SO TREE PRESERVATION STANDARDS APPLY TO ALL SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY PLOTS OR SUBDIVISIONS IN OUR ONE RS1 AND R1A THAT MEANS IF A PLOT CAME UP FOR I MEAN ANY PLOT BUT ESPECIALLY LIKE UNDER OUR CHANGES FOR THE SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY AMENDMENTS THAT WERE MADE TREE PRESERVATION WOULD APPLY REFORESTATION PLANS REQUIRED WHEN 50% OR MORE OF TOTAL DIAMETER TYPE INCHES ARE REMOVED OF SIGNIFICANT TREES. AND THAT JUST MEANS THAT DIAMETER HEIGHT IS BASICALLY THE TREE AROUND AT WELL I'M SHORTER BUT AT A KIND OF STANDARD HEIGHT AND SO WE DO HAVE THRESHOLDS WHERE WE START TO TRIGGER AND SAY YOU HAVE TO REPLACE SOME OF THE TREES IF YOU'RE REMOVING THEM . AND THEN ALSO IN TANDEM WITH SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT IF THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT TREE ON SLOPES OF GREATER THAN 25% WHICH IS VERY STEEP BUT WOOD AND WOULD FALL UNDER STEEP STANDARDS THOSE CANNOT BE REMOVED APPROVAL OF THE CITY FORESTER SO THERE ARE SOME KIND OF LAYERING THERE BETWEEN PROTECTING OUR SLOPES. THERE'S SOIL STABILIZATION WITH TREES BUT ALSO PROTECTING OUR TREE CANOPY. SO THERE'S SOME NICE THINKING THERE BETWEEN SOME CODE ELEMENTS SAID I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT POLICY THAT I THAT KIND OF ROSE TO THE TOP OUT OF EVERYTHING I REVIEWED. SO I HAVE FOUR HERE AND WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THEM ONE BY ONE. SO OUR FIRST ONE IS TEXT CLEAN UP FOR CLARITY NO ACTUAL RESIDENT OR REGULATION CHANGES SO THE STANDARDS AREN'T CHANGING BUT IT'S MAKING THE CODE MUCH EASIER TO WITH BY STAFF, RESIDENTS OR ANYONE WHO IS NEEDING TO GO TO THIS CODE FOR ANY REASON. THE BLOCK OF TEXT AT THE TOP IS OUR CURRENT TREE DEFINITION SO THIS ACTUALLY ISN'T LISTED OUR REGULATIONS IT'S LISTED IN OUR DEFINITIONS DEFINITIONS AREN'T TYPICALLY THE BEST PLACE FOR REGULATION SO IT'S KIND OF MUDDYING THINGS A LITTLE BIT AND ALSO MAKING IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT TO ENGAGE WITH OR UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT YOUR REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE FOR SIGNIFICANT TREES. SO THIS RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDS THAT THE DEFINITION BE TO BE MORE BROAD TO REALLY TALK ABOUT THE KIND OF METRICS FOR SIGNIFICANT TREES WHICH IS TREES THAT ARE THAT ARE MATURE OF A CERTAIN SIZE OF A CERTAIN AMOUNT IN AN ECOLOGICALLY ADVANTAGED LOCATION THAT PROVIDES SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY. SO IT'S KIND A DEFINITION OF A SIGNIFICANT TREE THAT WAS DEVELOPED THROUGH VARIETY OF PULLING THINGS FROM A VARIETY OF SOURCES THAT KIND OF CAPTURE THE SPIRIT OF WHAT PEOPLE MEAN WITH A SIGNIFICANT TREE. THE TABLE THAT YOU SEE HERE IS THAT DEFINITION BUT JUST PUT INTO A TABLE THIS ONE ACTUALLY SAYS WHAT A SIGNIFICANT TREE IS BASED ON ITS CATEGORY OR TYPE AND ITS SIZE. SO WE DO GET INTO KIND THRESHOLDS AND METRICS IN AND MORE DETAIL AND THIS TABLE COULD BE LOCATED ACTUALLY IN THE THE OUTSIDE OF THE DEFINITIONS IN . ONE OF THE SUBSECTIONS OF THE CODE FOR TREE IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS SO FAR? YES COMMISSIONER CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER GOTTESMAN PLEASE GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER HOLTZMAN THANK. ONE QUESTION I HAD ON THIS IS MAYBE RIGHT AROUND IT'S MORE ABOUT THE SPECIFIC SPECIES OF TREES. SO I SEE THAT WE DON'T ALLOW WILLOW VOXEL THE ASPEN. WHY DO WE NOT INCLUDE THINGS LIKE OR ELM HAVE OBVIOUSLY BEEN BLIGHTED PESTS OR DISEASE IS SOMETHING THAT. THANK YOU. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU, TERRY AND COMMISSIONER GOLDMAN. THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. SO THIS IS JUST IN TALKING ABOUT TREES THERE IS A PERPETUATED TREES SECTION 18.03 THAT INCLUDES A MORE EXPANSE OF LIST OF TREES THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED IN INCLUDES MORE TREES THAN THIS. THIS IS KIND OF A TALKING MORE ABOUT WHAT TREES ARE CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT AND AND WHAT IS GENERALLY ALLOWED AND THE REASON WHY IT'S HERE IS BECAUSE IF IT'S A SIGNIFICANT THE CITY FORESTER MAY MAKE AN EXCEPTION. SO IF A MATURE STABLE NON DISEASE TREE THEN CITY FORESTER WILL SAY THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT TREE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REPLANT PROTECT OR OTHERWISE MAKE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THAT TREE. SO THAT'S WHY YOU CAN'T PLANT BUT YOU CAN PROTECT THEM. YEAH OKAY THANK YOU WELCOME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. SO ANOTHER TEXT CLEANUP FOR CLARITY WOULD BE THIS THERE'S AN AMBIGUITY HERE. IT SAYS THAT TREE PROTECTIVE IS REQUIRED BEFORE ANY ISSUANCE OF A GREETING OR BUILDING PERMIT AND THIS IS WITHIN THE TREE PRESERVATION CODE BUT IT'S PRETTY IT'S NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH FOR TREE PRESERVATION BECAUSE TREE SURVEYS AND TREE PRESERVATION PLANS ARE ONLY LISTED AS REQUIRED FOR PLAT APPLICATION AND NOT ALL NOT ALL GRADING AND BUILDING PERMITS WOULD BE TIED TO A PLANT APPLICATION SOMETIMES COULD DO A PLANT APPLICATION BUT YOU MAY NOT GET TO THE BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT YET SO THAT MEANS THE TREE IF THERE IS PROTECTING TO BE DONE KIND OF GETS LOST HERE. THE SUGGESTION WOULD BE SAYING WHEN TREE PRESERVATION STANDARDS ARE TRIGGERED TREE PROTECTIVE FENCING IS REQUIRED BEFORE ANY ISSUANCE OR GRADING, GRADING OR BUILDING PERMIT THAT'S HOW IT'S DONE IN PRACTICE. SO THIS WOULD JUST HAVE THE CODE REFLECT PRACTICE AND JUST CLEAR UP A LITTLE BIT OF AN AMBIGUITY. SO THIS POLICY ACTION HAS SOME BENEFITS. IT'S IMPROVED READABILITY FOR ALL CODE USERS THERE'S LIKELY NO EQUITY IMPACTS ITS CURRENT EQUITY IMPACTS ARE UNEXPLORED WORD BUT YOU WOULDN'T HAVE ANY NEW ONES SO WE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE GETTING INTO UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES TERRITORY AND WE WOULD LIKELY NO FURTHER IN-DEPTH STUDY FOR THESE CHANGES BECAUSE IT'S JUST CLARITY. CHALLENGES WOULD BE STAFF TIME AND RESOURCES TO COORDINATE ACROSS DEPARTMENTS FOR KIND OF DOING CLARITY CHANGES WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SELF-REFERENTIAL NATURE OF THE CODE IS THAT INTEGRITY IS AND QUALITY IS MAINTAINED AND THEN ALIGNING AND THEN FURTHER ALIGNING THE DEFINITIONS AND REFINEMENTS ACROSS RELEVANT CODE CHAPTERS SO IT'S STAFF TIME AS WELL AS JUST GETTING INTO THE CODE AND MAKING SURE THINGS ARE ALL MAKING SENSE AND REPRESENT THE CODE AS INTENDED. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS POLICY ACTION SEEING NONE. THANK YOU MR.. MR. CURRY FISH ARE AS A STUDY ITEM. DO WE SHOULD WE JUST PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON THESE POINTS AS THEY COME UP? THIS IS A STUDY ITEM SO IT'S MORE OPEN AND I'LL ASK MS. LINCOLN SHOULD WE WAIT UNTIL YOU'RE DONE WITH ITEM ONE AND THEN YOU'LL ASK IF WE SUPPORT IT OR HOW WOULD YOU LIKE US TO HANDLE THAT? I THINK THAT AT THE END OF THE TREE PRESERVATION SECTION I HAVE A LIST OF EACH OF THE POLICY ACTIONS AND WE CAN GO THROUGH THEM ONE BY ONE TO KIND OF GET A TEMPERATURE CHECK ON IF YOU SUPPORT OR YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT IT AT THAT POINT. BUT I WILL TAKE COMMENTS AT ANY TIME AND I'LL MAKE NOTES AS WE GO THROUGH. THAT SOUNDS GREAT. THANK YOU. YEAH. SO THE ITEM POLICY ACTION TWO FOR TREE PRESERVATION IS A COMPREHENSIVE TREE PRESERVATION STANDARDS REVIEW. THIS WOULD BE A MORE IN-DEPTH TREE PRESERVATION REVIEW ACROSS ALL CODE REVIEW AND THIS WOULD REVIEW REGULATIONS FOR BEST PRACTICE OR REGULATION IMPACTS AND SOME THINGS THIS COULD LIKELY IMPACT EITHER CHANGE THE CURRENT REGULATION OR ADD THEM IS DIAMETER HEIGHT RECOMMENDATIONS SIGNIFICANT TREES TREE SPECIES AS MENTIONED THERE COULD BE SOME POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD HAVE TO OUR TREE SPECIES OR FURTHER QUALIFICATIONS PLANTING LOCATIONS THRESHOLD TRIGGERS FOR REMOVAL OR CRITICAL ROUTE AREA PROTECTIONS. SO THERE'S KIND OF A LOT OF THAT COULD COME UP DURING AN IN-DEPTH REVIEW ACROSS CODE THAT COULD BE EXPLORED AND LATER BECOME AMENDMENTS. SO THE BENEFITS OF THIS IS THAT A NEWLY UPDATED SYSTEM OR NEWLY UPDATED RESULTS WITH AMENDMENTS CAN MEAN NO OR MINOR REVISIONS IN THE LONG TERM. SO WE'RE KIND OF UPDATING OUR SCIENCE THAT JUST SETS US UP FOR LIKE THE NEXT ROUND OF SCIENCE UNTIL IT BECOMES, YOU KNOW, OUTDATED. SO CHALLENGES STAFF CAPACITY NECESSARY WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT . CURRENT STANDARDS ARE ALREADY ROBUST AND IN DISCUSSION CITY FORESTRY THERE WASN'T ANY MAJOR THAT OUR CODE WAS OUT OF SYNC WITH THE BEST PRACTICES ALTHOUGH LIKE SOME MINOR CHANGES OR THAT REQUIRE STUDY COULD BE EXPLORED. THERE WAS NOTHING THAT WOULD CAME UP DURING THAT DISCUSSION THAT WOULD IMPLY THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OUR CURRENT CODE STILL PROTECTS OUR ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES AND BALANCES OUR HOUSING NEED AND THEN WE COULD DO THE IN-DEPTH STANDARD REVIEW AND FIND THAT NO OR MINIMAL CHANGES MAY BE NEEDED AND THIS REASONING COMES FROM THE FACT THAT OUR CURRENT STANDARDS ARE ALREADY QUITE ROBUST. ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING POLICY ACTION TO POLICY ACTION THREE IS AMENDING TREE REMOVAL THRESHOLDS RATES OF REFORESTATION AND TREE PRESERVATION APPLICABILITY. NOW THESE ARE PULLED OUT SPECIFICALLY OR SEPARATELY FROM POLICY ACTION TWO BECAUSE THESE ARE AREAS THAT TYPICALLY AREAS THAT ARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR DISCRETION CITIES LIKE BURNSVILLE HAVE DIFFERENT TREE REMOVAL THRESHOLDS BASED ON THE TYPE ZONING, THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THE DENSITY AND THEY THEY ACTUALLY GET MORE GRANULAR BASED ON THOSE THINGS BECAUSE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE DISCRETION BUILT INTO THIS. THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A RANGE WHERE YOU COULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE RESTRICTIVE OR A LESS RESTRICTIVE IN THIS REMOVAL THRESHOLD. SO OUR CURRENT REMOVAL THRESHOLD IS 50% OF SIGNIFICANT TREE INCHES AND THEN FOR A REFORESTATION RATE WE CURRENTLY REQUIRE 1.25 CALIPER INJURIES PER ONE INCH REMOVED SO WE'RE ACQUIRING MORE TREE IF YOU REMOVE SIGNIFICANT TES AND THEN ALSO EXPANDING APPLICABILITY TO ALL NEW BUILDING FOR SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY CURRENTLY TREE HAS THESE TYPES OF STANDARDS IN TREE PRESERVATION ARE ONLY TRIGGERED WITH PLAT OR SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS. WE CAN EXPAND THAT TO BUILDING PERMITS WHERE YOU MIGHT SEE SOME MAJOR STRUCTURAL CHANGES ON THE PROPERTY. SO THE BENEFITS OF THESE IS THAT THE DECISION THESE THRESHOLDS HAVE SOME DISCRETION WITH THE CITY SO THAT GIVES US A LOT OF KIND OF LEEWAY TO BE MORE OR LESS RESTRICTIVE DEPENDING ON OUR GOALS AND ALSO THE APPLICABILITY IS PREDICTED TO PRODUCE LESS THAN ADDITIONAL PROJECTS PER YEAR FOR A TO APPROVE AND THIS IS BASED ON CURRENT RATE OF THESE TYPES APPLICATIONS FIVE IS ACTUALLY THE NUMBER THAT WAS QUOTED IN THE REPORT SO I SAID TEN EVEN JUST TO BE GENEROUS AND GIVE US A OF ROOM THERE BUT THAT'S ABOUT HOW MUCH WE COULD PROTECT BASED ON PAST RATES OF DEVELOPMENT. SO THE CHALLENGES HERE IS COORDINATION ACROSS DIVISIONS TO FILL RESOURCE GAPS EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE SOME DISCRETION WE WOULD STILL NEED TO BE SOUND IN OUR REASONING SCIENTIFICALLY IN ORDER TO AVOID ANY KIND LIKE THE LIKE COMPLAINTS OR LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS WHERE THERE MIGHT BE UNDUE COST BURDEN AND IF WE DON'T HAVE SOUND REASONING IT JUST KIND OF WEAKENS THE POLICY OVERALL. SO IT'S GOOD TO HAVE THAT THERE AS WE MAKE THESE DECISIONS BASED EVEN ON DISCRETION AND ALSO FINANCIAL IMPACTS ON LOW DENSITY REDEVELOP OR DEVELOPMENT WOULD NEED TO BE EXPLORED AND CONFIRMED WE'RE KIND OF DEALING WITH AN ECONOMY OF SCALE FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR ALL NEW BUILDING PERMITS IF SAY ADDING SQUARE FOOTAGE OR TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE 80 USE LIKE IF WE CHANGE THE THRESHOLDS AT THAT SCALE REQUIRING MORE TREES COULD BE A LARGER PERCENTAGE THE DEVELOPMENT AND MAKE IT UNFEASIBLE AND WE DON'T WANT TO SLOW THE RATE OF HOUSING WE ALSO DON'T WANT TO LOSE OUR OUR TREES SO THERE'S KIND OF SOME ADDITIONAL DATA WOULD BE HELPFUL TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY BALANCING THOSE IN A BLOOMINGTON SPECIFIC CONTEXT EVEN REALIZING THAT THERE'S A RANGE OF DISCRETION REPRESENTED IN THE COMPARED CITIES. YEAH, ASK A QUESTION. YES COURSE. THANK YOU CHAIR AND COMMISSION WITH A CALIPER INCH. YES CAN I CAN I CALL IN A LIFELINE ON WHAT A CALIPER INCHES FOR A TREE IF ANYONE KNOW IF ANYBODY KNOWS. YES MR. MARKER GOOD CHAIR KICKED IN IF YOU IMAGINE MEASURING A TREE SO CALIPER SOMETHING LIKE IF YOU CAN IMAGINE ON A CALIPER AS YOU WOULD KIND OF MEASURE IT THAT WAY IN OTHER WORDS IT'S NOT LIKE A MEASUREMENT AROUND THE TREE BUT IT'S LARGEST THE ACTUAL YOUR DIAMETER BASICALLY VERY WELL THANK YOU THANK YOU MANAGER MARK MASTERCARD POLICY OPTION FOR TO DRAFT AND INCORPORATE A NEW TREE CREDIT SYSTEM TREE CREDITS SATISFY LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT USE THROUGH DEVELOPERS OR PROPERTY OWNERS PRESERVING OR PLANTING LARGER TREES SO SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF EITHER WE HAVE A REQUIREMENT THAT HAS A NUMBER A CERTAIN NUMBER OF TREES THEY PLANT A LARGER TREE AND IT COUNTS AS TWO SO IT SATISFIES SATISFIES REQUIREMENT EVEN THOUGH THEY ONLY PLANTED ONE OR THEY MIGHT HAVE SIGNIFICANT TREE THAT IS QUITE LARGE AND IT ALONE SATISFIES THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT. THIS CAN ALSO BE APPLIED TO OTHER TYPES OF VEGETATION LIKE SCRUBS, SHRUBS, GNATS DROPS, SHRUBS AND CURRENT REQUIREMENTS DO FACTOR IN THE AGE OR SIZE OF EXISTING OR PROPOSED. SO THIS WOULD BE KIND OF A WHOLLY NEW ADDITION TO THE CODE IN THE FIGURE HERE YOU SEE BROOKLYN PARKS CREDIT SYSTEM THAT KIND OF SHOWS HOW THEY EXCHANGE THE TREE THE TREE CREDITS TO SATISFY THEIR LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS SO THE BENEFITS OF THIS IS IT PROVIDES FLEXIBILITY MEETING TREE PRESERVATION AND PLANTING REQUIREMENTS WHICH COULD BE IMPORTANT FOR EVALUATING THE KIND OF ECONOMY OF SCALE OF LOW DENSITY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE CHALLENGES ARE THAT CURRENTLY THERE IS NO SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. THERE'S NO SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. SO THOSE WOULD HAVE TO BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS TYPE OF SYSTEM HAVE BENEFIT ON THE FULL RANGE OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND THEN ALSO SCIENTIFIC OR PROFESSIONAL REASONING FROM PUBLIC WORKS OR CITY FORESTRY WOULD LIKELY NEED TO BE REQUIRED SO WAY WE'RE GETTING THE EXCHANGE RATES RIGHT AND SO WE'RE ACTUALLY INCENTIVIZED TREES THAT DO PROVIDE MAXIMUM BENEFIT. SO THOSE WERE THE FOUR POLICY OPTIONS FOR TREES AND WE CAN GO THROUGH AND KIND OF UNDERSTAND THE TEMPERATURE OF PLANNING COMMISSION FOR EACH OF THESE OPTIONS AND TO CLARIFY SO ONE AND THREE ARE THESE RECOMMENDATION OR CHAIRING COMMISSION COMMENTS JUST LIKE IT OR ANY OF THESE DEPENDENTS ON THE OTHER LIKE ARE THEY JUST FOUR INCLUDE THREE TWO AND ONE OR COULD WE SELECT ALL HERE? THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. YOU