##VIDEO ID:6zBkwl2xJe4## .  GOOD EVENING AND.  WELCOME TO THE SEPTEMBER 5TH 2024 MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.  THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS MADE UP OF SEVEN MEMBERS. WE HAVE COMMISSION MEMBERS HERE IN THE CHAMBERS AND ONE COMMISSIONER WHO IS ON LINE IN SAINT LOUIS.  EACH MEMBER VOLUNTEERS THEIR TIME AND IS A BLOOMINGTON RESIDENT MEMBERS ARE APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS ADVISORY TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR MOST ITEMS THE COMMISSION MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE CITY COUNCIL HAS THE FINAL DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY.  THERE ARE CERTAIN APPLICATIONS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN APPROVE OR DENY ON ITS OWN SUBJECT TO APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ITEM THERE WILL BE A STAFF REPORT THEN A CHANCE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PRESENT THEN A CHANCE FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY. THEN THE COMMISSION WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSS THE ITEM BEFORE ACTION IS TAKEN. OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS TONIGHT IS THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PLEASE STAND IF YOU'RE ABLE I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL ALL RIGHT.  ITEM ONE ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS A MAJOR REVISION TO PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A PARTIAL REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SOUTH TOWN SHOPPING CENTER.  AND WE ARE LOOKING THE STAFF REPORT MR. CENTENARIO CHAIR ALBERT YES I WILL BE ABSTAINING FROM PARTICIPATION IN THIS ITEM DUE TO A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.  EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. WAIT COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM TO GO TO THE BACK .  ALL RIGHT, MR. CENTENARIO. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. SO THIS WAS A CONTINUANCE? WE HAD A WE HAD A QUORUM ISSUE AT LAST MEETING BUT UH, WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS A NUMBER OF ENTITLEMENTS FOR SOUTH TOWN SHOPPING CENTER PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS,  PRELIMINARY PLANT AND THEN A PLANNING VARIANCE WHICH I'LL DETAIL DETAIL AND IT DOESN'T WANT TO GO LOWER. WHAT'S THAT A LITTLE LOWER HAND CORNER THERE'S A LITTLE YEAH. THIS THING. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU.  I THINK WE'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH SOUTH TOWN SHOPPING CENTER THE YOU OBVIOUSLY IT'S A IT'S A VERY PROMINENT LARGE WITHIN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON AND AMERICAN DISTRICT INTERSTATE 44 TO THE NORTH AMERICAN BOULEVARD THE SOUTH AND THEN THE AND EAST BOUNDS ARE PENN AVENUE AND THEN A KNOX AVENUE KNOX AVENUE THE PUBLIC OF WAY ENDS AT AMERICAN BUT THERE'S STILL A PRIVATE STREET THAT THAT GOES NORTH OF AMERICAN BOULEVARD WEST SO WHEN WE HAVE MULTIPHASE PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS WE HAVE ESSENTIALLY TWO DOCUMENTS, IF YOU WILL, OR SETS OF DOCUMENTS AND ONCE IN ONE IS A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPED PLAN OR PDP THAT INCLUDES WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT IN THE NEAR FUTURE. AND THEN THERE ARE FUTURE PHASES THAT ARE IDENTIFIED TO . SO THAT MAKES UP A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPING PLAN OR MASTER PLAN . AND SO THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN INCLUDES THE PROPOSED PHASE WHICH IS 120,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAILER TWO LEVELS AND AN OUTDOOR ATHLETIC FIELD INCLUDING WHAT'S OUTLINED IN THE RED DASHED AREA.  THAT'S ALL THE PHYSICAL CHANGES THE GEOGRAPHICALLY AND THEN THERE IS A FUTURE PHASE THAT'S IDENTIFIED AS A FOUR LEVEL MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING ABOUT 104,000 SQUARE FEET. THERE ARE THERE ARE SOME UNIQUE FEATURES OF SOUTH TOWN AND FUTURE PHASES THAT ARE NOT IDENTIFIED ON THIS IN THE DOCUMENTS WHICH ALL I'LL EXPLAIN AND KNOW ONE THING I JUST WANTED TO NOTE QUICKLY ABOUT THE PDP IS WE HAD PAST ITERATIONS THAT ESSENTIALLY INCLUDED LAND THAT WAS EAST OF KNOX EXTENDED THAT'S NOT WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ESSENTIALLY THE SOUTH SHOPPING CENTER WOULD THE THE  PLAN DEVELOPMENT WOULD END AT KNOX BUT THEN WE STILL HAVE THIS SOME PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN KNOX AND THE ORANGE LINE UNDERPASS SO THIS IS A MASSING MODEL THAT THE APPLICANT PUT TOGETHER AND YOU KNOW JUST BE CLEAR THIS IS NOT PART OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION BUT WE ASKED THE APPLICANT TO PUT THIS TOGETHER TO KIND OF GET AN IDEA OF WHAT FUTURE PHASES COULD HYPOTHETICALLY LOOK LIKE. AND SO FOR REFERENCE THE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING PHASE IS IN THIS GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION BUT THEN THESE OTHER PHASES ARE PURELY CONCEPTUAL. THIS PHASE HERE AND THIS IS YOU'RE LOOKING SOUTH SO THIS IS THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF KNOX AND AMERICAN THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF LAND BECAUSE THAT'S ACTUALLY UNDER A SEPARATE ZONING DISTRICT.  THERE ARE SOME AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE APPLICANT AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT PROPERTY.  BUT THESE BUILDINGS THAT ARE EAST OF KNOX ARE PURELY CONCEPTUAL.  THIS IS JUST A VIEW OF WHAT KNOX COULD LOOK LIKE WITH SEVERAL LEVELS OF DEVELOPMENT FROM THE STREET LEVEL JUST GIVES YOU A FLAVOR OF AN CHARACTER THAT COULD THAT COULD BE DEVELOPED IN THE FUTURE SO GOING INTO THAT THAT CORNER THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF KNOX IN AMERICAN I HAVE THE ZONING ON THE SCREEN AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE SITE IS C THIS NORTHWEST CORNER OF C FIVE AND SO THE C5 DISTRICT IS ONE OF OUR MIXED USE DISTRICTS. IT HAS A HIGHER FFR REQUIREMENT AND IT ALSO HAS A LOT OF DESIGN STANDARDS THAT APPLY THAT DON'T APPLY OTHER DISTRICTS AND SO IT'S UNIQUE THAT WE HAVE A ZONING LIKE THIS BUT THAT WAS A FRANKLY A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT OR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY WHEN THESE AREAS WERE ZONED AS PART OF THE PAN AMERICAN DISTRICT PLAN.  HERE'S JUST ANOTHER WAY OF LOOKING AT IT BUT IT INCLUDES THE FA THE FLOOR AREA RATIOS THAT WERE AGREED TO SHOT SOMETIMES SHOPPING CENTER WAS 0.4. THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF KNOX AND AMERICAN MINIMUM AFFAIR IS 1.0 AND THEN OUTSIDE OF THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT BUT THE EAST OF KNOX THERE'S ALSO A MINIMUM OFFER OF 1.0.  AND SO WHILE APPLICANT DID NOT DEPICT A PHASE WITHIN THIS NORTHWEST CORNER WE HAVE INCLUDED A CONDITION ESSENTIALLY RETAINING THAT AS PART OF WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN AGREED TO ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT IT'S NOT A FUTURE PHASE IS NOT DEPICTED THE PLANS NO. NOW SHIFTING GEARS TO THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SO THIS THE PLAN THAT THE DIX HOUSES BOUGHT THE 120,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAILER, YOU COULD SEE THAT MOST OF THE PHYSICAL CHANGES WOULD BE TO THE ROUGHLY THE EAST HALF OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. AND SO YOU SEE THE THE PROPOSED BUILDING IT SAYS UNDER LOT TWO OR WITHIN LOT TWO LOT THREE WOULD BE VACANT AND STABILIZED FOR THAT FUTURE MEDICAL OFFICE AND THEN THE THE PARKING FIELD IN BETWEEN THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH ENDS OF THE SHOPPING CENTER WOULD BE AND SO YOU SEE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT FROM WHAT'S THERE TODAY WE HAVE PARKING IANDS THAT FOR THE MOST PART MEET THE MINIMUM WIDTH OF WITH LANDSCAPING WHEREAS TODAY THERE REALLY ISN'T MUCH OUT THERE AS WELL AS A LOT OF A LOT OF PEDESTRIAN ENHANCEMENTS WITH SIDEWALKS IN FRONT OF THE BUILDINGS AND THEN BETWEEN THE BETWEEN THE NORTH AND SOUTH ENDS OF OF THE SITE IT'S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE FROM WHAT WOULD EXIST TODAY.  AGAIN THIS IS THAT PEDESTRIAN ENHANCEMENT THAT I EARLIER SO THE BUILDING IS THE LUCKY 13 SO THIS IS JUST EAST OF KNOX AND THEN THE ORANGE LINE IS THE ORANGE DASH LINE THE BRT.  AND SO TODAY IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT YOU HAVE THE TRAIL OR THE CONCRETE TRAIL THAT RUNS UNDER 494 THERE'S A CROSSWALK AND THEN THAT CROSSWALK RAMP JUST LEADS YOU INTO THE LUCKY 13 PARKING LOT. ANOTHER VERY PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT.  SO ONE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS IS WOULD BUILD IS A SIDEWALK THAT CONNECTS THE ORANGE LINE BRT TRAIL TO THE REST OF THE SOUTH ZONE SHOPPING CENTER AND I JUST TRIED TO OVERLAY THE PLAN TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT YOU KNOW WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED THERE.  SO THIS IS LANDSCAPING PLAN OUTLINED THE FUTURE PHASE OF THE LOT THREE THAT WOULD BE THE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING SO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING FOR FOR THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER IS THEY AREN'T SHOWING A 100% COMPLYING AMOUNT OF LANDSCAPING BECAUSE THAT INCLUDES THE ENTIRETY OF THIS LOT THREE AREA BUT WE THOUGHT WAS A REASONABLE REASONABLE APPROACH IS ESSENTIALLY TO DEDUCT THAT SPACE FROM THE TOTAL DEVELOPABLE AREA THAT THAT'S HOW WE DERIVE THE REQUIREMENT JUST UNDERSTANDING THAT IF A BUNCH OF TREES ARE PLANTED THE HOPE WOULD BE THAT THIS LOT DEVELOPS IN THE NEAR FUTURE THEN THOSE WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED. SO WE CAME UP WITH WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS A REASONABLE NUMBER FOR THIS INITIAL FOR THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION THAT.  IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IF AND WHEN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OCCURS EACH ONE OF THOSE FINAL DEVELOPER PLANS DOES HAVE TO HAVE ITS OWN LANDSCAPING AND WE WOULD REVIEW THE LANDSCAPING WHEN WE'RE REVIEWING THE FINAL TABLE PLAN SO THAT CERTAINLY WE'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY PERMANENT ELIMINATION OR REDUCTION OF LANDSCAPING WITHIN THE SHOPPING.  SO WE'RE FAMILIAR THAT OF THE USER IS THE EXCELSIOR SPORT AND SO SIMILAR THEME OF ARCHITECTURE AND MATERIALS THERE THERE WOULD BE A FAIR AMOUNT OF GLASS AND BRICK METAL. THE GREEN IS METAL PANELS.  ONE MODIFICATION THAT WOULD BE NEEDED IS THE AMOUNT OF EFFORT THAT WAS PROPOSED EITHER IN THE CITY AS A SECONDARY MATERIAL THAT'S THAT'S LIMITED TO 15% OF EACH ELEVATION. THEY HAD ELEVATIONS THAT EXCEEDED THAT AMOUNT. AND SO WE'RE NOT SUPPORTIVE OF ANY FLEXIBILITY TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF OR I'M SORRY INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF EFFORTS ON THE BUILDING THAT THE MAIN THE EASIEST THING TO DO WOULD BE TO CONVERT THAT TO A TRADITIONAL STUCCO SYSTEM AND THEN IT WOULD BE COMPLETELY COMPLYING.  HERE'S A TWO DIMENSIONAL A DRAWING OF THE OF BUILDING ELEVATION. SO THIS WAS A PROTOTYPE DRAWING.  IT WASN'T SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR THE SITE BUT YOU DO GET AN IDEA OF WHAT THE ARCHITECTURE IS THE MATERIALS AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE STOREFRONT WOULD BE.  AND ONE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTIC IS THIS 18,000 SQUARE FOOT OUTDOOR ATHLETIC FIELD AND IT THE INTENT AS I UNDERSTAND WOULD BE TO HAVE IT AVAILABLE FOR VARIETY OF USES. YOU KNOW, WINTER WINTER SPORTS ,A VARIETY OF LIKE TESTING OR FOLKS TRY OUT WHAT THEY POTENTIALLY COULD BUY AS WELL AS JUST HAVING EVENTS AND WOULD BE ELIMINATED. SO THERE WOULD BE SOME NIGHTTIME ACTIVITY TO WE ALWAYS LOOK AT PARKING AND SO WE HAD TO CALCULATE WHAT THE PARKING REQUIREMENT IS BASED ON THE NUMBER OF THE AMOUNT OF RETAIL AND THE AMOUNT OF RESTAURANT SEATS.  AND SO WHAT WE CAME UP WITH WAS A PARKING REQUIREMENT OF ABOUT 800 STALLS. THE APPLICANTS PROPOSING A OVER HUNDRED AND SO THERE'S BEEN A LITTLE OVER 9% DEVIATION FROM CITY CODE MIGHT SEEM LIKE A LOT BUT THE NUMBER DOESN'T TAKE INTO ANY ACCOUNT ANY LIKE SHARED CHARACTERISTICS CAPTURE AND YOU KNOW WE'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH SOUTH TUNNEL AND WE GENERALLY RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS MORE THAN PARKING ON SITE SO WE FEEL THAT THE PROPOSED PARKING IS MORE THAN ENOUGH AND ACTUALLY WE'RE RECOMMENDING A LITTLE BIT OF WIGGLE ROOM WHERE IF THE PLAN CONTINUES TO EVOLVE AND MODIFY THAT IF A FEW MORE PARKING STALLS ARE LOST, THAT'S STILL AN QUANTITY. SO WE HAD A WE THOUGHT AN UP TO AN 11% REDUCTION WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR STAFF TO KIND OF WORK THROUGH PLANNING MODIFICATIONS.  THE LAST ELEMENT RELATES TO PRELIMINARY PLANT IN THE THE PLANNING VARIANCE AND SO HERE IS THE PRELIMINARY PLANT THERE THEY DID NOT SUBMIT A FINAL PLAN SO THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE FORTHCOMING.  BUT THE PRELIMINARY PLAN ESSENTIALLY SETS THE STAGE FOR FUTURE LAND SUBDIVISIONS AND WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS TO SUBDIVIDE CERTAIN SHOPPING CENTER INTO FOUR LOTS. IT'S PRETTY REMARKABLE THAT IT'S ALL WITHIN ONE PARCEL TODAY. BUT AS FUTURE PHASES DEVELOP,  THE APPLICANT WANTS TO SUBDIVIDE BASED ON EACH OF THOSE PHASES.  SO ONE WOULD BE THE MAJORITY OF THE EXISTING RETAIL LOT TO THE THE CURRENT PHASE ALSO SPORT LOT THREE WOULD BE THE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AND LOT FOUR IS THAT FUTURE CORNER NORTHWEST KNOX AMERICAN CORNER IS JUST ANOTHER IMAGE OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND THE AND THE PLAN ITSELF PRELIMINARY PLANT AND SO WHAT OUR CODE REQUIRES IS THAT IF YOU HAVE A PRELIMINARY PLAT YOU'RE DEDICATION IS BASED ON THE LAND USES THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING FOR THE ENTIRE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND WE WE SUPPORT A PLANNING VARIANCE TO DEFER PARK ALLOCATION FOR FUTURE PHASES NOT FOR A SPORT BUT FOR THE FUTURE PHASES NOT A ELIMINATION PARK DEDICATION BUT A DEFERRAL. SO IF THE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING OR THAT THAT CORNER KNOX AND AMERICAN DEVELOPS AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT THE PARK DEDICATION FEES WOULD BE DUE AT THAT TIME AND SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.  I DO HAVE THE MOTIONS BEFORE YOU FIRST FOR THE PRELIMINARY FINAL DEVELOPER PLANS THEN PRELIMINARY PLAT AND THEN THE PLANNING VARIANCE AND I'M TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU MR. CENTENARIO ANY QUESTION IS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER COOKSON THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.  MR. CENTENARIO IN THE STAFF REPORT IT WAS NOTED THERE IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND THE CITY ABOUT FLOOR AREA RATIO AT 0.4 AND I BELIEVE THE REPORT NOTED THAT THEY WOULD BE SHORT OF THE FLOOR AREA RATIO. COULD YOU DISCUSS THAT FURTHER ? A SURE COMMISSIONER SO THE MINIMUM THAT WAS AGREED TO NEGOTIATED WAS POINT FOUR. WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING IS JUST A LITTLE BIT BELOW THAT AT 0.37 SO IT IS A HIGHER FFR THAN WHAT'S ONSITE TODAY BUT IT DOESN'T QUITE GET TO THAT POINT FOR A LEVEL THANK YOU.  ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?  OKAY MR. CENTENARIO HOW DO I KNOW IF COMMISSIONER HAS A QUESTION AND IS A GREAT QUESTION ?  QUESTION YOU DO OKAY COMMISSIONER GARY GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. CHAIR JUST CLEANING BUILDINGS I THINK THESE BUILDINGS WERE CONDEMNED BY THE CITY I MIGHT BE WRONG ON THAT BUT.  IS THERE ANY TIPS, MONEY OR ANYTHING ANY SORT OF SUPPORT THAT THE CITY IS PROVIDING TO THE APPLICANT FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT AND ALL GERALD THE COMMISSIONERS I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ALTHOUGH I UNFORTUNATELY IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE REVIEW OR MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON SO I DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS AND WHAT THAT ASK IS THE APPLICANT IS HERE TODAY AND SUSPECT THEY COULD PROVIDE SOME MORE DETAIL. OKAY THANK YOU.  I HAVE ONE QUESTION MR. CENTENARIO.  