##VIDEO ID:iUpX-BYOO5U## GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE NOVEMBER 7TH, 2024 MEETING OF THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS MADE UP OF SEVEN MEMBERS. WE HAVE FIVE THIS EVENING. 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 PLANNING 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 THE APPEALS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR EACH ITEM THERE WILL BE A STAFF REPORT THEN A CHANCE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PRESENT AND THEN A CHANCE FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY.  AND THEN THE COMMISSION WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS THE ITEM BEFORE THE ACTION IS TAKEN. WE HAVE ONE ITEM THAT IS A PUBLIC HEARING THIS EVENING THE REST OUR STUDY ITEMS OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS TONIGHT IS THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PLEASE STAND IF YOU'RE ABLE I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FIREFLIES. THE UNITED STATES WILL DO JUSTICE FOR THE NATION INDIVISIBLE JUSTICE FOR ALL .  ALL RIGHT. THE FIRST ITEM THIS EVENING IS A STUDY ITEM.  IT IS A REVIEW OF THE COMBINED TEN YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2025, 2024, 2034 APOLOGIES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND I BELIEVE SENIOR PLANNER JOHNSON HAS THE STAFF REPORT. THANK YOU CHAIR ALBERT GOOD TO SEE ALL YOUR MEMBERS TONIGHT.  SO YEAH THIS HAS BECOME THIS IS AN ANNUAL ACTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS RESPONSIBLE TO EXECUTE.  AND SO FOR THOSE THAT ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN THE CFP THE CITY PREPARES THIS THIS PLAN ON AN ANNUAL BASIS EXTENDING OUT TEN YEARS REALLY COMBINES THE PHYSICAL PLANNING OF THE COMMUNITY WITH THE FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS THAT THE CITY ANTICIPATES TO BE ABLE TO PAY FOR THESE PROJECTS. SO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS EVERYTHING RANGING FROM ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE UNDER YOUR FEET, ON YOUR FEET AND THEN BUILDINGS OF COURSE FACILITIES ,PARKS A WIDE RANGE OF DIFFERENT FACILITIES THAT THE CITY MANAGES ASSETS AND I SHOULD SAY I'M SORRY BEFORE I GET STARTED LORI KIND ECONOMY SHOULDERS HERE SHE'S THE CITY'S CFO SO SHE CAN ANSWER FINANCIAL RELATED QUESTIONS AND HER STAFF ARE MOST DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR PRESENTING AND PREPARING THE COPY TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE CITY ENGINEER AND THE DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR ALSO HERE IF THERE'S QUESTIONS ABOUT SPECIFIC PROJECTS SO BACK TO MY SLIDES.  SO WHAT IS IN THE CIP? THE CHP INCLUDES OUR CAPITAL PROJECTS OVER $50,000 IN VALUE BECAUSE IT IS SUCH AN EXTENSIVE DOCUMENT, SO MANY PROJECTS ARE WITHIN IT. IT'S OVER 300 PAGES. I LIKE TO REFER TO THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LISTS ALL THE PROJECTS UNDER FIVE CATEGORIES THEY EXCEED $1,000,000. THESE ARE THE LARGER, MORE SUBSTANTIAL PROJECTS IN THE CHP. I WOULD STATE THAT INCLUSION IN THE TEN YEAR CHP IS NOT A GUARANTEE THAT THESE PROJECTS ARE MOVING FORWARD.  IN ORDER FOR THE PROJECTS TO MOVE FORWARD THEY DO HAVE TO HAVE THE APPROPRIATE FUNDING BUDGETED AND IN PLACE TO PROCEED AS WELL AS INITIATION . AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT FOR ALL PROJECTS UNDER $175,000 THE CITY MANAGER HAS THE AUTHORITY TO INITIATE THOSE FOR OVER $175,000. THE CITY COUNCIL HAS TO TAKE AN INTENTIONAL ACTION TO DO THAT.  