CAN SELECT ALL A CART OKAY . I'LL FIRST ASK IF ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE COMMENTS ON ANY OF THESE IF THERE'S ANY DISCUSSION OR ANYTHING LIKE TO HAVE BUSH AGREE. THANK YOU, CHAIR. FIRST I GUESS I'LL JUST MENTION THAT WE'RE JUST IN TRANSPARENT SC WE'RE REVIEWING THIS BECAUSE OF THE WORK THAT MYSELF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD DID WITH THE PLANNING OR WITH THE CITY COUNCIL LAST SPRING SO VERY I DON'T KNOW JUST SOMETHING THAT'S PROBABLY MENTIONED. SO IN OF THESE OPTIONS JUST QUICKLY I THINK YOU KNOW THE TABLE IN THE TEXT UP IS A GOOD IDEA. I'M A LITTLE HESITANT ABOUT GENERALIZING DEFINITIONS UNLESS IT'S TIED TO A TABLE. SO THERE'S SPECIFIC MEASUREMENTS AND SIGNIFICANT DOES NOT BECOME LIKE A BLURRY TOPIC. THE TREE PRESERVATION STANDARDS. YEAH I THINK THAT SEEMS LIKE TOO MUCH WORK SO I WOULD PROBABLY JUST SKIP IT. I THINK THE YOU KNOW AMENDING WAS IT THE TREE REMOVAL THRESHOLDS SO THAT I THINK THE THE THRESHOLD THE 50% THRESHOLD I THINK IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO LOOK AT AND MAYBE JUST SPECIFICALLY FOR LIKE SAY THE RS ONE DISTRICT WHICH IS AND I, I WOULD GUESS I'D LOOK TO THING MANAGER MERCURY TO CONFIRM THIS BUT I THINK THE RS DISTRICT IS REALLY INTENDED TO BE KIND OF AN ENVIRONMENTALLY FOCUSED DISTRICT SO TO HAVE A LOWER TREE REMOVAL THRESHOLD OF 40% VERSUS 50% WOULD MAYBE BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO PUT THAT DISTRICT SPECIFICALLY. SO RIGHT. MR. MARKER AND COMMISSIONER CURRIE THAT'S CORRECT. THE ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION IS A COMPONENT OF THE RS ONE DISTRICT'S ENTIRE AND AND WILL ACTUALLY BE DISCUSSING THAT IN OUR NEXT ITEM WHAT THAT INTENT SHOULD BE AND HOW IT SHOULD CHANGE IF IT SHOULD CHANGE SO YEAH THAT IS SOMETHING THE CITY COULD DO IS THEORETICALLY DIFFERENT STANDARDS IN IN DIFFERENT DISTRICTS. OKAY IT DOES ADD SOME REGULATORY COMPLEXITY KIND OF LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE THE LAST ONE. SURE. OKAY. SO ANYWAY, IN TERMS OF THAT, I MEAN I THINK, YOU KNOW, POLICY MORE OF POLICY JUSTIFICATION FOR RS ONE SPECIFICALLY BUT ANYWAYS I'M IN SUPPORT OF PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT TREES IN THE CITY SO IN TERMS OF THE WAS THE OTHER PIECE OF THAT ONE THE ADDING SOME SORT OF FOR NEW SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS. I THINK THAT WOULD ALSO MAKE SENSE. I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD NECESSARILY REDUCE ANY NEW HOUSING BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT NECESSARILY SUBDIVIDING IT'S PROBABLY MORE THAT'S TEARING DOWN A HOUSE AND REDEVELOPING IT FOR A MUCH HOUSE. SO IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, I THINK YOU SHOULD TRY AND YOU KNOW AT LEAST PROTECT SOME OF THE TREES ON THE LOT. SO AND THEN THE CREDIT SYSTEM I JUST DON'T I DON'T KNOW I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARY. SO THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS ALL THEM. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CURRY. PERHAPS WE'LL DO HERE TO HELP MRS. LINCOLN. WE COULD DO A SORT OF HEAD COUNT LIKE WE DID ON THE LAST ONE TO HELP HER WITH HER DATA. SO I'LL PERHAPS FIRST AS IF THERE'S ANY OTHER GENERAL THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER GOLTZMAN, THANK YOU. SURE. ONE THING THAT I READ IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT WASN'T ABOUT TODAY OR MAYBE I JUST MISSED IS THERE WAS THERE WAS SOME IN THE STAFFEPORT ABOUT THE RIGHT OF WAY IN THE CANOPY AND WITHIN THE RIGHT AWAY. CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT TOPIC AND WHERE IT FITS HERE? MM HMM. YES. THANK YOU, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER GOLTZMAN. SO WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY AND PUBLIC LANDS SPECIFICALLY THERE'S CURRENTLY PROJECT UNDERWAY FOR AN URBAN FORESTRY PLAN. SO SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT AREAS THAT HAVE THAT AREN'T JUST THE BLUFF AREA OR THE MINNESOTA RIVER VALLEY OR AREAS THAT DON'T ALLOW ANY DEVELOPMENT ALL SO OUR PUBLIC LANDS AND THAT IS BEING EVALUATED BECAUSE THE CITY HAS KIND OF SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF CONTROL AND HAS THE RESOURCES IN ORDER TO ENHANCE THE TRIGO CANOPY RESTORE THE TREE CANOPY THROUGH PLANTING AND THE RIGHT OF WAY. WE ALSO HAVE KIND OF BENEFITS OF ON STAFF EXPERTS THAT CAN MAKE DECISIONS LIKE IS CAN A TREE OF THIS GO HERE AND BE ABLE TO MATURE BECAUSE WITH TREES AND TREES THAT MATURE AT 30 FEET OF HEIGHT NEED 200 FEET OF CRITICAL ROOF AREA. SO LIKE OUR CITY STAFF CAN MAKE THOSE DETERMINATIONS IN OUR PUBLIC LANDS AND IN OUR ROAM AND THAT HAS JUST T BENEFIT OF BEING QUICKLY EFFECTIVE IN OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WHERE THESE THINGS WOULD TRIGGER AREN'T VERY RAPID. IT'LL BE KIND OF HERE AND THERE AND WE MAY NOT BE CAPTURING THE AREAS THAT NEED THE MOST ATTENTION AS FAR AS TREE CANOPY AND GETTING THE BENEFITS FROM TREE CANOPY. THERE IS A LIKE LOCATION IN IN THE EAST SIDE THAT HAS VERY OR SEVERE RECORD OF URBAN HEAT ISLAND AND TREES REALLY AND HELP WITH THAT. THERE'S A VARIETY OF THINGS THAT CAN OF COURSE ADDRESS URBAN HEAT ISLAND LIMITING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OR THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT TREES IS REALLY ONE OF THEM PROVIDING TREE SHADE AND STORMWATER BENEFITS BECAUSE OF EVAPORATION LEAVES CAN ALSO HELP COOL THE AIR SO CITY IS JUST HAVE THE ABILITY TO KIND OF GO IN IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY OF THEIR SPACE AND PLANT A TREE INSTEAD OF WAITING FOR THE TRICKLE OF DEVELOPMENT OF THIS TYPE IN ORDER TO ENHANCE LIKE HAVE THE MOST IMPACT AND EFFECTIVENESS OF OUR TREE CANOPY CANOPY. ANY OTHER GENERAL COMMENTS ON TREES ? YOU KNOW I HAVE A CONTROVERSIAL STANCE ON TREES THAT ROTS PEOPLE THE WRONG WAY BUT I LIKE NICE SMALL TREES LIKE JUST A GOOD YOUNG SMALL TREE AND THAT'S INFORMING SORT OF THE WAY I'M GOING TO THINK ABOUT SOME OF THESE THINGS. I KNOW THAT'S NOT THE POPULAR STANCE ON TREES BUT LIKE A NICE YOUNG TREE. OKAY, SO DON'T WE GO DOWN THE LIST HERE AND WE'LL WE'LL OF DO A HEAD COUNT ON HONESTLY AND SO THOSE IN FAVOR OF ITEM NUMBER ONE THE TAX CLEANUP I'M IN FAVOR. YES. YES. YEP. OKAY. NUMBER TWO IS THE TREE PRESERVATION STANDARDS REVIEW. I'M GOING TO SAY NO NO, NO, NO. NUMBER THREE IS AMENDING THE TREE REMOVAL THRESHOLDS, ETC. AS WE SEE ON THE SCREEN. FOR ME IT'S A NO NO NO. YES. OKAY. AND NUMBER FOUR IS DRAFT INCORPORATE NEW CREDIT SYSTEM. IT'S A NO FOR ME MATERIALS. MAYBE I NOT LIKE THE USE OF SHRUBS OR LANDSCAPES OF TREES. I DON'T THINK THAT THEY ARE MAINTAINED NOR DO THEY REALLY HELP WITH THE LONGEVITY THAT A TREE CAN DO. SO I COULD BE BUT I DO NOT LIKE THE THE SHRUBS OR OTHER TYPES OF PLANTINGS INSTEAD OF A TREE. NO NO. DON'T SUPPORT CREDIT SYSTEM. FANTASTIC. THANK YOU. AND COMMISSION SLOPES SO SLOPES ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO SOIL THEY HAVE AND THERE'S INCREASING SUSCEPTIBILITY FROM MORE FREQUENT AND SEVERE WEATHER EVENTS SPECIFICALLY, PRECIPITATION WEATHER EVENTS THEY ARE VERY VULNERABLE IMPACTS STEMMING FROM HUMAN ACTIVITIES AND DEVELOPMENT AND VEGETATION AND TREES ARE IMPACTFUL IN SOIL STABILIZATION AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SO THEY KIND OF DO DOUBLE DUTY IN KEEPING THE SOIL STABLE BUT ALSO YOU KNOW, HELPING WITH WATER ABSORPTION OR IF THERE IS STORMWATER RUNOFF IT HELPS KEEP THE SOIL TOGETHER MORE SO THAN BARE SOIL. THERE ARE THREE POLICY OPTIONS FOR SLOPES FIRST POLICY OPTION IS REFINING AND ADDING THE DEFINITION OF STEEP SLOPES THE CODE . CURRENTLY THERE IS NO DEFINITION THAT APPLIES TO PROPERTIES OUTSIDE OF THE BLUFF PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR STEEP SLOPES. SO IN THE STEEP SLOPES SECTION SPECIFICALLY THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF WHAT A STEEP IS . STEEP SLOPES AS DEFINED CAN TYPICALLY BE UP TO THE CITY'S DISCRETION. STATE STATUTE DEFINES STEEP SLOPES 12 TO 18% AND THEN 18% AND HIGHER ARE LIKE SEVERELY STEEP SLOPES BLUFF. THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE THE WEB SOIL SURVEY IS WHERE I GOT THIS INFORMATION. THEY DEFINE STEEP AS GREATER THAN 15% AND THEN OUR OWN BLUFF PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT DEFINES STEEP AS 18%. THE BENEFITS OF THIS IS WE ADD CLEARER DEFINITIONS TO PROVIDE MORE CLARITY TO RESIDENTS AND REGULATIONS. DEFINITIONS ALLOW FOR BETTER MONITORING, EVALUATION AND REGULATION ON APPLICABLE PARCELS AND FURTHER IN-DEPTH STUDY IS LIKELY NOT REQUIRED. THE CHALLENGES ARE ALIGNMENT ACROSS THE CODE WILL BE IF WE DECIDE TO GO WITH STATE STATUTE OR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL NUMBERS. IT WILL BE OUTSIDE OUT OF STEP WITH THE BLUFF PROTECTION DISTRICT BUT THAT MAY BE OKAY. OUR BLUFF PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT IS KIND OF A SPECIAL DISTRICT THAT HAS UNIQUE GOVERNANCE AS OUTLINED IN THE REPORT BECAUSE OF THE WATERSHED AND ALSO THE LOWER MINNESOTA RIVER VALLEY AND IT ALSO THE SLOPES LEAD TO WATER BODIES. IT LEADS DOWN TO THE RIVER. SO THERE'S KIND OF UNIQUE GOVERNANCE THINGS THERE THAT GO INTO DEFINING STEEP SLOPES AS 18%. SO ALTHOUGH IS A CONSIDERATION, IT IS NOT AN INSURMOUNTABLE BARRIER. QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER GROSSMAN SO I GUESS YOU'RE JUST ASKING SHOULD WE DEFINE WHAT IS DEEP AS YOU'RE NOT YOU'RE NOT DEFINING IT AT A PERCENTAGE YET SO CAN YOU COMMISSIONER GOLDMAN CAN YOU SO WHEN WHEN WE GO TO DEFINE A STEEP ARE YOU LOOKING AT DEFINING A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE? IS THIS CONSIDERED A STEEP. YOU JUST HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT WHAT THAT NUMBER WOULD BE. YES. THAT IS UP TO THE CITY'S DISCRETION ON WHERE A STEEP CAN BE. WHAT THINGS THAT WOULD INFLUENCE WHAT WE WOULD DECIDE ARE HOW WE WANT TO REGULATE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF OF STEEP OF DEFINING IT AT THAT NUMBER AND THEN ADDING REGULATIONS. ARE WE SUDDENLY IMPACTING A TON OF PROPERTIES AND MAKING THEM LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING OR YOU KNOW THINGS LIKE THAT. ALSO DEFINING STEEP WITHOUT ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS LIKE WE JUST DEFINE STEEP AND NOW WE HAVE A NUMBER FOR IT AND JUST CLARITY AND THERE'S NOT ANY KIND OF RESTRICTIVE REGULATIONS TIED TO IT. THEN IT IT REALLY IS JUST ABOUT READABILITY AND MORE IN LINE WITH WE HAVE A SECTION CALLED STEEP SLOPES AND WE DON'T DEFINE STEEP SLOPES SO IT'S LIKE YOU KNOW IT'S KIND OF THE START OF ANY PROCESS WHERE IF WE GO ON TO ADD MORE STEEP REGULATIONS BUT WE DON'T DEFINE STEEP SLOPES, WE KIND OF GET IN A PRECARIOUS POSITION ON HOW WE'RE JUSTIFYING THE REGULATIONS. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO IN DISCUSSING KIND OF IN POTENTIAL IMPACT, OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS ARE BASED OFF OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATIONS THAT START 12%. SO HERE IS A MAP THAT SHOWS ALL PARCELS THAT ARE AVERAGE 12% OR GREATER NOT INCLUDING THE BLUFF PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT BECAUSE THOSE ALREADY HAVE SPECIFIC STEEP STANDARDS. SO NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL PARCELS IMPACTED BY 12% OR GREATER IS 1416. IF WE REDEFINED AVERAGE TO 18% TO KIND OF ALIGN WITH OUR BLUFF PROTECTION WE WOULD BE IMPACTING 300 PARCELS. SOME OF THOSE LARGER PARCELS IN YELLOW ARE RESIDENTIAL. RESIDENTIAL AND PUBLIC LAND GUIDED. SO THERE IS POSBILITY THAT THOSE WOULDN'T EVEN BE UP FOR SUBDIVISION BECAUSE ARE ALREADY MANAGING THAT LAND BUT . IT'S THE POSSIBILITY OF OH WELL I GUESS IN 50 YEARS WE MIGHT CHANGE IT, WE MIGHT CHANGE THE STANDARDS AGAIN BUT IT DOES SET UP A SET US UP FOR SOME STRONG REASONING FOR THOSE IMPACTED PARCELS SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THE SUCH A LARGE DIFFERENCE IN IN DEFINING STEEP SLOPES AND POSSIBLY HAVING SEPARATE REGULATIONS THEM VERSUS YOU CONTINUING TO USE JUST AVERAGE OF 12% OR GREATER. SO OF THE BENEFITS 08I ONLY DO MOST THIS IS MY FAULT. I GAVE YOU THE BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES TWICE SO A CLEARED OF DEFINITIONS. GREAT. AND THEN THE CHALLENGES ARE FAIRLY MINOR BECAUSE WE ARE JUST ADDING A DEFINITION CHANGE. SO THIS IS THE POLICY ACTION TO IS ADD STEEP BEST PRACTICES IS THAT LIKE I SAID BEFORE WE WOULD HAVE TO DEFINE AS BASED ON POLICY NUMBER ONE BUT ONCE WE DID WE CAN ADD SOME STEEP BEST PRACTICES CAN BE APPLIED TO THE AREAS THAT QUALIFY. SO CURRENT STANDARDS AS I MENTIONED BEFORE ARE BASED ON IMPERVIOUS LOSS LIMITS, BASED ON AVERAGE CATEGORIES. SO AT 12% AVERAGE YOU CAN ONLY HAVE 34% MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AND AS THE INCREASES YOUR MAXIMUM COVERAGE DECREASES. SO THERE ARE SOME SPECIAL PROVISIONS IN THE STEEP THAT ALSO SAY THAT TREES ARE A FANTASTIC WAY TO HELP WITH STORMWATER MITIGATION OR FOR RUNOFF OVER STEEP SLOPES AS AS SURFACE WATER REDIRECTION LIKE DOWNSPOUTS POINTING AWAY FROM GOING DOWN A. SO THOSE ARE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS FAR AS BEST PRACTICES THAT PEOPLE CAN USE TO CHANGE OR TO MEET PROTECTION STANDARDS, STEEP PROTECTION STANDARDS. THEY COULD BE EXPANDED TO GIVE PEOPLE MORE OPTIONS. SO THIS IN FRONT OF YOU IS THE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ARE TAKEN FROM THE BLUFF OVERLAY PROTECTION DISTRICT. I'VE MADE ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE LANGUAGE THAT DOES NOT APPLY OR WOULD NEED TO BE CHANGED. THESE BEST PRACTICES ALLOW PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE CAPACITY TO DO THE BEST PRACTICE TO BE ABLE TO DO IT WITH APPROVAL OF A STORMWATER PLAN. SO THIS WOULDN'T BE SOMETHING WHERE IT'S LIKE OH JUST CHECK THE BOX. THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO APPROVE THEIR BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE IN THIS BUT IT HAS SOME THINGS THAT MIGHT REQUIRE AN ENGINEER INVOLVED BUT IT ALSO HAS SOME THINGS THAT ARE LIKE PLANT BARE AREAS WITH YOU KNOW NATIVE SEEDLINGS OR SEED SPECIES WHICH COULD BE A MUCH MORE ACCESSIBLE OPTION FOR FOR PEOPLE. SO IT JUST KIND OF EXPANDS IT A LITTLE BIT AND ALIGNS WITH OUR BLUFF OVER PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT WITHOUT KIND OF MUDDYING THE DIFFERENCES IN GOVERNMENT GOVERNANCE WHERE THAT ONE HAS SPECIFIC GOVERNANCE. BUT THIS CAN BE APPLIED BROADLY. SO THE BLUFF PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT STANDARDS WERE UPDATED IN 2020 SO THEY ARE LIKELY THE MOST UPDATED BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES THAT WE CAN INCLUDE. THEY GIVE FLEXIBILITY TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND DEVELOPERS AND BPAS WOULD STILL BE REVIEWED BY THE RELEVANT STAFF AND THEN THE CHALLENGES ARE NOT ALL BLUFF PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT CODE LANGUAGE IS RELEVANT CITYWIDE. AND THEN I SHOWED YOU KIND OF AN EXAMPLE OF HOW WE COULD EASILY ADJUST IN ORDER TO MAKE IT APPLICABLE . THE STIRRED UP POLICY ACTION IS STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RESTRICTIONS WITHIN BUFFERS WITHIN BUFFERS ABOVE STEEP SLOPES. THIS LIMITS ACTIVITY WITHIN STEEP SLOPES AREAS OR WITHIN A CERTAIN DIFFERENT DISTANCE FROM ABOVE A STEEP TO PREVENT DESTABILIZATION. SO THE TWO OPTIONS I OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT ARE WERE A BUILDING A BUILD OR SOIL DISTURBANCE PROHIBITION WITHIN THE STEEP. YOU COULDN'T DO ANYTHING AT