YOU NOTED THAT THE ZONING SEE FIVE FOR THAT NORTHWEST CORNER IS THAT SIMILAR TO THE ZONING THAT IS EXISTING ACROSS THE STREET AT THE MOUA OUT MORE DENSE PAN-AMERICAN DISTRICT IS IT IS SO THE THE PAN-AMERICAN PLAN THERE'S A VARIETY OF PARCELS THAT ARE ZONED FOR C FIVE AND THE WHOLE IDEA OF C FIVE ZONING IS TO HAVE A MUCH MORE URBAN IN CHARACTER AND SO WE A HIGHER FLOOR AREA RATIO MINIMUM AND A VARIETY OF ADDITIONAL DESIGN STANDARDS THAT DEAL WITH TRANSPARENCY IN THE NON TRANSPARENCY ALONG STREETS BUILDING AND CLOSURE TRYING TO FRAME STREETS MORE MORE SO THAN LIKE A SUBURBAN STYLE DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS ENSURING THAT BUILDINGS ARE LOCATED CLOSER TO THE STREETS SO YOU HAVE A MUCH MORE URBAN CHARACTER.  GREAT. THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS STAFF WITH THE APPLICANT LIKE TO ADD COMMENTS.  GOOD EVENING CHAIR COMMISSIONERS MY NAME IS BOB CUNNINGHAM AND I'M THE REASON THAT COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM HAD TO RECUSE HIMSELF.  I'D LIKE TO JUST ANSWER A COUPLE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE POSED THE COMMISSIONERS BEFORE I GET INTO MY OWN PREPARED REMARKS, I'D LIKE TO JUST POINT OUT THAT NO PART SOUTH TOWER HAS BEEN CONDEMNED. WE DID UNDERTAKE TAKE THE DEMOLITION OURSELVES.  IF YOU RECALL LAST OCTOBER WE CAME INTO BOTH THE PORT AUTHORITY AND THE CITY COUNCIL TO GET A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RECOGNIZING THAT THE COST OF THE DEMOLITION MAY BE INCLUDED IN A FUGITIVE DISTRICT.  SO WE WILL BE SEEKING SOME LEVEL OF SUPPORT.  WE'RE WORKING WITH THE COURT ON THAT RIGHT NOW WE HAVE NOT YET MADE OFFICIAL APPLICATION FOR NATIVE SUPPORT BUT WE DO PLAN TO SEEK IT. THE OTHER THING THAT I'D JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT IS THAT THE DICK'S HOUSE OF SPORTS PLAN SHOWS THAT IT'S A TWO STORY BUILDING. SOME OF THE IMAGES THAT YOU SAW TONIGHT INDICATED AT ONE LEVEL BUILDING AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR THAT THAT A 60,000 SQUARE FOOT FOOTPRINT, 120,000 SQUARE FOOT TOTAL BUILDING IN THE FAR OF THAT LOT TOO WOULD BE IN EXCESS OF POINT FIVE IF THEY ARE. LASTLY, ANOTHER COMMENT THAT WAS MADE WAS ABOUT THE OVERALL FFR THAT'S BEING ACHIEVED ON THE ENTIRE OF THE ENTIRETY OF SOUTH TOWN DOESN'T MEET THE POINT FOR IFR WE DIDN'T INTEND I THINK I WASN'T AROUND TEN YEARS AGO WHEN THE WHOLE AFFAIR DISCUSSION MADE BUT IT WASN'T INTENDED. WE DID NOT THINK TO BE TO HAVE A POINT FOR FFR MET WITH CONSTRUCTION OF JUST ONE ADDITIONAL BUILDING SO WE PLANNED TO MEET THE POINT FOUR OF OUR OVER TIME AS AS THE PROJECTS GET REDEVELOPED AND WHEN THAT MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING GETS BUILT THE FOUR STORIES THAT WILL GET US OVER THE POINT FOUR FOR THE ENTIRETY OF SOUTH TOWER NOW UNDER MY PREPARED REMARKS IF I MAY LIKE TO THANK STAFF FOR THEIR GUIDANCE AND THEIR EXEMPLARY EFFORT TO PUT TOGETHER THE PRESENTATION THIS EVENING WE REALLY JUST A COUPLE OF ISSUES THAT WE'D LIKE TO DISCUSS.  THERE'S 23 CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE REPORT AND WE HAVE AN ISSUE WITH JUST TWO OF THEM AND HELP ME MAKE UP .  THERE WE GO. THANK YOU.  MAYBE I'M PRESSING THE WRONG BUTTON.  I APOLOGIZE. THE THE GOOD POINT IN THAT DIRECTION THAT MIGHT HELP. OKAY.  THANK YOU.  MM HMM. CAN YOU I'LL GO AHEAD AND ADVANCE SLIDES.  THANK YOU, MIKE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.  THE TWO CONDITIONS THAT WE HAVE AN ISSUE WITH ARE CONDITION NUMBER 13. CONDITION NUMBER 14 ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW IS THE TEXT CONDITION 13 AND 14. THE FIRST CONDITION 13 IS REQUIRING US TO EXTEND INGRESS LANE PAST THE THE  THE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING LOCATION IF THE CALLS DEPARTMENT STORE AND AS A RESULT OF THAT THERE WOULD THREE LANES TWO INGRESS LANES AND ONE EGRESS LANE IN FRONT OF COLES AND THEN IN FRONT OF THE SHOP SPACE ALL THE WAY TO THE WEST WHERE TEN INTERSECTS WHERE THE DRIVING INTERSECTS WITH PENN THE NEXT ONE ITEM NUMBER 14 REQUIRES US TO ACCOMMODATE SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE LAID OUT IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY AND NOW I'D LIKE TO JUST ADVANCE TO THE EXACT LANGUAGE THE TRAFFIC STUDY. THANK YOU. THIS KIND OF LAYS OUT THIS IS AN EXCERPT FROM THE TRAFFIC STUDY ITSELF TALKING ABOUT THE EXTENSION OF THE INGRESS LANE AND TALKING ABOUT THE RAISED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING WAS FOR THE LOCATIONS OF BOTH THE KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORE AND THE PLANNED DICK'S STORE.  WE THINK THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE AN ALTERNATE SOLUTION TONIGHT AND I'M GOING TO LAY OUT SOME ISSUES ON WHY WE THINK THAT THE ALTERNATE IS A BETTER SOLUTION FOR THE PROJECT THAN WHAT WAS BY THE BOTTLENECK TRAFFIC STUDY. MIKE IF YOU'D GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE OUR FIRST IS THAT WE RECOMMEND THE EXTENSION.  THE RECOMMENDED EXTENSION IS OUTSIDE OF WHAT WE HAD PLANNED TO IMPROVE WITH THE EASTERN SIDE OF SOUTHTOWN BEING IMPROVED. THIS IS CLEARLY ON THE WESTERN SIDE.  OUR ANTICIPATED PLAN WAS COME UP WITH ONE COMPLETE SOLUTION FOR THE WESTERN SIDE OF OF SOUTHTOWN SHOPPING CENTER WHEN THAT WAS REDEVELOPED AND NOT DO THESE AND IMPLEMENT THESE PROJECTS ONE AT A TIME AND SO THE PROJECT THAT'S BEING OR THE EXTENSION THAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS KIND OF A ONE TIME EXTENSION. WE'D LIKE TO KIND OF TO LOOK AT THAT IS A TOTAL SUM INSTEAD OF JUST ONE COMPONENT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE MIKE AND WE CONTINUE TO ASSERT THAT THE LANE IS PROPOSED DOES NOT ENHANCE THE TRAFFIC SITUATION AND MORE IMPORTANTLY DOESN'T ENHANCE THE PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY AND THE PEDESTRIAN SAFE ENVIRONMENT.  WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE ITSELF THOUGH THAT'S KIND EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT FULTON AND MANKE INCLUDED PUTTING A RAISED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IN AT THAT LOCATION.  WE HAVEN'T FOUND ANY OTHER LOCATION BY THE WAY, WHERE THERE'S THREE LEVELS THERE'S THREE LANES OF TRAFFIC IN FRONT OF THE DEPARTMENT STORE ENTRANCE. WE'VE LOOKED AT AS MANY AS WE COULDN'T IN METROPOLITAN AND COULDN'T FIND A SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCE ITEM NUMBER THREE WE DON'T WISH TO ELIMINATE ADDITIONAL RETAIL PARKING THAT WOULD BE TAKEN UP BY THIS DRIVE LANE.  NUMBER FOUR PLEASE. WE CONTINUE TO ASSERT THAT THE NEW SOUTH DRIVE LANE AND BY THE WAY THE DEMOLITION OF THE TOYS HERB'S SHOP SPACE IS GOING TO ALLOW US TO HAVE AN ACCESS POINT FROM ONE END OF SOUTH TOWN ALL THE WAY TO TWO FROM PENN TO KNOX THAT NEVER EXISTED BEFORE BECAUSE OF THE SHOP SPACE, THE TOYS AND HERB SPACE BEING IN THE WAY. SO WE'RE ASSERTING THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE TRAFFIC CARRIED ON THE SOUTH SIDE CERTAINLY THAN THERE EVER HAS BEEN BEFORE. ITEM NUMBER FIVE PLEASE. MIKE THEN WITH THE CLOSING OF PENN THAT'S GOING TO BE CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH THE COMPLETION OF I-35 AND 494 IMPROVEMENTS, THERE WILL BE NO ACCESS TO PENN AVENUE FROM I-35 NORTHBOUND OR I-35 SOUTHBOUND. SO 82ND STREET IS GOING TO BE THE RELIEVER FOR THAT TRAFFIC AND THAT MEANS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE COMING IN NOT ON PENN BUT RATHER KNOX THEY BEING THE TRAFFIC NUMBER SIX WE HAVE REMOVED 180,000 SQUARE FEET OF SPACE.  WE'RE ONLY PUTTING 120,000 SQUARE FEET BACK INTO THE PHASE THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS EVENING.  AND SO WE'D LIKE TO EXTEND OUT AS MANY IMPROVEMENTS AS WE AS WE CAN BECAUSE WE'RE ACTUALLY PUTTING LESS RETAIL SPACE IN THERE THAN WHAT THERE PREVIOUSLY. THAT WON'T BE THE CASE.  WE BUILD THE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING BUT WE'D LIKE TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT THE TRAFFIC CIRCUMSTANCES ARE RATHER THAN PROJECTING THEM WITH.  THE ADDITION OF THE DICK'S HOUSE OF SPORTS NUMBERS EIGHT PLEASE AND THE INSTALLATION OF A RAISED CROSSING WILL REQUIRE A COMPLETE REDO OF THE KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORE ENTRANCE. WE DON'T HAVE THAT PLANNED WE DON'T HAVE KOHL'S APPROVAL TO DO THAT. KOHL'S WOULDN'T REQUIRE THAT APPROVE THAT APPROVAL.  SO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE, MIKE. SO GIVEN ALL OF THAT WHAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW IS A IS AN ALTERNATE PLAN WHERE WE'RE PROJECT WE'RE PROPOSING THAT INSTEAD OF HAVING THE THIRD INGRESS LEAN LANE GO ALL THE WAY TO THE ENTRANCE LEVEL OF THE SO IT'S AT THE SAME PLAIN AS THE ENTRANCE OF THE COLD STORE THAT WE WOULD IT BY ONE PARKING BAY AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THAT WOULD ADD 60 FEET OR SO TO THE RIGHT TURN. OPERATOR ENTITIES FOR INGRESS TRAFFIC THAT KEEPS IN PLACE ARE ELECTRIC CAR CHARGING STATIONS. IT ELIMINATES THE NEED FOR A RAISED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING BECAUSE THERE'S STILL ONLY LANES THAT PEDESTRIANS HAVE TO CROSS FROM PARKING INTO THE FRONT DOOR OF BOTH THE RETAIL SHOP SPACE TO THE LEFT AND THE KOHL'S ENTRANCE TO THE RIGHT .  AND FINALLY WE WERE AWARE OF A COMPLAINT FROM A COMMENT FROM CITIZEN REFERRING THE PAN AMERICAN PLAN AMONG OTHERS AND WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANY OF THOSE ISSUES THAT MIGHT COME UP.  BUT THAT IS THE EXTENT OF THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE WITH THE STAFF REPORT AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT COME UP.  THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT COMMISSIONER GUPTA THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MR. CUNNINGHAM I'M SURE I'M NOT THE ONLY PERSON THAT'S CURIOUS WHENEVER THE STAFF REPORT SEEING A DICK'S SPORTING GOODS GOING IN HERE AND NOTING THERE'S ONE ACROSS THE STREET WHAT'S THE PLAN THERE I CAN ADDRESS THAT A LITTLE BIT. FIRST OF ALL, THE DICK'S SPORTING GOODS STORE THAT IT'S ACROSS THE STREET WAS BUILT AS A GALLEONS IF YOU REMEMBER THAT FROM OVER 25 YEARS AGO. IT WAS IT WAS BUILT BY A DIFFERENT RETAILER ALTOGETHER. YOU MIGHT HAVE NOTICED DICK'S HOUSE OF SPORT ACTUALLY THE STORE THAT'S AT HOPKINS CROSSROADS IN 8394 AND MOVED INTO RIDSDALE SHOPPING CENTER BECAUSE THEIR FORMAT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE GILLIGAN'S FORMAT WAS SO THEY HAD TO SIT WITH THOSE SPACES UNTIL THE OF TIME AND THE LEASE EXPIRATIONS SO BEST BUY ACTUALLY OWNS THE HOUSE OF SPORT THAT'S IN RICHFIELD SO BEST BUY FROM WHAT WE UNDERSTAND IS LOOKING TO HAVE THAT SPACE BACK SO THAT THEY COULD USE THAT AS A RETAIL KIND OF EXPERIMENTAL THEATER IF YOU WILL, TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T FOR THE RETAIL STORES SO LIKELY TO BACKFILLED BY SOME LEVEL OF BEST BUY AND THIS NEW STORE WOULD BE DICK'S ACTUAL FORMAT THAT THEY'RE DOING ACROSS THE COUNTRY.  THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, MR. CURRY. THANK YOU, CHAIR.  MR. CUMMINGS. IN TERMS OF THE OVERALL OF THE SITE, THIS IS NOT A SINGLE DICK'S DEVELOPMENT IS SO OBVIOUSLY ONE BUILDING OVER FROM THE CORNER OF THE SITE. RIGHT. SO THE DICK'S BUILDING APPEARS BE A CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT IN THE NEAR FUTURE WHEREAS THE MEDICAL OFFICE APPEARS TO BE PLANNED INTO THE FUTURE.  I GUESS WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS OF THE MEDICAL OFFICE IS NOT LIKELY OR THE MARKET DOESN'T SUPPORT THE MEDICAL OFFICE IN THAT LOCATION.  DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT HOW THAT LOCATION COULD DEVELOPED JUST GIVEN THE SPACE THAT IT'S GOT AND I ASSUME THE MEDICAL OFFICE IS A SIGNIFICANT COMPONENT OF THE FLORIDA AREA RATIO THAT WE'RE TALKING FOR THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONERS CHAIR.  MR. CURRY. THE REASON THAT WE THE HOUSE OF SUPPORT LOCATED IN THE POSITION THAT IT IS IS WE DO THINK THAT THE HOUSE OF SUPPORT WILL FUNCTION A MAJOR ANCHOR FOR SOUTH TOWER. IT WILL ADD SOME OF THE LUSTER BACK MONTGOMERY WARDS AND HERB BURGERS AND TOYS R US USED TO HAVE BACK IN THE RETAIL HEYDAY OF SOUTH TOWN. THE YOU KNOW, THIS IS REALLY THE KIND OF 50 YARD LINE OF SOUTHTOWN. IT'S GOT EXPOSURE TO I-495 FOR SOME LEVEL OF EXPOSURE TO I-35W AND IT'S CERTAINLY GOING TO BE RIGHT IN THE FRONT OF EVERY RETAIL VISITOR. SO WE THINK THAT IT'S IT'S PROPERLY. AND THEN WITH REGARD TO THE MEDICAL BUILDING, THE INTERSECTION AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, THE INTERSECTION OF I-4 94 AND 35 W IS THE BUSIEST INTERSECTION IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.  IF YOU DRIVE AROUND THE METROPOLITAN AREA, NOTE THAT THERE ARE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS HERE AND THERE AND EVERYWHERE AND THEY REALLY DO LIKE TO HAVE SOME LEVEL OF PRESENCE ON THE FREEWAYS WHERE THEY CAN HAVE SOME LEVEL OF SIGNAGE, A LEVEL OF IDENTITY FOR THEIR PATIENTS CUSTOMERS EMPLOYEES.  SO WE THINK THAT THIS IS A GREAT MEDICAL OFFICE LOCATION. HOWEVER, WE CAN'T REALLY PURSUE THE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING NOW BECAUSE WE HAVE A SEWER LIMITATION THAT YOU MAY BE AWARE OF . SO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE SEWER CONDITIONS BECOME MORE FAVORABLE BEFORE WE CAN ACTUALLY START TO MARKET THAT AS A MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING WHICH MIGHT BE AS LATE AS THE END OF 2027 AND CERTAINLY CIRCUMSTANCES CAN CHANGE BETWEEN THEN AND NOW. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IT MIGHT CHANGE TO BE PERFECTLY FRANK IS ANOTHER MIXED USE BUILDING IS WE GOT PROPOSED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF KN IN AMERICAN OAK.  OKAY. THANK YOU. SO AGAIN, IN TERMS OF THE FAILURE TO ANTICIPATE I BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE AS IS MEASURED IN TERMS OF THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA RATIO OR TOTAL FLOOR SPACE OF ALL THE FLOORS ADDED UP OVER THE HILL OF THE TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AREA.  SO IF THE MEDICAL OFFICE DOES NOT WORK, DO YOU ANTICIPATE ALTERNATIVE USES MEETING THAT FLORIDA AREA RATIO THAT THE CITY IS LOOKING FOR?  WE THINK THAT THAT'S A REQUIREMENT THAT'S NOT A WISH . SO THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION DIRECTLY, MR. CURRY, IS THAT WE WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT WHATEVER WE ON THAT NORTH EAST CORNER OF THE EXISTING SOUTH TOWN SHOPPING CENTER WILL BE MULTI FLOOR AND WILL GET US TO THE POINT FOUR OF AIR.  OKAY. THANK YOU.  ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?  YES. COMMISSIONER GUPTA, THANKS VERY I'M SURE. SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, MR. CUNNINGHAM WITH DICK'S HOUSE OF SPORTS AND, THE PROPOSED MEDICAL FOUR STOREY OFFICE BUILDING YOU'RE SHOWING. YOU SAID THAT WOULD BE AN FFR THAT EXCEEDS 0.4. IS THAT CORRECT? WE BELIEVE THAT TO BE THE CASE, YES. OKAY THANK YOU.  I HAVE ONE QUESTION ABOUT THE FUTURE MEDICAL OFFICE PROPOSAL AND GIVEN THE MASSING ON THE MAP THAT MR. CENTENARIO CAN PULL UP, IT LOOKS AS THOUGH THERE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE SPACE FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING AND THEREFORE DIFFICULT TO MEET THAT CONDITION OF ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED.  THE PLAN I KNOW THAT IT WOULD BE JUST A IT'S JUST THE MASSING NOT NECESSARILY THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT ALL THAT TO SAY DO YOU ANTICIPATE A LEVEL OF SHARED PARKING OR SHARE PARKING AGREEMENT THAT THE COMMISSIONER AND CHAIR WE ANTICIPATE THAT THERE'S GOING TO A NEED TO HAVE SOME LEVEL OF STRUCTURED PARKING BOTH IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING.  I DON'T KNOW IF THIS LASER POINTER WORKS IT DOES THIS ARE MASSING RIGHT HERE IS INTENDED TO BE A STRUCTURED PARKING WE DON'T HAVE THE CALCULATIONS DONE YET ON EXACTLY HOW MANY LEVELS THAT WOULD BE EXACTLY MANY PARKING STALLS IT WOULD BE WE DO ANTICIPATE THAT THERE WOULD SOME LEVEL OF SURFACE PARKING AND GENERALLY WITH TO A MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING THAT WOULD BE HANDICAPPED PARKING AND DROP OFF ALONG WITH THE LANDSCAPING THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR US TO MEET THE CODE MINIMUMS AT LEAST.  BUT THERE WOULD BE A STRUCTURED PARKING ELEMENT THAT WOULD SERVE BOTH THE MEDICAL BUILDING AND A FUTURE PHASE THAT COULD BEYOND WHAT IS NOW THE LUCKY 13 SITE. GREAT. THANK YOU.  UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. APPRECIATE THAT. I DO SEE WE HAVE OUR ENGINEERING IN IN OUR CHAMBERS WONDERING IF WE COULD INVITE THEM UP FOR A COUPLE QUESTIONS . CHAIRMAN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DEPENDING ON WHAT THE QUESTION IS BE HAPPY TO ANSWER. SURE. UM, I THINK MY INITIAL QUESTION WAS BASED ON THE PROPOSAL GIVEN BY THE APPLICANT ABOUT THE CONDITIONS NUMBER AND 14 AND SORT OF THE TRAFFIC AND HOW YOU SEE THAT WORKING.  WHAT IS YOUR INITIAL THOUGHTS THAT AND THE CONNECTION TO THE BORN AND MAKE STUDY AND I'M SURE COMMISSIONERS THE THE CONSULTANT IS HERE THAT PREPARED THAT REPORT AND THEY HAVE A PRESENTATION THEY HAVE SLIDES PLANNED THEY COULD GIVE THAT PRESENTATION OR JUST ASK SPECIFIC QUESTIONS OF THE COMMISSION IF YOU'D LIKE HOWEVER YOU'D LIKE TO APPROACH THAT ISSUE.  I'M SURE WE CAN INVITE THE ENGINEERING AND THE BUTTON MAKE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU BRIAN WITH YOUR REPORT THE MAKE I THINK MIKE GET COMFORTABLE SIDES JUST TALK ABOUT THAT ONE JUST TALKING ABOUT I IT WAS NUMBER 13 THE EXTENSION OF THE SECOND LANE FURTHER INTO THE SITE IT'S PRIMARILY A SAFETY ISSUE THAN IT IS MORE A OPERATIONS TYPE ISSUE. SO JUST LOOKING AT WHERE THE EXISTING CROSSWALK IS LEADING OVER TO APPLEBEE'S SO THE CURRENT TURN LANE IS ABOUT 60 FEET AFTER THAT.  SO I MEAN JUST LOOKING AT THE NEXT PICTURE SO AS A AS A VEHICLE AND A DRIVER IS ON THE RIGHT SIDE LANE OR THE OUTSIDE LANE TO MAKE THAT DECISION OF WHETHER OR TO WHETHER THEY WANT TO GO ENTER INTO THAT RIGHT TURN LANE OR MOVE OVER A LANE AND CHANGE LANES OCCURS AT THE SAME WHERE THAT PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK IS. SO THAT'S A SAFETY CONCERN WE HAVE OF JUST A VEHICLE'S DRIVER'S ATTENTION BETWEEN WATCHING FORWARD FOR PEDESTRIANS AND THEN LOOKING BACK OVER THEIR BACK SHOULDER TO LOOK AND MAKE SURE THEY HAVE SPACE TO MOVE OVER.  SO IT'S VERY A SHORT DISTANCE FOR THAT CURRENT MOVEMENT THAT'S OUT NEXT SLIDE. SO THE ORIGINAL PLAN A THAT WE HAD RECEIVED FROM THE DEVELOPER THIS IS KIND OF GOING BACK ORIGINALLY SHOWED THAT A SECOND LANE GOING ALL THE WAY OVER TO MORGAN CIRCLE WE AGREE WITH THAT ASSESSMENT AND INCLUDING THAT FULL LANE ALL THE WAY THROUGH TO THERE SO THAT THAT'S THAT'S PART OF WHAT YOU MAINTAINING THAT SECOND LANE THROUGH THERE AND THEN SHOWING THE RES CROSSINGS AT THAT KOHL'S SO EXTRA MIKE SO THE THE REVISED DEVELOPERS TO END THAT LANE EARLIER BASED ON YOU KNOW PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IN FRONT OF THAT KOHL'S WE AGREED THAT YEAH HAVING THREE LANES HAVING ONLY TWO LANES ONE LANE IN EACH DIRECTION IN FRONT OF THAT COLE'S CROSSING I AGREE WITH THAT THAT AGAIN IT'S NOT AN OPERATIONAL CONCERN TO HAVE THAT THAT LONGER LANE ALL THE WAY THROUGH. ONE THING WE DID SAY IS THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WAS ADD ABOUT AN EXTRA 60 FEET WITH JUST THAT FIRST PARKING STALL SO GET IT TO WHAT 120 FEET FROM THAT PASSIVE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING LOOKING AT THE ACTUAL GREEN BOOK FOR A CHANGE LANE MANEUVER WITHIN AN URBAN SITUATION WHICH WE CONSIDER A PARKING LOT TO BE AN URBAN SITUATION WITH A LOT OF PEDESTRIANS, A LOT OF VEHICLES MOVING, A LOT OF VEHICLES PARKING THAT THERE'S THERE NEEDS TO BE THAT EXTRA SPACE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A LANE CHANGE MANEUVER BY THE ACTUAL GREEN BOOK THAT'S THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS SAYS THAT SHOULD 400 FEET THAT THAT PERSON NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT DECISION AND SO IT'S DECIDING WHETHER TO MAKE THE MOVEMENT SO DECIDING THAT THE LANE IS GOING TO BE ENDING. I NEED TO MAKE THE MOVE OVER MAKING SURE  THAT THEY HAVE SPACE TO BE ABLE TO MOVE OVER AND ACTUALLY MAKE THE LANE CHANGE MANEUVER RECOGNIZING THAT YOU KNOW THAT'S THE RECOMMENDED AND LOOKING AT OUR MINIMUM TIMES THAT WE'RE A PEDESTRIAN LEAST A VEHICLE DRIVER WOULD UNDERSTAND OF MAKING THE DECISION THAT THEY NEED TO CHANGE LANES AND THEN ACTUALLY MAKE THE CHANGING MANEUVER WE CAN RUN DOWN TO THE MINIMUMS WHICH WHICH ENTITY CALCULATES OUT TO BE 195 FEET.  SO BY GETTING THE NEXT TO DRIVE AISLES AND MAKING THAT LANE DROP TO DRIVE FURTHER IT GETS US ABOUT 200 FEET SO IT REACHES AT 195 FOOT ESTIMATION FOR MAKING A SAFE LANE CHANGE MANEUVER AS LONG AS THAT PERSON KNOWS WHAT'S GOING ON.  SO YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.  ADDITIONALLY WE ARE STILL SAYING THAT WE DO WANT THAT THAT RAISE CROSSING IN FRONT OF KOHL'S RECOGNIZE YES THAT IS NOT KNOW IT'S THEY ARE PROPOSING A RAISE CROSSING FOR THE EAST RECOGNIZES SOME OF THE SAME TRAFFIC WILL BE CROSSING HERE.  WE DON'T WANT TO TREAT THOSE ONES DIFFERENTLY. WE ALSO GOT A RAISE CROSSING WHERE THE EXISTING APPLEBEE'S IS. SO WE'VE GOT YOU KNOW, THESE MAJOR CROSSINGS KEEP A CONSISTENCY FOR THAT AND THE EXTRA PEDESTRIANS SAFETY IN FRONT OF THE KOHL'S, THE RACE CROSSING THERE WOULD ACTUALLY BE MORE OF A RAISED INTERSECTION BECAUSE IT WILL BE COVERED IN KIND OF THAT THAT DRIVE AISLE RECOGNIZE AND A LOT OF PEDESTRIANS A LOT OF PEOPLE GETTING OFF WHEELCHAIRS ANYBODY ELSE'S COMING THROUGH ON THERE WOULD BE USING THE DRIVE AISLE TO TRAVEL THROUGH THERE SO GETTING THAT IN THERE SO THAT'S THE REASON THAT WE'VE PROVIDED ALLOWANCE TO YOU KNOW END IT BEFORE THE FOR THE KOHL'S BUT NOT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER THAN THAT THEY'RE CURRENTLY PROVIDING OR PROPOSING.  NEXT SLIDE.  SO JUST TO KIND OF JUST REITERATE WHAT WE HAVE THERE SO CURRENTLY IT'S ABOUT 60 FEET THERE. THEY'RE PROPOSING TO EXTEND IT TO 120 FEET AND WE'RE PROPOSING TO AT LEAST GET IT UP TO 195 FEET. SO MINIMUM 195 FEET TO MEET THAT ACTUAL REQUIREMENT FOR A LANE CHANGE MANEUVER.  SO LEAST THAT ANSWERS THAT PART OF THE QUESTION. THANK THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE LET ME KNOW ANY QUESTIONS OR MAKE OKAY. THANK YOU.  ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING WITH THIS ITEM SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ANYONE WHO WISHES TO TESTIFY COME UP. THERE'S A SIGN IN SHEET.  HELLO. MY NAME IS ROBERT.  I'M GOING TO BE MUCH QUICKER TO SPEAK. I JUST BELIEVE THAT THE THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT MEET WITH A LOT OF THE A LOT OF THE GUIDANCE THAT IS IN THE PEN AMERICAN PLAN IN TERMS OF DESIGN LIKE IT HAS THE THE LAND USE AND THE ZONING IS IT SEEMS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT AND WITH THE FACT THAT THE I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THE FLOOR AREA MINIMUM WOULD BE FULFILLED BY THE SECOND PHASE BUT THE FACT THAT THEY'RE ONLY COMING UP TO US WITH TWO PHASES THE REST OF IT THEY DON'T REALLY WANT TO PUT DOWN WHETHER THEY WANT THEIR YOU KNOW IT TAKES A LOT OF MONEY TO PREPARE THESE KINDS OF PROJECTS AND HAVING TO COME UP HERE A BUNCH OF TIMES DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE FINANCIALLY AND THE FACT THAT THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY COMING UP WITH, YOU KNOW, THE FUTURE PHASES BEYOND THAT AT NORTHWEST CORNER OF KNOX AND AMERICAN IT KIND OF SEEMS TO ME LIKE THEY'RE SUPER SURE WHETHER THAT'S HAPPENING ANYTIME SOON AND WHAT IS IN OF YOU RIGHT NOW OF THE DOESN'T REALLY MEET WHAT THE PAN AMERICAN PLAN SAYS I THINK THAT IN TERMS OF THE GOALS THAT ARE IN SECTION FOUR OF THE PAN AMERICAN PLAN IT DOESN'T FULFILL 1.1  2.4, 3.1 AND 4.2. AND IN TERMS OF LIKE WHAT THE I I'M SURE YOU'VE READ WHAT I WAS HOPING TO HAVE IN THE PACKET BUT THAT GOES INTO A LOT MORE DEPTH ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT DESIGN FEATURES DON'T AREN'T SHOWN THERE BUT THE VISION OF THE PAN AMERICAN PLAN IS NOT BEING FULFILLED IN THIS THE THE NEW ROADWAYS THAT IT SAYS TO CREATE ARE NOT ACCOMMODATED HERE IT REALLY JUST MAINTAINS THE THE MID-CENTURY DESIGN AND IT DOESN'T REALLY DO ANYTHING TRANSFORMATIONAL IT'S IT'S BASICALLY THE YOU KNOW THE THE PROPOSAL FROM A FEW YEARS AGO BUT THIS TIME IT'S THE DESIGNS OF SPORTS.  UM, I ASKED THAT YOU REJECT IT AND WE OH I ACTUALLY HAD A I HAD ONE MORE QUESTION OF STUFF HOW IN THE PAN AMERICAN PLAN IT SAID THAT BY 2030 WE WOULD BE AT 75% SEWER CAPACITY AND THEN A 2050 WOULD BE AROUND 100. I'M JUST WONDERING HOW WE GOT TO TODAY WHERE IT SEEMED LIKE THE PHASE ONE AND TWO WOULD GET US TO THAT 100% CAPACITY? IS THAT EXCEPT NOW THAT THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEY DON'T EVEN THINK THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO PHASE WITHOUT MORE SEWER CAPACITY. HOW THAT'S ALL GOING TO BE I'M WONDERING HOW WE GOT TO TODAY ON THAT SO THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION. WE CAN KEEP THAT IN CONSIDERATION AFTER WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING WHEN WE'RE IN DISCUSSIONS CAN ASK STAFF IF WE SO CHOOSE ANY ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY THE PUBLIC  CHAIR OUR COMMISSIONERS PROBABLY SHOULD GET FRONT OF ONE OF THE TWO MIKES. MY NAME IS BILL GRIFFITH REPRESENTING KRAUSE SANDERSON. I WANT TO ADDRESS THE A LITTLE BIT OF THE HISTORY THINK IT'S IMPORTANT AS THE COMMISSION CONSIDERS THIS PHASED PLAN FOR SMALL TOWNS TO UNDERSTAND WHY IN 2015 KRAUSE SANDERSON WOULD NEGOTIATE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS A PREDECESSOR TO A REZONING OF THIS SITE AND REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE THE PAN AMERICAN PLAN A VERY SIGNIFICANT PLAN A SIGNIFICANT VISION OF THE CITY.  IT HAS TO WORK OBVIOUSLY WITH A SHOPPING CENTER THAT YOU KNOW, HAS BEEN THERE MUCH LONGER THAN THE PAN AMERICAN PLAN.  SO A COUPLE OF THE HALLMARKS OF THE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHICH WAS PART AND PARCEL OF THAT REZONING.  AS MR. CENTENARIO SAID EARLIER IN HIS REMARKS, ONE OF THE KEYS TO THAT AGREEMENT WAS THAT SMALL TOWN COULD CONTINUE TO EXIST AS A SHOPPING CENTER AND UPDATE AND MAKE MINOR REVISIONS TO THE EXISTING SITE BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE TEN YEAR LEASES, THERE'S EXTENSIONS THERE'S 20 YEAR LEASES AND SO OBVIOUSLY SELL TOWN IS NOT GOING TO SHUT DOWN PERHAPS LIKE THE FORD PLANT IN SAINT PAUL OR OTHER REDEVELOPMENT SITES WHERE THEY'RE COMPLETELY DEMOLISHED AND YOU START OVER THIS IS A THIS IS A LIVING SHOPPING CENTER. THIS IS A SHOPPING UNDER TRAFFIC WITH VISITORS. AND SO ONE OF THE KEY HALLMARKS OF THAT AGREEMENT WAS THAT THE SHOPPING CENTER AS IT EXISTED AT THAT TIME IN 2015 COULD CONTINUE TO MODERNIZE THE BUILDINGS THAT EXIST BUT AT THE SAME TIME BE MOVING TO HIGHER DENSITY BE MOVING TO POINT FOUR AND ULTIMATELY IN SOME CORNERS OF THE SITE TO 1.0. AND SO I WANT THE COMMISSION TO UNDERSTAND THAT IN ANY SETTING WHERE YOU'RE DEALING WITH AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER OR AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL SETTING YOU HAVE CROSS PARKING, YOU HAVE LEASES, YOU HAVE EXTENSIONS, YOU HAVE EASEMENTS OF RECORD,  YOU HAVE A VERY SIGNIFICANT POWER LINE THROUGH THE CENTER . IF YOU IF YOU LOOK AT THAT VISIONARY PLAN AND IT WAS IT WAS A DRAWING BY THE WAY IT WAS SOMEBODYS RENDERING OF WHAT IT MIGHT LOOK LIKE, YOU KNOW, IF REDEVELOPED IT COMPLETELY IGNORES THE FACT THAT THERE'S HIGH TENSION POWER LINES AND SIGNIFICANT FAULT ZONE THROUGHOUT THE SHOPPING CENTER.  IT ALSO SUGGESTS THAT THERE MIGHT BE ROADWAYS GOING NORTH AND SOUTH AND EAST AND WEST.  OBVIOUSLY THAT HAS TO MAKE SENSE FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SHOPPING CENTER BUT ALSO FOR OWNERS AND THE TENANTS. AND SO SO A COUPLE OF THOSE POINTS THAT ARE KIND BAKED INTO THAT UNDERSTANDING WHICH IS IN FACT AN AGREEMENT IS AS DEVELOPMENT OCCURS. IT WOULD BE IN IN HIGHER DENSITY IN THIS PLAN IS JUST THAT WE HAVE A TWO STORY DICK'S A FOUR STORY MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AS PART OF THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AS YOU SAW THE MASSING PLAN THE ASPIRATIONS ARE FOR SIGNIFICANTLY MORE DENSITY TIED OBVIOUSLY TO SEWER IMPROVEMENTS.  THE DISTRICT I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE IF IF SOMEONE COULD WAVE A WAND AND BUILD YOU KNOW, SOMETHING TODAY WITH WITH NO CONSTRAINTS IT WAS CERTAINLY LOOK DIFFERENT THAN THIS PLAN BUT THIS PLAN NOT ONLY SUCCESSFULLY TEARS DOWN OUTDATED BUILDINGS AND REPLACES THEM WITH MODERN BUILDINGS OF HIGHER DENSITY BUT IT ALSO PAVES THE WAY FOR REAL TERM AND REAL NEAR TERM IMPROVEMENTS WHICH WILL BE BUILT WITH THE DICK'S HOUSE OF SPORTS INCLUDING WE HAVE A REFERENCE UNDERGROUND STORMWATER CONTAINMENT WITH WITH MODERN DAY INFILTRATION AND FORTH.  THAT'S SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST TODAY THE ADDITION OF UPGRADED LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING AND ISLANDS AND SO FORTH PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THE THAT'S PART OF THE TRANSIT FACILITIES SO THERE'S A BAKED INTO EVEN THIS FIRST PHASE BUT WE HAVE UNDERSTAND THAT THE REASON WE CAME TOGETHER IN 2015 AT THE AT THE OUTSET OF THE PAN AMERICAN PLAN AND CAME TO AN ACTUAL AGREEMENT WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE BOTH YOU KNOW, CAPTURE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE VISION BUT DEALT WITH THE REALITY THAT THIS IS A SHOPPING CENTER THAT WAS FIRST CONSTRUCTED IN 1960. IT'S JUST A JUST A LITTLE BIT YOUNGER THAN I AM.  SO THAT'S THAT'S THE REALITY ON THE GROUND THAS THE REALITY THE MARKETPLACE. AND I WANTED YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE AS WE MOVE MOVE TO HIGHER DENSITY, IT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME FLEXIBILITY TO GET RIGHT AND TO DO IT INCREMENTALLY. THANK YOU.  THANK YOU.  IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE CHAMBERS THIS EVENING WHO WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY ON THIS ITEM?  MR. CENTENARIO, DO WE HAVE ANYONE ON?  JOEL RECHT WE HAVE NO ONE JOINING ONLINE THAT'S NOT STAFF EXCELLENT.  I WILL GIVE IT 1/2 IF ANY ADDITIONAL WANT TO COME UP .  ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE I WILL LOOK FOR A MOTION TO THE PUBLIC HEARING SO MOVED SECOND THERE IS A MOTION TO CLOSE THE THE PUBLIC HEARING IN A SECOND NOW WE HAVE TO DO A VOTE WHICH WILL BEAR WITH US ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AND I THINK WE WILL DO ROLL CALL VOTE CHAIR ALBERT I VICE-CHAIR HIGH COMMISSIONER ISA I COMMISSIONER CURRIE I.  MOTION PASSES THANK YOU. MOTION PASSES PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. COMMENTS.  DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMISSION COMMISSIONER CRYPTIC THANKS MA'AM.  I'M SURE MR. CENTENARIO JUST WANT TO ASK A QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION. SO THE APPLICANT TOLD US WITH MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AND THE DETAILS OF SPORTS THEY WOULD BE OVER THE 0.4 THAT SEEMS IN CONFLICT WITH WHAT THE STAFF REPORT WAS.  COULD YOU CLARIFY THAT FOR ME? GERALD THE COMMISSIONERS WHEN I DO MY REVIEW ESSENTIALLY TO CALCULATE FFR YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE ENTIRE SITE WHICH IS A MASSIVE PROPERTY OBVIOUSLY AND THEN TO USE YOUR AS YOUR DENOMINATOR AND THEN YOU HAVE TO ADD THE EXISTING PROPOSED AND THE FUTURE FLOOR AREA. AND SO WHEN I DID THAT I DID INCLUDE THE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AS IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF AND THAT'S WHERE I GOT THE .37 YOU DID NOT INCLUDE THE MEDICAL BUT I DID I'M UNDERSTAND FROM THE APPLICANT THEY ALSO INCLUDED THE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING. YEAH THE COMMISSIONER I CAME UP WITH A DIFFERENT SO WE HAVE A CALCULATION. YES.  OKAY. THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. WOULD YOU SORRY MADAM CHAIR, THIS IS A POINT I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE MADE IN MY LAST REMARKS BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO GET INTO THE RECORD THAT.  THE AGREEMENT REFERS TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE CITY CODE REFERS TO SITE AND SO FROM DAY ONE WE HAVE TOLD THE STAFF THAT WE VIEW THAT CALCULATION DIFFERENTLY THAN THEY DO BASED UPON THE AGREEMENT. THE AGREEMENT SUPERSEDES WHEN IT'S IN CONFLICT SUPERSEDES THE CITY CODE AND SO WE HAVE ALWAYS AND MR. TASK IS ONLINE THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY WE SAID FROM DAY ONE THAT WE VIEW WORDS OF THAT AGREEMENT TO MEAN THAT WE CALCULATE ON THE DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S WHAT BOB CUNNINGHAM SAID IN HIS REMARKS.  