THE PROJECT'S JUST A NOTE UNDER CONSIDERATION COME FROM MANY SOURCES SO THERE'S A LOT OF COORDINATION THAT HAPPENS RELATED TO CITY ASSETS AND FACILITIES IN TERMS OF COORDINATING WITH MINDAT HENNEPIN COUNTY, THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT YOU KNOW REGIONAL PARTNERS AS WELL AS COORDINATING WITH YOU KNOW OTHER ENTITIES ORGANIZATIONS THAT WORK WITH THE CITY. BUT MOST OF THESE ARE CITY DISCRETE FACILITIES. SO WHAT IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ROLE?  THE STATE LAW STATE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT A MUNICIPALITY IS PLANNING AGENCY AND THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION DOES SERVE AS BLOOMINGTON'S PLANNING AGENCY REVIEW ANY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AGAINST COMPLIANCE OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.  AND SO THAT IS WHAT YOUR ROLE IS IS VERIFYING THAT THE PROJECTS CONTAINED WITHIN THE CAP ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN.  SO WHAT DOES COMPLIANCE MEAN? YOU KNOW, I HATE TO USE THE SIMILAR ANECDOTE EVERY YEAR BUT IF THE CITY WERE BUDGETING AND TRYING TO EXECUTE A PROJECT OF EXTENDING SANITARY SEWER FOR EXAMPLE INTO AN AREA THAT WAS DESIGNATED FOR CONSERVATION THAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF IT NOT BEING COMPLIANT WITH THE MUNICIPAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.  SO AS I MENTIONED THE FULL DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE ONLINE.  IT'S QUITE LONG. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE FULL DOCUMENT AND AS I MENTIONED THERE'S A FEW PARTIES HERE TONIGHT WHO SHOULD ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. SO JUST GENERAL OVERVIEW AS PER YEARS PAST THE PROJECTS ARE LISTED IN FIVE DISTINCT CATEGORIES MAJOR PROJECTS AND THIS YEAR HAPPENED TO INCLUDE A COUPLE OF PROJECTS THAT WERE ON THE RECENT BLOOMINGTON REFERENDUM EFFORT BLOOMINGTON FORWARD SO THE COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER IS THE LARGEST TICKET ITEM BUDGETED AT $100 MILLION THE BIG BLUE TO NICE GARDEN RENOVATIONS IS ON THAT LIST THE NINE MILE CREEK CORRIDOR RENEWAL IN 2026. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF ONGOING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AROUND THAT BUT A LOT OF OTHER PROJECTS THAT INVOLVE RENOVATIONS OF EXISTING CITY FACILITIES REPLACING CITY FACILITIES AS WELL AS BUILDING BRAND NEW CITY FACILITIES. SO RENOVATIONS EVEN UP TO HERE AT CIVIC PLAZA ARE LISTED ON THE CUP RENOVATING FIRE STATION ONE AS AN EXAMPLE OF A RENOVATION OR THAT ONE CLUBHOUSE FLEET GARAGE. SO THAT'S A NEW FACILITY FLEET MAINTENANCE GARAGE JUST NORTH HERE ON JAMES AVENUE IN 2025 THE CITY PLANS TO CONSTRUCT MULTIPLE NEW FIRE STATIONS IN THE COMING YEARS AND THERE'S JUST A BEVY OF DIFFERENT UPGRADES TO OUR FACILITIES ALL AROUND THE COMMUNITY. THERE IS ONE EXAMPLE OF DEMOLITION AFTER THE COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER WILL BE CONSTRUCTED,  THE CITY WILL NEED TO DEMOLISH THE CURRENT PUBLIC HEALTH BUILDING LOCATED ON LOGAN AVENUE THERE. SO THESE ARE JUST KIND OF GIVES YOU A SNAPSHOT. I DIDN'T GET INTO ALL THE NITTY GRITTY DETAILS.  THERE'S A LOT OF STREET AND TRAFFIC SAFETY AND SEWER AND WATER PROJECTS THAT ARE ON THESE LISTS INCLUDING SOME OF THE SEWER CAPACITY ISSUES THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A LITTLE BIT WITH RESPECT TO THE SEWER ACCESS CHARGE, MAYBE THAT'S MORE OF A DISCUSSION THAT'S HAPPENED AT CITY COUNCIL BUT ALL THESE THINGS ARE LISTED IN THE CAP. SO WHAT IS HOW DOES THE CAP CONNECT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? SO AS YOU KNOW ADOPTED IN 2018 ,THE CURRENT PLAN IS VERY MUCH THE HIGH LEVEL VISIONING DOCUMENT FOR THE COMMUNITY LAYING OUT THAT 20 YEAR PLAN.  