ALL IN A STEEP AREA OR A BUILDER'S SOIL DISTURBANCE PROHIBITION WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE FROM THE TOP OF THE STEEP AREA. SO SLOPES ARE USUALLY CALCULATED OVER A HORIZONTAL DIFFERENCE AND THEN THE HIGH POINT AND THE LOW POINT TO GET KIND OF A PERCENTAGE OF OF WHAT THE IS BUT ALSO KIND OF IDENTIFIES PART WHERE IT STARTS TO DOWN INTO A STEEP. SO YOU IDENTIFY THAT TOP POINT AND YOU SAY YOU CAN'T DO ANY BUILDING OR SOIL DISTURBANCE ACTIVITIES WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THAT OR TEN FEET OF THAT OR 15 FEET OF THAT. SO THE BENEFITS OF THIS IS IF HIGHLY MITIGATES THE RISK OF STEEP DESTABILIZATION BY BASICALLY SURE OF SOMETHING THAT THERE'S VERY LITTLE HUMAN ACTIVITY DISTURBANCE THERE. OF COURSE SEVERE OR FREQUENT WATER OR PRECIPITATION PRECIPITATION WEATHER EVENTS COULD STILL CAUSE SOIL BUT HUMAN ACTIVITY WOULD BE LIMITED. SO THE CHALLENGES OF THIS ONE IS IT'S A VERY RESTRICTIVE AND IT'S A REGULATION WITHOUT A CLEAR RETURN OR BENEFIT. SO IF WE DEFINED 18% AND USED AS A STEEP AND KIND OF USED THE 308 PROPERTIES, HOW MANY OF THOSE COULD BE SUBDIVIDED? HOW MANY OF THOSE FOR THESE TYPES OF TO TRIGGER? HOW MANY BUILD OR SOIL DISTURBANCE ACTIVITIES WOULD DO WE CURRENTLY ENGAGE WITH AND WITH IS THERE ANY GAPS WHERE WE WOULD NEED TO ADD MORE CHECKS FOR THOSE THINGS? SO THERE'S KIND OF IT'S UNCLEAR ABOUT THE RETURN OF BENEFIT BASED THE ADJUSTMENTS THAT WE'D HAVE TO MAKE FOR THOSE PROPERTIES. AND ALSO RESTRICTIONS MAY GIVE RISE TO ARGUMENTS FROM RESIDENTS BECAUSE IT DOES RESTRICT TO OF A PROPERTY SIGNIFICANTLY. ALSO IF WE IMPLEMENT THIS EXISTING STRUCTURES THE PROHIBITION AREA WOULD MAKE THEM LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING MAKE MAINTENANCE EXTREMELY CHALLENGING IF THEY COULDN'T GET EQUIPMENT BACK TO MAINTAIN A STRUCTURE THAT'S ALREADY THERE. SO THERE WOULD BE A HUGE IMPACT FOR EVEN PROPERTIES THAT HAVE THINGS THERE ALREADY . ANY QUESTIONS? CHAIR AND COMMISSION ONLY THREE OPTIONS FOR THIS ONE. DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE OR NOPE THAT'S IT. OKAY. WELL GOING THROUGH GENERAL DISCUSSION ON HOUSING, YOU KNOW THE THIRD ONE I KNOW THE STAFF REPORT IS KIND OF MEANINGLESS CANNOT DO IT BUT I KIND OF LIKE IT. I DON'T KNOW LIKE IT SEEMS SENSIBLE SO I'M KIND OF 5050 ON THAT WHEN I RECOGNIZE THE CHALLENGES BUT I DON'T KNOW IT SEEMS LIKE A GOOD IDEA TO ME TO JUST KNOW WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO DO STUFF WITHIN FIVE FEET OF A REALLY STEEP THAT SEEMS PRACTICAL TO ME BUT. IF I COULD ACTUALLY I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT TO PLEASE TERRY COMMISSION IF I CAN MAKE A COMMENT. SO AS I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE DEFINITIONS OF SLOPES THERE IS SOME DISCRETION HOW WE CATEGORIZE IN THERE IS RESOURCE THAT I LOOKED AT FROM PENNSYLVANIA THAT DID AN EXTENSIVE ANALYSIS ON SLOPES AND LAND USE POLICY AS WELL AS KIND OF LOOKING AT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WEB SOIL SURVEY THEY HAD DIFFERENT ONES WHERE IT WAS LIKE 0 TO 12 OR 0 TO 6% IS LOWER NO AND 6 TO 12 WAS MODERATE AND YOU KNOW, SO THEY KIND OF LIKE YOU COULD KIND OF DIVIDE THEM UP WHERE STEEP COULD BE LIKE 18% OR HIGHER BUT YOU COULD HAVE MODERATE LEAN STEEP SLOPES THAT COULD ALSO HAVE REGULATIONS SO THAT ALL OF THESE THINGS WOULD HAVE TO BE HAVE THE SCIENTIFIC OR POLICY JUSTIFICATIONS IN ORDER TO MAKE THEM DEFENSIBLE. BUT THERE IS SOME OPTIONS TO NOT ONLY JUST SAY STEEP SLOPES THAT'S WHAT WE'RE REGULATING. WE COULD HAVE SOME OTHER REFINED MEANT OR GET MORE GRANULAR ESPECIALLY ON THINGS THAT ARE JUST RESTRICTIVE OR YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE TO NECESSARILY APPLY THAT TO ALL SLOPES IN A LARGE RANGE. YEAH, I THINK THE THE THIRD POINT IS THINKING I THINK THE THIRD POINT IS INTERESTING. YOU KNOW JUST A COUPLE OF GENERAL POINTS I THINK YOU KNOW THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A REVIEW OF SPECIFIC BUT YOU KNOW I THINK A LOT OF THE INTEREST IN BLOOMINGTON IS IS I MEAN I THINK THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT OF BLOOMINGTON WHAT CREATES A LOT OF INTEREST IN THE IN THE CITY IN GENERAL AND THE SLOPES AND TREES AND THE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF IT. SO THE OTHER THOUGHT IS, YOU KNOW, I GUESS I HADN'T SEEN ANYTHING IN THE WHOLE PRESENTATION OR THE PRESENTATION BUT THE PACKET ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT COMES INTO PLAY IN ANY OF THIS. YOU MENTIONED THE EAST SIDE AND HAVING KIND OF A YOU KNOW, A HEAT ZONE AND THAT'S OBVIOUSLY A BIG COMPONENT OF IT. SO I DON'T KNOW JUST A THOUGHT IN GENERAL. OKAY ROBERT. I'M SORRY COMMISSIONER GOLDMAN . YOU BROUGHT UP THE EAST SIDE AND WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THE MAP EARLIER, IT SEEMS IF YOU THINK ABOUT HOW WE'RE APPROACHING THIS A CITY AND THE MAP. ARE THERE ANY PROPERTIES THE EAST SIDE THAT ARE CONSIDERED STEEP OR IN THE YELLOW THE RED SO SO CLOSE TO THE BLUFF AREA BUT NOT IN IT SO IT'S NOT IN BLUFF PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT IN THE SOUTH EAST THE CITY THERE ARE A FEW PROPERTIES. THIS IS AN EYEBALL OF COURSE BUT THEY LOOK LIKE THEY WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE UP FOR SUBDIVISION SO IMPACTING THOSE AREAS TO PROTECT WOULD HAVE TO OCCUR OUTSIDE OF INTERVENTIONS FOR PLAT SUBDIVISION SO YOU HAVE IF I MEAN IS YOU'VE BROUGHT SUBDIVISION UP A FEW STEPS SO THE GOAL OF THIS TO PRESERVE OUR LANDSCAPE PRESERVE OUR SOIL OUR WATERWAYS OR IS IT TO PREVENT SUBDIVIDE OR TO CONTROL SUBDIVISION IN . THANK YOU CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER GOLTZMAN SO IN THE REFERENCE TO THIS I BRING UP PLAT AND SUBDIVISION BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE CURRENT INTERVENTION IS. SO OR THESE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES MOST OFTEN WERE PLANNING COMES INTO PLACE OR EXCUSE ME WE'RE PLANNING IN TO THE INTERVENTION WHAT WE SEE ARE PLOTS AND SUBDIVISIONS AND OUR CODE KIND OF REFLECTS THAT WHERE LIKE OH IF YOU'RE DOING A BUILDING PERMIT OR A FENCE OR THAT BUT WHICH DON'T ALL REQUIRE PERMITS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT WE NOT NECESSARILY CAPTURE AN ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE IN THAT BECAUSE YOU KNOW, FENCES BELOW A CERTAIN HEIGHT DON'T EVEN REQUIRE PERMITS. SO WE WOULD KNOW IF SOMEONE'S DISTURBING A OR OR I MEAN I GUESS A TREE COMING DOWN MIGHT BE PRETTY OBVIOUS BUT IT WOULD BE ALMOST LIKE COINCIDENTAL WE WOULD NOTICE IT INSTEAD OF INTENTIONAL. SO THE THE PLAT SUBDIVISION COMMENT IS MORE ABOUT WHERE OUR INTERVENTION COMES FROM THAT THAT HELPS KIND CLARIFY IT FOR ME. THANK YOU. OTHER GENERAL COMMENTS I THINK WE'RE READY TO TAKE ECHO STARTING WITH NUMBER ONE REFINING AND ADDING THE DEFINITION OF STEEP SLOPES TO THE CODE . I'M FAVOR. NO. NO. YES. OKAY. ITEM TO ADD STEEP BEST PRACTICES. YES. NO. NO. YES. LASTLY STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RESTRICTIONS WITH WITHIN OR BUFFERS OF ABOVE STEEP SLOPES. YES. NO. AS TO IF I MAY SAY REMEMBERING THIS IS A STUDY ITEM SO YES MAY JUST MEAN WE WANT TO SEE MORE INFORMATION WE WANT. YES, I'D LIKE TO SEE MORE INFORMATION. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THE GUIDANCE. HEY WILDLIFE. SO THE CITY HAS A PLANS THAT INCLUDE WILDLIFE AND HABITAT OBJECTIVES. SOME OF THOSE PLANS ARE LISTED HERE. THIS IS EXHAUSTIVE BUT THIS IS A MAJORITY OF THEM. SO WE HAVE OUR 2018 MINNESOTA RIVER VALLEY NATURAL AND CULTURAL SYSTEMS PLAN OUR NATURAL RESOURCES PRIORITIZATION AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES BLOOMINGTON PARKS OUR FOR 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OUR SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND OUR WETLAND MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION. ALSO WITH WILDLIFE AND HABITAT WHICH IS KIND OF A LOT OF WAYS TO SUPPORT HABITAT. SO THINGS LIKE THE URBAN FOREST FOREST PLAN THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER COULD ALSO SUPPORT WILDLIFE IN TALKING ABOUT RESTORATION AND BIODIVERSITY AND INCREASING THE CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN THESE AREAS BY EXPANDING THE HABITAT AND STRENGTHENING THE HABITAT . SO AS I MENTIONED BEFORE THE SUPPORT FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND ESTABLISHMENT OF WILDLIFE HABITAT FEATURES ARE A COLLABORATION ACROSS TOPICS IN THE CODE LIKE TREE PRESERVATION AND AND SCREENING BUT ALSO THE FUTURE POSSIBLE NET NATIVE LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE. PUBLIC LANDS PLAY CRITICAL ROLE IN BIODIVERSITY AND CONNECTIVITY OF WILDLIFE AND HABITAT AREAS. THEY ARE THE LARGEST CONTINUOUS AREAS OF HABITAT AND CONNECTIVITY SO MAINTAINING THOSE IS VERY IMPORTANT AND IS REPRESENTED BY THE PLANS THE CITY CITY STAFF IS ALREADY A PRIORITY HOUSING WILDLIFE AND HABITAT IN THOSE THINGS. SO THIS MAP HERE IS THE BLOOMINGTON WILDLIFE CORRIDOR AND I SAY THIS IS THE THIS IS FROM THE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR MAP FROM THE WILDLIFE ACTION NETWORK THE WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN FROM MINNESOTA DNR. THIS IS JUST THE WHILE THE BLOOMINGTON SPECIFIC CLIPPED TO SHOW THE KIND OF LOCAL CONTEXT. SO AS YOU CAN SEE HERE WE HAVE A LOT OF AREAS THAT ARE IN THE BLUFF OR IN THE NEAR NATURE AREAS. THESE ARE PRESERVATION AREAS LIKE THE LOWER MINNESOTA RIVER VALLEY AS WELL AS OUR PUBLIC LANDS AND PARKS. ACTUALLY LET ME THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE ONE MOMENT I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE IF SO I'M JUST SKIPPING A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I THINK THIS THIS MAP SPECIFICALLY HIGHLIGHTS WHAT'S INSIDE OF THE DNR WILDLIFE CORRIDOR. SO AS YOU CAN SEE THE THE PINK PINKISH AREAS ARE OUR LOW DENSITY BUT WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF PUBLIC LANDS IN AS WELL AS WATERBODIES OR NONRESIDENTIAL WE HAVE INDUSTRIAL. THE TWO CIRCLES REPRESENT SOME AREAS WHERE YOU COULD SEE IN SOUTH THE SOUTH LOOP PART OF THE SOUTH LOOP IS TECHNICALLY IN THE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR AREA ACCORDING TO THIS MAP AS WELL AS HALL AND SURROUNDING INDUSTRIAL AREAS. I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT KIND OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THAT AS WE GO THROUGH THE REST OF THE POLICY OPTIONS. AND I THOUGHT THIS WAS GOOD CONTEXT SHARE AS I GO THROUGH THAT. WHAT WERE THE CIRCLES OH THOSE THOSE ARE REPRESENT KIND OF GENERAL AREAS THAT HAVE LIKE HIGH LIKE MORE IN TENSE DEVELOPMENT I GUESS YOU COULD SAY BECAUSE LIKE CITY HALL WE HAVE INDUSTRIAL USES AROUND US THE RAILROAD TRACKS COULD BE SEEN AS A BARRIER TO WILDLIFE MOVEMENT BUT YOU KNOW THOSE ARE HERE AND THEN ALSO WITH SOUTH LOOP IT'S THERE'S SOME HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL THERE HIGH DENSITY MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IS NOT PART OF THE STUDY BUT IT'S JUST KIND OF SHOWING AREAS THAT ARE HAVE MORE INTENSE DEVELOPMENT THAN THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL. SO THIS MAP HERE IS ACTUALLY FROM THE WILDLIFE NETWORK REPORT. THESE IDENTIFY SPECIES OF SIGNIFICANT CONCERN AND THESE ARE THIS SCORING FACTORS IN A COUPLE OF THINGS. SO THE PRESENCE OF THE SPECIES ,THE VULNERABILITY OF THE SPECIES IN THESE AREAS AS WELL AS BIODIVERSITY OR ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY. SO THERE'S KIND OF A FEW VARIABLES THAT GO INTO THEIR CALCULATIONS. AND AS YOU CAN SEE LIKE LOOP GENERALLY THIS THE SCALE ISN'T QUITE THE SAME THIS MAP IDENTIFIED DOESN'T USE CITY IT'S COUNTY LEVEL. IT'S MORE ABOUT REGIONAL RESOURCE PLANNING TO GET GRANULAR THE KIND OF THINGS THAT END UP SMOOTHING THOSE TYPES OF NUMBERS ARE WELL WE IDENTIFIED ONE SPECIES HERE AND WE'RE GOING TO APPLY A BUFFER TO ASSUME IT MIGHT BE HERE. SO IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY LOOK AT BLOOMINGTON GO WELL IT HAS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SO THE SPECIES WOULDN'T BE THERE . THEY DON'T KIND OF CALCULATE IT THAT WAY. THEY'RE MUCH HIGH LEVEL. SO BUT FOR THINGS LIKE THE MINNESOTA RIVER VALLEY OR THE BLUFF WHICH HAVE SIGNIFICANT MORE REGULATION AND DATA AND MONITORING YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY DO INDICATE HIGH LEVELS OF PRESENCE OF SPECIES THERE AND THEIR PARTICULAR VULNERABILITY WHICH PRIORITIZES THEM FOR PROTECTION AND THESE CIRCLES REPRESENT THE SAME AREAS IN THE PREVIOUS AND I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS MAKES IT LOOK LIKE THE CORRIDOR LIKE ISN'T CONNECTED TO THE NORTHWEST OF BLOOMINGTON BECAUSE CONSIDERS THINGS LIKE VULNERABILITY AND THERE'S A LOT OF PUBLIC LANDS IN THAT AREA. IT'S BASICALLY KIND OF SAYING WELL THEY DON'T HAVE THEY MIGHT BE PRESENT BUT THEY DON'T HAVE A LOT OF VULNERABILITY SO THEY MAY NOT BE IN THAT WAY. IT'S NOT INDICATED ON THIS SPECIFIC MAP. SO THAT'S WHY IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S IT'S NOT BECAUSE THERE AREN'T LIKE GREAT BIODIVERSITY OR ECOLOGICAL AREAS THERE. IT'S THAT THE VULNERABILITY OR OTHER FACTORS MIGHT BRING IT OFF THE LIST OF CONSIDERATION IN THIS SPECIFIC TYPE OF MAP. SO THERE ARE FOUR POLICY OPTIONS THAT I'LL BE GOING THROUGH THE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT . SO AN OVERLAY DISTRICT WOULD APPLY SPECIFIC WILDLIFE AND HABITAT STANDARDS TO THE PARCELS WITHIN THE DISTRICT. THE REQUIREMENT BE BASED ON BLOOMINGTON SPECIFIC ECOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS TO SUPPORT HABITAT AND THIS WOULD POTENTIALLY IMPACT 6300 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES . AND THAT'S THIS MAP AGAIN THAT KIND OF SHOWS THIS NOW OF THE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR 6300 PARCELS REPRESENTS 29.7% OF THE TOTAL AREA WITHIN THEIR AND THEN ABOUT 32% ARE PUBLIC LANDS. AND THEN THE REMAINING 8% ARE WATERBODIES OR NONRESIDENTIAL USES THIS SERIES. QUESTION YES, I'M GOING TO NUMBER ONE PLEASE. YES. SO THE FIRST BULLET POINTS AS WOULD APPLY SPECIFIC WILDLIFE AND HABITAT STANDARDS. YES. FORGIVE ME IF I MISSED IT. WHAT ARE THOSE HABITAT STANDARDS ON? THANK YOU CHAIRMAN COMMISSION FOR THAT QUESTION. SO THAT WOULD ACTUALLY NEED TO BE STUDIED. SO THAT'S A DATA GAP WITH THE MINNESOTA DNR WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN. THEY DON'T GET THAT FOR DATA. IT'S A LOT OF HIGH LEVEL DATA THAT KIND OF HAS A LOT OF SMOOTHING. NOT THAT IT'S NOT VALUABLE. IT VERY MUCH IS. IT'S VERY USEFUL FOR NATURAL RESOURCES PLANNING MANAGEMENT AT KIND OF A REGIONAL LEVEL AND GENERAL OBJECTIVES WORKING WITH THE DNR WORKS WITH VARIOUS CONSERVATION ORGANIZATIONS IN ORDER TO GO IN AND TARGET AREAS ACROSS THE STATE. AND SO THOSE KIND OF HAPPEN YOU KNOW THEY OFTEN HAPPEN ON LIKE PUBLIC LAND ALL THAT THEY WOULD HAVE EASY ACCESS TO OR THEY MAKE THOSE AGREEMENTS KIND OF ON A CASE BY CASE BASEMENT BASIS BASIS WITH PROPERTY OWNERS ON PRIVATE LAND. SO THERE'S KIND OF A DATA GAP ON WHAT THOSE STANDARDS WOULD BE. THE L.A. DID SOMETHING SIMILAR THEY HAVE A WILDLIFE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT AND THEY RECENTLY KIND OF UNDERTOOK THIS THEY MENTIONED IN THE REPORT THEY STARTED THEIR PROCESS IN 2014 AND IT TOOK THE CONSULTANTS SEVEN YEARS TO PROVIDE THE ECOLOGICAL BACKGROUND IN DATA IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE FOUNDATION FOR THEIR AND THEN THEY BEGAN DRAFTING THEIR ORDINANCE AND A AS OF THAT WENT TO THEIR GOVERNING BODIES IN 2021 AND IN 2024 IT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED. IT IS STILL ONGOING. SO THOSE KIND OF LIKE DATA GAPS ARE HUGE. THEY ARE OFTEN REQUIRED IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THERE'S PROPER AND ALSO MAKING SURE THERE'S NOT THINGS LIKE REGULATORY TAKINGS FOR THAT LEAVE THE ORDINANCE VULNERABLE. SO IT'S NOT IMPACTING OR IMPROVING WILDLIFE AND HABITAT BECAUSE IT'S STRUCK DOWN IN COURT WERE CHALLENGED. SO IN LOOKING AT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BLOOMINGTON CONTEXT WE DON'T KNOW L.A. LAW IS ACTUALLY A LITTLE DIFFERENT TOO. THEY HAVE MORE VACANT LAND THAN WE DO. THEY HAVE, YOU KNOW, ABOUT 30,000 PARCELS AND 14% OF THEM ARE VACANT AND PARCELS CAN BE VERY LARGE THERE. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT A REALLY DIFFERENT CONTEXT. SO WE WOULD NEED THE BLOOMINGTON SPECIFIC CONTEXT AND RESEARCH IN ORDER TO CRAFT THESE REGULATIONS. THANK YOU . SO IT SAYS ADD STEEP BEST PRACTICES. THAT IS AN ERROR ON MY PART. THE BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES ARE FOR THE POLICY ACTION NUMBER ONE FOR WILDLIFE AND HABITAT. SO THAT'S JUST A TYPO. SO THE BENEFITS ARE THE RESULTS OF EXTENSIVE STUDY WOULD PRODUCE HIGHLY SPECIFIC BLOOMINGTON DATA THAT WOULD BE USEFUL IN MULTIPLE CONTEXTS BUT ALSO JUST GREAT FOR THE JUSTIFICATION FOR HAVING THOSE STANDARDS. AND THE CHALLENGES BENEFITS OF CREATING AN ADDITIONAL OVERLAY DISTRICT IS UNCLEAR AS WITH THE AVAILABLE DATA THAT WE HAVE NOW AS I MENTIONED, RESTRICTIONS MAY GIVE WAY TO REGULATORY TAKING ARGUMENT TAKING ARGUMENTS FROM RESIDENTS. AND DATA GAPS MAY NOT BE RESOLVED WITHOUT. SIGNIFICANT TIME EXPERTIZE AND FUNDING WOULD LIKELY REQUIRE VERY SPECIFIC EXPERTS AND CONSULTANTS IN ORDER TO GET THAT TYPE OF MONITORING POLICY ACTION TO IS WILDLIFE AND HABITAT EDUCATION FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES . SO SOMETHING WE COULD USE THAT THAT DNR CORRIDOR INFORMATION FOR IS I DEFINITELY YOU KNOW IDENTIFYING THOSE 6300 RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES OR FURTHER INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES WE CAN NOTIFY EVERY PARCEL THAT'S WITHIN WITHIN THAT CORRIDOR AND DISTRIBUTE INFORMATION TO THEM THAT IN VARIOUS MEDIANS ONLINE SOCIAL MEDIA TRY TO MAXIMIZE OUR REACH AND MAKE SURE LIKE A LETTER FROM THE CITY DOESN'T END UP IN THE SHREDDER. RECYCLING OR RECYCLING AND YOU KNOW IT STARTS HAVING AN IMPACT. THESE TYPES THINGS COULD INCLUDE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT A WILDLIFE DISTRICT OVERLAY DISTRICT MIGHT HAVE AS REGULATION BUT HAVE THEM AS OPTIONS. SO YOU MIGHT HAVE WILDLIFE FRIENDLY WHICH HAS GROUND BOTTOM OF FENCE CLEARANCE THING TO ALLOW MOVEMENT OF WILDLIFE YOU CAN ENCOURAGE DIFFERENT BIODIVERSITY AND LANDSCAPE MAPPING REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO IN INFLUENCE IN ORDER TO ENRICH THE HABITAT THAT THE WILDLIFE LIVING IN ARE MOVING THROUGH. SO THE BENEFITS IT KIND OF DEPENDS ON THE SCOPE SCOPE OF THE MATERIALS BUT INFORMATION AND EDUCATION CAN BE A COST EFFECTIVE WAY TO RAISE AWARENESS AND INFLUENCE BEHAVIOR OVER TIME. THE OPT IN NATURE OF THE POLICY OPTION MEANS THAT RESIDENTS CAN DETERMINE THEIR OWN CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT CHANGES. SOME OF THE WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE FRIENDLY FENCING COULD BE COST PROHIBITIVE IF WE'RE KIND OF IN AN ERA WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO INCREASE HOMEOWNERSHIP OF BIPOC INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE HISTORICALLY EXCLUDED FROM HOMEOWNERSHIP. AND THEN WE COULD IMPLEMENT REGULATIONS THAT THEN PUT COST BURDEN ON A GROUP THAT WAS ALREADY EXCLUDED FROM HOMEOWNERSHIP WITH A FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION. SO HAVING AN OPT IN AND ALSO CHANGING PERSPECTIVES AND BEHAVIOR COULD BE WAY TO STILL HAVE IMPACT WITHOUT NECESSARILY INCREASING INEQUITIES. AND RESOURCES ARE LIKE RESOURCES ARE LIKELY AVAILABLE PRODUCE THESE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESIDENTS SO WE WOULDN'T A CONSULT NECESSARILY CONSULTANT TO DO HIGHLY SPECIFIC BLOOMINGTON DATA IN ORDER FOR US TO PRODUCE GOOD RECOMMENDATIONS TO RESIDENTS WHO ARE INSIDE THE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR. SO THE LEAD OR RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT BE TO BE DETERMINED TIME RESOURCES DATA NECESSARY TO PRODUCE AND DISTRIBUTE THE MATERIALS COULD BE COST PROHIBITIVE. THIS IS VERY DEPENDENT ON THE METHOD THAT WE CHOOSE. SO MAYBE MAILER WOULD BE NOT AS COST EFFECTIVE BUT MAYBE SOMETHING LIKE A BROAD, YOU KNOW, MOBILE CAMPAIGN THROUGH NEIGHBORHOODS COULD REQUIRE MORE STAFF TIME OR MORE PREPARATION THAT COULD BE COST PROHIBITIVE. AND THEN EFFECTIVENESS CAN BE UNPRETTY ACCOUNTABLE OR RESULTS MAY ONLY BE REVEALED OVER A VERY LONG TIMELINE. SO YOU MIGHT HAVE TO TRUST THE PROCESS AND AND KEEP MONITORING TO EFFECTIVENESS AND THIS BE ASKING RESIDENTS HAVE YOU MADE WILDLIFE OR HABITAT IMPROVING DECISIONS ON YOUR PROPERTY YOU KNOW ON YOUR INTERACTION WITH THESE MATERIALS. SO WE CAN HAVE A PROVIDE A VARIETY OF WAYS WHERE WE CAN ASK RESIDENTS THESE QUESTIONS ,GET THAT INFORMATION TO SEE IF WE ARE ACTUALLY INFLUENCING OVER TIME. POLICY OPTION IS HABITAT SUPPORTIVE REGULATIONS FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES . THESE ENCOURAGE BIODIVERSITY THROUGH A VARIETY OF STANDARDS FOR NATIVE LANDSCAPING, TREE PLANTING AND QUALITY. THEY DISCOURAGE OR PROHIBIT PLANTS THAT ARE DETRIMENTAL TO HABITAT. SO IT'S THINGS LIKE INVASIVE SPECIES THAT OUTCOMPETE SPECIES REQUIRED FOR BIODIVERSITY AND THEY CAN BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN LANDSCAPING AND STREET SCREENING REQUIREMENTS. THEY DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE A ORDINANCE OR SECTION AND THE BENEFITS AS I MENTIONED THEY CAN BE IMPLEMENTED ACROSS POINTS IN THE CODE . AND THEN THE CHALLENGES ARE ENFORCEMENT WOULD LIKELY FALL OUTSIDE OF THE PLANNING DIVISION. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HANDLES MOST OF OUR NUISANCE OR VIOLATIONS. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO COORDINATE WITH THEM TO UNDERSTAND THE KIND OF IMPACT CHALLENGES IN ENFORCING THIS TYPE OF CODE ESPECIALLY LIKE YOU KNOW IF WE DO NATIVE LANDSCAPING IT'S IN THE REAR OF THE OF THE PROPERTY. HOW DO WE GET OUR EYES ON THAT KNOW AND THEN INCREASE RESOURCE COST ON LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS SO IF WE REQUIRE NATIVE LANDSCAPING AND THA COMES AND HOW WE KIND OF ENSURE THAT IT'S THE PROPER NATIVE LANDSCAPING BECAUSE THERE'S ENFORCEMENT INVOLVED, DOES THAT INVOLVE A COST FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR PROFESSIONALS THAT COULD INCREASE THE COST OF OWNING THE HOME AND MAINTAINING OVER TIME. THERE'S DIFFICULTY IDENTIFYING QUALIFYING HABITAT ON A PERSONAL LEVEL AND MONITORING LONG TERM THIS KIND OF HEARKENS BACK TO OUR DATA GAP PROBLEM WHICH MAY IMPACT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF REGULATIONS. SO NOW WE HAVE WILDLIFE SUPPORTIVE POLICIES FOR DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. THIS IS NOT INCLUSIVE OF HABITAT SUPPORTIVE ACTIVITIES. THESE ARE THINGS LIKE ACCESS TO FOOD REPRODUCTION LIFE CYCLE EVENTS AND SLEEPING AREAS. SO IT'S REALLY MOBILITY, MOVEMENT, CONNECTIVITY AND. THESE ARE INCLUDE THE THINGS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY WHICH MIGHT BE WILDLIFE FENCES OR STRUCTURE SETBACKS OR BUFFERS THAT MAKE IT SO THAT WAY MOVEMENT IS NOT IMPEDED FENCING OR STRUCTURE TYPE VARIOUS STRUCTURE TYPES. THE BENEFITS IS IT MITIGATES HARM TO WILDLIFE THROUGH FENCING. CERTAIN TYPES OF FENCING CAN ENTANGLE HARM OR EVEN KILL WILDLIFE IN SOME CASES OR DEPENDING ON THE YOU KNOW, THE THE QUALITY OR THE CONDITION OF THE FENCE. AND THIS FACILITATES MOVEMENT AND CONNECTIVITY OF THE AS THEY TRAVEL ACROSS THE LANDSCAPE WHICH ALSO COULD GIVE THEM ACCESS TO AREAS THAT ARE PUBLIC THAT WOULD ALREADY KIND OF FACILITATE FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT. SO IT'S ABOUT WILDLIFE SAFE ACCESS TO THAT WHEREVER THEY MAY BE IN THE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR. SO CHALLENGES ARE SIMILAR TO THE HABITAT SUPPORTIVE POLICIES IS THAT ENFORCEMENT AND MONITORING WOULD BE REALLY DIFFICULT. MANY STRUCTURES DO NOT REQUIRE PERMITS SO IF SOMEONE HAS YOU KNOW A, GARAGE OR EXCUSE ME LIKE A SHED THAT'S BELOW A CERTAIN AMOUNT THEY COULD PUT THAT AND THAT COULD HAVE IMPACT ON ON ON THESE FACTORS OF MOVEMENT OR OR OR EVEN JUST ACCESS TO FOOD. NEW REQUIREMENTS COULD ALSO CREATE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES SO IF THERE'S A SETBACK REQUIREMENT OR WILDLIFE FRIENDLY FENCES WE'VE SUDDENLY BROUGHT A BUNCH OF FENCES INTO NON-CONFORMITY OR THOSE INTO NON-CONFORMITY AND WE WOULD HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO SOLVE THAT ISSUE. AND THEN ALSO ECONOMY OF SCALE MEANS THAT ADDITIONAL COSTS FENCING OR STRUCTURE PLACEMENT COULD FURTHER LIMIT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT JUST BECAUSE THE COSTS OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LIKE THESE TYPES OF THINGS BE A SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL PROJECT BECAUSE THE PROJECT ISN'T SO LARGE THAT IT WOULD KIND OF PRODUCE A PROFIT EITHER THROUGH HOMEOWNERSHIP OR RENTING. SO YOU MIGHT BE ABLE NOT BE ABLE TO GET THE THE PROFORMA OR THE BOOKS TO BALANCE EVEN FOR A SMALL DEVELOPMENT AND THAT COULD RESTRICT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE STUDIED BUT IT WOULD OBVIOUSLY TAKE MORE TIME BEFORE YOU WOULD HAVE INFORMATION. WE DO WANT TO COLLABORATE WITH MANY SMALL DEVELOPERS TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THEIR COSTS COME FROM AND HOW THINGS LIKE WOULD COME INTO PLAY. OKAY THERE'S A WILDLIFE AND HABITAT GENERAL COMMENTS I HAVE ONE COMMENT JUST ON THE SECOND ONE AND THAT I LIKE THE IDEA OF EDUCATION BUT I THINK I'M ALWAYS SUPPORTIVE OF IT IN A NO COST FORMAT. I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF NEW FLIERS OR ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE MAILED OUT. THINK THOSE GO RATE IN THE RECYCLING BUT IF IT SHOWED UP IN THE BLOOMINGTON BRIEFING AND THERE'S A MAP AND YOU SEE THAT YOUR HOUSE IS IN THE COLORED AREA YOU'RE PROBABLY LIKELY TO READ THAT OR CHECK IT OUT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO COMMISSIONER GUZMAN YEAH, I WOULD I WOULD SECOND THAT BUT I WOULD ALSO ASK WOULD THIS BE IN THE OF THE SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION A YOU KNOW, SUSTAINABILITY OF WILDLIFE HABITAT, YOU KNOW, MAKING US MORE SUSTAINABLE AS A CITY IS THIS I THINK IT CERTAINLY DOES FROM A GETTING THEIR OPINION ON IT AND HELPING CRAFT THE LANGUAGE OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. SURE. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT PREVENTS US FROM GIVING OUR OPINION ON IT. ONE OTHER COMMENT I HAVE IS I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE FENCING THAT'S BEEN BEING DISCUSSED, THE PRACTICALITY IN MY MIND OF THAT THE GAP IS EXTREMELY LOW THINKING ABOUT PEOPLE THAT HAVE PETS. THE REASON I HAVE A FENCE IS BECAUSE I HAVE A DOG AND SHE THE OTHER WAY AROUND. I HAVE A DOG BECAUSE I HAVE A FENCE BUT AND I ALSO I SEE IT FROM FROM HAVING YOU KNOW, CHILDREN WITH AND THINGS THAT CAN GO UNDERNEATH THAT I CAN SEE THAT BE POSING PROBLEMS. SO I JUST DON'T THINK THE PRACTICALITY OF THOSE FENCES ALBEIT AN INTERESTING IDEA IS AS WELL AS HOW DEVELOPED AND OUR NEIGHBORHOODS ARE TODAY IT JUST IS IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT'S A REAL GOOD SOLUTION. BUT THAT'S MY $0.02 DISAGREE. I WOULD AGREE WITH ALL THAT. I THINK THE FENCING IS DIFFICULT. I DON'T THINK FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND ANYBODY WANTS TO GET INTO REGULATING FENCING ANYMORE. SO AND THEN ANY LOW COST OR NO COST WAY TO EDUCATE CITY ABOUT YOU KNOW WILDLIFE AND AND SLOPES AND TREES AND THAT SORT OF THING I THINK IS A GOOD IDEA. OKAY WE'LL GO DOWN THE LIST HERE. NUMBER ONE IS WILDLIFE COVERAGE. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT. I'M A NO NO NO NO. NUMBER TWO IS WILDLIFE AND HABITAT EDUCATION. I AM A YES IF NO OR LOW COST. AGREED. AGREED. AGREED. OKAY. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER THREE IS HABITAT. HABITAT SUPPORTIVE REGULATIONS . I'M A NO NO NO NO LEAST THOUGHT ON THAT. SO THE OTHER THOUGHT IS AGAIN GOING BACK TO OUR S ONE AGAIN I THINK THAT'S WHAT OUR S ONE IS SUPPOSED TO BE FOR IS YOU DON'T NEED TO ADD A BUNCH OF OTHER REGULATIONS TO THE CITY YOU CAN DO IT THROUGH THE ZONING DISTRICT THAT ALREADY EXISTS BUT OKAY. AND FINALLY NUMBER FOUR IS WILDLIFE SUPPORTIVE POLICIES. I'M A NO NO NO NO. ALL RIGHT. SO IN SUMMARY, I HAVE LISTED ALL OF THE POLICY ACTIONS THAT I'VE GONE OVER AND THEN I'VE COLOR CODED THEM. I'VE HIGHLIGHTED WHAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS WERE FOR THE BEST THE ANTICIPATED BENEFIT COST OUTCOMES SO FOR THE COST FOR RESOURCES AND LABOR THESE COULD HAVE POTENTIALLY THE BEST AND OUTCOMES. THE YELLOW OPTIONS WERE OPTIONS THAT THE STAFF AT IDENTIFIED AS HAVING POTENTIAL BUT HAVING LIKELY HIGH COST BURDENS RIGHT OUT THE GATE. SO ALSO SO INTERNALLY IN THE CITY AND ON STAFF AND OUR RESOURCES TO PAY FOR THESE FOR DATA GAPS OR PRODUCE POLICY AND THEN ALSO POSSIBLY HAVING IMPACTS ON THE OTHER SIDE THAT COULD IMPACT THE AFFORDABILITY OF OWNING A HOME AFTER SOMEONE HAS PURCHASED IT OR IS RENTING IT? SOME OF THOSE BURDENS COULD BE PASSED ON IN LEASE AGREEMENTS AND THAT COULD BE REALLY DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE LOOKING FOR HOUSING. ALSO. AND THEN THE RED IS NOT STAFF RECOMMENDED BECAUSE CHALLENGES ARE LIKELY PROHIBITED. NONE OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS MEAN THAT WE CAN'T COULD DO FURTHER STUDY AND MORE SPECIFIC BUT JUST BASED ON THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION AND OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS OF RESEARCH THIS IS JUST KIND OF WHAT HAS SHAKEN OUT AND THEN IN SUMMARY LET ME I'M JUST DOING A QUICK CHECK HERE ON THE ALIGNMENT BETWEEN PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS . SO IN WILL A PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF ALIGN ON TREES? SO TEXT CLEANUP FOR CLARITY NO REGULATION THERE AND THEN ALSO A UH BUT NOT ON THE AMENDING TREE REMOVAL THRESHOLDS. SO NOT GOING DOWN THE ROAD OF USING DISCRETION KIND OF FIND A RIGHT FIT WHEN WE ALREADY HAVE ROBUST STANDARDS FOR SLOPES PRETTY MUCH SPLIT THE LINE YESES AND DO KNOWS WHERE ALL OF OUR THAT COULD BE IN BRINGING MORE STUDY OR WAITING FOR DIRECTION CITY COUNCIL TO SEE IF WE ACTUALLY WANT TO IMPLEMENT THOSE THINGS AND THEN FOR WILDLIFE AND HABITAT WE HAD FOR YOU ASKED FOR OUR WILDLIFE AND HABITAT EDUCATION FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES SO I WILL MAKE SURE TO SUMMARIZE THOSE DISCUSSION ITEMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION IN MY REPORT WITH THE CAVEATS OF THINGS LIKE THE NO COST METHOD INCLUDING SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION THE PRACTICALITY OF SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE BASED ON PEOPLE CHOOSING TO MAKE CHOICES WITH FENCES, OTHER THINGS THAT ARE FITTING THE LIFESTYLE OR NEEDS . OOPS I STOPPED IT. NOW THAT'S AN EXTRA AND WE'RE WE'RE DONE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION ITEMS FROM THE CHAIR AND COMMISSION SEEING NONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GREAT GREAT WAY TO SUMMARIZE THIS AND IT WAS REALLY EASY FOR US TO FOLLOW SO THANK FOR YOUR FOR YOUR WORK ON THAT. THANK YOU CHAIR COOKED AND COMMISSION I'M VERY PLEASED I HAD A LOT OF ANXIETY ABOUT CONDENSING THE INFORMATION SO YOUR FEEDBACK IS EXTREMELY. THANK YOU. PLANNING COMMISSION ANOTHER FIVE MINUTE RECESS I THINK NEXT ITEM WILL BE NOT AS SHORT SO THAT OKAY SURE WE CAN OTHER OPTIONS WHEN WE RETURN. 