AND SO WE GET TO A DIFFERENT NUMBER BECAUSE WE CALCULATED BASED UPON THE SITE THAT'S UNDER DEVELOPMENT THE DEVELOPMENT PAD ITSELF, NOT THE ENTIRE SHOPPING CENTER AND THAT GOES BACK TO 2015. WE'RE CONVINCED YOU AND I WERE NEGOTIATING THE CITY AND WE SAID IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE IN OUR TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE AT EACH PHASE WHEN YOU'RE GOING TAKE A SHOPPING CENTER THAT IS LARGELY ONE STORY IN HEIGHT AND I APPRECIATE YOU ALLOW ME TO COME UP AND CLARIFY THAT BECAUSE IT ISN'T JUST A MATTER OF US COMING TO TWO DIFFERENT NUMBERS. WE START A DIFFERENT DENOMINATOR AND IT WOULD DO THAT BASED UPON THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WE ENTERED INTO IN 2015. THANK MR. HOOK. DID YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS MR. CINCINNATI ALSO YOUR CALCULATION FLOOR AREA RATIO IS THE EXISTING SOUTHTOWN DECKS AND THE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING DIVIDED BY THE ENTIRE AREA OF THAT RESTRICTED THAT'S AND THERE IF OUR NUMBER IS JUST SIX AND THE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING DIVIDED BY THE AREA OF THAT UNRESTRICTED I CAN'T CLAIM TO HAVE FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CALCULATION THAT THE APPLICANT I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO WHAT I DID SURE SO CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE AGREEMENT A LITTLE FURTHER OF HOW YOU HOW YOU OR THE CITY IS INTERPRETING THE AGREEMENT OF THE 0.4 MINIMUM? I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO MR. TASCA.  I AM NOT WELL VERSED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH KEVIN . PERHAPS YOU COULD PROVIDE SOME CLARITY.  YEAH, I MEAN COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER QUOTE IN CHAIR COMMISSIONER COOKED IN MOST OF OUR DISCUSSIONS CENTERED AROUND THE C5 PORTION OF THE SITE AND THE REQUIREMENT TO GET UP TO POINT R 1.0.  SO A LOT OF OUR DISCUSSIONS HAD TO DO NOT GRANTING FLEXIBILITY ON THAT PORTION OF THE SITE AND THEN LEAVING IT KIND OF VINDICATING WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SAID ABOUT THAT PORTION AND NOW STAFF HAS COME UP WITH A .37 WHICH IS THE WHOLE SITE K CROWD IS COMING UP WITH A DIFFERENT WITH A DIFFERENT SITE BUT WHAT I THINK IS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DOES ITS DEVELOPMENT BY DEVELOPMENT I THINK THAT'S WHAT WAS CONTEMPLATED SO I AGREE WITH MR. GRIFFITH ON THAT POINT BUT SEE PORTION IS WHERE MOST OF OUR DISCUSSION CENTERED AROUND SO THAT WOULD BE MY TAKE ON THE ON THE 2015 AGREEMENT. I WASN'T AROUND FOR IT OBVIOUSLY I STARTED IN 2022 SO I DON'T KNOW YOU KNOW ALL THE BACKGROUND THAT WENT INTO THAT BUT THAT SEEMS TO BE IMPORTANT BUT BASED ON THE LANGUAGE LANGUAGE.  THANK YOUR. SHARKEY ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMISSION BUT COMMISSIONER CURRIE THANK YOU CHAIR FIRST YOU KNOW I'M GLAD THAT WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP THE DECSS ALREADY.  IT'S GOOD TO HAVE NEW DEVELOPMENT GOING IN THERE AT A LOWER YOU KNOW IN TERMS OF OUR I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT PART OF THE CHALLENGE IS TRYING TO STICK TO THEY ARE OVER AN EXTENDED PERIOD OVER A MULTIPHASE DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO PIGEONHOLE THE APPLICANTS ON A FUTURE PHASE MAKING A PORTION OF THE SITE COMPLETELY UNDEVELOPED. YOU HAVE TO ACHIEVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SPACE AND UNLESS ACHIEVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT OVER A CERTAIN SITE RIGHT AND THEN I GUESS YOU KNOW IN TERMS OF THE THE TRAFFIC I THINK THE APPLICANT'S POINTS ARE ARE SMART AND THEY WOULD DEFINITELY WANT TO MAKE THE AREA PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY.  I'M NOT A TRAFFIC EXPERTS I CAN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT YOU KNOW HOW THAT EXACTLY WORKS. I THINK ANYWHERE WE CAN REDUCE NUMBER OF TRAFFIC LANES IS PROBABLY A GOOD THING FOR A SHOPPING AREA IN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON.  SO OVERALL I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE DEVELOPMENT I GUESS THE POWER ARE OBVIOUSLY CHALLENGING ARE IMMOVABLE YOU MOVE THOSE AND ANYTHING LIKE IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE AND A SMALLER PARKING ON WHAT WAS THERE TODAY AND A SMALLER C AND I THINK THERE'S WHAT'S IN THE PLAN AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT OPPORTUNITY THERE IS TO  HAVE MORE YOU KNOW INCREASE THE DENSITY OF PARKING SMALLER SPACE AND MAYBE MAYBE PUT THAT AREA TO A DIFFERENT USE SUCH AS WE DON'T IT SOUNDS LIKE PONDING ISN'T NECESSARY BECAUSE IT'S ALL UNDERGROUND BUT SOMETHING OTHER THAN A SET OF PARKING. SO HONESTLY IN THE PARKING JUST KIND OF MY LITTLE PRESENTATION OF THE PLAN SO FAR TODAY THAT YOU COMMISSIONER CURRY ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS COMMISSIONER COOKED IN ? THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MR. TOSCHI SOMETIMES WE'RE CAUTIONED AGAINST CHANGING CONDITIONS THAT ARE IN THE PROPOSED MOTION IS THERE ANY ISSUE IF WE WERE TO TAKE THE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE APPLICANT FOR ITEMS 13 AND 14 THIS EVENING?  CHAIR COMMISSIONER COOK THERE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR ON THE RECORD WHAT THE MOTION IS AND WHAT IT'S DOING. YOU KNOW IF YOU'RE GOING TO I'LL TAKE THAT BACK I WAS GOING TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE BUT NO AS LONG AS WE HAVE CLEAR RECORD AND ON WHAT THAT MOTION IS YOU'RE FINE TO DELETE AND ADD CONDITIONS BUT MAKE IT CLEAR SO WE HAVE A GOOD RECORD. OKAY. THANK YOU MR. TUSK ANOTHER QUESTION A VERY GO AHEAD MR. CENTENARIO WHAT ARE WE WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT HERE FOR AN AGENCY ACTION DEADLINE HAVING PUSHED THIS BACK A WEEK ALREADY BECAUSE OF LAST WEEK'S ISSUE ARE WE UP IT OR LET'S JUST HYPOTHETICALLY SAY WE WANTED TO CONTINUE THIS TO OUR NEXT MEETING WOULD WE BE IN TROUBLE?  SURE, COMMISSIONERS, WE DID EXTEND THE INSPECTION DEADLINE TO 120 DAYS. SO IF YOU DO CHOOSE TO CONTINUE WE WOULD BE ABLE TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON A PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN A CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOLLOWING THAT AND STILL WITHIN THE INSPECTION TIMELINE. OKAY, THANK YOU.  ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?  WELL, I WILL MY $0.02 THOUGH SECURED SOMETHING TO SAY AS WELL COOKED IN I THINK THIS IS A VERY SITE AND I APPRECIATE THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO DID TESTIFY THE IDEAS BROUGHT FORTH AND SOME MORE SIZED PROJECTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT. I THINK WHAT WE HAVE HERE SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS SITE IS A BIT OF AN INFILL SITUATION PLUS.  YOU'RE REALLY ANCHORED THOUGH WE'RE OF DICK'S HOUSE OF SPORT AS THE ANCHOR FOR 94 AS THE ANCHOR WE'RE LIMITED WHAT BUSINESSES WANT TO BE RIGHT AGAINST THE FREEWAY AND TYPICALLY THAT'S GOING TO BE BUSINESSES THAT NEED HIGH VISIBILITY IT SEEMS LIKE DICK'S HOUSE OF SPORT IS A GOOD SELECTION FOR THAT. I THINK MEDICAL GENERALLY IS A GOOD SELECTION FOR THAT. WOULD I LIKE TO SEE MORE DENSE DEVELOPMENT SIMILAR TO WHAT IS ACROSS THE STREET WITH FRESH THYME AND THE APARTMENT UNITS OVER THERE? ABSOLUTELY.  I STILL THINK THERE'S TIME WHICH IS IS ON OUR SIDE AND BEING ON THIS COMMISSION FOR FIVE YEARS PLUS I THINK WE HAVE SEEN SOME IDEAS AND SOME PROPOSALS COME THROUGH AND NOT AND NOT HAVE LEGS AND SO I'M HAPPY TO SEE THAT THIS THIS PROPOSAL ACTUALLY HAS LEGS REGARDING CONDITIONS 13 AND 14. I WOULD BE OKAY WITH THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL AS A SORT OF MIDDLE GROUND BETWEEN BETWEEN WHAT WAS SUGGESTED THE STUDY AND AND SUGGESTED BY STAFF I DO FIND I ACTUALLY HAD USED THAT CHIROPRACTOR OVER THERE A FEW TIMES AND I HAVE FOUND THAT INTERSECTION THAT AREA VERY DANGEROUS.  IT IS THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT BLOW RIGHT THERE GO THROUGH IN THAT TURN LANE AND END UP GOING.  SO I THINK WE NEED TO FIND A SOLUTION.  I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU KNOW DIGGING IN FRONT OF KOHL'S AND HAVING AN AGREEMENT WITH KOHL'S.  YES. THAT THAT IS A BARRIER. HOWEVER, I DO THINK THAT THERE IS THERE'S A REASON WHY THE STUDY SUGGESTED THAT CHANGE AND THEN THE THE CITY STAFF ALSO AGREED WITH THAT. SO I LIKE THE MIDDLE GROUND THAT WE'VE FOUND HERE. I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THAT WITH THE CAVEAT THAT AND MAYBE NEEDS TO BE A CONDITION IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED MOVING FORWARD IN THE FUTURE BUT MAYBE NOT NECESSARILY THIS FINAL DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER THAN THAT I AM SUPPORTIVE. MR. COOK DID THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MR. CESAREO ONE MORE QUESTION IF I COULD. COULD YOU JUST SPEAK TO THE SEWER CAPACITY HERE? I KNOW THERE IS QUESTION ABOUT THAT WHERE ARE WE AT AND WHAT'S THE PLAN FOR THE JALBERT? MR. KITCHEN I AM GOING TO TO JULIE LONG THE CITY ENGINEER I CAN CAN YOU PROMOTE ME PLEASE? YES  I RIGHT SEWER ACTS AVAILABILITY CHARGES AND WHERE WE STAND TODAY ON THIS MAP YOU CAN SEE A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT LINES UP HERE WHERE I'M CERTAINLY KIND OF AROUND THE 24 IS WHERE THE SOUTH TOWN CENTER YOU CAN SEE BOTH A RED AND A BLUE LINE COMING THROUGH HERE THERE THOSE ARE A COUPLE DIFFERENT PROPOSED DIVERSIONS FOR SANITARY SEWER. ONE OF THE INTERESTING CHALLENGES BLOOMINGTON HAS IS WERE FULLY DEVELOPED SUBURB AND MOST OF OUR DEVELOPMENT HAS WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND SHOPPING SUCH AS SOUTH TOWN AND AS WE LOOK TO DENSIFY WE HAVE EXISTING SEWER FOR THOSE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THE SHOPPING CENTER BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO START BUILDING MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS AND INCREASE THE FLOOR AREA RATIO OF THOSE THAT ALSO INCREASES THE SEWER NEED. SO CERTAIN AREAS OF TOWN WE HAVE NEEDS ADDITIONAL SEWER CAPACITY PROJECTS.  SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A STUDY GOING ON THAT IS OUR LET'S TALK BLOOMINGTON SITE I'M TALKING ABOUT SANITARY SEWER CAPACITY FUNDING. SO HOW DO WE PAY FOR THOSE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS? YOU CAN SEE THE SOUTH TOWN AREA IS IN ONE OF THE RED CIRCLES OF NOW BECAUSE THE IS NOW ON THE BLACK DOTS SHOW ANTICIPATED AND THEN YOU'LL ALSO SEE SOME NEAR-TERM SEWER NEEDS SO THOSE ARE THE SEWER NEEDS WE'RE LOOKING AT IN GENERAL AND IN SPECIFIC CONTEXT WITH TO SOUTHTOWN WHEN THEY DEMOLISHED HER BURGERS TOYS R US THEY GET TO CAPTURE THOSE FIXTURE UNITS LIKE WITHIN THE BATHROOM BUT AS YOU CAN IMAGINE TOYS R US AS BATHROOM NEEDS OR KITCHEN NEEDS WAY SMALLER THAN SOME OF THE OTHER PROPOSALS OF MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING.  SO THAT'S WHERE THE RUB IS.  THANK YOU AND YOUR QUESTIONS. YEAH. ANY AS LONG THANK YOU. THE PARISHIONER CURRY QUESTION OH SORRY COMMISSIONER CURRY. YEAH THANK YOU CHAIR ALL ABOUT HOW DOES THAT COMPARE TO THE REGULAR OFFICE OR OTHER MULTISTORY USES FOR YOUR APARTMENTS YOU WITH THE SEWER CHARGE IT'S THE UNIT IS ONE AND IT'S EQUIVALENT IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME SO EACH DIFFERENT KIND OF USE WHETHER YOU'RE A REGULAR OFFICE OR YOU'RE A MULTI-FAMILY THEY THEY HAVE PERCENTAGES THIS IS A POINT FOUR THAT'S 2.0 AND YOU ADD THE PLUMBING FIXTURES TOGETHER IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE USE CATEGORY WITH MET COUNCIL TO COME UP WITH WHAT YOUR ACTUAL EQUIVALENCY SO I GUESS YEAH I DON'T KNOW I SUPPOSE IT'S DIFFERENT BUT TO SAY THAT OUR DIFFERENT USE HOW MUCH WATER IT WOULD CONSUME RELATIVE TO MEDICAL OFFICE SO THERE'S A CHART UNFORTUNATELY I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO IT AND IMMEDIATELY THANK YOU ANY OTHER ITEMS COMMISSIONER THANKS MANAGER I JUST GOT THROUGH MY THOUGHTS THANK YOU AS WELL SO YOU KNOW WHEN I LOOK AT THE PAN AMERICAN DISTRICT PLAN AND ALL THE GRAPHICS SOME ARTISTS PUT TOGETHER VERY NICE AND AND I TOO WISH WE WOULD HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THAT BUT THERE HAS TO BE TEETH IN THE PLAN RIGHT TO US TO ENFORCE SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS WE HAVE TEETH ON THE ZONING AND THE GUIDING AND OTHER THINGS BUT WE DON'T HAVE TEETH ON HOW WE WANT THINGS TO LOOK. WE HAVE THAT TYPE OF AUTHORITY AND SO I, I AGREE WITH THE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES THIS LOOKED DIFFERENT AND MAYBE WAS SOMETHING BUT I DON'T THE WAY I REVIEW THIS I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO JUST SAY HOW THINGS LOOK OR HOW WE MAYBE WISH WHAT APPLICANT WAS COMING HERE OR NOT.  SO MOVING ON TO MORE SOME OF THE SPECIFICS IN REGARDS CONDITIONS 13 AND 14 I AM SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT THE ENGINEERS HAVE PULLED MAKE PROPOSED TO US. SO THAT WAS KEEPING THE RAISED CROSSING AND THEN EXTENDING SORT OF I THINK IT WAS 200 FEET OR WHATEVER THAT WAS A COUPLE EXTRA DRY VIALS FOR THEIR RIGHT TURN LANE SO THAT'S WHAT I SUPPORT WITH CONDITIONS 13 OR 14 THERE WERE A FEW OTHER REQUESTS FOR DEVIATIONS THE THE THE LANDSCAPING A SHORT OKAY WITH THAT THE PARKING IS SHORT. I'M OKAY WITH THAT. THE ONE I'M MOST HUNG UP ON IS THE FLOOR AREA RATIO AND I STILL CAN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'RE AT WITH THAT. MR. HERE IS GETTING THIS 0.37 APPLICANTS GETTING MORE THAN 0.4 AND I DON'T KNOW IF I SHOULD CHASING HOW THE APPLICANT GOT TO ABOVE 0.4 BECAUSE I'M NOT LIKE THAT'S A KIND OF A DEAL FOR ME I'M NOT SURE I CAN SUPPORT THIS IF THEY'RE UNDER THE 0.4 SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M AT.  I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT FOR A  I I HEAR THE WITH THE FAA BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT THAT IS SORT OF THE THE CHECKBOX THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. HOWEVER, IT'S A BIT OF A MOVING TARGET GIVEN THAT WHAT IS PROPOSED IN TERMS OF SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR MEDICAL OFFICE AND MAYBE THE CALCULATION FOR THAT COULD POTENTIALLY CHANGE AND THEREFORE THEY COULD MEET THAT POINT FOR FAA ARE ON THE DESIGN IN THE FEEL OF THE BUILDING YEAH YEAH SO I THINK WHERE I'M HUNG UP IS IT'S IT'S THE APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SO I'M OKAY WITH THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN IT'S THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SO IT'S THE PLAN THIS IS HERE'S WHAT WE WE'RE GOING TO END UP WITH AND IF THAT DOESN'T EQUALO 0.4 I WOULD NOT BE OKAY WITH THAT.  SURE. AND I BELIEVE THAT'S THE NUMBER THAT MR. CINCINNATI WAS GETTING THAT FOR THE SITE ON THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN IT'S LESS 0.4 AND THAT'S A HANG UP FOR ME. GOT IT.  CHARLBURY COMMISSIONER SO BUT SHARING ON THE SCREEN NOW WITH SOMETHING THAT IS FROM THE APPLICANT AND SO YOU KNOW DEPENDING ON WHAT AREAS YOU USE FOR YOUR YOUR SITE AREA YOU'RE GOING TO COME UP WITH DIFFERENT NUMBERS IN TERMS OF FDR AND SO WHERE THIS MIGHT BETTER ILLUSTRATES WHAT THE APPLICANT WHAT THEIR POSITION IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBER ONE THESE ARE BY LOT AREA CONSISTENT WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLAT SO THE LOT AREA 1234 THAT IS LOTS 1234 ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SO YOU CAN SEE THAT IF YOU LOOK AT LOT ONE THE APPLICANT DID NOT EVEN CALCULATE F OUR FDR THEY ESSENTIALLY JUST DEDUCTED THAT FROM FDR CONSIDERATION LOT TO THAT'S THE DECKS HOUSES SPORT YOU CAN SEE THE HUNDRED AND 20,000 SQUARE FEET AND THEN THAT'S WHERE THEY CAME UP WITH THIS POINT FIVE NINE FDR SO OBVIOUSLY THAT PHASE IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT PHASE ISOLATION IT EXCEEDS THE POINT FOR MINIMUM AND THEN ALSO IF YOU LOOK AT LOT THREE AGAIN IN ISOLATION YOU HAVE THE LOT AREA, YOU HAVE THE 105 THOSE SQUARE FEET AND THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE SHOWING A POINT FOUR OR FIVE NOW THE LOT FOUR THAT'S THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF KNOX IN AMERICA. AND AGAIN THIS IS PURELY SO THESE NUMBERS ARE VERY THE NUMBERS THAT THEY'RE SHOWING IN TERMS OF FLOOR AREA TWO AND A 65,000 NOT REALLY A REAL NUMBER PER SE IT'S JUST A IT'S A NOT MODELING AND THAT IS SHOWING A 1.15 SO IT IT REALLY DOES MATTER ON WHAT YOU CONSIDER THE SITE AREA AND HOW YOU'RE CALCULATING FDR. SO WHAT I WHAT I DID IS I INCLUDED THE ENTIRETY OF SOUTHTOWN AS THE SITE AREA AND THEN THE PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING LOTS ONE, TWO AND THREE. SO AS YOU SAID HERE, YOUR CALCULATION WAS THE TOTAL OF US ONE, TWO AND THREE. YES.  