SO IT'S NOT GOING TO REFERENCE EVERY SPECIFIC CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE CIP. IT WILL TALK ABOUT SOME COMMUNITY FACILITIES WITH SPECIFICS SUCH AS CONSTRUCTING NEW FIRE STATIONS BUT REALLY THE WAY THAT WE DRAW CONNECTIONS TO THE PLAN AND KIND OF OTHER PLANS THAT ARE ADOPTED BY REFERENCE IN THE CURRENT PLAN AS WE REFER TO THE GOALS, STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS THAT THE PLAN LAYS OUT ABOUT HOW TO BUILD A VIBRANT AND HEALTHY COMMUNITY FOR BLOOMINGTON. SO WHAT WE TRIED TO LAY OUT IN THE STAFF REPORT IS A FEW EXAMPLES OF WHERE THESE PROJECTS ALIGN WELL OR NEATLY WITH GOALS, ACTIONS AND STRATEGIES IN THE PLAN.  BUT LET ME KNOW IF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THAT IS NOT CLEAR.  BUT OVERALL, YOU KNOW THERE'S NOT A SENTENCE SIGNIFICANT FOR THOSE WHO WERE HERE LAST YEAR NOT A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF NEW PROJECTS OR DIFFERENT PROJECTS ON THIS YEAR'S CIP LIST THERE ARE A FEW CHANGES,  A FEW REMOVALS, A FEW ADDITIONS BUT MOST OF THEM ARE OF THE MORE MODEST VARIETY. SO STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE CFP AND WE DO AFFIRM THAT IN OUR VIEW IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO WE DO RECOMMEND THE PLANNING COMMISSION AFFIRM THAT WITH A RESOLUTION SUGGESTED MOTION IS ON YOUR SLIDE BEFORE YOU AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.  QUESTIONS FOR STAFF  SEEING NONE  IN MR. MARKER AND I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION THIS IS A STUDY ITEM YET WE HAVE A RESOLUTION. SO IS THERE A PUBLIC COMMENT NEEDED? I HEARD CHAIR ALBRECHT NO PUBLIC COMMENT IS NEEDED. FORGIVE ME CHAIR ALBRECHT IF I MIGHT I SHOULD HAVE ADDED ON MY SLIDE. I DID LAY OUT A LITTLE BIT OF A PROCESS THAT IS IN PLACE AND I SHOULD STATE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WHO ULTIMATELY TAKES ACTION ON THE CFP IN TERMS OF ITS CONTENTS IS HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING ON DECEMBER 18TH 16TH I'M SORRY IT WAS ON THE SLIDE BUT DECEMBER 16TH THERE IS A PUBLIC HEARING SO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE INTERESTED IN COMMENTING ON THE PLAN AND GIVING THAT DIRECT FEEDBACK.  THERE IS A PUBLIC HEARING OPPORTUNITY AND THAT'S REQUIRED. EXCELLENT. THANK YOU.  WELL I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED.  COMMISSIONER COOKSON, I'M SURE I MOVE TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE COMBINED TEN YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2025 THROUGH 2034 COMPLIES WITH THE BLOOMINGTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.  SECOND ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I I, ALL THOSE OPPOSED AND THAT MOTION PASSES . THANK YOU. AND MOVING ON OUR ONE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM OF THE EVENING IS ON THE MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES ORDINANCE AND WE HAVE PLANNER SPEC WHO WILL PROVIDE THE STAFF REPORT.  THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS GIVE ME ONE SEC AND OKAY SO YES THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES WHICH WAS HERE ON OCTOBER 10TH FOR A STUDY SESSION AND THEN IT WILL BE GOING TO CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 2ND AS A PUBLIC HEARING AS WELL. SO JUST TO REFRESH MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES IS AN ANNUAL THING THAT STAFF DOES TO CONSIDER MINOR AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CODE RELATED TO LAND USONIAN DEVELOPMENT THEY DON'T WARRANT THEIR OWN PROJECT ON THE WORK PLAN BUT THEY DO NEED TO BE FIXED. SO THAT IS WHAT THESE ARE.  