957 OKAY WE'RE BACK FOR ITEM NUMBER FOUR WHICH IS THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON AS THE APPLICANT AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO TALK ABOUT OUR AS ONE ZONING DISTRICT STUDY. MR. RAMMER OLSON, YOU HAVE THE STAFF REPORT. GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING. I JUST WANT TO CHECK IS EVERYONE ABLE TO HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN. OH TERRIFIC. OKAY. I'M SPEAKING THROUGH MY COMPUTER SO I'M GLAD THAT'S FUNCTIONING. YOU CHAIR. THANK YOU. MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I WILL SHARE MY SCREEN WITH THE PRESENTATION ONCE SECOND . OKAY. SO THE FACT THAT THE TITLE SLIDE. YES. SO THIS IS ITEM NUMBER FOUR ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA IT'S A STUDY ITEM LOOKING AT THE RS DISTRICT. GENERALLY SPEAKING IT IS GOING TO BE JUST DISCUSSING THE ENTIRE DISTRICT BUT WE'LL FOCUS ON SOME OF SOME ASPECTS OF THAT DISTRICT, SOME OF THE STANDARD AND WE'LL REVIEW SOME STAFF DRAFTS OF AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. THE PURPOSE FOR THE RS ONE DISTRICT OF STANDARDS ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS ALL OUT USES. A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND THIS IS THE THIS IS THE LOCATION OF EXISTING RS ONE LOTS WITHIN THE OF BLOOMINGTON THAT'S BEEN SPLIT UP INTO FOUR AREAS STAFF FELT THIS WAS HELPFUL WE HAVE FOREST HAVEN IN THE NORTH AND THIS IS ALL WEST AND NORTH BOULEVARD GREENBRIER THAT'S ANOTHER AREA SOUTH SOUTH THE TIMBER GLADE AND THERE ARE A FEW LOTS ALONG ARMADALE BOULEVARD THAT ARE ALSO DOWN FOREST ONE. LOOKING AT THE STANDARDS OF THE DISTRICT OR THE EXISTING STANDARDS THERE'S A MINIMUM LOTTERY OF 33,000 SQUARE FEET THAT'LL BE VERY IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER THROUGHOUT THIS PRESENTATION. MINIMUM SITE WIDTH OF INTERIOR LOTS OR 60 FEET QUARTER LOTS IS 100 FEET. THERE ARE SOME THERE'S SOME NUANCE TO THE MINIMUM SITE WIDTH THAT ALSO INCLUDES THE LANGUAGE JUST BELOW THAT MEETING THE SITE WITH AT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK LINE AS WELL AS THE FIRST FEET 50 FEET BEYOND THE FRONT SET BACK LINE THERE'S CONSIDERATIONS OF MEDIAN SITE WIDTH AND I'LL GET INTO THAT LATER THE PRESENTATION AND SOME OTHER STANDARDS THAT YOU'RE PROBABLY PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH LOOKING AT OTHER DISTRICTS. THIS ANALYSIS WILL BE SPLIT UP INTO ESSENTIALLY SIX SECTIONS. WE'LL USE SOME OTHER DISCUSSION POINTS AFTER THAT BUT NONETHELESS THERE'S GOING TO BE LOOKING THE INTENT FIRST LOT AREA AND WITH STEEP SLOPES CONSERVATION CORRIDORS USES WITHIN YARDS DISTRICT AND A BULK STANDARD KNOWN AS A PREVAILING SETBACK SO THIS IS A COMPARISON OF THE CURRENT STATEMENT FOR THE URBAN DISTRICT AS WELL AS OF SOMETHING THAT STAFF HAS DRAFTED. IT'S IT'S NOT OBVIOUSLY IN STONE WE WANT YOUR YOUR FEEDBACK AND YOUR GUIDANCE TO HOW YOU KNOW IF YOU'RE HAPPY WITH IT OR IF YOU FELT SHOULD BE IMPROVED IN OTHER AREAS PLEASE LET US KNOW. BUT THIS IS I'M HIGHLIGHTING THE MAIN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE CURRENT AND THE DRAFT STATEMENTS GETTING INTO THOSE MORE SPECIFIC PARTS OF THE INTENT STATEMENT IT STARTS OUT BY SAYING THAT THE ARTS ONE PROVIDES LOCATIONS FOR LARGE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, SOME OPTIONAL CHANGES THAT STAFF HAS DRAFTED NOTING SOME OF THE USE USE CHANGES WE'RE PROPOSING WE'VE COME UP WITH THESE OPTIONS. THE FIRST ONE PROVIDE LOCATIONS FOR LARGE LOT LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WE'VE STRUCK SINGLE FAMILY BECAUSE AS WILL BE EXPLAINED LATER WE'RE PROPOSING THAT TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS BE ALLOWED IN THE ARTS ONE DISTRICT. THE SECOND OPTION IS TO PROVIDE LARGE READS PROVIDE LOCATIONS FOR LARGE LOT SINGLE AND OTHER COMPATIBLE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SO STILL MAINTAINING THAT SINGLE FAMILY BUT WE'RE ALSO MAKING NOTE THAT THERE'S OTHER COMPATIBLE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING BE WITH AND WE ASKED ONE DISTRICT THE INTENT STATEMENT CONTINUES WHERE IT LISTS THE CHARACTERISTICS OF RS LOTS IT NOTES THAT THERE ARE STEEP SLOPES SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION WETLANDS OR RS AS ONE INCLUDES AAS THAT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY DEVELOPMENT AS LARGE LOTS IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA STAFF NOTES THAT THERE IS AN OR WITHIN THAT WITH AND WHICH IMPLIES THAT ONLY ONE CHARACTERISTIC CHARACTERISTIC HAS TO BE MET IN ORDER FOR ANY LOT TO BE TO BE CONSIDERED CONSISTENT WITH THE RS ONE DISTRICT STAFF RECOMMENDED IN LIGHT OF THAT STAFF RECOMMENDS INCREASING THAT TO MULTIPLE CHARACTERISTICS WHERE WE DON'T FEEL THAT THAT'S ENOUGH TO MAINTAIN THE UNIQUENESS OF THE ONE DISTRICT TO ONLY ALLOW OR HAVE ONE CHARACTERISTIC SATISFY THE INTENT OF THE DISTRICT. SO THAT WOULD ALSO HELP CLARIFY THE ABILITY FOR OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY THAT WANT TO REZONE TO RS1 GIVE THEM SOME CONFIDENCE IN THEIR ABILITY TO DO SO IF IF WE MAINTAIN THAT UNIQUENESS OF THE ARTS ONE DISTRICT BY HAVING MULTIPLE CHARACTERISTICS CONSIDERED FOR THOSE REQUESTS WE'VE INCLUDED A NEW CHARACTERISTIC LARGE LOT LOW RESIDENTIAL AREA IS AN AREA IS LOCATED WITHIN A CONSERVATION AS DESIGNATED BY THE MINNESOTA DNR. I BELIEVE MICHELE RAN THROUGH SOME OF THOSE CORRIDORS IN HER PRESENTATION AND THAT'S BEEN CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE STAFF'S DRAFTS OF CHANGES TO RS ONE AND IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THIS WERE INCLUDING THE CONSERVATION CORRIDOR IS A RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY RESIDENTS DURING CONSIDERATION TO AMENDMENTS TO THE R-1 DISTRICT LAST YEAR. THIS IS A MAP DISPLAYING THE EXTENT OF THE CONSERVATION CORRIDORS IN THE CITY. I GUESS SOMETHING TO POINT OUT AS IT COVERS A LOT ON THE WEST SIDE, NOT SO MUCH ON THE SITE CLEARLY GOING TO BE GATHERED ALONG THE THE BLUFFS OF THE MINNESOTA RIVER CONTINUING ON WITH THE ANALYSIS OF THE INTENT STATEMENT SOME DISCUSSION ITEMS BY WAY THESE DISCUSSION ITEMS ARE ARE GOING BE THROUGHOUT THIS PRESENTATION. SO IF YOU WANT TO JUST HIT ON THEM RIGHT AWAY OR IF YOU WANT ME TO SAVE THEM TOWARDS THE END WE CAN DO EITHER ONE BUT AND THEN FEEL FREE TO INTERRUPT YOU WANT MORE CLARIFICATION SIR? CERTAINLY THE FIRST DISCUSSION ITEM IS AGAIN THE BEGINNING OF THE INTENT STATEMENT. SOME OF THE OPTIONS ARE TO NOT CHANGE IT. THERE'S OPTION TO PROVIDE IT PROVIDE LOCATIONS FOR A LARGE LIGHT LOW DENSITY DEVELOPMENT AGAINST STRIKING SINGLE FAMILY BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE CONSIDERING TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS WITHIN THE USE TABLE FOR THE RC ONE DISTRICT. THE THIRD OPTION TO PROVIDE LOCATIONS FOR LARGE SINGLE AND OTHER COMPATIBLE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SO MAYBE I'LL ASK THE PLANNING COMMISSION HOW YOU WOULD LIKE TO WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS THIS FIRST OR SHOULD I JUST KEEP BARRELING? WELL COMMISSIONERS, IT WOULD BE MY OPINION THAT WE DO THESE BY ONE AS WE GO THROUGH THEM SO WE DON'T FORGET THEIR IN OUR MIGHT. BUT IF PEOPLE HAVE OTHER THOUGHTS MR. GROSSMAN I CAN I LET'S GO THROUGH THEM NOW. YEAH OKAY WE'LL DO THAT NOW AND WE'LL FOLLOW THE SAME FORMAT BEEN USING THIS EVENING. FIRST OF ALL START WITH GENERAL DISCUSSION. THESE ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN I GUESS THE FIRST COUPLE WOULD COME THROUGH BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE OF AN EITHER OR BUT WE'LL START WITH GENERAL DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM. MR. OLSON THANK CHAIR. SO I SO APPRECIATE STAFF LOOKING INTO THIS AS THEY WERE ASKED TO DO SO BY COUNSEL SO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT STATEMENT IS THERE SO THAT YOU DON'T TAKE AS A COMMENT AGAINST THE WORK THE GOOD WORK THAT YOU'RE DOING THIS SHOULD LOOKING AT THE PARCELS THAT ARE CONSIDERED ARE AS ONE IN MY OPINION THIS SHOULD NOT PRIORITY AS FOR THE CITY I DON'T THAT ARE AS ONE AS WE LOOKED AT THE NUMBER MAKES A GREAT IMPACT TO THE OVERALL CITY AS A WHOLE IT ALSO DOESN'T LOOK HOW WE'RE ADDRESSING HOUSING AND ENSURING EQUITY ACROSS OUR CITY I KNOW THAT IT WAS ASKED OF BY COUNCIL TO LOOK AT THESE LOTS FOR SUBDIVISION TO CREATE MORE HOUSING STOCK IN THE CITY AND WHEN I LOOKED AT THE PROPERTIES ON LINE ON THE MAPS ONLY TWO PROPERTIES THAT I COULD SEE WERE POTENTIAL MAYBE CANDIDATES FOR THAT THE REST OF THEM ARE VERY ESTABLISHED HOMES THAT ARE ACTUALLY AT THE HIGHER DOLLAR VALUE OF ALL THE HOUSING STOCK IN BLOOMINGTON AND THE LIKELIHOOD OF THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS TAKING THAT HOUSE AND SUBDIVIDING IT IS VERY SMALL. IT'S MORE LIKELY THEY'LL TEAR THAT HOUSE DOWN AND BUILD BIGGER HOME. THE TWO PROPERTIES THAT I THOUGHT WERE WERE THE 10616 AND THE 10626 NORMAN DALE BOULEVARD. DID I ACTUALLY SEE IT MORE LIKELY THOSE TWO PROPERTIES BE COMBINED AND RESOLD MORE HIGHER DENSITY AS IT IS ON A COLLECTOR STREET. SO I WAS DISAPPOINTED TO SEE THIS TOPIC ON OUR AGENDA AGAIN NOT STAFF I JUST THINK WE HAVE BIGGER INITIATIVES, BIGGER OPPORTUNITIES IN OUR CITY THAN TO ADDRESS THESE HANDFUL OF PARCELS THAT REALLY DON'T NEED TO ADDRESSED. I DO SENSE THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. GROSSMAN COMMISSIONER CURRY NATURE SO I AGREE WITH PART OF COMMISSIONER GOLDSMITH'S COMMENTS IN THAT YEAH BUT I AND I SHOULD START AGAIN BY SAYING THAT THIS WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS BECAUSE OF THE WORK THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE CITY COUNCIL SO I SEE THIS MORE AS WHAT I ALLUDED TO IN THE PREVIOUS TOPIC AS POTENTIALLY I'D SAY ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION IN CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS SO I MEAN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BEING ONE OF THEM AS WELL AS SOME NEIGHBORHOODS THINK ALONG NINE MILE CREEK AND ALONG THE BLUFF DISTRICT. SO YEAH SO I DON'T I MEAN IF WE I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET MANY HOUSES OUT OF THIS OR MANY NEW YOU KNOW, NEW PLACES TO LIVE. BUT I THINK WOULD POTENTIALLY AFFORD THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME NEIGHBORHOODS RETAIN THE EXISTING TREES AND CHARACTER OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. I SUPPOSE. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CURRY YOU KNOW WHEN WE HAD SOME JOINT SESSIONS WITH THE HRA A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO ABOUT THE R I THINK IS THE R ONE DISTRICT NOT RC ONE BUT R11 OF THE COMMENTS I SPECIFICALLY REMEMBER MAKING BECAUSE WE WERE GOING THROUGH THIS KIND OF LAUNDRY LIST OF IDEAS SHOULD STAFF AT THIS SHOULD STAFF LOOK AT THAT? I SPECIFICALLY REMEMBER MAKING A COMMENT OF SOMETHING ABOUT THAT COMBINATION AND THAT IT SEEMED REALLY IMPRACTICAL THAT THIS WOULD ACTUALLY BE IMPLEMENTED ON A SCALE THAT'S WORTH THE CITY STAFF TIME TO DO THIS. I APPRECIATE MR. RAYMOND OLSEN AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE STAFF REPORT IT'S WELL DONE. I MEAN THERE'S IT'S LONG, IT'S COMPREHENSIVE. IT'S CLEARLY BEEN LOOKED AT. BUT I HAVE TO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER GOLTZMAN ON THIS . I DON'T THINK IT WAS A TERRIBLY GOOD USE OF OF STAFF TIME AND FRANKLY TAX DOLLARS TO LOOK INTO THIS. I THINK IT'S OUT EXACTLY THE WAY WE THOUGHT IT WOULD THAT YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT LARGE HOUSES THAT ARE ALREADY NICE AND IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE SUBDIVIDED THE EXISTING HOUSE IS GOING TO BE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT NOT ON THE SIDE. SO YOU HAVE TO TEAR DOWN THE HOUSE AND THEN BUILD TWO NEW HOUSES AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL THAT EFFORT THEY'RE GOING TO BE REALLY HIGH END HOUSES TO GET YOUR MONEY BACK. AND SO WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING FOR HOME EQUITY OR ANY OF IT. I THINK I JUST SEE VERY LITTLE VALUE IN IN WHAT HAS BEEN LOOKED AT HERE AND AGAIN NOT STAFF DEFAULTS ON THIS ONE. SO GETTING BACK TO THE ISSUE AT HAND FOR ME AS AS THIS INTENSE STATEMENT GOES, I DON'T HAVE A GREAT PREFERENCE. I DID DRIVE THESE NEIGHBORHOODS. I CAME OVER HERE TONIGHT TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND NEIGHBORHOOD FEEL I'VE DON'T LIVE IN ONE OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS. I FRANKLY NOT EVEN THAT FAMILIAR WITH THEM, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ACTUALLY MORE DENSE THAN I THOUGHT THEY WERE FOR AS BIG AS THE LOTS ARE HOUSES ARE MAYBE BECAUSE THEY'RE SO BIG BUT THEY'RE PRETTY CLOSE. IT'S NOT LIKE SOME CITIES GO THROUGH AND THEY'RE REALLY SECLUDED IN WHATEVER. THEY'RE FAIRLY CLOSE AND I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY JUST DRIVING THROUGH KIND OF DENSE AND SO SWITCHING THIS LANGUAGE TO A LOW DENSITY AND SORT OF SINGLE FAMILY DOES NOT BOTHER ME. MR. ROBERT THANK YOU CHAIR. I AGREE WITH THIS AND I THINK I AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS MADE ALREADY AND I ALSO THINK THAT STAFF DID A FANTASTIC JOB ON THIS. HOWEVER DOES SEEM TO BE LOCATED IN WEST BLOOMINGTON ONLY IN IN A MORE AFFLUENT PART OF WEST AND I JUST THINK WE NEED TO BE REALLY CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DIVING INTO IN TERMS OF OUR EQUITY AND CREATING NEW HOUSING AND OUR RESOURCES. YES. AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER CURRIE THAT YOU KNOW WE SHOULD THINKING ABOUT OUR WILDLIFE AND NATURAL BUT WE SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT THAT ACROSS THE CITY NOT IN THESE SPECIFIC VERY FEW IN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ALBRECHT AND I'M NOT SURE IF I'M GETTING OUT OF HERE BECAUSE DON'T EXACTLY KNOW WHAT'S COMING UP NEXT BUT I WILL MAKE ONE OTHER COMMENT IN CASE I FORGET THAT THERE WAS A COMMENT IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT WE'RE DOING SOME OF THIS BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN PETITIONS TO MAKE OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS AS ONE. AND WHEN YOU SPOKE ABOUT EQUITY AND I'M NOT SUPER INTERESTED IN OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS IN BLOOMINGTON BECOMING RS1 TO ME IT'S HARD TO OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT OTHER AREAS WANTED TO BECOME RS1 ONCE A DUPLEX WAS MADE SOMEWHERE ELSE AND IT'S REAL HARD FOR ME TO SEE AN ARGUMENT OF WELL WE'RE DOING THIS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT IF THAT WAS THE CASE AND THESE OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS REALLY WANTED TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT, I THINK WE WOULD HAVE HEARD ABOUT IT EARLIER AND SO I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF COMPLEXITIES TO THIS AND I'M WITH THE EXISTING RS1 NEIGHBORHOODS WE HAVE I DON'T THINK YOU KNOW HAVING NEIGHBORHOODS WITH LARGER LOTS AND HAVING WE TALK ABOUT A DIVERSITY OF HOUSING STOCK AND I'M NOT AGAINST HAVING SOME HOUSING STOCK THAT FOR THE HIGHER