OKAY MANAGER I THINK IN IF IT WOULD HELP I COULD READ THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PROVISION INTO THE RECORD SO WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS I THINK THAT WOULD MAKE SOME SENSE HERE. YES THAT SOUNDS GREAT. THANK YOU GRIFFITH REFERENCES EARLIER BUT I THINK IT WOULD HELP IF WE ALL HAD THE LANGUAGE. SO I'M READING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS WAS EXECUTED BACK IN 2015 SO IT SAID EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS PARAGRAPH DEVELOPMENT SO THE WORD DEVELOPMENT IS USED WITHIN THE SOUTH TOWN SHOPPING CENTER SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO MEET A MINIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO GREATER THAN 0.40 UNLESS THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT MUTUALLY AGREE IN WRITING TO MODIFY THIS PROVISION. SO THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE REGARDING FLOOR AREA.  THERE'S ANOTHER PART THAT DEALS IN THIS AGREEMENT THAT DEALS WHAT THE C AREA AND WE PRESERVE WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SAYS REGARDING THE C FIVE AREA IN THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE PROPOSED TO YOU. SO THAT'S WHAT THE LANGUAGE SAID THE WORD THE OPERATIVE WORD THERE IS DEVELOPMENT SO THAT THAT LENDS SOME AT LEAST GUIDANCE TO MR. GRIFFITH SAID EARLIER THAT WE LOOK AT THIS IS CHUNK BY CHUNK OF DEVELOPMENT AS IT OCCURS ON THE PROPERTY OR ON THE WHOLE SITE OKAY SO THAT THAT'S WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SAID AND THAT SEEMS TO BE THE IMPORTANCE OF IT. SO THANK YOU MR. TOZZI. COMMISSIONER COMPTON YEAH.  MANAGER THAT CLEARS IT UP A LOT FOR ME. SO THE WAY I'M INTERPRETING THIS WHICH I THINK I'VE NOW COME AROUND IS THAT IT'S THE DEVELOPMENTS AS EACH PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT INDIVIDUALLY HAS TO EQUAL OR EXCEED 0.4 AND BASED ON THE NUMBERS WE JUST SAW THEY ARE AND SO IN THAT CASE ALTHOUGH MAYBE DICK'S SPORTING GOODS ISN'T EXACTLY WHAT LIKE TO SEE HERE, I'M ABLE TO MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS AND WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS.  ANY OTHER DISCUSSION  CENTURY IF YOU WOULD PULL UP THOSE MOTIONS, MADAM CHAIR? YES, I THINK IT MAYBE IS WORTH DISCUSSING A LITTLE FURTHER CONDITIONS 13 OR 14 I WASN'T SURE IF YOU AND I WERE QUITE ALIGNED AND COMMISSIONER CURRIE WE'RE QUITE ALIGNED. WHATEVER MOTION WE MAKE IS GOING TO HAVE TO REFERENCE THOSE AND WE ABSOLUTELY SHOULD UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'RE AT HERE . SO FOR CLARIFICATION MY END I AM IN SUPPORT OF I PULLED IN MAKE AS A RECOMMENDED FOR CONDITIONS 13 OR 14 BUT I CERTAINLY AM INTERESTED WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE CONSIDERING AND I GUESS I AM AND I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL WITH THE THOUGHT ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS THE SITE WILL MAKE THAT A SAFER SPOT FOR PEDESTRIANS AND VEHICLES BUT DOESN'T NEED TO HAPPEN NECESSARILY IN IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT . MR. CENTINEO, CAN YOU REMIND ME WHAT THE APPLICANT'S RECOMMENDATION WAS?  YES. COMMISSIONERS .  COMMISSIONERS. SO  WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN IS WHAT ELSE? I'M SORRY. GOING BACK AND FORTH AS CHALLENGE.  OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, WHAT YOU'RE WHAT YOU'RE SEEING ON SCREEN IS THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING. AND SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE VARIOUS HOW I HELP WOULD HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS JUST AT THE VARIOUS DRIVE LANES BETWEEN THE NORTH SOUTH DRIVE LANES AND IF YOU CAN SEE AS OF TODAY YOU SEE THIS CURB. THERE'S A PARKING DOWN HERE THAT FORCES YOU THAT YOU KNOW THAT THAT THAT'S WHERE THE LANE ENDS AND IT FORCES YOU TO TURN RIGHT IF YOU'RE REALLY NOT PAYING TO REALLY WHAT THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSING IS JUST A SHIFT THAT SAME CONDITION 60 FEET TO THE EAST.  SO THAT'S WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DO. THE BOLTON AND BANK WITH THEIR PROPOSAL IS TO SHIFT IT TO THIS NEXT HOUR DRIVE LANE JUST ANOTHER 60 FEET SO THAT AS I UNDERSTAND IT THOSE THOSE ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AND WHAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS AND ALSO THE RACE CROSSING CERTAINLY. MR.. ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S A GOOD POINT DISCUSSION ON THIS OF THE CONDITIONS.  MR.. CURRY CHAIR YEAH, I AGREE WITH YOU. CHAIR YOUR POSITION ON ALL THESE CONDITIONS. I MEAN TO ME AND I'M DRIVING THAT OR THAT INGRESS EGRESS FREQUENTLY AND THE PROBLEM THAT I ALWAYS SEE WHEN I'M DRIVING IN THAT AREA IS BEFORE YOU EVEN GET TO THAT SPOT IT'S COMING OFF OF I SAY RIGHT COMING OUT OF PAN INTO THE MAIN ENTRANCE THERE AND THEN THAT FIRST INTERSECTION. SO OBVIOUSLY IN SOME POSITIONS YOU THINK COMMISSIONER CURRY I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.  I DO THINK THAT THAT FIRST INTERSECTION THE ONE THAT IS AROUND THE APPLEBEE'S IS PROBABLY THE THE MAIN ISSUE HERE.  COMMISSIONER HOOTEN, DO YOU HAVE THOUGHTS?  WELL, MY OVERALL THOUGHTS ARE ALTHOUGH I TOOK ONE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CLASS WHICH MAKES ME MOSTLY AN EXPERT I'M NOT A FULL EXPERT AND I'M JUST GOING TO TRUST THE P'S ON THIS AND TAKE THE RECOMMENDATION.  ALL RIGHTY.  IT LOOKS SEEMS LIKE WE DO NOT HAVE CONSENSUS COMMISSIONER,  DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS? YEAH, I AGREE WITH CHAIR CURTIN AND MR. CURRY AND GOING WITH WHAT THE CONSULTANTS SUGGESTED.  SO THAT'S MY THOUGHT.  SO FOR CLARIFICATION I'M A BIT CONFUSED. YOU'RE YOU'RE YOU'RE SUPPORTIVE OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSALS ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THE OF BOLTON AND MAKES OBJECT AND MAKE THAT MAKES CHANGE.  OKAY SO ALL RIGHT ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION AROUND THIS ITEM YES GO AHEAD ISSUE EXPENDITURE. MR.. SINCE YOU HYPOTHETICALLY IF WE WERE TO HAVE A SPLIT VOTE, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?  IT'S TIMES LIKE THESE I WISH GLENN WASN'T ON VACATION.  EXCUSE ME.  KNOW I GENERALLY MY IS THAT THERE'S FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES ARE NEEDED FOR A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL AND IF MR. TABERSKI PLEASE CORRECT ME.  CHAIR COMMISSIONER. SORRY. SORRY TO.  JUMP IN . YOU HAVE YOU HAVE ONE MEMBER WITH A CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT HE'S NOT PARTICIPATING IN THIS DISCUSSION. HE'S COMING BACK FOR THE NEXT HEARING.  RIGHT NOW YOU'VE HAD FOUR MEMBERS SO TO FORM A MAJORITY YOU NEED THREE. UM, SO ARE 2 TO 2 WOULD MEAN THE MOTION ONE PASS YOU'RE WELCOME TO FORM MOTION AFTER THAT TO GET SOME ACTION. UM BUT A TIE VOTE DOESN'T PASS ANYTHING SO.  SO THEN IT GOES TO COUNCIL WITH NO I BELIEVE SO. THAT WORKS WITH A 2 TO 2 VOTE. RIGHT.  I'M CURIOUS THE APPLICANT'S YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE CHANGE IN THE FULL AND MAKES PROPOSAL ALL FROM A FEASIBILITY STANDPOINT.  MADAM CHAIR COMMISSIONERS I'D LIKE TO ASK BOLTON AND MAC TO CLARIFY BECAUSE I THINK WHAT I HEARD WAS A MIDDLE POSITION BETWEEN THEIR ORIGINAL PROPOSAL AND THEIR REPORT. OUR PROPOSAL IS AN ALTERNATIVE AND I BELIEVE THEY SLIGHTLY TWEAKED THEIR PROPOSAL OR DID NOT AND SO THAT'S THAT'S A QUESTION I.  BUT BUT ULTIMATELY WE'D LIKE YOU TO VOTE ON THE PROJECT AND I BELIEVE I'M JUST HEARING NOT GOING TO SAY THAT I KNOW ALL YOUR VOTES BUT I'M HEARING THERE'S CONSENSUS THE PROJECT SO PERHAPS YOU CAN BREAK THAT DOWN AND SUPPORT THE PROJECT AND LEAVE THE QUESTION OF 13 AND 14 TO BE RESOLVED BETWEEN STAFF THE APPLICANT AND PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL MEETING BECAUSE I THINK WE'D PREFER TO HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL NOT HAVE IT FALL ON A TECHNICAL ISSUE.  COMMISSIONER BUT STARTING WITH I'M NOT SURE IF I HEARD SOMETHING SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS IN THE REPORT. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THEM AGAIN BUT.  MANAGER IF I MAY 1ST ASK IS THIS A FINAL DECISION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR DOES THIS GO TO CITY?  GREAT QUESTION. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HOUGHTON, THIS IS THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM SEPTEMBER 30TH 2024 IF IT MOVES FORWARD AT THE CITY COUNCIL. OKAY. THANK YOU.  I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN HEARING FROM BOTH IN MAKING IT. YES. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE CHAIR COMMISSIONER RYAN AND I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF DEFERRING ANY ANY DECISION ON CONDITIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL. I'M NOT SIMPLY NOT ADDRESSING THEM HERE. I THINK WE NEED TO ADDRESS THEM. THANK YOU.  YES, THANK YOU. YEAH. SO ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION WAS TO CARRY THAT THAT SECOND LANE ALL THE WAY TO MORGAN CIRCLE BUT OUR REVISED BASED OFF OF SOME OF THE COMMENTS MADE BY THE DEVELOPER WAS TO HAVE IT A LITTLE BIT LONGER THAN THEY'RE PROPOSING IS JUST ONE ADDITIONAL DRIVER TO MAKE THAT LANE DROP IT CLOSER TO THAT 195 FEET THAT WE ARE LOOKING TO EXTEND THERE. ADDITIONALLY ADDING THE RAISED CROSSINGS IN FRONT OF KOHL'S AND WE ALSO RECOMMENDED THE RAISE CROSSING IN FRONT OF THE NEW DICK'S HOUSE OF SPORT AGAIN TO TRY TO KEEP YOU KNOW, THOSE THOSE MAJOR PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS CONSISTENT AND RAISE CROSSINGS THROUGHOUT SITE.  THANK YOU SO AND COMMISSIONERS IF WE CAN VERBALIZE AS BEST WE CAN WHAT THE MIDDLE GROUND IS FOR A MOTION, THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AND I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IT.  YES. THANK YOU KEVIN . GIVEN ADDITIONAL GIVEN THIS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND MAYBE JUST A CLOUDS THE WATER A LITTLE BIT MORE IT SOUNDS LIKE FROM THE APPLICANT THEY WOULD RATHER HAVE AN APPROVAL MOVING FORWARD THAN TO THAN TO NOT AND SO MY THOUGHT THAT I WOULD BE OKAY.  SWITCHING CONDITIONS 13 AND 14 TO THE SUGGESTION OF BOLTON MAKES REVISED PLAN SO THAT WE CAN MOVE THIS FORWARD WHICH I THINK LEAVES US WITH A MAJORITY AS ANYONE COMFORTABLE MAKING A MOTION.  I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE MAKING THAT MOTION MANAGER.  YES PLEASE.  I'LL MAKE A FIRST MOTION THAT HAVING BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS I MOVE TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A PARTIAL REDEVELOPMENT SOUTHTOWN SHOPPING CENTER SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND CODE REQUIREMENTS ATTACHED TO THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE MODIFICATIONS TO CONDITIONS 13 AND 14 TAKING BOTH AND MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS AS PRESENTED WHICH WOULD BE RAISED CROSSINGS AND THE SLIGHTLY EXTENDED RIGHT TURN LANE. WE HAVE A MOTION WE HAVE A SECOND SECOND THANK YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION. I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IF MR. TUSK YOU THOUGHT THERE WAS CLEAR ENOUGH FOR A MOTION.  GREAT QUESTION MR. TUSK HERE CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER COOK THEN I BELIEVE THAT'S GOOD THANKS.  GREAT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND WE WILL DO A ROLL CALL PLEASE. CHAIR ALBRECHT I.  VICE CHAIR COOKSON. I.  COMMISSIONER ISA I.  COMMISSIONER CURRIE I. MOTION CARRIES FOUR ZERO. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER IN MINIATURE HAVING BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS I TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 7803 PEN AVENUE SOUTH INTO FOUR LOTS FOR FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT. WE HAVE A MOTION DO WE HAVE A SECOND SECOND IF A MOTION A SECOND AND I WOULD APPRECIATE A ROLL CALL. CHAIR ALBRECHT I.  VICE CHAIR COOKSON I.  COMMISSIONER ISA I. COMMISSIONER CURRIE.  A MOTION CARRIES FOUR ZERO. THANK YOU. AND THE FINAL MOTION CONSTRUCTIVE. MADAM CHAIR, HAVING BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THE FINDINGS MOVE TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PLATTING TO ALLOW PARK DEDICATION FEES TO BE PAID AT THE TIME OF BUILDING ISSUANCE . SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND APPRECIATE A ROLL CALL. CHAIR ALBRECHT I. VICE-CHAIR KIRKTON I.  COMMISSIONER ISA HIGH COMMISSIONER CURRY I.  MOTION CARRIES FOUR ZERO. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.  THAT ITEM WILL. THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING THAT ITEM AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 30TH. I'D LIKE TO JUST THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THEIR DELIBERATIONS THIS EVENING. THANK YOU.  THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE CAN INVITE COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM BACK.  WELCOME BACK .  ALL RIGHT.  ITEM TWO ON OUR AGENDA ALSO A PUBLIC HEARING AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE A CONTINUANCE REQUESTED FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND MAJOR REVISION TO FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR AN EVENT CENTER AT AN EXISTING BUILDING.  MISS O'DAY, YOU HAVE THE STAFF REPORT? YES, I HAVE A VERY BRIEF PRESENTATION GIVEN THIS WILL BE CONTINUED SO I JUST HAVE BASICALLY ONE SLIDE.  SO YEAH, THIS IS A PROPOSAL FOR AN EVENT CENTER AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN LOCATED AT 4200 WEST CHALK COPY ROAD. SO THE THREE THE ADDRESS IS 4200 RUSSELL CHALK ABBEY ROAD AT THE THREE DETACHED BUILDINGS ON THE WEST SIDE ARE PART OF THE LARGER VALLEY WEST SHOPPING CENTER. THE PROPOSED EVENTS CENTER WOULD BE LOCATED IN THE NORTHERN PART OF THE BUILDING THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN RED DUE TO A NOTIFICATION ISSUE THAT WE HAD.  WE ARE PROPOSING TO CONTINUE THIS TO THE NEXT MEETING AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT AND HOLD IT OPEN UNTIL THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF SEEING NONE.  WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE CHAMBER WHO WOULD WISH TO TESTIFY ON THIS ITEM?  MR. CENTENARIO IS THERE ANYONE ? ALBRECHT THERE IS NO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ONLINE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.  WE ARE LOOKING FOR A MOTION THEN TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE THAT TO THE DATE CERTAIN WHICH IS SEPTEMBER 19TH. AND I BELIEVE MR. TOSCHI WE NEED A LOCATION AS PART OF THIS AS WELL.  YEAH. CHAIR ALBRECHT IF YOU JUST ANNOUNCED THE DATE THAT YOU ALREADY DID THE DATE BUT THE TIME PLACE AND END DATE OF THE HEARING OKAY WE CAN WE CAN DO THAT IF ANYONE IS COMFORTABLE WITH THAT MOTION.  COMMISSIONER COOK TO HAVE SHARE I RECOMMEND CONTINUING THIS IN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO SEPTEMBER 19TH, 2024 AT 6 P.M. CENTRAL IN THE LEAMINGTON COUNCIL AT CITY HALL WE HAVE A MOTION WE HAVE A SECOND SECOND. ALL RIGHT.  AND WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL. CHAIR ALBRECHT I VICE-CHAIR KURT AND I COMMISSIONER ISA. COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM I COMMISSIONER CURRIE ALL RIGHT. MOTION PASSES FIVE ZERO.  THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  ALL RIGHT. ITEM THREE WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A CITY CODE AMENDMENT STREAMLINING DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE.  MR. JOHNSON, YOU HAVE THE STAFF REPORT .  THANK YOU, CHAIR ALBRECHT AND MEMBERS GOOD TO SEE YOU ALL. THIS WILL BE THE THIRD OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO DISCUSS THIS ITEM IN THIS CASE UNDER THE PUBLIC HEARING WITH AN ACTUAL ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF YOU.  MY TARDINESS HERE .  THANK YOU, MIKE. WE'LL SEE IF THIS CLICKER IF NOT WE MIGHT HAVE TO ADVANCE SLIDES. GREAT LET'S GO FORWARD HERE. LET'S TRY.  I'LL JUST JUST LOVE IT ALL. SOUNDS GOOD.  