SO I SPLIT THE MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES UP INTO TWO GROUPS ONE GROUP IS THE CLEANUP ITEMS AND ANOTHER GROUP GROUP IS MORE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES. I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THE CLEANUP ITEMS. I DO HAVE THEM AS EXTRA SLIDES IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THEM BUT YOU CAN KIND OF LOOK AT THIS TABLE OF CONTENTS AND I'LL GIVE YOU ONE EXAMPLE OF WHAT A CLEANUP ITEM IS.  SO HERE'S ONE OF THE CLEANUP ITEMS.  IT'S JUST THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN GRAMMAR AND SO IN THIS ARTS AND CRAFTS FESTIVAL DEFINITION WE WERE FIXING THAT AND THAT IS SIMILAR TO WHAT THE OTHER CLEANUP ITEMS ARE.  AND THEN HERE'S THE TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR THE CHANGES THAT WERE MORE CONTENT CHANGES AND I WILL GO THROUGH THESE ONE BY ONE. SO SO ORDINANCE OH IS THAT THE CODE REQUIRES ALL STRUCTURES AND ALL LOCATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL FRONT SET BACK TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PLANNED WIDE AND RIGHT OF WAY THIS WOULD THIS CHANGE WOULD ALLOW THE CITY ENGINEER AND PLANNING MANAGER TO EXEMPT THE MEASUREMENT FROM THE PLAN WIDE AND RIGHT AWAY AND SITUATIONS WHERE BOTH PARTIES AGREE THAT THE ADDITIONAL SETBACK IS NOT NECESSARY ORDINANCE P IS ADDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY AND PRESERVATION LANGUAGE IN ORDER TO MAKE IT MEET THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF A LOCAL HOUSING TRUST FUND ORDINANCE.  Q IS MINDA GUIDANCE SAYS THAT PUBLIC SIDEWALK SHOULD HAVE A MINIMUM TWO FOOT CLEAR ZONE TO PREVENT POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION INTERFERING WITH USERS AND SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES. SO THIS IS ADDING THAT CLEAR ZONE AROUND PUBLIC SIDEWALKS ORDINANCE ARE IS CREATING A DEFINITION FOR SUNSHADES AND THEN ALLOWING PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS FOR SUNSHADES AS THEY DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE THESE ORDINANCE S IS CREATING A DEFINITION FOR RETAIL SALES HEAVY EQUIPMENT AS THAT WAS A USE IN OUR TABLE BEFORE BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE A DEFINITION FOR IT.  ORDINANCE T IS CREATING STANDARDS SURROUNDING AGRICULTURAL STANDARDS SO THIS IS ADDING IN PROVISIONS THAT ALLOW AGRICULTURAL STANDS TO SELL PRODUCTS THAT ARE NOT GROWN ON SITE WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND OTHER VARIOUS STANDARDS ORDINANCE VIEW IS CREATING A STANDARD KIND OF DEFINITION FOR HOW A STRUCTURE SETBACK IS MEASURED . ORDINANCE V IS UPDATING AND LANDSCAPING DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS IN THE ZONING CODE AS THESE CHANGES WERE MADE EARLIER IN THE YEAR THROUGH OUR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION AND SO WE NEED TO UPDATE THEM IN CHAPTER 21 TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE IN CHAPTER TEN. I BELIEVE  ORDINANCE W IS A RACING THE PROVISION THAT REQUIRES EXTERIOR LIGHTING BE UP TO BE IN COMPLIANCE BY A CERTAIN DATE AS THAT WAS FOUND TO BE NOT ENFORCEABLE.  ORDINANCE X IS THE EXISTING MAXIMUM GARAGE DOOR FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT IS 40% WHEN FACING PUBLIC STREETS FOR TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS THAT'S CREATED SOME DESIGN CHALLENGES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF TWO FAMILY HOMES WHILE NOT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVING DESIGN. SO THIS WOULD MODIFY THE PROVISION TO ALLOW GARAGE DOORS TO BE UP TO 50% WHEN FACING THE PUBLIC STREET ORDINANCE.  