END OF THE MARKET LIKE WE SHOULD TRY TO SERVE EVERYBODY AND SO NOT IN FAVOR OF SAYING WE GOT TO GET RID OF RS1 AND WE CAN'T HAVE LARGE LOTS BECAUSE WE DO HAVE MORE AFFLUENT PEOPLE THAT WANT TO MOVE BLOOMINGTON AND WE NEED TO SUPPORT THEM TOO. SO I'M NOT AGAINST THE EXISTING RS WE HAVE BUT I'M REAL HESITANT ABOUT MAKING OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS INTO RS ONE THAT GIVE MORE RESTRICTIONS ON SUBDIVIDING. SO I'M NOT SUPER INTERESTED IN CRAFTING A BUNCH OF POLICIES HERE THAT IS GOING TO FOSTER THAT. OKAY. WITHOUT SEEING ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT AS I LOOK AT IT THERE ARE LAST YEARS BECAUSE WE'RE NOT REALLY VOTING ONE, TWO, THREE. THIS IS KIND OF A I WANT ONE I WANT TO I WANT THREE. SO I THINK WE'LL ACTUALLY GO DOWN THE LINE HERE AND I'LL ASK WHICH YOU PREFER IF THAT'S OKAY. SO FOR ME FOR THIS PARTICULAR STATEMENT I WOULD PREFER NUMBER TWO IF AND I THINK I'LL JUST SAY I THINK IT'S OKAY TO HAVE SOME COMMENTARY I'M SPLIT BETWEEN SOMETHING OR WHATEVER IF YOU'RE NOT SURE I, I THINK WANT THEM SORRY I'M LEANING TOWARDS ONE NO CHANGE I HAVE NO PREFERENCE. YEAH I THINK I THINK ONE I MEAN HONESTLY I DON'T SEE ANYBODY I THINK IT'D BE DIFFICULT TO BUILD AND LOTS THAT ARE 33,000 SQUARE FEET COST TOO MONEY TO ACQUIRE A LOT. OKAY I OKAY YEAH MOVING ON BRING ON THERE WE GO. SO SOME MORE DISCUSSIONS MORE POINTS OF DISCUSSION AGAIN STILL EXAMINING THE INTENT AS WAS MADE OR AS A POINT THAT I MADE EARLIER THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT MULTIPLE CHARACTERISTICS BE USED IN ASSESSING APPLICATIONS FOR REZONING RIGHT NOW THEY'RE RESULTING THE ORDER IN THE STATEMENT ONLY IT IMPLIES ONLY ONE CHARACTERISTIC NEEDS TO BE SATISFIED BUT MULTIPLE SEEMS TO STRENGTHEN THE DA AS WELL AS DISCOURSE ONE DISTRICT'S INTENT SO BUT WE WANTED TO TURN THIS OVER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO SEE IF THEY'RE COMFORTABLE WITH MULTIPLE CHARACTERISTICS BEING CONSIDERED AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE TOO SO ALSO GETTING AN IDEA OF WHAT THE CORRECT OF CHARACTERISTICS TO USE WHAT WE'RE ASSESSING FOR DESIGNING APPLICATIONS. MR. RAMER ALSO COULD YOU JUST RUN THROUGH THAT LIST AGAIN WITH US PLEASE? YEAH CERTAINLY. SO THIS IS THIS IS OF COURSE REFERRING TO THE DRAFT THAT STAFF HAS HAS HAS THAT HAS WRITTEN UP. BUT THERE IS ALSO SOME CHARACTERISTICS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE CURRENT FORM OF THE INTENSITY OF IT. BUT AS YOU'LL SEE ON THE SLIDE THE CHARACTERISTICS BEING STEEP SLOPES SIGNIFICANT NATURAL OR NATIVE VEGETATION WETLANDS IF THE AREA IS LOCATED WITHIN A CONSERVATION COURT OR DESIGNATED BY THE SORT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND OR SUBSTANTIALLY AS LARGE LOTS IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA. SO THOSE ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS. THANK I'M GOING TO MAKE ONE GENERAL COMMENT. YOU KNOW BASED ON THE DISCUSSION WE'VE JUST HAD I KNOW SOME OF US ARE NOT A HUGE FAN OF THIS JUST IN GENERAL COMING TO US BUT CITY COUNCIL HAS PROPOSED THIS AND I THINK IT'S OUR DUTY TO PROVIDE THEM OPINIONS ON THESE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AS WE SEE FIT. SO WE'LL CONTINUE FORWARD WITH THESE MORE FINE DETAIL THINGS FOR ME I LIKE HAVING MORE THAN ONE JUST BECAUSE I'M IN FAVOR OF NOT ALLOWING MORE AS ONE DISTRICT SO I DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW IF I FEEL LIKE OF THEM IS FAIR BECAUSE I THINK YOU MAYBE YOURSELF INTO PROBLEMS WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE THIS ONE LITTLE THING EVEN THOUGH GENERALLY IT IS APPROPRIATE OR WHATEVER SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT NUMBER IS IF THREE OR TWO OR IF IT'S EVEN I DON'T KNOW IT NEEDS TO BE LEFT TO SOMEONE WHOSE DISCRETION BUT I LIKE SOME NUMBER BETWEEN ONE AND ALL. MR. ALBERT THIS ONE IS TOUGH AND I THINK IT SHOULD BE ALL BECAUSE I THINK IF YOU'RE CREATING A DISTRICT THINK IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE INTENT OF THE IS SUCH THAT IT TO PRESERVE LARGE LOTS IT WOULD JUST SAY ALL FISHER GOLTZMAN THINKS SO THINKING ABOUT THE LIST OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK ABOUT IS SOME OF THESE LARGE LOTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY AS ONE ARE IN VERY JUST SLOPED AREAS. I'M NOT GOING TO SAY DEEP SLOPED BECAUSE WE JUST TALKED ABOUT THAT BUT THEY'RE VERY SLOPED. THEY ARE NOT NECESSARILY IN WETLANDS SO THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENCE DIFFERENTIATION THERE. SO I WOULD SAY NOT ALL COULD BE IN WETLANDS BUT THE PIECE COULD I ALSO THINK ABOUT WHAT IS THE WHAT IS THE AREA THAT COULD ACTUALLY BE DEVELOPED IN THESE LARGE LOTS SO IF DO HAVE WETLANDS CAN THEY DEVELOP IN IT AND AT WHAT PERCENTAGE AGE AND THEN DOES THAT HIT THEIR DEVELOPABLE LOCATION? AND I'M THINKING ABOUT THAT LOT THAT WE HAD THE OTHER DAY THAT WAS THAT LONG SKINNY LOT AND THEY DIVIDE IT INTO TWO AND THE GARAGE WAS ACTUALLY IN THE WATERSHED DISTRICT THERE'S A LOT OF THAT WONKINESS. SO AGAIN THE PRACTICALITY OF THIS IS TRICKY BECAUSE HOW HOW MUCH AREA WOULD THEY ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO DEVELOP IT ? I KNOW THAT'S MY $0.02. COMMISSIONER CURRIE WHEN I READ THE REPORT I THINK IT RECOMMENDED TO AND MADE SENSE TO ME SO OKAY WE'LL SUMMARIZE BY GOING DOWN THE LINE I'M GOING TO SAY TWO AND A HALF TO AS MANY AS POSSIBLE TO OKAY THROUGH NOW. OKAY. MOVING ON SO STEP DID A COUPLE OF ANALYZES LOOKING AT WHAT AREA AND WIDTH THE GS ANALYSIS WERE CONDUCTED AT TWO SCALES CITYWIDE AND NEIGHBORHOOD SO A BROADER THAT'S SOMETHING MORE GRANULAR THERE'S DISCLAIMERS THAT YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND I'LL JUST BRIEFLY TOUCH UPON MEDIAN SITE WIDTH IS REQUIREMENT TO BE USED FOR FOUR RS ONE LOTS BUT IT WAS NOT USED IN THE CITYWIDE ANALYSIS AND IT'S NOT AND WHAT WAS ATTEMPTED FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS IS NOT SURVEY LEVEL ACCURATE SO WHEN WE GET APPLICATIONS WOULD EXPECT VERY ACCURATE DRAWINGS SHOWING MEDIUM SITE WIDTH TO ESTABLISH A LOT IS COMPLYING WITH THE HOURS ONE DISTRICT STAFF JUST DOESN'T HAVE THOSE TOOLS AVAILABLE SO WE DID BEST WE COULD FOR THE CITYWIDE ANALYSIS WE USE LIGHT FRONTAGE AS A PROXY FOR MEDIASITE WIDTH BUT THERE'S SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES AND SHORTCOMINGS BY USING WHAT WITH AS A PLACEHOLDER FOR MEDIASITE WITH THAT SPELLED OUT IN THE STAFF REPORT WE DID NOT CONSIDER ALL PHYSICAL SITE LIMITATIONS SUCH AS LIGHT LOCKED CONFIGURATION WHERE THE STRUCTURE IS CURRENTLY LOCATED. THESE LOTS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SO THAT'S THAT'S A DEFICIENCY OF THESE ANALYSIS THAT WE HAD TO CONSIDER CORRELATES REQUIRE HIGHER SUPPLIER LOT RATES BUT THAT DATA IS JUST NOT READILY AVAILABLE AT A CITYWIDE LEVEL WITHIN A CITYWIDE DATABASE SO THAT SKEWS THE THE ANALYSIS SO STARTING WITH THAT CITYWIDE ANALYSIS WE EXAMINED ALL OUR ONE LOTS THERE ARE OVER 20,000 IN THE CITY AND WHEN IT TO THE MINIMUM LOAD AREA FOR THE YEAR ONE DISTRICT WHICH IS PRESENTLY 33,000 SQUARE FEET AND WE SUBJECTED THOSE THOSE ARE ONE LOTS TO A LOT FRONTAGE OF 60 FEET THAT'S THE CURRENT SITE WITH OR ARE ONE LOTS BUT AGAIN THERE'S THERE'S NUANCE AND DIFFERENCES WITHOUT HOW THAT'S BEING MEASURED WE FOUND FIVE 809 LOTS MET THOSE TWO MEASURES HERE'S IS A GEOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION WHERE THOSE ARE LOCATED YOU'RE GOING TO FIND A LOT OF THEM FOLLOW THE THE THE THE CONSERVATION RECORD OR ACTUALLY YOU'LL SEE SOME OVERLAP BETWEEN WHERE THESE LOTS EXIST AND HOW THEY LINE UP WITH THAT CORRIDOR WHERE THE BULK OF THIS LOT THESE LOTS EXIST. SO AGAIN 580 TOTAL OUT OF 1400 OR 1400 LOOKING AT HOW MANY ARE ONE LOTS MEET MINIMUM LOT THAT WAS PROPOSED DURING CONSIDERATION OF THE ONE AMENDMENT SO I'LL JUST BACK UP A LITTLE BIT AND PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT FOR THAT. SO THERE WAS A THERE WAS A LOT AREA THAT WAS SUGGESTED DURING CONSIDERATION OF THE R ONE AMENDMENTS AND THAT WAS TO LOWER THE MINIMUM LOT AREA FROM 33,000 SQUARE FEET TO 22,000 SQUARE FEET THAT'S ROUGHLY HALF AN ACRE AND WAS IT HEALTHY? IT ACTUALLY MATCHES THE LOT AREA OF THE PREVIOUS ITERATION OF THE ONE DISTRICT. YES. WHEN DISTRICT CAME INTO BEING IN 1986 IT WAS DEVELOPED FROM THE S TO DISTRICT I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY WENT FROM TWO TO RS ONE BUT I WASN'T THERE THE TIME. I'M SURE THERE WAS A LOGIC TO IT BUT NONETHELESS IT'S 22,000 SQUARE FEET WAS THE PREVIOUS INCARNATION OF THE LOT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT IN BLOOMINGTON. IT WAS THEN RAISED 33,000 SQUARE FEET AND THEN RENAMED AS ONE SO WE FOUND 1400 LOTS THAT MET THE MINIMUM AREA 22,000 SQUARE FEET AS WELL AS THAT MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE OF 60 FEET. THIS IS AGAIN THIS IS A MAP SHOWING WHERE THESE LOTS ARE LOCATED. AGAIN, A LOT OF THEM ARE CLUSTERED IN THOSE AREAS THAT ARE WITHIN THE CONSERVATION CORRIDORS CORRIDORS. SO WHEN WE GO DOWN TO THE FINER GRAIN ANALYSIS AT THOSE SPECIFIC S ONE AREAS THAT WERE MENTIONED AND OTHER SIDE THOSE FOUR AREAS ARE JUST THE THREE OR I'M SORRY THE TWO LOTS WORKS THERE FROM THIS ANALYSIS WE JUST FOCUSED ON THE GREENBRIER FOREST HAVEN IN TIMBERLAND WE FOUND THAT THERE WERE OH IN FOR THIS PARTICULAR ANALYSIS WE WERE OBVIOUSLY LOOKING FOR REZONING BECAUSE THERE ARE ONE ALREADY SO HOW MANY BE A POTENTIAL CANDIDATES OR SUBDIVISION OR INFILL DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE THE THE CURRENT MINIMUM LOT AREA STANDARD WHICH IF YOU IN ORDER TO SPLIT IT WOULD HAVE BE DOUBLED THAT'S A 66,000 SQUARE FEET WE FOUND ONLY TWO LOTS THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY BE WELL THIS IS THIS IS THAT'S ANALYSIS BUT AGAIN A MORE FINE GRAINED ANALYSIS YIELD DIFFERENT RESULTS WHEN WE COMPARE THOSE LOTS TO THE 22,000 SQUARE MINIMUM LAYER OF 22,000 SQUARE FEET THAT STANDARD THAT WAS PROPOSED LAST YEAR DURING CONSIDERATION OF OUR ONE AMENDMENTS WE FOUND TEN LOTS. SO AGAIN TO LOWER FROM 33000 TO 22000 SQUARE FEET YOU FIND TEN LOTS THAT MIGHT BE SUBDIVIDED AGAIN THERE'S A LOT OF CRITERIA SATISFY IN ORDER TO DO THAT WE ALSO REVIEWED THESE THESE RESULTS AGAINST THE TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES ARE ZONED AS WIDE AND FOR THOSE THAT WERE ABLE TO BE SUBDIVIDED ALL COUNTING FOR A AN ASSESSED VALUE OF 6100 OR $600,000 OR LESS REALLY FOUND ONE LOT AND WE USE 600,000 DOLLARS MEAN AGAIN THIS IS STAFF'S OPINION ABOUT WHAT WOULD MAKE FINANCIAL SENSE TO MAYBE CONSIDER SPLITTING A LOT AS THAT'S UP FOR DISCUSSION IF THAT WAS THE PER CORRECT DOLLAR FIGURE BUT THAT'S WHAT WE WENT OFF OF AND REALLY FOUND THAT ONE LOT AGAIN IT'S BEEN THE SAME LOT ACTUALLY IN ALL THE ANALYSIS SO FAR AND THEN WHEN WE AGAIN GO BACK THAT 22,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT AREA THERE ARE 30 THERE ARE THREE LOTS THAT ARE POTENTIALLY SUBDIVIDED ALL SO ONE IN EACH ONE AREA I'LL CONTINUE ON SO STAFF ALSO WANTED TO SEE WHAT OUR PEERS WERE DOING AND OTHER SUBURBAN COMMUNITIES AND SO WE'VE LOOKED AT THE LARGE LOTS SOME OF THE THE AREA STANDARDS AND 10/10 STATEMENTS OF LARGE LOTS IN OUR PEER COMMUNITIES WE LOOKED AT EIGHT AND SPECIFICALLY AND YOU'LL SEE A TABLE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SLIDE SHOWING THE RESULTS OF THAT ANALYSIS THE MEDIAN VALUE OF THE MINIMUM LOT AREAS FOR ALL THE LARGE LOT AREAS WITHIN THESE COMMUNITIES WAS 30,000 SQUARE FEET. SO WE'RE KIND OF HITTING THAT ALREADY AT 33,000 SQUARE FEET BUT THEN WE ALSO COMPARED WHAT THE MINIMAL LOT AREA FOR THE LARGE LIGHT DISTRICT COMPARED TO THE SMALLEST SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT WITHIN THOSE COMMUNITIES. AND WE THERE'S A RATIO OF COMPARING THE MINIMUM LOT AREA FOR BOTH DISTRICTS AND THAT'S ON THE RIGHT HAND OF THIS OF THIS TABLE AND THAT THAT DATA KIND OF YIELDS DIFFERENT RATIOS FROM 1.5 ALL THE WAY UP TO 4.6. WE'RE I BELIEVE WE'RE IN THE I THINK WE'RE AROUND 4.3 BLOOMINGTON'S CURRENTLY 4.3 SO AGAIN WE'RE KIND OF IN LINE WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES WITH OUR PEERS OR, OTHER COMMUNITIES SO SOME DISCUSSION POINTS TAKING ALL THAT INFORMATION THAT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU IS THE CURRENT MINIMUM LOT AREA 33,000 SQUARE FEET IN THE ONE DISTRICT APPROPRIATE FOR A LARGE LIGHT DISTRICT SHOULD IT BE ADJUSTED TO 22,000 SQUARE FEET? THAT'S AGAIN APPROXIMATELY HALF AN ACRE SHOULD BE LOWERED DOWN TO 20,000 SQUARE FEET KNOWING WHAT THE EFFECT IT WOULD HAVE ON OTHER PROPERTIES ENTERING THE YEAR ONE DISTRICT AND THE SUBDIVIDED OF CURRENT HOURS ONE LOTS IS THERE A DIFFERENT AREA REQUIREMENT THAT YOU WOULD LIKE STAFF TO CONSIDER AND STUDY FURTHER SO JUST LEAVE THAT UP TO YOU GENERAL DISCUSSION I'LL START KIND OF ALREADY SAID IT BUT DON'T FEEL THE NEED TO REDUCE TO 20,000 SQUARE FEET FOR ONE I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH US HAVING A ZONE THAT HAS LARGER LOTS IT DIVERSIFIES OUR HOUSING STOCK IF WE WANT TO HAVE BIG BEAUTIFUL HOMES SOMEWHERE I'M FINE WITH IT. THIS IS A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF OUR LOT SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 1/10 OF A PERCENT OR SOMETHING OF OUR THE LOTS THIS IS IT'S A VERY SMALL PORTION. I DON'T SEE IT AS AN EQUITY PROBLEM. AND SECONDLY IT'S AGAIN JUST THE IMPRACTICALITY OF THIS MAKING ANY DIFFERENCE IF WE REDUCE TO 20,000 SQUARE FEET MAYBE WE'LL SEE A COUPLE OF REDEVELOPMENTS WITH LOTS SPLITTING BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE AFFORDABLE IF THE POINT IF THE POINT IS TO CREATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THIS ISN'T IT SO THAT'S WHERE I'M AT MR. HILBERT PICK YOUR CHAIR COMPLETELY AGREE I THINK THE AREA OF 33,000 SQUARE FEET IS APPROPRIATE. COMMISSIONER GROSSMAN DITTO COMMISSIONER CURRY I'M JUST GOING TO SAY I THINK 20,000 SQUARE FEET IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE IT'S THE PROPORTIONATE REDUCTION FROM OUR ONE ALSO HAD TO KEEP IT IN LINE WITH OUR ONE VERY WELL OKAY SO MOVING ON MEDIAN LUDWIG WELL FIRST I WILL INTRODUCE ME TO A LOT WITH BEFORE WE GET INTO THE DISCUSSION POINT SO AS THEY DID IN THAT SECOND BULLET SITE WITH FOR ALL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN OUR AS ONE IN OUR ONE EIGHT HAS APPROVED OR MODIFIED BY THE CITY AFTER A CERTAIN DATE AUGUST 31ST 2006 THAT HAS TO MEET OR EXCEED PERCENT OF THE MEDIAN SITE WITH THE EXISTING WAS WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY LOCATED WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION THIS THE ISSUES THAT WERE NOTED AT THE TIME OF THIS I THINK IT WAS AROUND 2000 WAS A 24 THAT EARLY ON PUT IT THAT WAY SO THIS STANDARD WAS INTRODUCED BECAUSE THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT AT LOT SPLIT AND THERE WAS A LAWSUIT BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF THE THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT WAS TRYING TO SPLIT HIS BROUGHT AGAINST THE CITY BECAUSE THE CITY TODAY A LOT SPLIT CITY LOST AND IN RESPONSE TO THAT ORDERED STAFF TO CREATE A WAY TO MEASURE MEDIANS OR TO A TO MEASURE LIKE WITH THAT WAS MORE CONTEXTUAL THAT TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION CONTEXT HOWEVER SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE KNOWN AT THE ESTABLISHMENT THAT IT LOWERED VALUES OF THE OR COULD LOWER THE VALUES OF PROPERTY THAT WERE SUBDIVIDED ALL WITHOUT THE MEDIAN BUT WITH STANDARD IT WOULD RESULT IN FEWER SUBDIVISION