YEAH. NO, THAT'S OKAY. WE'RE A HURTING UNIT TONIGHT. APPARENTLY IT'S A NO WORRIES. THE EARNINGS ARE GOOD. YEAH. SO TO GIVE YOU A QUICK AGENDA SLIDES AND WHAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT HERE IS BACKGROUND ABOUT PROJECT A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE THAT'S PUT BEFORE YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING JUST SOME KIND OF KEY DISCUSSION ITEMS THAT HAVE COME UP SINCE THE STUDY SESSIONS. I WANT TO REPORT TO YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE CITY COUNCIL RECEPTION OF THE OF THE MATERIALS AND OF THEIR GUIDANCE ON HOW IT INTERACTS WITH WITH YOUR REVIEW AND ELICIT OR PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL INFO ABOUT STAFF ANALYSIS SINCE POINT AND THEN JUST KIND OF OUTLINE WHAT THE NEXT STEPS ARE OF THIS PROJECT . SO NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO JUST WE'VE YOU KNOW, WE'VE GONE OVER THIS A FEW TIMES SO FORGIVE ME MAYBE IT'S MOST FOR COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM'S BENEFIT BUT AGAIN THIS PROJECT IS AN IDENTIFIED PROJECT ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORKPLAN FOR THIS YEAR WE SPENT A LOT OF OXYGEN ON EXPLAINING WHY WE THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT THING TO DO FOR BLOOMINGTON GOING FORWARD AND JUST IN TERMS OF THE DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT SMALL BUSINESS CREATION, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, OTHER THINGS BUT BASICALLY WE BOILED DOWN WHAT THE GOALS ARE OF THIS PROJECT INTO FOUR CRITERIA OF WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO WITH OUR ZONING APPROVALS AND WE'RE TO LOWER BARRIERS BARRIERS OVERALL IN THESE FOUR AREAS BY REDUCING THE TIME, THE COST AND THE COMPLEXITY OF WHAT IT TAKES TO GET DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AND KIND OF THE DOWNSTREAM EFFECT THAT IS INCREASING CERTAINTY AND CONFIDENCE IN THE PROCESS FOR FOR THE APPLICANTS. ONE THING I WANT TO NOTE THAT WE'VE SHARED A COUPLE OF TIMES AS WELL THAT YOU CAN'T DO THIS WITHOUT REALLY EFFECTIVE AND QUALITY AND ACCURATE INTERNAL REVIEW.  SO WE HAVE A PRETTY ROBUST INTERNAL REVIEW PROCESS ABOUT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS AS YOU KNOW FROM BUILDING PERMITS ALL WAY UP TO THE LARGEST APPLICATIONS THAT COME BEFORE YOU. THEY ALL GO THROUGH A PRETTY SIMILAR PROCESS BUT I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAINTAIN THOSE THINGS WHEN YOU TAKE SOME OF THESE ACTIONS MOVING THINGS IN MORE STREAMLINED AND ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTION AND THEN OTHER THING I WANT TO SAY IS THAT THIS WAS A COMMENT BY COUNCILMEMBER NELSON AT CITY COUNCIL THE LAST TIME WE LOOKED AT SOME OF PROCEDURAL ELEMENTS OF OUR ZONING CODE WAS 2009 AND 2024 DOING THE MATH, YOU KNOW, 15 YEARS IS MAYBE A LITTLE BIT TOO LARGE OF A GAP IN ORDER TO MAKE MORE SIGNIFICANT TWEAKS OR DO THIS FORMAL EVALUATION. SO I THINK A POINT I WANT TO MAKE HERE THAT KIND OF SIMILAR TO OUR COMMENTS ABOUT THE SIGNING ORDINANCE WE WANT TO BE IN A POSTURE IN A MODE OF ONGOING EVALUATION ABOUT HOW THESE THINGS ARE WORKING AND WITH REAL APPLICATIONS AS WE GO FORWARD. SO IT'S IMPORTANT THAT STAFF TO KEEP AN EYE ON HOW THESE NEW PROCEDURES  ARE PERFORMING IF THEY'RE ADOPTED AND CONTINUE TO MAKE SUGGESTIONS FOR TWEAKS ON AN ONGOING BASIS TO IMPROVE QUALITY OVERALL. SO YEAH THANKS SLIDE. SO AGAIN MAYBE MOSTLY FOR COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM'S BUT WE STARTED THIS PROJECT WITH 11 SUB PROJECTS THAT WE IDENTIFIED BASED ON THESE FOUR GOALS OF REDUCING TIME REDUCING COST, REDUCING COMPLEXITY, INCREASING CERTAINTY.  BUT IF I CAN BOIL DOWN THIS LIST OF 11 REALLY INTO FOUR MAIN THINGS WHAT IT REALLY IS IS IT'S TALKING ABOUT INCREASE IN ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN APPROVAL MOVING A NUMBER OF CONDITIONAL USES IN TERMS OF THEIR STATUS TO A PERMITTED USE POSTURE TO KIND OF STREAMLINE SOME OF THOSE.  THE THIRD THING AND MAYBE THE ONE THAT INCLUDES MOST OF THESE SUB PROJECTS IS REALLY GRANTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION MORE AUTHORITY TO TAKE FINAL ACTION ON APPLICATION SUBJECT TO APPEAL. AND THEN THE LAST THING THE LATEST COMER TO THE PROJECT WAS THE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION PROCESS WE TALKED ABOUT HOW WE DIDN'T HOW SOME CITIES HAVE A FORMAL WAY TO SEEK REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS RELATED TO ACCESSIBILITY FAIR HOUSING REQUIREMENTS BLOOMINGTON DOES NOT HAVE PROCESS.  WE'VE BEEN USING THE VARIANCE TO DO THAT AND SO THOSE ARE REALLY THE FOUR MAIN THINGS THAT KIND OF TIE ALL THESE 11 SUB PROJECTS TOGETHER. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.  SO JUST TO REITERATE THE PROCESS THAT WE'VE THROUGH SO THREE STUDY SESSIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED FOLLOWING THE INITIAL RESEARCH PHASE OF THE PROJECT PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY THE BULK OF THE MATERIALS ON MAY 23RD AT THE SECOND STUDY SESSION THEY MORE INTENTLY THE LIST OF CONDITIONAL USES LINE BY LINE ALL 57 OF THEM. SO IT'S VERY EXTENSIVE AND DETAILED AND.  THEN THE CITY COUNCIL SESSION ON JULY 15TH, 2024 IN TERMS OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS. SO THOSE ARE ALL WELL RECEIVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THEY WERE SUPPORTIVE OF KIND OF THE FULL MENU OF WHAT'S ENTAILED IN THE ORDINANCE. I'LL GET INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL WHERE THEY SLIGHTLY DIVERGED WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND I THINK THE MAIN MOTIVATORS OR REASONS THERE IS THAT THEY WANTED TO LEAVE KIND MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY AS THE ORDINANCE PROCEEDED THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS FROM A PUBLIC NOTIFICATION STANDPOINT AND SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE IN DETAIL BUT OVERALL THE ORDINANCE THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET THAT'S PRESENTED TO YOU WOULD AMEND CHAPTERS 215 1921 IN APPENDIX A NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. MIKE THANK YOU.  AND WHAT I PLAN TO DO HERE IS JUST PROVIDE THIS WAS PROVIDED YOU AND YOUR STAFF BUT THIS IS A BULLET LIST FROM A SEQUENTIAL STANDPOINT WHAT THE CHANGES ARE FIRST OF ALL THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE PROVISIONS SO THAT HAS TO DO WITH ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WERE GRANTED AUTHORITY TO APPROVE VARIANCES THAT WOULD NO LONGER BE SO THE ORDINANCE WOULD REMOVE THOSE AGAIN ZONING RELATEDLY ZONING VARIANCE APPROVAL AUTHORITY SO MATCHING THE CITIES OF ORDINANCE IN PRAIRIE WHERE THEY'RE PLANNING COMMISSION SERVICES OR THEIR BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENT ARE SUBJECT TO APPEAL.  SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO APPROVE THOSE REQUESTS SUBJECT TO A THREE DAY L THREE DAY APPEAL PROCESS. THE APPEAL TO STAFF FOR INTERPRETATION THIS IS A VERY RARE APPLICATION TYPE IT DOESN'T COME UP VERY OFTEN BUT AGAIN WITH DESIGNATING PLANNING COMMISSION AS THE BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENT THOSE WOULD COME TO YOU FIRST AS OPPOSED TO A FINAL ACTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS THAT'S A EXCEEDINGLY RARE APPLICATION IT HAS TO DO WITH HISTORIC STRUCTURES BUT THAT'S SHIFTING AGAIN THE APPROVAL AUTHORITY FROM THE CITY COUNCIL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 57 USE IS CHANGED FROM CONDITIONAL TO PERMITTED.  I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT ONE IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL AND I WOULD SAY ON THIS LIST THE ONES THAT I HAVE IN BOLD FONT ARE THE ONES I PLAN TO DEEP DOVE LITTLE BIT FURTHER ON NEXT SLIDE PLEASE THE TEN PERMIT EXTENSIONS APPROVAL AUTHORITY SIMILAR JUST GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION THE ABILITY TO TAKE ACTION ON THOSE THE MIRO PERMIT APPEAL PROCESS VERY SIMILAR TO THE INTERPRETATION APPEAL GRANTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION THE ABILITY TO WEIGH ON THOSE THE 82 AND THE TWO FAMILY DWELLING APPROVAL PROCESS RIGHT NOW THOSE CURRENTLY REQUIRE FINAL SITE AND BUILDING PLANS TO BE APPROVED AND UNDER THESE CHANGES THEY WOULD BE TREATED SIMILARLY TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AS OPPOSED TO REQUIRING THAT ADMINISTRATIVE ZONING SO THEY WOULD JUST GO THROUGH A BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS OUTDOOR NOISE MITIGATION THIS IS A NEW ONE IS ONE I'LL SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF TIME BUT THIS IS STAFF TRYING TO TAKE ALL THE FEEDBACK WE'VE GOTTEN AND TRYING TO GET TO THE GOALS OF MAKING IT MORE STREAMLINED TO GET OUTDOOR DINING BUT ALSO DEAL WITH SOME OF THE POTENTIAL NUISANCE CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAN HAPPEN WITH THOSE AREAS SAYING VARIANCE APPROVAL AUTHORITY.  SO AGAIN SIMILAR TO THE VARIANCE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO APPEAL. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.  THAT'S THE FIRST TWO BULLETS. SO THIS HAS TO DO WITH EXPANDING ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF SITE PLANS IN EFFECT SO FINAL SLIDE AND BUILDING PLANS WHICH IS CALLED COMPLYING PROJECTS AND THEN FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS WHICH OF COURSE IS OUR PLAN DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN EQUIVALENT. I'LL TALK ABOUT THOSE A LITTLE MORE DETAIL A CONDITIONAL AND INTERIM USE PERMIT AUTHORITY SO PLANNING COMMISSION JUST TAKING THE REINS OVER ALL OF THEM AS OPPOSED TO HAVING A SUB LIST OF SOME THAT THE CITY COUNCIL IS REQUIRED TO TAKE ACTION ON.  WE HAVE OUR APPLICATION PROCESS TABLE.  IT'S A VERY EXTENSIVE TABLE THAT LISTS WHERE VARIOUS APPLICATIONS GO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE THEM WHAT PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE REQUIRED. SO IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE ALL THESE CHANGES YOU HAVE TO CHANGE ALL THESE PROCESSES IN YOUR TABLE.  I MENTIONED THE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION PROCESS AND ZONING CODE SO THAT IS WITHIN THE ORDINANCE AND THEN THERE'S A FEW SCHEDULE CHANGES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ELIMINATING CERTAIN TYPES OF PROCESSES AND ADDING SOME NEW ONES AND TWEAKING SOME. SO THOSE ARE JUST A FEW CHANGES THAT REALLY EFFECTUATE THE THE BULK OF THE ORDINANCE . NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO INTO THE MORE MEATY PARTS OF THE TOPICS I'LL TALK ABOUT THESE THREE MAIN THINGS THE CONDITIONAL USE CHANGES DINING AND ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND KIND OF WHAT THE OPTIONS THERE AND WHAT WE LOOKED AT SO NEXT SLIDE SO AS MOST OF YOU KNOW WHEN STAFF ORIGINALLY PRESENTED OUR RECOMMENDATIONS TO YOU WE PRESENTED 57 USES THAT WE WERE CONFIDENT COULD SHIFT FROM CONDITIONAL TO PERMITTED.  MANY OF YOU HAVE TAKEN ACTION ON MANY CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS IN YOUR TIME ON THE BOARD SO YOU'RE PROBABLY HIGHLY FAMILIAR WITH WHAT THAT PROCESS LOOKS LIKE AND WHAT PURPOSE IT SERVES BUT BASICALLY THROUGH AN EVALUATION THAT WE WENT THROUGH ON THE FRONT END ABOUT YOU KNOW, THE STRENGTH OF THE CITY'S USE STANDARDS THE POTENTIAL FOR NUISANCE WHAT DISTRICTS THOSE USES ARE ALLOWED IN AS WELL AS SOME OTHER MISCELLANEOUS CRITERIA SUCH AS DEFINITIONS AND OTHER THINGS THAT CAN APPLY TO CERTAIN USES WE WERE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS 57 THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEIR REVIEW IN JUNE DID REMOVE 12 OF THESE USES AND SO THOSE WERE THE 45 THAT WE PRESENTED TO THE CITY AT THEIR STUDY SESSION. I MENTIONED THIS BEFORE BUT MY MY UNDERSTANDING WHAT I INTERNALIZED FROM THEIR DISCUSSION IS THAT THEY WERE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION BUT THEY DID WANT TO INCLUDE THE FULL BULK OF ALL OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE ORDINANCE THAT WOULD CONSIDERED JUST FROM A NOTICE PERSPECTIVE SO THAT IF THEY WANTED TO INCLUDE THOSE LATER THEY WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO SO. SO IT'S JUST A WAY KIND OF INCREASE MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY THE THING I WOULD SAY IS THAT IN DRAFTING THE ORDINANCE HAVE AN OPTION WE HAVE AN OPTION B OPTION IS THE FULL SEVEN OPTION B IS THE 45 THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED.  SO DEPENDING ON THE NATURE THE DIRECTION YOU WANT TO TAKE THIS TONIGHT, WE CERTAINLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO TO PRESENT THAT THE CITY COUNCIL IN A WAY THAT MAKES IT EASY FOR THEM TO TAKE ACTION IN A WAY THAT EITHER EFFECTUATE THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PREVIOUS OR THE INITIAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION. SO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT EXHIBIT A IN THE STAFF REPORT WAS THIS DOCUMENT HOPEFULLY YOU GOT TO SEE IT BUT THE USES ARE LISTED BY NUMBER AND THE USES THEMSELVES WERE NOT RECOMMENDED TO GO FORWARD AS PERMITTED USES ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW NEXT SLIDE PLEASE THAT'S WHAT THAT DOCUMENT LIKE BUT PER REQUEST I ALSO HAVE THESE 12 USES LISTED ON THE NEXT SLIDE MIKE IF WE CAN DO THE NEXT ONE TOO. SO THESE WERE THE 12 USES THAT IN JUNE THE PLANNING COMMISSION REMOVED FROM THEIR RECOMMENDATION AS FAR AS CHANGING TO PERMITTED SO I HAVE THESE AVAILABLE FOR YOU IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THEM YOU KNOW AS I MENTIONED THE DISCUSSION WAS PRETTY EXTENSIVE IN JUNE AND FROM FROM MY VIEWPOINT WAS ALL WELL-FOUNDED REASONS AND MADE SENSE TO STAFF AND SO THIS IS AVAILABLE FOR YOU IF YOU WANT A REFERENCE IN CONSIDERATION OF YOUR ACTION.  SO WITH THAT THAT'S KIND OF THE MAIN POINT AROUND THE CONDITIONAL USE COMPONENT THAT ACTUALLY THE LARGEST CONTENT OR BULK OF THE ORDINANCE IS ALL OF THOSE CHANGES WITH RESPECT TO CHANGING THINGS FROM CONDITIONAL TO PERMITTED IN SOME CASES DELETING CERTAIN USES OR KIND OF MAKING LITTLE TWEAKS AS NOTED IN THE APPENDIX AT TIMES. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.  SO OUTDOOR DINING THIS IS ONE THAT CONTINUED TO VEX OUR STAFF AS WE TRIED COME UP WITH A CREATIVE SOLUTION TO STREAMLINE DEVELOPMENT FOR OUTDOOR DINING WHILE AT THE SAME TIME CREATING KIND OF PROTECTIONS IN PLACE FOR THE TYPES OF OUTDOOR DINING OR THE LOCATIONS FOR OUTDOOR DINING THAT HISTORICALLY HAVE CAUSED SOME NUISANCE.  AND SO THE WE LIKE THE SOLUTION THAT WE ARRIVED AT WE CERTAINLY CAN TAKE FEEDBACK ON IT WHETHER IT'S THE RIGHT WAY TO GO BUT ULTIMATELY WHAT WE INCLUDED IN THIS IS THAT ROOFTOP DINING REMAINS A CONDITIONAL USE AND IN HISTORICALLY JUST ANECDOTALLY I'M SURE MIKE SURE THE SAME THE ROOFTOP DINING AREAS HISTORICALLY HAVE KIND OF CAUSED THE MOST NOISE COMPLAINTS IN OUR TIME AT LEAST IN THE LAST TEN YEARS HERE IN BLOOMINGTON. SO WE THINK IT'S WISE JUST GIVEN THE NOISE GENERATION IS NOT HAPPENING AT GREAT. IT'S HAPPENING FROM AN ELEVATED POSITION THERE TENDS TO BE LIGHTING AND OTHER THINGS ON THE ROOFTOP THAT CAN CREATE SOME NUISANCE SO WE JUST THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO KEEP THAT A CONDITIONAL USE AND YOU KNOW THAT AFFECTS A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF VENUES IN BLOOMINGTON SO ORDINANCE IS BUT THE ORDINANCE IS SUGGESTING OUTDOOR DINING GENERALLY AND SO WHAT THAT WILL BE IS AT GREAT OUTDOOR DINING DOES BECOME A PERMITTED USE BUT WHAT WE HAD TO DO IS KIND OF CREATE A WAY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE NOISE CONCERNS PARTICULARLY WHEN THESE FACILITIES ARE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL USES EXCUSE ME.  SO WHAT WE DID IN ORDER TO KIND OF ADDRESS THAT SOLUTION WHAT WE THOUGHT IS THE BEST COURSE IS TO REALLY IDENTIFY AND APPLY STRICTER SCRUTINY TO SITUATIONS THAT ARE CLOSE TO RESIDENTIAL USES AND THAT HAVE LARGER NUMBERS OF SEATS SMALL OR SIDEWALK CAFES REALLY DON'T GENERATE A LOT THOSE NUISANCE CHARACTERISTICS BECAUSE THE VOLUME OF PEOPLE YOU KNOW SEATS OR LESS REALLY ISN'T GOING TO TRIGGER THAT. SO YOU HAVE THOSE VERY LARGE OUTDOOR DINING AREAS THAT CAN GET QUITE NOISY OR BUSY WITH TRAFFIC. SO WHAT WE'RE SUGGESTING IS THAT EVERY OUTDOOR DINING AREA THAT MEETS THESE TWO CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE LISTED ON OUR SLIDE THEY WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT A NOISE MITIGATION PLAN FOR REVIEW AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL AS PART OF THEIR APPLICATION.  AND SO AGAIN TWO CRITERIA ARE WOULD BE MORE THAN 16 SEATS AND WHEN LOCATED 250 FEET OF RESIDENTIAL USES.  AND SO YOU MIGHT ASK WHAT WOULD A NOISE MITIGATION PLAN LOOK LIKE? AND THAT'S TOTALLY QUESTION WE HAVE SOME EXPERIENCES AND WORKING WITH SOME OF THE RESTAURANTS WHO HAVE HAD NOISE COMPLAINTS AND DEALING WITH SOME OF THE SOLUTIONS THAT WE THINK ARE VIABLE DO THINK IT ALSO IS INCUMBENT ON THE OPERATORS OF THESE FACILITIES COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS THAT ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS AND SO COULD IT LOOK LIKE IT COULD LOOK LIKE STRATEGIC BAFFLING OR SOME BARRIERS IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE OUTDOOR DINING AREA. SO CONSTRUCTING THAT INTO THE PATIO IT COULD BE STRATEGIC LOCATION OF MUSIC OR AMPLIFICATION DEVICES THAT THEY UTILIZE. IT COULD BE LIMITATIONS ON THE HOURS OR LEVELS OF THE MUSIC THAT THEY PLAY WHEN THEY TURN OFF THESE SYSTEMS AT 9:10 P.M. ETC. THIS IS ALL ABOVE AND BEYOND OUR GENERAL NOISE ORDINANCE WHICH OF COURSE DOES HAVE MAXIMUM UM DECIBEL LEVELS THAT CAN BE GENERATED FROM COMMERCIAL SITES WHICH ALSO GOES IN A DOWNWARD DIRECTION WHEN THERE ARE RESIDENTIAL USES NEARBY. SO THIS IS KIND OF AN EXTRA LAYER OF PROTECTION IF YOU WILL FOR THESE SITUATIONS.  YEAH. SO I MEAN THAT'S THE SOLUTION . IT WAS ONE THAT STAFF DISCUSSED WITH PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL AND IT WAS I THINK WE WERE ALL KIND OF IN ALIGNMENT OF WHAT WE THOUGHT THE GOAL SHOULD BE BUT WE DIDN'T QUITE HAVE THE THE SOLUTION FULLY FORMULATE OR EXCUSE ME THE SOLUTION FULLY SYNTHESIZED WHEN WE WERE AT STUDY SESSION. SO HOPEFULLY THAT IS RECEIVED POSITIVELY.  THE LAST KEY DISCUSSION ITEM IS HAS TO DO WITH ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW HERE FOR A CALL AND WE WERE BEFORE YOU BEFORE THE TWO MAIN OPTIONS WE EXAMINED WERE EXPANDING THE PLANNING MANAGER'S EXISTING APPROVAL AUTHORITY OR GOING TO FULL ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW THE COMMISSION FAVORED EXPANDING THE PLANNING MANAGER'S BY INCREASING THE SIZE OF NEW BUILDINGS AND BUILDING ADDITIONS THAT COULD BE APPROVED AS WELL AS THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS THAT COULD BE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY THAT WAS IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.  WHEN WE PRESENTED THAT TO THE CITY COUNCIL THEY ACTUALLY ASKED STAFF LOOK AT WHAT WOULD A FULL ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS LOOK LIKE? SO WE DID THAT WITH ONE MAJOR CAVEAT THAT KIND OF LED US TO WHERE WE WERE IN DRAFTING THE ORDINANCE.  THE MAJOR CAVEAT WAS THAT THEY ALSO WANTED TO NOT SACRIFICE LEVEL OF PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AS PART OF THAT PROCESS.  AND SO WHAT WE DID IN ORDER TO TRY AND EFFECTUATE THAT OR MAP OUT WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE IS IT GOT US TO THE POINT WHERE LOOKING AT CALENDARS, LOOKING AT KIND OF PHANTOM APPLICATIONS IF YOU WILL, WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO DO A PUBLIC NOTICE AKIN TO WHAT GET FOR PLANNING COMMISSION AND THINK ABOUT TEN DAYS IT TAKES MULTIPLE TO PREPARE THE MAILER MULTIPLE DAYS TO ACTUALLY HAVE THEM RECEIVE IT THROUGH THE MAIL WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE ULTIMATELY A 4 TO 5 WEEK PROCESS WHICH IS VERY SIMILAR OR MIRRORS THAT OF WHAT PLANNING COMMISSION ALREADY DOES AND SO WE MADE A PROFESSIONAL DECISION TO DRAFT THE ORDINANCE IN SUCH A WAY WHICH WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AS OPPOSED TO GOING WITH FULL ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW BECAUSE IN OUR JUDGMENT ALL OF THE BENEFITS OF STREAMLINING WERE LOST WHEN CONSIDERING INCLUSION OF A FULL BLOWN NOTIFICATION. SO IN OUR VIEW IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO A FULL BLOWN NOTICE AND HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING OPPORTUNITY WELL I'M SORRY LET ME BACK UP. THERE WOULDN'T BE A PUBLIC HEARING OPPORTUNITY BUT IF GOING TO DO A FULL BLOWN NOTICE YOU MIGHT AS WELL DO IT AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION VENUE AND HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO IT FOR A LARGER PROJECT. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AND HOPEFULLY THAT MAKES SENSE . NEXT SLIDE PLEASE MIKE THANK YOU SO THAT'S THE BULK OF KIND OF WHAT I WAS GOING TO PRESENT TO YOU JUST A REMINDER OF KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT IN THE PROCESS. SO NOW WE'RE IN THE PUBLIC HEARING OF THE PROCESS. IF YOU WERE TO TAKE SOME ACTION THIS APPLICATION OR ON THIS ORDINANCE THIS EVENING, IT WOULD TO THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AVAILABLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR A HEARING AND THAT WOULD BE SEPTEMBER 30TH IF THEY TOOK ACTION AT THAT MEETING THESE CHANGES COULD BE IN EFFECT BY MID-OCTOBER WE HAVE SOME THINGS ON THE INTERNAL STAFF SIDE OF THINGS TO DO TO KIND OF GET OUR INTERNAL SYSTEMS ALIGNED WITH SOME OF THESE NEW PROCEDURES AND SO THAT'LL PROBABLY TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME AND BE ADDITIONAL BURDEN ON OUR CURRENT PLANNING STAFF.  BUT YEAH THAT GIVES YOU KIND OF JUST THE GENERAL SCHEDULE OF WHAT'S KIND OF AHEAD NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO WITH THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS ORDINANCE AND I'M HAPPY TO STAND FOR QUESTIONS.  THANK YOU MR. JOHNSON ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER COOKSON EXPENDITURE? MR. JOHNSON YOU SAID THIS WOULD GO TO CITY COUNCIL AS A PUBLIC HEARING. THAT MEANS IT WOULD NOT BE ON THEIR CONSENT AGENDA. IS THAT RIGHT? CHAIR COMMISSIONER COOKSON THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU AND MR. JOHNSON COULD YOU GO BACK TO YOUR SLIDE ON OUTDOOR DINING?  I CAN AND THANK YOU MIKE FOR HELPING ME YOUR TWO BULLET POINTS HERE. THE SECOND ONE IS LOCATED WITHIN 250 FEET OF RESIDENTIAL. HOW IS THAT MEASURED? IS THAT PROPERTY THE PROPERTY OWNERS AT THE ACTUAL PATIO OR THANK YOU. YEAH, NO IT DOES SPECIFY THAT IN THE ORDINANCE AND THAT WOULD BE MEASURED FROM THE OUTDOOR DINING AREA ITSELF TO THE RESIDENTIAL SITE AND TO BE SPECIFIC WHAT THAT MEANS IS IT'S A RESIDENTIAL IS OWNED AND USED AND GATED SITE SOMETIMES WE HAVE A PROPERTY THAT'S RESIDENTIAL BUT IT'S ACTUALLY ZONED INDUSTRIAL SO THERE'S LIKE YOU KNOW, SOME TRANSITION USE ISSUES THAT CAN OCCUR BUT THE WAY IT'S MEASURED IS FROM THE PATIO FROM THE OUTDOOR DINING PATIO TO THE RESIDENTIAL SITE AND ZONING GUIDING USE AND BY RESIDENTIAL SITE THAT WOULD BE THE PROPERTY LINE, CORRECT? YEP. AND IS THAT ALL RESIDENTIAL LIKE SINGLE AND MULTI-FAMILY? THAT'S CORRECT. YEP.  THANK YOU, MR. CUNNINGHAM.  THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MR. JOHNSON, I DON'T RECALL WHICH SLIDE THIS WAS ON BUT.  YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT ONE OF THE CHANGES WAS THAT THERE WOULD STILL BE AN APPEALS TO STAFF INTERPRETATIONS PROCESS THROUGH THE STREAMLINING.  I JUST WANT TO BE SURE THAT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IT WHAT I'M ASKING IS IF AN ITEM KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC GETS NOTICED IN THE PAPER OR IS SENT OUT TO LOCAL RESIDENTS THAT IF THERE IS A CONCERN FROM RESIDENTS THAT THERE WOULD STILL THAT ITEM WOULD STILL COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AND NOT JUST BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED.  MM HMM. IS THAT PART I AM NOT  A LEGAL SCHOLAR SO I'M SURE NO ALL THE CODE SECTION CHANGES AND SO I JUST WANT TO ENSURE THAT THE PUBLIC WILL STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO COMMENT ON ITEMS. YES. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT CHAIR COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM. SO STAFF INTERPRETATION PIECE HAS TO DO WITH ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS THAT ALREADY OCCUR AND SO A BUSINESS WANTS TO COME UP AND SAY YOU KNOW I THINK MY PARKING ISLAND HERE MEETS YOUR CODE AND WE MEASURE IT AND SAY NO IT DOESN'T. AND SO THE ELEMENT OF THE STAFF INTERPRETATION IS THAT THERE ARE LEVERS IN CODES AND THIS IS CONSISTENT AMONG OTHER COMMUNITIES AND THAT'S FRANKLY WHAT THIS CHANGE REALLY HAS TO DO WITH IS DESIGNATED THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS THE CITY'S BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENT SO NOW THE CITY COUNCIL IS SERVES AS THE CITY'S BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENT BY DESIGNATING THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS SUCH IT REALLY JUST MOVES THAT AUTHORITY TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT AN APPEAL OF STAFF DECISION MAKING TO YOU IN TERMS OF LIKE WHEN PEOPLE RECEIVE NOTICE AND THAT'S KIND OF ONE OF OUR NOT CONCERNS BUT ONE OF OUR CONSIDERATIONS RESPECT TO FULL ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW IS IF YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE PEOPLE A PUBLIC NOTICE BUT THERE'S STILL NOT A PUBLIC HEARING OPPORTUNITY SOMETIMES THAT CAN DRIVE SOME LEVEL FRUSTRATION OR DIFFICULTY. IT DOES PROVIDE THE ABILITY THEM TO APPEAL THE PLANNING MANAGER'S DECISION. SO IT DOES STILL DOES HAVE VALUE BUT BASICALLY WE WANT THAT WITH THE THE RECOMMENDATIONS MAKING ABOUT THE SITE PLAN REVIEW IS THAT ANY TIME SOMEONE'S RECEIVING NOTICE IT SHOULD BE ATTACHED OR TIED TO A PUBLIC HEARING OPPORTUNITY IN OUR VIEW THAT'S JUST OUR VIEW OF IT AND SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT'S REFLECTED IN THE ORDINANCE. THANK YOU.  THANK YOU. MR. JOHNSON. I HAVE ONE QUESTION SO I SHOULD HAVE STAYED ON THE OUTDOOR DINING SLIDE BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO BRING IT UP AGAIN. THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS ABOUT NOISE BUT NOT LIGHTING.  HAS YOU HAVE YOU SEEN THAT AS AN ISSUE AS LIGHTING AS AN ISSUE OR WAS THAT PART OF YOUR CONVERSATION?  YEAH CHAIR WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN COMPLAINTS MUCH ABOUT THE LIGHTING. IT'S BEEN DRIVEN MORE BY NOISE AS YOU KNOW BLOOMINGTON YOU OFTEN HEAR THIS TERM DARK SKIES ORDINANCE OR DARK SKIES COMMUNITIES EVERY CITY IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT AND THE DEVIL'S IN THE DETAILS ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS BUT WE HAVE A 90 DEGREE CUT OFF REQUIREMENT IN OUR LIGHTING ORDINANCE WHICH MEANS THAT THE SOURCE HAS TO BE POINTED DOWN. YOU CAN'T SEE VISIBLE SOURCES THAT ARE MORE POWERFUL OBVIOUSLY IS ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTS AND THINGS THAT DO HAVE A VISIBLE SOURCE.  AND SO I MEAN FRANKLY WE'VE GOTTEN A LOT OF MILEAGE OUT OF THAT COVERED SOURCE OR THAT 90 DEGREE SOURCE REQUIREMENT. IT REALLY KNOCKS DOWN A LOT OF THE ISSUES SURROUNDING LIGHTING COMPLAINTS BUT ALL THAT BEING SAID, I KNOW FROM WORKING WITH OUR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH STAFF AS WE STILL DO ALSO HAVE A PROVISION WITHIN OUR LIGHTING ORDINANCE THAT IF THERE IS EXCESSIVE GLARE COMING OFF A SOURCE SOMETIMES IT STILL COMPLIES WITH THE POWER REQUIREMENT BUT HAS EXCESSIVE GLARE. I KNOW THERE HAS BEEN INSTANCES THE CITY HAS UTILIZED THE CODE THAT SPECIFIC PROVISION TO EFFECTUATE A CHANGE TO GET THAT SOURCE POINTED SOMEWHERE ELSE OR TO SHIELD THAT SOURCE. SO GENERALLY NO THAT HASN'T BEEN AN ISSUE WITH OUTDOOR PATIOS JUST ON THE BASIS OF OUR MIKE CAN ATTEST THAT WE'RE PRETTY STRICT ON OUR LIGHTING REVIEWS AND MAYBE MORE SO THAN SOME OTHER COMMUNITIES SO.  I THINK WE'VE PROBABLY KNOCKED DOWN A LOT OF THOSE ISSUES IN THE PAST THROUGH THAT. MR. CENTER.  JALBERT EXCUSE ME. ONE THING I WOULD ADD IS TO MR. JOHNSON'S POINT JUST BECAUSE I STILL HAVE BRUISES FROM THE STADIUM APPLICATIONS WE DO HAVE WAYS TO MEASURE ACTUAL LIGHTING LEVELS ON THE GROUND SURFACE AND THE CITY CODE DOES INCLUDE A MAXIMUM LIGHT TRESPASS LEVEL THAT WE CAN VERY EASILY MEASURE. GLARE IS EXTREMELY TO MEASURE AT PICTURE. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU DO MEASURE IT BUT LIGHTING IN TERMS OF FOOT CANDLES ON THE GROUND IS VERY EASILY MEASURED AND IF THERE'S A PATIO NEAR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND COMPLAINTS ABOUT JUST A BEING TO HAVING TOO MUCH LIGHT TRESPASS CAN WE CAN MEASURE THAT AND THEN TAKE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH WE FIND GREAT THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER ABOUT SURE. MR..  GOING BACK TO BEING A BOARD OF APPEALS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS, HOW OFTEN DOES THAT HAPPEN TODAY WITH CITY COUNCIL CHAIR COOK DOWN AND I LOOK TO MIKE FOR MORE INSTITUTIONAL TO BRAINS IS BETTER THAN ONE I DON'T THINK IT'S HAPPENED ONE TIME IN MY TIME HERE FOR I'M SORRY FOR WHICH TYPE OF AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING MANAGER DECISION AND THE REASON AND I'LL LET HIM THINK ABOUT BUT THE REASON THAT IT OFTEN DOESN'T HAPPEN IS THAT IF AN APPLICATION IS NOT GOING TO BE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY TYPICALLY THEY DON'T APPLY,  THEY WITHDRAW OR IT DOESN'T GET TO THAT POINT. AND AGAIN THAT KIND OF GOES BACK TO ONE OF MY EARLIER COMMENTS EARLIER ON IN THIS PROCESS THAT IF YOU'RE GETTING A LOT OF APPLICATIONS THAT RESULT IN DENIALS THAT REQUIRE YOU OR THE CITY COUNCIL TO DENY AN APPLICATION WERE AS STAFF ARE NOT DOING ENOUGH ON THE FRONT END OF TO KIND OF HAVE SOME GUARDRAILS I DON'T WANT TO SAY LIKE A GATE OR ANYTHING BUT PEOPLE ARE FREE TO APPLY IT'S THEY'RE TOTALLY ALLOWED TO APPLY BUT WE'RE NOT SERVING THEM WELL IF WE DON'T ADVISE THEM WHAT THE CORRECT OUTCOMES ARE IN EFFECT COMMISSIONERS I CAN'T THINK OF A SINGLE APPEAL APPLICATION WE'VE HAD IN THE LAST TEN YEARS. WE TRY NOT TO WE TRY TO AVOID DENIALS BY FINDING A PATH THAT MEETS AND THE APPLICANT'S NEEDS. WE'RE USUALLY ABLE TO DO THAT AND WE DON'T WE HAVEN'T RUN INTO MANY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT APPEALS I'M LOOKING AT THE ATTORNEY TASK THE PHONE TOO AND I KNOW THAT PEOPLE OFTEN APPEAL OTHER CIVIL PENALTIES BUT IT'S USUALLY NOT A PLANNING MANAGER'S DECISION ABOUT THE ZONING CODE INTERPRETATION. IT'S USUALLY OTHER FORMS OF APPEAL.  YEAH YEAH. CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS I HAVEN'T BEEN ASKED TO WORK ON ANYTHING LIKE THAT OVER THE PAST TWO AND A HALF YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN AT THE CITY THE BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENT HAS A STATUTORY DUTY TO DO THAT SO.  IT IS REQUIRED BY LAW THAT WE HAVE SOMEBODY ADDRESS INTERPRETATION APPEALS BUT I THE SENIOR PLANNERS AND IT DOESN'T HAPPEN VERY MUCH AT ALL.  THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF COMMISSIONER CURRY,  CHAIR AND GREAT JOB HANDLING MY ABSENCE I APPRECIATE IT.  THAT'S VERY UNCLEAR. I'M CONFUSED GOING BACK TO THIS 5745 NUMBER AND THE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC HEARINGS SO READING THE TABLE AGAIN FOR THE RECOMMENDATION OR THE SUMMARY IN THE PROPOSAL IS THAT WE ARE YOU ARE RECOMMENDING THAT WE JUST REMOVE ALL 57 TO CONDITION FROM CONDITIONAL TO PERMITTED AND THAT THERE IS NO PROBLEM HEARING OR I'M SORRY NOT PUBLIC HEARING BUT NO PUBLIC NOTICE AS PART OF THOSE 57 WHICH IS CORRECT, YEAH.  CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER CURRY THANKS FOR THAT QUESTION GIVES ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO KIND OF EXPLAIN THE REASONING BEHIND PRESENTING IT IN THAT WAY. BUT IF WE WERE TO LIST EVERY USE OF IT IT WOULD BE A VERY EXTENSIVE AND LONG AND EXPENSIVE PUBLIC NOTICE WITH LIKE QUESTIONABLE I GUESS VALUE JUST DOING A SEQUENTIAL LIST OF ALL OF THEM. AND SO WHAT WE DID THE PUBLIC NOTICE WAS TO LIST THE NUMBER AND FOR EXAMPLE IF WE REDUCE THE NUMBER TO 45 WHEN WE PRESENTED IT TO YOU OR THE CITY COUNCIL GOING FORWARD AND THEN ADDED TO THAT LIST, THE ONLY CONCERN BECOMES WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE INVALIDATING OUR OWN PUBLIC NOTICE IN EFFECT OR THAT THE ORDINANCE THAT'S BEING PRESENTED DOES NOT ADEQUATELY REFLECT THE PROPOSAL.  SO IT'S KIND OF ONE OF THOSE THINGS LIKE YOU CAN GO BACKWARDS BUT YOU CAN'T ADD ON TOP OF AT LEAST THAT WAS KIND OF OUR THINKING IN CRAFTING THE PUBLIC NOTICE THAT'S WHY THE LANGUAGE SPECIFICALLY SAYS IN THE NOTICE UP TO 57 OKAY DEVIL'S IN THE DETAILS KIND OF THING YEAH SO.  OKAY SO JUST TO CONFIRM SO IS WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON IS THE 47 IS MOVING 47 AND SAYS FROM CONDITIONAL TO COMMITTED AND NOT HAVING THE PUBLIC NOTICE IS THAT RIGHT OR AM I JUST SEE THE FUTURE. YEAH. CHAIR COMMISSIONER CURRY AND I'LL AND KEVIN YOU CAN CHIME IN IF I AM KIND OF NOT CAPTURING THIS RIGHT BUT I THINK WHAT I THINK WHAT WE WOULD ASK YOU TO DO IS TO CONSIDER THE ORDINANCE AS IT'S PRESENTED TO YOU IF YOU WANT TO AMEND IF RECOMMENDATION INVOLVES AMENDING THAT IN SOME WAY I WILL CERTAINLY PRESENT GUIDANCE AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL THEN IT A LITTLE BIT OF A ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OR DECISION ON PART OF HOW DO WE NOTICE THAT WHEN WE HAVE GOTTEN CLEAR GUIDANCE FROM THE CITY COUNCIL TO INCLUDE ALL 57 SO I DON'T KNOW YOU KNOW SIMILAR TO THE FIRST APPLICANT OF ITEM ONE I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT YOU RECOMMEND A DOWN OR SAY WE DON'T RECOMMEND WE RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THIS ORDINANCE SO MUCH AS WE WANT TO CARRY FOR YOUR GUIDANCE BUT ALSO HONOR THE COUNCIL'S DIRECTION TO INCLUDE ALL IN THE ORIGINAL OR INITIAL ORDINANCE. SO KEVIN IF YOU HAVE WE TALK THROUGH THIS THIS IS OUR SAUSAGE MAKING ON THE FLY HERE . WE DIDN'T TALK THROUGH THAT PER SE ON THE FRONT END BUT KIND OF WHERE MY HEAD'S AT WITH IT.  