OPPORTUNITIES AND FEWER HOMES WOULD BE CREATED LOTS WORK MOST NEED TO BE LARGER TO BE SUBDIVIDE HALL THEREFORE MORE EXPENSIVE AND IT WOULD JUST INCREASE REGULATORY COMPLEXITY ON THE PART OF STAFF WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PROVIDE VERY PROMPT SERVICE TO CUSTOMERS THAT WERE THAT WERE INTERESTED OR RESIDENTS THAT WERE INTERESTED IN SPLITTING PROPERTY. SO IN LIGHT OF THAT IS THE SITE WITH AN APPROPRIATE STANDARD TO MAINTAIN FOR ESTABLISHING NEW ASK ONE LOTS DISCUSSION MR. CURRY I THINK YOU CAN JUST LEAVE IT I DON'T THINK ANYTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE . MR. GOLDMAN I AGREE AND I AM CONCERNED IF WE TAKE IT, YOU KNOW, AS IT PUT IN PLACE BECAUSE OF THAT SITUATION AND THAT LAWSUIT, RIGHT SO IT DOESN'T I DON'T THINK REMOVING IT IT SEEMS PRUDENT ESPECIALLY IF WE DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING WITHIN THE RS ONE DISTRICT. I AGREE WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER GOLTZMAN. WE'VE SEEN WITHOUT NAMING ANYTHING SPECIFIC BUT HOW ONE VERY SMALL THING CAN DERAIL AN ENTIRE EVENING AND GET IN THE WAY OF DOING REAL I WOULD SAY REAL GETTING IN THE WAY OF DOING OTHER CITY BUSINESS FOR SOMETHING THAT COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED. AND SO I'M IN FAVOR OF JUST LEAVING IT THE WAY IT IS. I DON'T WANT TO SEE EVEN ONE OF THESE SUPER CONTENTIOUS THINGS WHERE WE GET ANGRY NEIGHBORS AND PEOPLE JUST DON'T LIKE EACH OTHER AND THEN YOU GET NEIGHBORS THAT NEVER LIKE EACH OTHER BECAUSE THEY'VE THEY'VE DONE THIS AND . I THINK THIS IS A WAY TO JUST PREVENT THAT KEEP AS IT IS AND CAN ASK MICHEL BETTER I'LL MOVE ON. OKAY MOVING ON. OKAY THANK YOU CHAIR. UM SO MOVING TO THE STEEP SECTION OF THE INTERNET STATEMENT FOR RS ONE DISTRICTS LOTS IN THE R ONE OR ONE EIGHT OR S ONE DISTRICTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE STEEP STANDARD. UM THE R CITY CODE IT DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFY SLOPES OF 12% OR GREATER AS STEEP SLOPES BUT IT IS IT IS IMPLIED BY THE SECTION OF CODE IS PRESENTED SO THIS IS THIS IS AN INTERPRETATION STAFF THAT SLOPES AT 12% OR GREATER ARE CONSIDERED STEEP. OH YEAH THIS MAP SHOWS WHICH LOTS ARE WHICH ARE ONE LOTS ARE HAVE AN AVERAGE THEIR PROPERTY OF 4% OR GREATER SO WHICH ONES QUALIFIES STEEP SO AGAIN JUST A GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF THOSE LOTS AND WITH THAT IN MIND OUR STEEP SLOPES AN APPROPRIATE CHARACTERISTIC BY WHICH TO ASSESS THE LOTS CANDIDACY FOR REVIEW ARE R AS ONE DISTRICT THANK YOU WHERE I'M AT IS I FEEL THE WAY AS I DID EARLIER I WORRY THAT FOR NEIGHBORS ON ONE SIDE OF 12% AND FOUR NEIGHBORS OR NEIGHBORS THE OTHER SIDE AND THERE JUST HAPPENS TO BE ONE KIND OF FLATTISH LOT THAT'S A 10% AND THEN WE'VE GOT A WEIRD THING WHERE THERE'S A WEIRD PARCEL THAT CAN'T BE REASONED SO I'M GOING TO SAY NO ON, THIS MR. CURRY I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT . COMMISSIONER GOLTZMAN AGREE. OKAY. OKAY. MR. WILSON YES. CHAIR BIT OF CLARIFICATION. THE STEEP SLOPES ALREADY ARE OF BLOCKS THAT FOREST OF LOTS WITHIN THE URBAN DISTRICT. SO IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT'S NOT AN APPROPRIATE CHARACTERISTIC, ARE YOU ASKING STAFF TO THEN THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER REMOVING THAT FROM CONSIDERATION OF FOREST WHEN LOTS GO BACK TO IF YOU DON'T MIND I WILL PLEASE TO THE CURRENT INTENSITY OF INQUIRY REALLY GOING UP OKAY SO AGAIN ON THE LEFT PROVIDE LOCATIONS LARGE LARGE SINGLE FAMILY SETTLEMENTS IN AREAS OF STEEP SLOPES SO WE ARE PROVIDING SOME CLARITY BE CLARITY WHAT A STEEP IS BY REFERENCING THE SECTION THAT'S WHAT THE DRAFT DRAFTED SAID DRAFT INTENDS STATEMENT SHOWS WE'RE JUST PROVIDING SOME OF THAT CLARITY THE IF YOU DON'T MIND TO ADDRESS THE SCENARIO YOU BROUGHT UP ABOUT LOTS ABUTTING A FAIRLY FLAT THE THERE ARE THE REZONING TO RIGHT ONE WOULD BE IT WOULDN'T HAVE NOT ALL LOTS WOULD HAVE TO SATISFY I MEAN DEPENDING ON HOW THE THREE ZONING IS BROUGHT FORTH TO THE CITY NOT ALL LOTS WOULD HAVE TO SATISFY ALL THE CHARACTERISTICS AGAIN THERE IS THERE'S MAYBE A A THRESHOLD THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO GET INPUT ON AS WELL IS YOU KNOW WHAT'S CONSIDERED A A A GOOD AMOUNT OF THE A LOT IS BEING CONSIDERED FOR REZONING TO THIS PART TO A PARTICULAR DISTRICT BECAUSE IDEALLY DISTRICTS SHOULD BE CONTIGUOUS . SO THAT MEANS SOME LOTS MAYBE GET CAUGHT UP IN OR MAYBE GET CAUGHT IN THE IN THE CONSIDERATION FOR REZONING SO NOT ALL LOTS WILL HAVE THESE CHARACTERISTICS A MAJORITY WILL PRESENTLY ARE THERE ARE SOME ARE ONE AREAS WHERE NOT ALL LOTS WITHIN THE ARE AS ONE AREA EVEN MEET THE MINIMUM LOT AREA SO IS SOME SOME NUANCE TO THIS IT'S JUST TRYING TO ESTABLISH A DISTRICT AND IT'S UP TO THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY THAT NOT ALL THAT'S NEEDED NECESSARILY SATISFY CRITERIA BUT WE WANT TO OFFER THIS TO HOW DO WE ASSESS THE MAJORITY OR WHAT WHATEVER THRESHOLD THAT THE CITY DECIDES IS IS WORTH CONSIDERING FOR A REZONING. SO I WANT TO THROW THAT IN THERE AND MAYBE THAT WOULD ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION TO THIS THIS PROMPT. YES. FOR DISCUSSION. THANK YOU FOR THAT ADDITIONAL AND AS YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT IT, YOU HAD SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR TO THAT IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THAT'S MY FAULT FOR VICTORY CREATING FOR FORGETTING THAT. SO THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION THAT DOES CHANGE MY MIND THAT DOES CHANGE MY MIND AND IN THE SPIRIT LIMITING CREATION OF NEW RS1 IN DISTRICTS I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE THEN OF THIS 12% THING. COMMISSIONER ALBERT AGREED COMMISSIONER GOLDMAN AS LONG AS IT'S WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT IT BEING A CHARACTERISTIC ONE OF PLUS ANOTHER I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE BASED ON WHAT WE WERE JUST. COMMISSIONER CURRY YEAH, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION MR. WILSON OF YOU'RE WELCOME. CHAIR MEMBERS THANK YOU. MOVING OH I'M SORRY. SO THIS ANALYSIS ALSO LOOKED I MEAN IT LOOKED AT THE 33,000 SQUARE FEET AS WELL AS THE 22,000 SQUARE FEET FOR WHICH PARCELS HAVE AN AVERAGE THAT WOULD CONSIDER THEM TO HAVE A STEEP. SO THAT'S OUR PARCELS BUT NONETHELESS LET'S KEEP ON GOING ON TO CORRIDORS THOSE ARE INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT ARE AS ONE STATEMENT AS I MENTIONED BEFORE BASED ON THE FEEDBACK FROM ENGAGEMENT DURING CONSIDERATION OF THE DRAFT AMENDMENTS LAST YEAR THAT THE AREA OF THE CONSERVATION CORRIDORS IS EXTENSIVE, THE WEST SIDE THAT IT COVERS A LOT IT'S THERE IS IT'S FAIRLY WELL-DEVELOPED IN MANY PARTS IT INCLUDES A LOT OF LAND USE AS A PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL A LOT OF THE AREA WHERE ARE RIGHT NOW IS WITHIN THE CONSERVATION CORRIDOR AND SOMETHING THAT'S THAT WANTED TO WANTED TO EMPHASIZE THAT CONSERVATION CORRIDORS WERE NOT REALLY MEANT AS REGULATORY TOOL THEY'RE INFORMATIONAL FOR CITIES IN ORDER TO DEVELOP PLANS FOR PRIORITIZING NATURAL RESOURCE RESTORATION RESTORATION OR PROTECTION EFFORTS SO THIS WAS ONE WAY TO DO THAT STAFF THOUGHT OF SATISFYING THAT REQUEST FOR RESIDENCE LAST YEAR BUT WE BOTH STAFF DOES HAVE RESERVATIONS ABOUT INCLUDING IT AS A CRITERION . I ALREADY MENTIONED THE FIRST TWO BULLETS THE THIRD BULLET ON THIS THE SLIDE I MENTIONED IS A TOPIC A REGULATORY TOOL TO PROTECT CONSERVATION AREAS IDENTIFIED IN THE CONSERVATION BOARD OR BOUNDARIES COULD HAVE LAND USE IMPLICATIONS FOR A WIDER SCALE AND BASE OF PROPERTIES THAT MAY BE OH SORRY AND I MISSPOKE THIS STATEMENT BUT IT MAY BE COUNTER TO WHAT'S INTENDED SO THAT'S SOMETHING CONSIDER BUT NONETHELESS THE CONSERVATION CORRIDOR DOES SPEAK TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION CONCERNS THAT RESIDENTS EXPRESSED LAST YEAR. SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF INCLUDING LOCATION WITHIN A CONSERVATION TO BE A CHARACTERISTIC OF OURS WHEN LOS. MR. SAMUELSON WITH THIS FOLLOWS THE SAME LOGIC WHERE A NEIGHBORHOOD LET'S JUST SAY THEY'RE ON THE EDGE OF THIS CONSERVATION CORRIDOR AND THE FINAL TWO PROPERTIES ARE NOT TECHNICALLY IN THE CONSERVATION CORRIDOR WITH THIS HAVE AN ALLOWANCE WHERE THEY CAN BE GROUPED WITH THEIR NEIGHBORING LOTS OR IS THIS A HARD LINE OF YOU HAVE TO BE IN THE CONSERVATION QUARTER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR RS ONE SHARE THE THE LINES ARE A LITTLE I BELIEVE A LITTLE FUZZY THEY COULD BE IT WOULDN'T PRECLUDE LOTS THAT WERE OUTSIDE AS LIKE AGAIN AS FAR AS STAFF IS CONCERNED THIS IS ULTIMATELY A CITY DECISION BUT STAFF WOULD CONSIDER THAT DISQUALIFYING FOR CONSIDERING TWO REZONING. ALL RIGHT THANK YOU THOUGHTS COMMISSIONER CURRY THANK YOU CHAIR I THINK IT'S PROBABLY UNNECESSARY TO ADD THIS THAT IT'S SO SUBJECTIVE THAT IT MIGHT ACTUALLY LIKE WEAKEN THE DEFINITION OF RS SO I DON'T THINK IT'S NEEDED. OKAY MR. GROSSMAN I AGREE IT'S NOT NEEDED. I WAS KIND OF 5050 I WISH IT AND THAT'S HOW I FEEL TOO CLARIFYING 5050 5050. OKAY OKAY OKAY QUICK QUESTION ME POLICE COMMISSIONER GOLDMAN ARE ALL OF THE CURRENT RS ONE LOTS AND CONSERVATION CORRIDOR CHAIR COMMISSIONER NO NOT ALL THE RS ONE LOTS ARE WITHIN THE CONSERVATION CORRIDOR DON'T ALSO HAVE A MAP THAT'S THAT'S OKAY YOU KNOW I IF I'M OPERATING FROM MEMORY BUT I BELIEVE IT'S PLAYED IN THOSE THE TWO LOTS ALONG NORMANDALE BOULEVARD OR OUTSIDE CONSERVATION CORRIDOR. RIGHT THANK YOU. OKAY. MOVING ON. OH, WELL, I'M SORRY, BUT YOU CAN SEE RIGHT HERE WHERE IT IS. OH, THAT I SO SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE INCLUDED GREENBRIER I FORGOT INCLUDED THIS UH EGG ON MY FACE ANYWAYS. YES. SO THIS IS THE THE BOUNDARY OF THE CONSERVATION CORRIDOR AND THESE LITTLE RED OUTLINES ARE SHOWING THE CURRENT RS AREAS AND WHERE THEY ARE WITH RESPECT TO THAT CORRIDOR THEY DO DOES SHOW THAT I MEAN THE FOREST HAVEN AREA IS ENTIRELY WITHIN THE CORRIDOR ACTUALLY THAT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT'S ENTIRELY WITHIN THE CONSERVATION. SO THAT'S FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AGAIN COMPARING THOSE TWO DIFFERENT MINIMUM LOT AREAS AND HOW THEY SORRY HOW THEY STACK UP WITH RESPECT THE THEIR LOCATION WITHIN THE CONSERVATION OR THEIR LOCATION WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSERVATION CORRIDOR. SO MR. SAMUELSON PERHAPS THIS WAS COVERED IN OUR LAST ITEM AND YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE THE ANSWER AND IF YOU DON'T THAT'S OKAY. CAN YOU REMIND ME HOW THESE CONSERVATION CORRIDORS ARE ESTABLISHED. IS IT BY BODY CHAIR YEAH. THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL WITH YOUR BACKGROUND ON THESE DO YOU SUSPECT THEY COULD CHANGE OVER TIME OR? ARE THEY THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN IN PLACE SINCE, YOU KNOW, LEGACY CHAIR I MEAN YEAH I AM UNABLE TO SAY OKAY I'M NOT SURE IF MY COLLEAGUES IN ATTENDANCE HAVE ANY MORE INFORMATION THAN I DO ON THAT. I THEY ARE UPDATED BUT I DO KNOW THAT IT STARTS OUT WITH THE DNR THAT IT GOES TO OTHER OTHER REVIEW THAT HAD TO REFINE THE BOUNDARIES JUST WITH MORE LOCAL KNOWLEDGE AND THAT'S THAT BACK INTO THE SHAPE OF THESE CONSERVATION CORRIDORS I THAT'S THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME THANK YOU MAJOR FOR MOVING ON SO STAFF ALSO LOOK I MEAN WHEN WE'RE DOING THESE REVIEWS OF DISTRICTS IT'S A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO ALSO REVIEW THE THE USES THAT ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT YOU KNOW EITHER THEY'RE PERMITTED OR OR SOME OTHER FORM OF ALLOWANCE BUT NONETHELESS STAFF DID EXAMINE THE USE TABLE FOR THE RS ONE DISTRICT AND WE ARE PROPOSING TO ADDITIONS TO THE DISTRICT. WE'RE PROPOSING THAT TO DWELLINGS IN GROUPINGS THAT YOU VALUE DWELLINGS BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE RS ONE DISTRICT SOME REASON BEHIND THAT IS THAT IT DOES ADVANCE THE CITY'S GOAL TO ADD MORE HOUSING AND IT COULD ENCOURAGE MORE HOUSING DIVERSITY. I MEAN I UNDERSTAND THAT THE PROBABILITY OF THAT OF THAT OCCURRING IS LOW BUT. NONETHELESS IT DOES OFFER THAT OPTION SO MAYBE NO HARM NONETHELESS IF IF IT'S ALREADY IF WOULD BE ALLOWED IF IT WOULD BRING THE RS ONE DISTRICT INTO THE REGULATORY ALIGNMENT THE R ONE DISTRICT AND SAYING THAT WE ALLOWED TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS BOTH DISTRICTS AND WE ALSO WE CURRENTLY ALLOW GROUPINGS OF TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS WHICH ARE WITHIN OUR ONE. SO AGAIN CREATING THAT ALIGNMENT BETWEEN BETWEEN THE TWO RS ONE LOTS ARE GUIDED LOW DENSITY IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TWO FAMILIES DWELLINGS ARE COMPATIBLE WITH LOW DENSITY, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS SO IT WOULD ALSO BE IN COMPLIANCE OR IT WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH WHAT OUR LAND USE GUIDANCE CURRENTLY TELLS US AND IT'S NOT NECESSARILY INCONSISTENT WITH OURS. ONE OF THE TWO FAMILY LINES ARE INCONSISTENT WITH OUR OURS. ONE YOU CAN DESIGN TO FAMILY TO FAMILY DWELLINGS TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND TO PROTECT NATURAL RESOURCES. SO WE DIDN'T SEE THAT CONFLICT THERE. AND SO TO YOUR FAMILY IT SEEMS LIKE A GOOD FIT FOR THE ONE DISTRICT AND. WE'RE ALSO PROPOSING THE REMOVAL OF A FEW USES OF THESE ARE ALL INSTITUTIONALLY RELATED. THE R IS ONE WHEN IT WAS CONCEIVED IT WAS NOT CONCEIVED AN AS A DISTRICT TO HOUSE INSTITUTIONAL USES LIKE SCHOOLS AND WHATNOT THAT ARE DEFINED INSTITUTIONAL SO WE ARE REMOVING THESE IT'S JUST A DISCREPANCY THAT WE FOUND WITHIN THE USE TABLE SO IT'S IT'S REALLY BRINGING THE USES IN SPIRIT WITH THE URSULINE DISTRICT AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY CONCEIVED SO I'M SORRY I SHOULD STOP THERE. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSIONS ABOUT USES WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING? I, I SHOULD HAVE HAD THAT PROMPT ON THE SLIDE BUT I APOLOGIZE SO THERE'S ANY IF YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT PLEASE LET ME KNOW. OKAY. MR. MACGREGOR? YES? I'M KICKED IN . THING TO THINK ABOUT WITH TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS WE OFTEN THINK OF THEM AS NEW CONSTRUCTION BUT THEY COULD BE CONVERSIONS AS WELL. IMAGINE A LARGE LOT GETS CONVERTED FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO TWO FAMILY WITHOUT ANY YOU KNOW, CHANGES ON THE GROUND ALL INTERNAL RETROFIT SO SOMETHING CONSIDER THERE THANK YOU MR. RIMMER. I PREVIOUSLY HAVE NOT BEEN FAMILIAR WITH THE IDEA OF GROUPING OF TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS. CAN YOU JUST HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS? CHAIR YES I THE WAY IT'S THAT STAFF UNDERSTANDS OR THAT HAS STAFF IS CONCEIVED IT IS JUST I MEAN I THINK IT'S PRETTY EXPLICIT IN THE IN THE PHRASE ITSELF IS GROUPING OF TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS SO ASSEMBLAGE OF TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS ON ONE LOT I DON'T KNOW THOSE STANDARDS I'M SORRY THAT USES CONDITIONAL USE ALREADY WITHIN OUR ONE WE ARE BECAUSE OF THE INCREASED IMPACTS TO THE THE THE THE SURROUNDING AREA SO IT IS HELD AS A CONDITIONAL USE AND CONDITIONS ARE APPLIED THAT USE THAT IF IT WERE TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN R ONE AND THAT SAME CONSIDERATION WOULD BROUGHT TO OUR AS ONE KNOWING THAT IF YOU HAD A GROUPING OF TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS AGAIN AN ASSEMBLAGE ALL ON ONE LOT THAT WOULD BE MULTIPLE DWELLINGS ARE MULTIPLE UNITS BUT GROUPED BY TWO WE WE KNOW THAT THE IMPACTS WOULD BE GREATER THAT OTHERWISE AND SO WE WOULD STILL CONSIDER THAT WE WOULD STILL WE ARE PROPOSING THAT TO BE A CONDITIONAL USE WITHIN OUR AS ONE PLAN YOU MIGHT HAVE TO PROVIDE SOME MORE CLARITY ON THE GROUP IT'S UP TO TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS SO PUTTING IT SIMPLY IT'S TWO DUPLEXES. CHAIR YES. MR. JOHNSON YEAH. CHAIR COOKED IN THANKS TOM JUST TO PROVIDE A LITTLE CLARITY ON THAT ONE AND RECOGNIZING THE LATE HOUR I'LL TRY AND BE SUCCINCT BUT THE THE WAY IT WAS SET UP ORIGINALLY IS THAT A GROUPING IS CONSTITUTED ONE THERE'S MORE THAN ONE TWO FAMILY DWELLING WITHIN 500 FEET AS MEASURED ALONG BLACK FACES AND THAT PREVIOUSLY WAS ONLY ALLOWED THROUGH THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED DEMOLITION AND AS PART OF THE SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY ZONING UPDATES LAST MAY THAT WAS TO A CONDITIONAL USE BE ABLE TO BE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT TO AN APPEAL SO LOWERED THE APPROVAL PROCESS TO GET THAT BUT IT'S DUE TO FAMILY DWELLINGS ON ONE LOT IT IS THEY HAVE TO BE ON SEPARATE AND DISTINCT LOTS BUT THEY'RE WITHIN 500 FEET OF EACH OTHER AS MEASURED ALONG IN BLACKFACE. SO TO CLARIFY ON THAT ONE YOU CAN'T HAVE TWO DUPLEXES ON ONE LOT. THAT'D BE A TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT. YEAH GREAT. OKAY. THANK YOU TO A DIFFERENT THANK YOU FOR THEIR CLARIFICATION. THAT'S MR. CURRY. I MEAN AGAIN I DON'T THINK I HONESTLY I JUST DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SEE DUPLEX DEVELOPMENTS DONE IN RS1 ONE LOTS BECAUSE OF THE COST OF THE LOT. SO WHILE I WOULD I GUESS WE CAN I COULD SUPPORT THE UPDATE I JUST DON'T SEE IT HAPPENING AT 33,000 SQUARE FEET FOR SURE GO TO I WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT HOWEVER YOU KNOW I THINK PLANNING MANAGER GUARD MADE A GOOD POINT THESE HOMES CAN BE RELATIVELY LARGE IN SQUARE FOOTAGE HAVING A MOTHER IN LAW APARTMENT FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM OR IN A TO YOU FOR MULTI-GENERATIONAL FAMILIES THAT WOULD BY OPENING UP TO FAMILY GROUP OR TO FAMILY THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THAT TO HAPPEN I'M I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF ALLOWING THEM TO HAVE ADDITIONAL HOUSING WITHIN THE STRUCTURE EXISTS TODAY YOU KNOW SUPPORTIVE OF IT TOO AGAIN WHEN I DROVE THROUGH THIS THIS AFTERNOON I FOUND IT TO BE FAIRLY DENSE AND I THINK HAVING YOU KNOW SOME PRETTY DARN LARGE HOUSES A LOT OF CASES IN A DUPLEX IS GOING TO BE THE SAME SIZE AS THAT. AND YOU KNOW, PERHAPS THERE'S SOME STEREOTYPES YOUR MIND OF WHAT A DUPLEX LOOKS LIKE BUT IN THIS IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THESE NEIGHBORHOODS IF SOMEBODY IS REALLY GOING TO GO BUILD A DUPLEX, IT'S GOING TO BE A DING NICE ONE, NICE FINISHES. IT'S GOING TO BE A HIGH QUALITY THING AND IT'S GOING TO BE THE SAME SIZE AS ONE OF THESE GIANT HOUSES. IT'S JUST GOING TO HAVE TWO DOORS AND SO I'M FINE WITH ALLOWING DUPLEXES DUPLEXES ANY FURTHER THOUGHTS, SEEING NONE . OKAY. YOU SHARE ONE OF ONE ADDITIONAL THOUGHT, COMMISSIONER GOOLSBEE SO I WAS ACTUALLY ON TO THE SECOND BULLET POINT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT. I AM IN SUPPORT OF REMOVING THOSE BULLET POINTS BECAUSE THEY DON'T MAKE ANY SENSE OR ARE AS I AGREE WITH THAT. AGREED. AGREED. OKAY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER GOLDMAN. OKAY. THANK YOU. SURE. I WILL MOVE ON THE NEXT CHARACTERISTIC OR THE NEXT SUBJECT TO DISCUSS IS THE USE OF PREVAILING SETBACKS WITHIN YOUR ONE DISTRICT. IT APPLIES TO ALL NEW SINGLE FAMILY TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS WITHIN OUR ONE AND I THINK CURRENTLY OURS ONE DOESN'T ALLOW TO FAMILY DWELLINGS THE PREVAILING SETBACK STANDARD BASICALLY MEANS THAT STRUCTURES MUST BE CREATE SETBACK ALONG THE STREET IF A NEW DWELLING DIRECTLY ABUTS ONE OR MORE SINGLE FAMILY LINES THAT WERE AN EXISTENCE PRIOR TO OR IN EXISTENCE ON OCTOBER SEVEN, 1974 I'M NOT SURE WHAT FORM BUT SORRY ABOUT THAT. I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE BUT ESSENTIALLY THE AVERAGE MINIMUM OF EACH SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON A DIRECTLY ABUTTING SITE ALONG THE SAME STREET SEGMENTS AND AT THE SAME BLOCK BASE THAT'S WHAT THE PREVAILING SETBACK APPLIES TO HERE A ILLUSTRATION OF HOW THAT'S DETERMINED SO YOU CAN SEE HOW AGAIN THE THE LAW OF THE MIDDLE THE SETBACK IS INFLUENCED BY THE PLOTS TO EITHER SIDE OR TO BOTH SIDES OF IT. SO IT NEEDS TO CONSIDER THAT WHEN IT'S WELL IN THIS CASE IT'S IN ADDITION SO WHERE THAT FRONT SETBACK IS THE PREVAILING SETBACK THAT IS SOME OBSERVATIONS ABOUT PREVAILING SETBACK THAT STAFF WOULD LIKE TO NOTE AND BRING UP A BEFORE DISCUSSING ITS INCLUSION IS JUST TO NOTE IT DOES IMPOSE COSTS ON THE PROPERTY OWNER AND IT PUT NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE LOT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IT THAT'S USUALLY IN THE FORM OF A LONGER DRIVEWAY SO IF THE HOMEOWNER IS SET FURTHER BACK THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A LONGER DRIVEWAY OTHERWISE AND THAT'S AN INCREASED COST FOR THAT HOMEOWNER OR THAT PROPERTY OWNER AND THAT'S MORE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE THEY'RE PUTTING ON THE ON THE LOT ITSELF. SO DISTURBING THE GROUND BY INSTALLING LIGHTER LONGER DRIVEWAY AND AND THEN THAT COMES WITH ACTUAL FINANCIAL COSTS TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AND MORE FINANCIAL COSTS WITH THE SURVEY THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO GET THE THE SETBACKS OF ABUTTING LAWN SOMETHING TO CONSIDER AND AGAIN SIMILAR TO MEDIASITE WITH IT JUST INCREASES THE REGULAR REGULATORY COMPLEXITY OF YEAR ONE DISTRICT AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER IF IT'S ACTUALLY A WORTHWHILE STANDARD TO MAINTAIN SO THEY'LL LEAVE THAT UP TO YOU IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE MAINTAINED DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER CORY I THINK YOU LEAVE IT I THINK REMOVING THIS SETBACK JUST PROVIDES OPPORTUNITY TO JUST FULLY DEVELOP I THINK MORE OF , YOU KNOW, MORE OF A LARGE PROPERTY AND JUST TEAR DOWN A BUNCH OF TREES IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS. I TOO AM IN FAVOR OF LEAVING IT. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE CURRENT COMMISSIONER GOLTZMAN SO I THINK ABOUT THE LAST FIVE AND A HALF YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION AND THIS TOPIC HAS COME UP TWICE MAYBE I'M NOT SURE I CAN'T REMEMBER IF THEY WERE IN THE RS ONE DISTRICT I THINK ONE OF THEM WAS BUT I'M IN FAVOR OF JUST LEAVING COMMISSIONER ALBRECHT I THINK YOU ARE ALSO AGREE ABOUT LEAVING IT. OKAY. OKAY BRETT THANK YOU. CHAIR OF THE RON BOOK SO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A ZONING DISTRICT AND THERE AND WE ARE RESPONDING TO SOME RESIDENTS INTEREST IN REZONING THEIR PROPERTY THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD TO AS ONE AND SO THAT'S WHAT PROMPTED THIS THIS STUDY OF THIS LINE BUT AS FAR AS STAFF IS CONCERNED WE ARE NOT RECOMMENDING ANY WHILE OUR WIDE SCALE PROACTIVE CITY INITIATED REZONINGS THROUGH THIS EFFORT WE ARE JUST WE ARE PROPOSING SO BUT WE'RE LOOKING WE'RE PROVIDING ANALYSIS OF WHAT CURRENTLY EXISTS AND RECOMMENDING OR PROVIDING SOME OPTIONAL CHANGES TO IT BUT WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING ANY REZONING THOSE REZONINGS CAN OCCUR PRIVATELY OR PUBLICLY INITIATED SO THAT'S AN OPTION OUTSIDE OF THIS OUTSIDE OF THIS PROJECT HOWEVER WHEN WE DO WHEN WE DO HAVE APPLICATIONS BEFORE US TO CONSIDER REZONING, WE ARE RECOMMENDING FIVE CRITERIA THAT HAS TO BE SATISFIED WHEN EVALUATING THOSE REQUESTS. THE NUMBER ONE WOULD BE THE CONSISTENCY WITH THE RIGHT ONE INTENT IS THE LOT OR THE LOTS BEING CONSIDERED FOR REZONING ARE THEY DO THEY DO THEY FALL IN LINE WITH THE CRITERIA WITHIN THE INTENT THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING TONIGHT IS THERE WHAT'S THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF CONFORMITY WITH THE ONES FIRST WHAT STANDARDS ARE THEY MEETING YOUR ASSESSMENT STANDARDS AS THEY ARE. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED AND CAN BE EVALUATED BY THE CITY. THE SCALE OF THE REZONING ACTION, THE NUMBER OF LOTS, HOW MANY HOW MANY LOTS ARE WITHIN A CONTIGUOUS GROUP DOES IT MAKE SENSE AND AGAIN THIS WOULD BE BASED ON CITIES AND HERE ARE THE CITIES CONSIDERATION STAFF WOULD OBVIOUSLY HAVE RECOMMENDATION BUT THE GROUP OF LAWS THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED REZONING SHOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL AND BE CONTIGUOUS IN ORDER TO FORM A COHESIVE AREA OF THE DISTRICT NEIGHBORHOOD CONTINUITY AGAIN THAT KIND OF SPEAKS TO POINT OF THREE AND THE PROPORTION OF NEIGHBORHOODS THAT PROPORTION IS AGAIN UP FOR CITIES UP TO THE CITY'S DISCRETION IF IT SHOULD JUST BE A SIMPLE MAJORITY SOMETHING THAT EXCEEDS 50% OR IF THERE'S ANOTHER THRESHOLD THAT OUGHT TO BE MET BUT THAT'S YOU KNOW, THOSE SPECIFICS CAN BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY. BUT WE WANT TO PUT FORTH THOSE CRITERIA WHAT WE'RE ASSESSING REZONING REQUEST SO DO YOU DOES THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ANY ANY SORT OF CONSIDERATIONS OF THOSE THAT CRITERIA FOR GIVING THIS AREA? WE'RE ALSO MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE IT'S GETTING LATE, BUT COULD YOU CLARIFY WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR FROM US ON THIS SLIDE? CERTAINLY. CHAIR YEAH. SO THOSE FIVE DIFFERENT CRITERIA THAT I MENTIONED ARE YOU IS THERE ARE YOU ARE YOU FINE HAVING OR ARE YOU FINE WITH THAT ACTUALLY IMPOSING THOSE WHEN WE'RE ASSESSING REZONING REQUESTS ARE YOU FINE WITH THE CRITERIA AS THEY ARE OR WOULD YOU RECOMMEND ANY ANY AMENDMENTS TO WHAT WE'VE DRAFTED OR? IS IT SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD CARRY FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL? THANK YOU THAT'S MR. CURRY I'M ON BOARD WITH EVERYTHING ON THIS PAGE. OKAY. MR. GOLTZMAN I GUESS THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE IS BASED ON THE CONVERSE BASED ON WE'VE DISCUSSED SO FAR ARE THERE ANY PROPERTIES OR HOW MANY PROPERTIES COULD ACTUALLY PETITION BE ASKED ONE BASED ON THE THINGS THAT WE'VE PUT OUT THERE IS THAT EVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OR ANY PROPERTIES AND IF IT IS THEN I'M I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW FEASIBLE IT WILL BE BASED ON THE PARAMETERS THAT WE'VE SET SET. I'M HAVING A DIFFICULTY FORMING ANY WORTHWHILE THOUGHTS FOR THIS ONE? MR. ELDRIDGE I AGREE. I'M HAVING A HARD TIME TO MEET FORGIVE ME. TO ME WHAT WE'VE SAID ALREADY IS MORE IMPORTANT TO ME THAN WHAT ANY PUT ANY TYPE OF BALL WE CAN PUT ON TOP OF THIS THING. OKAY THANK YOU CHAIR MOVE ON. YOU KNOW SOME JUST SOME SOME HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS YOU KNOW WE ARE ENGAGING OR WE DO HAVE MEETINGS TO ENGAGE FOLKS WE'VE SET UP A LET'S TALK LITTLE PAGE WHERE WE HOST INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT AND IT PROVIDES MEDIUM BY WHICH PEOPLE CAN SUBMIT COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS TO STAFF ALREADY RECEIVED A FEW COMMENTS EMAILED THOSE OUT TODAY SOME IN SUPPORT SOME ARE NOT NECESSARILY SUPPORT I MEAN THERE'S NO FIRM RECOMMENDATIONS BUT THERE ARE SOME THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE CHANGED BY THIS ONE AS IS AND THEN THERE'S SOME THAT ARE INTERESTED IN SOME OF THESE CHANGES AS IT MAY AFFORD THEM SUBDIVIDING OPPORTUNITIES. SO THERE IS A IT'S ONLY A FEW SO IT'S NOT A IT'S NOT A BROAD SWATH OF FEEDBACK WE'VE RECEIVED BUT NONETHELESS WE HAVE THIS AVAILABLE AND JUST TO LET YOU KNOW WE HAVE A STUDY SESSION TO THE COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY AS WELL AND THAT WE'RE FORESEEING A PUBLIC HEARINGS SOMETIME DURING APRIL TO YOU KNOW, TO CONSIDER ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT IF THERE ARE ANY THAT ARE CONSIDERED WORTHWHILE PURSUING. THAT'S THE OF THE PRESENTATION QUESTIONS FOR STAFF SEEING ON MR. SAMUELSON WANT TO REITERATE WE APPRECIATE YOUR WORK ON THIS I THOUGHT THE STAFF REPORT WAS COMPREHENSIVE WELL DONE YOUR PRESENTATION MATCHED IF WE WERE A BIT SURLY SO BECAUSE IT'S AFTER 11:00 SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS ON THIS THANK YOU THANK YOU. THANK YOU. REMEMBER THE PLANNING COMMISSION? HAVE A GOOD DAY. GOOD NIGHT. WE'LL MOVE IN TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE MR. MARK AGREE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION PASSES AND UPDATE RETURN COMMISSIONERS NEXT MEETING IS FEBRUARY 15TH IN TWO WEEKS JUST TWO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AMENDMENTS TO THE OPPORTUNITY HOUSING ORDINANCE WOULD YOU TALKED ABOUT RECENTLY STUDY SESSION AND THEN A STUDY ITEM ON LIMITS SPECIFICALLY ON LARGER ROADWAYS AND THEN MARCH 7TH ONLY ONE ITEM ON THE AGENDA SO FAR WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PRIVATELY INITIATED CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO ADD CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITIES AS AN INTERIM USE IN THE I TO A ZONING DISTRICT. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE COMING UP. OKAY THANK YOU FOR THAT. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO HAVE ANY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS BRING UP ANYTHING THAT WAS NOT ON THIS EVENING'S AGENDA. I THINK I WILL MAKE ONE COMMENT AND WE HAD THREE PRETTY COMPREHENSIVE STUDY ITEMS TODAY AND I, I DON'T MIND HAVING LONG MEETINGS. I PREFER THAT THOUGH TO BE RESERVED FOR WHEN WE HAVE APPLICANTS BEFORE US IF. WE'VE GOT SIX PEOPLE THAT WANT TO PUT UP APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND WE'RE HERE TILL 11. I AM FINE WITH THAT. I THINK THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPLIT UP THESE STUDY ITEMS MORE THAN WE DID AND I DON'T MEAN TO CALL OUT STAFF I ONLY BRING IT UP IN THIS FORUM BECAUSE IF ANY OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS HAVE COMMENTS THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY SAY IT BECAUSE WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT THIS AS THE FOUR OF US BECAUSE OF OPEN MEETING LAW ANYWHERE ELSE. SO THAT'S JUST MY OPINION I WOULD LIKE TO SEE PERHAPS A LITTLE MORE DISCRETION WITH SOME OF THESE MORE COMPREHENSIVE STUDY ITEMS ONLY BECAUSE I DON'T WANT US TO LOSE FOCUS BECAUSE IT'S GETTING LATE AND WE WE DON'T GIVE PROPER FOCUS TO THE LAST ONE BECAUSE IT WAS LAST SO. MR. CURRY YEAH, I WOULD AGREE WITH I THINK SIGN SIGN ORDINANCE TAKES A LOT OF TIME SO MAYBE THAT WASN'T ACCOUNTED FOR UPFRONT BUT THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL GOING FORWARD. OKAY. WITH THAT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THANKS TO CITY STAFF FOR STICKING AROUND AND IT'S BEEN A LATE ONE. I ALSO WANT ACKNOWLEDGE LONDELL PEASE WHO IS ENDING HIS CAREER WITH CITY OF BLOOMINGTON. FROM ALL MY UNDERSTANDING IS HE'S BEEN A REAL ASSET TO THIS COMMUNITY FOR A LONG TIME AND WE APPRECIATE HIS SERVICE. SO A HARDY PLANNING COMMISSION FAREWELL TO LAND PS AS HE DEPARTS THE CITY OF LAWTON AND A SPECIAL THANKS TO GRANT BACK IN THE CONTROL FOR STICKING WITH US KIND OF AN UUNG HERO OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOING ALL THE TV WORK FOR US LATE AT NIGHT SO THANKS GRANT . ANYTHING ELSE WITH THAT? WE ADJOURN GOODNIGHT