YEAH. CHAIR AND CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS I THINK STAFF HAS PRESENTED A LIST OF 57 USES THEY WOULD LIKE REMOVED MOVED FROM CONDITIONAL TO PERMITTED IN THOSE SITUATIONS THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY PUBLIC NOTICE BECAUSE THERE'S NO PUBLIC HEARING SO AND LIKE NICK SAID, IF YOU GIVE SOMEBODY NOTICE AND THERE'S NO PUBLIC HEARING THEY GET FRUSTRATED BECAUSE THEY SHOW UP AND CAN'T PARTICIPATE. SO WE WOULDN'T GIVE PUBLIC NOTICE IN THOSE SITUATIONS. SO IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WANTS TO RECOMMEND A REDUCED NUMBER OF THOSE USES THAT ARE GOING TO MOVE FROM CONDITIONAL TO PERMITTED WE CAN DO THAT. WE JUST NEED A MOTION OF WHAT THOSE USES WOULD BE OR A REFERENCE TO THIS SLIDE OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD SAY THAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS X WITH THIS CAVEAT OR WHATEVER AND FORGIVE FORGIVE ME CHAIR IF I HOPE I'M NOT CONFUSING THE ISSUE FURTHER TO I THINK WHAT KEVIN'S TALKING ABOUT IS THAT ONCE USE IS PERMITTED IT IS NO IT NO LONGER REQUIRES A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SO NO LONGER REQUIRES A NOTICE. THE ISSUE I WAS SPEAKING ABOUT WITH RESPECT TO THE NOTICE HAS TO DO WITH HOW WE FRAME UP THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION IN THE PAPER OF THIS ORDINANCE ITSELF. AND SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE DISCREPANCY LIES THE BEST TO DO THAT TO HONOR YOUR RECOMMENDATION BUT ALSO IN RESPECT TO THE CITY COUNCIL'S PRIOR GUIDANCE.  SO MR. JOHNSON, THE CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER LET ME JUST GIVE A LITTLE CRASH COURSE WE DO PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR ORDINANCE CHANGES AT PC AND AT CITY COUNCIL SO WE HAVE TO NOTICE THROUGH TWICE ONCE A PUBLIC PLANNING COMMISSION WANTS FOR CITY COUNCIL THE PLANNING OR THE THE NOTICE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL USUALLY GO OUT AFTER THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SO WE HAVE WE HAVE A CLEAR RECOMMENDATION OF WHAT IT MIGHT BE.  WHAT NICK WAS REFERENCING IS THAT WE HAD TO INCLUDE ALL OF THOSE USES TO CAPTURE WHAT COULD HAPPEN.  SO IF YOU RECOMMEND ONLY 45 OF THEM THAT THAT WOULD BE KIND OF INCLUDED UNDER THAT UMBRELLA OF 57. SO WE WON'T HAVE TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THE NOTICE OR THE ORDINANCE IF THAT MAKES SENSE. SO IT'S KIND OF LIKE A LESSER INCLUDED THING THANKSGIVING I PROBABLY MADE THAT WORSE THAN IT HAD TO BE.  MR. JOHNSON I HAVE A JUST KIND OF A FOLLOW UP QUESTION BECAUSE BASED ON WHAT YOU SAID, THE CITY COUNCIL WAS SUPPOSED PART OF OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS OF 45 VERSUS THE 57 SET. CORRECT. THE WAY THAT I WOULDN'T SAY THAT THEY AS A GROUP AS A CONSENSUS GROUP SAID IT SHOULD BE 45 AND WE WANT TO ADVANCE THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION. KEEP IN MIND THIS IS ASKED AS PART OF THE DISCUSSION CAME ON THE TAIL END OF A LONGER DISCUSSION AROUND SITE PLAN REVIEW. THAT WAS WHAT TOOK THE FOCUS OF THE CITY DISCUSSION IN MY VIEW AND SO THERE WAS A SUGGESTION DURING THE MEETING TO INCLUDE ALL 57 USES BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO MAINTAIN MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY AS THEY SAW IT IN THE ORDINANCE AND ADJUSTED DIAL IT BACK IF THEY SO CHOSE BASED ON THE PUBLIC HEARING BASED ON PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION THEY JUST WANTED TO KEEP THE OPEN IF THAT MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU.  ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?  ALL RIGHT. THE CITY IS THE APPLICANT ON THIS ITEM SO WE WILL OPEN THE HEARING IF THERE'S ANYONE IN THE CHAMBERS WHO WISHES SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, FEEL FREE TO COME FORWARD .  HELLO. ROBERT COLEMAN HERE AGAIN. I JUST WANTED TO IF I SAW IN THE IN THE PACKET THAT THE THE CLUMPING OF TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS AT SOME WAY IS GETTING REMOVED. DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE ENTIRE LIKE THE CLUMPING REQUIREMENTS OR THE CLUMPING CONDITION IS THAT STILL GOING TO REMAIN LIKE OR IS IT JUST EFFORTS TO ARE ONE THE CLUMPING OF TWO FAMILY DRAWINGS DOESN'T MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE TO ME. IT KIND OF SEEMS LIKE I MEAN I DON'T KNOW WHEN IT ENTERED CODE BUT IT KIND OF SEEMS LIKE A RELIC OF LIKE A OH WE DON'T KIND OF WANT TO BE LIKE BECAUSE LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOODS IN RICHFIELD THAT HAVE A LOT OF , YOU KNOW, WHOLE BLOCK THAT'S LIKE HALF TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS AND IT DOESN'T SEEM TO MAKE A LOT OF SENSE IN 2020 FOR THAT WE SHOULD STILL HAVE THAT THE CONDITION THEY CAN'T BE CLUMPED AND I JUST WANTED TO CHECK TO SEE IF THE BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE IN SOME INSTANCES AT LEAST THE CLUMPING IS GOING AWAY BUT IS IT COMPLETELY GOING AWAY?  THAT'S THE ONLY THING I NEEDED TO CHECK. THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION.  THE PUBLIC HEARING IS A TIME FOR US TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC IF WE SO CHOOSE WE CAN ASK STAFF WHEN WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ANY OTHER FOLKS IN THE CHAMBER WHO WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY IN THIS ITEM MR. CENTENARIO IS ANYONE ON LINE?  JOE ALBRECHT THERE IS NO ONE ONLINE. ALL RIGHT SEEING NO ONE. I LOOK FOR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC SO MOVED SECOND THERE IS A MOTION CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND A SECOND AND I WOULD APPRECIATE ROLL CALL CHAIR ALBERT I VICE-CHAIR AND I WILL COMMISSIONER SIR I MR. CUNNINGHAM BY COMMISSIONER CURRIE ALL RIGHT MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO THANK.  MOTION CARRIES ANY DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM I'D LIKE TO MR. JOHNSON TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION CAME UP REGARDING TWO FAMILY DWELLING UNITS DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING. YEAH. CHAIR COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM THANK YOU. HAPPY TO DO AND YES THE ORDINANCE THE WAY AS YOU RECALL DURING THE STUDY SESSION WE PRESENTED TWO OPTIONS ABOUT THAT ONE WAS TO JUST ELIMINATE THE GROUPING USE ALTOGETHER AND THE OTHER WAS TO ADJUST KIND OF THE THE DISTANCES OR THE NUMBER OF THEM THAT CONSTITUTED A GROUPING ULTIMATELY BOTH BODIES PROVIDED THE GUIDANCE AND DIRECTION TO JUST ELIMINATE THE GROUPING USE SO THE ORDINANCE AS IT'S DRAFTED RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST ELIMINATE THAT CONSIDERATION ALTOGETHER THANK YOU THANK YOU NO COMMENTS DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER CLIFTON THANKS CHAIR.  MR. SENATOR, IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO THE SLIDE OF THE 12 ITEMS THERE I DID GO AND WATCH MOST OF THE CITY COUNCILORS ON THIS A LITTLE FLATTERING TO HEAR THEM TALK ABOUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A WHILE IT WAS ACTUALLY QUITE INTERESTING HAD A LOT OF INTERESTING FEEDBACK ON ON OUR PROCESSES AND HOW THEY FEEL WE'RE DOING AND THERE WAS YEAH THAT WAS INTERESTING TO WATCH REGARDING PROPOSAL TO CARRY ALL 45 FORWARD OR ALL 57 RATHER I'M IN FAVOR OF STICKING AT 45 I WENT BACK AND JUST CHECKED ON THIS AND HOW LONG WE TALKED ABOUT IT AND WE TALKED ABOUT IT FOR OVER 2 HOURS. IT WAS LIKE IT WAS OVER IT WAS 2 HOURS AND 9 MINUTES IN FACT AND WE ASKED MR. JOHNSON TO BREAK IT OUT, HAVE A SEPARATE MEETING BECAUSE WE THOUGHT IT WAS TOO MUCH TO DISCUSS IN A SMALL PORTION.  AND IN THIS CASE I FELT LIKE THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO THESE 12 THINGS AND WITH NO DISRESPECT TO CITY COUNCIL THEY HAVE A LOT OF THINGS TO DO. THEY DISCUSSED IT FOR A SIGNIFICANTLY LESS TIME.  I THINK MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO CONTINUE THIS FORWARD WITH 45 AND RECOMMEND THAT IF THE CITY COUNCIL WANTS TO GO WITH ALL 57 THEN I THINK THEY SHOULD GIVE THESE AT LEAST SOME CONSIDERATION ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS.  THINK THERE'S ITEMS ON THIS LIST THAT I THINK RIGHTLY WE ASKED TO REMAIN CONDITIONAL TALKING ABOUT THINGS LIKE FUTURE GAS STATIONS, PAWNSHOPS ,HEAVY HEAVY EQUIPMENT.  I MEAN I DON'T THINK THESE ARE THINGS TO BE OVERLOOKED AND FOR WELL FINANCIAL REASONS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ASKED FOR THESE TO REMAIN AS CONDITIONAL NOT PERMITTED. SO MY RECOMMENDATION WILL BE THAT WE CARRY THE 45.  THANK YOU. YEAH I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT PARTICULARLY.  I THINK ONE OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAD AROUND SELF-STORAGE WAS THE SELF-STORAGE FACILITY THAT WE ACTUALLY HAD A FAIRLY BIG IMPACT ON ON WINDOW AVENUE AND HOW THAT LOOKS AND INTERACTS WITH THE STREET AND THE PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE AND BUT FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS WE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THAT COME FRONT OF US.  SO I TEND TO AGREE I WOULD I WOULD PREFER TO GO WITH THE 45 I THINK YOU KNOW WE DID PUT A LOT OF TIME AND ENERGY INTO THE DISCUSSION AND I THINK FOR GOOD REASON WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF THESE COME UP AND WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS AROUND THESE INCLUDING GOLF VEHICLE REPAIR PAWNSHOPS. I MEAN WE HAVE A LOT OF HERE WHERE WE HAVE SEEN THESE COME FORWARD AND I DO THINK THAT THEY NEED TO REMAIN CONDITIONAL.  ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER COTTINGHAM,  HAVING NOT BEEN ON THE COMMISSION DURING THESE STUDY SESSIONS BUT HAVING REVIEWED THE TWO HOUR AND NINE MINUTE SESSION PRIOR TO THIS MEETING I AM AGREEMENT WITH CHAIR ALBRECHT AND VICE CHAIR VICE CHAIR CAPTAIN ABOUT MOVING FORWARD WITH APPROVING THE 45 COMMISSIONER CURRIE THANK YOU. CHAIR YEAH, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT THINK BASED ON WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SOUNDS LIKE THE CITY COUNCIL IS MOSTLY FOCUSED ON PLANS AND MAYBE BETWEEN PUBLIC HEARINGS THESE 12 TOPICS MAYBE THIS 12 TOPICS DIDN'T GET THE AIRTIME THAT THEY NEEDED TO REALLY CONSIDER THEM. SO I ONE WOULD AGREE WITH MR. JOHNSON AND THE PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO SEND OUT A PUBLIC NOTICE SPEAKING OUT HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING AND THAT I THINK SHOULD ALSO REVERT BACK TO THE OF 57 THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING.  THANK YOU, MR. JOHNSON.  QUICK QUESTION ABOUT A CLARIFICATION QUESTION. YOU SAID THAT THERE WAS OF AN A OR B OPTION WHICH IS WHICH YEAH. SO CHAIR NOT TO GET NOT TO ELEVATE ONE OR THE OTHER IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER LABEL THEY ARE THE REASON I BROUGHT THAT UP IS THAT I WANTED IT TO MAKE CLEAR AND I'LL MAKE THIS CLEAR TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT I HAVE BOTH VERSIONS READILY AND AND I'LL HAVE TO TALK.  KEVIN IN TERMS OF WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE FROM THE PUBLIC PACKET PERSPECTIVE TERMS OF WHAT WE PRESENT TO THEM. BUT I WILL MAKE SURE YOUR VIEWS ON IT ARE VERY CLEAR AND STRONGLY VOICED ON THAT AND 2 HOURS AND 9 MINUTES I'M GOING TO USE THAT ANECDOTE FOR SURE . BUT THE POINT IS IS THAT I DRAFTED ONE TO MAKE THE CHANGES IN DRAFTING THE ORDINANCE.  I WANTED TO HAVE IT BE DONE IN SUCH A WAY THAT I HAD THAT DOCUMENT READILY AVAILABLE IN OTHER WORDS THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, LOSE MULTIPLE WEEKS OF TIME A PROCEDURAL TIME TO GO BACK AND MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE. SO ALL I WAS REALLY TRYING TO COMMUNICATE THERE IS THAT VERSIONS OF THIS ULTIMATELY LARGER POLICY ARE READY TO GO. GREAT. THANK YOU. YEP.  ANY OTHER DISCUSSION.  WE'RE READY TO MAKE A MOTION? I'M SURE I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION.  GO FOR IT. IN CASE P.L. 2024-127I MOVE TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF THE STREAMLINED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE THEREBY AMENDING CHAPTERS 215 1921 AND APPENDIX A OF THE CITY CODE WITH A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE ITEM MOVING FROM CONDITIONAL TO PERMITTED REMAIN AT 45 AND NOT THE 57 REMOVING THE 12. AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.  MR. TUSK DOES THAT WORK?  SORRY CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS I CROSSED THE WRONG BUTTON THERE.  YEAH, THAT WORKS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND PROCEDURAL CALL.  CHAIR ALBERT I VICE CHAIR COOKTOWN HIGH COMMISSIONER ISA I.  COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM I. COMMISSIONER CURRIE ALL RIGHT. MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO. EXCELLENT.  THAT ITEM MOVES TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SEPTEMBER 30TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING. ARE YOU?  THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.  ITEM FOUR IS A STUDY ITEM. THERE'S NO PUBLIC HEARING INCORPORATED AND THAT IN THAT IS TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT AUGUST 15, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SYNOPSIS COMMISSIONERS WHO WERE PRESENT AT THAT MEETING WERE COMMISSIONERS WHITE. COMMISSIONER ALBRECHT. COMMISSIONER COOKED IN COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN AND COMMISSIONER CURRIE. ABSENT WERE COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM AND ISSA. I BELIEVE HAVE THE 50% TO ACTUALLY MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ONE THIS TIME. SO IF ANYONE IS WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION COMMISSIONER COOKSON MADAM CHAIR I MOVE TO APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SYNOPSIS FROM AUGUST 15TH 2024 AS PRESENTED. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?  SECOND SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE DRAFT PLANNING COMMIION MEETING SYNOPSIS APPRECIATE A ROLL CALL.  CHAIR ALBRECHT I. VICE COOKED AND I COMMISSIONER YOU SIR I ABSTAINED.  EXCUSE ME. COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM ABSTAIN.  COMMISSIONER CURRIE I MOTION CARRIES 3 TO 0 WITH TWO ABSENT PATIENTS. EXCELLENT.  ALL RIGHT. ITEM FIVE IS ALSO STUDY ITEM NO PUBLIC HEARING AND IT IS AN UPDATE PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY AND ISSUE UPDATE MR. CENTENARIO.  THANK YOU, CHAIR ALBRECHT I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU A BRIEF SUMMARY OF SOME UPCOMING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS.  YOUR NEXT MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 19TH AND THERE ARE FOUR DEVELOPMENT ITEMS ON THAT AGENDA. THE FINAL PLANT FOR 8525 AND 8545 PEN AVENUE IS THE PEN LAKE TOWNHOME PROJECT. THEY MADE SOME MODIFICATIONS TO THEIR PLANT SO THEY HAD TO GO THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS AGAIN. ANOTHER IS A4A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REPAIR FACILITY AND MINOR MAJOR REVISIONS TO FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR AN ADDITION FOR THE SITE IS DISCOUNT TIRE. THERE IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EVENT CENTER THAT'S THE CONTINUATION FROM TONIGHT AND.  THEN LASTLY FLEMMING FARM DEVELOPED PLANS FOR AN AUTO DEALERSHIP THAT'S THE LUTHER KING THAT IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE RECONSTRUCTED.  AFTER THAT WE HAVE OCTOBER 3RD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WHERE WE HAVE ONE PUBLIC ORDER FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CENTER AND THEN TO STUDY ITEMS.  EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. ANY ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO BRING FORWARD?  ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE. WE WILL CONCLUDE OUR SEPTEMBER 2024 MEETING OF THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION. THANK YOU