WHY IS UPDATING DEFINITIONS FOR RECREATION AND ENTERTAINMENT INDOOR AND SPORTS TRAINING FACILITY JUST TO KIND OF SPECIFY WHAT DANCE ACTIVITIES ARE ALLOWED IN BOTH OF THOSE DEFINITIONS ORDINANCES IS CREATING AN EXCEPTION TO THE SIDEWALK LINK REQUIREMENT.  SO THIS EXCEPTION WOULD TAKE PLACE IF THE CITY ENGINEER IT DEEMS THE SIDEWALK LINK IMPRACTICAL DUE TO PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPERTY ORDINANCE A A IS THAT ANIMAL CAN CLEAN IS NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH AS A HABITAT HOME BUSINESS REGARDING VARIOUS TYPES OF PET SERVICE.  SO THIS AMENDMENT WOULD PROHIBIT PET SERVICES FACILITIES AS A HOME BUSINESS EXCEPT FOR ANIMAL GROOMING FOR NO MORE THAN  ANIMALS AT ONE TIME WHICH IS EXPLICITLY STATED AS A PERMITTED HOME BUSINESS ORDINANCE WB THE ISSUE IS THAT LOADING DOCKS RAMPS AND VEHICULAR ENTRANCES MAY BE LOCATED WHERE THERE'S A POTENTIAL FOR BACKING ONTO THE PUBLIC STREET RIGHT OF WAY AND THAT'S NOT ALLOWED BUT THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW IT WITH APPROVAL FROM THE CITY ENGINEER AND THEN ORDINANCE DOUBLE C IS THE LAST ONE THAT WILL GO THROUGH THIS IS ADDING SPECIFICS FOR HOW THE REQUIRED BUFFER IS MEASURED FROM INDOOR FACILITIES AND OUTDOOR PET AREAS RELATED TO PET SERVICES FACILITY STANDARDS.  SO WITH THAT WE HAVE TWO ACTION IS THE FIRST ONE IS REMOVING THE OR IS RECOMMENDING ADOPTING THE FIRST SET OF THE CLEANUP ORDINANCES AND THE SECOND ONE IS RECOMMENDING ADOPT IN THE MORE CONTENT CHANGES AND IF YOU HAVE IF YOU WANT TO CAST A VOTE ON A SPECIFIC ORDINANCE YOU CAN SEPARATE THAT AND THEN WE WOULD ACT UPON IT IN A DIFFERENT MOTION BUT YEAH, WE JUST KIND OF HAVE THEM GROUPED IN THESE TWO WAYS AND YOU CAN LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. EXCELLENT. ANY QUESTIONS, MR. CAPTAIN?  THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MRS. BECK, HAS ANYTHING CHANGED SINCE THE LAST TIME WE SAW THIS CHAIR COMMISSIONER COOKED IN I WELL, THE RETAIL SALES AND SERVICES DEFINITION CHANGED SLIGHTLY IN THAT WE REMOVED PART OF THE SENTENCE FROM THAT AND THEN I THINK ONE THING THAT YOU DIDN'T SEE LAST TIME THAT I FORGOT TO ADD A SCREENSHOT OF WAS THE VERY FIRST ONE I SHOWED YOU ORDINANCE OH DIDN'T INCLUDE A PART THAT STATED BOTH PARTIES WOULD NEED TO AGREE TO THE PLANNED WIDE AND RIGHT OF WAY BUT NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL CHANGED FOR THIS ONE. THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL PART OF THE SENTENCE THAT I DIDN'T ADD ON IN THE STUDY SESSION BUT OTHERWISE NO.  OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ALL RIGHT.  TO SEEING NONE.  THIS ITEM DOES HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.  WELCOME. ANYONE WHO IS IN THE CHAMBERS HERE TO TESTIFY ON THIS ITEM.  MR. MARKEGARD IS THERE ANYONE ONLINE INTERESTED IN TESTIFYING TO ROBERT WE HAVE NOBODY ONLINE FOR THIS ITEM. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GIVE IT A SECOND. ANYONE'S INTERESTED.  ALL RIGHT. LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SO MOVE SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND A SECOND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I, I THOSE OPPOSED THAT MOTION PASSES.  ALL RIGHT. WE ARE ON TO DISCUSSION.  COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN, I THINK EVERYTHING IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. YOU KNOW, WE'VE REVIEWED THIS BEFORE AND IN THE ONE LITTLE CHANGE THAT YOU OUTLINED IS ENOUGH FOR ME TO MOVE TO RECOMMEND EITHER THOUGHTS OR DISCUSSION ANYONE INTERESTED IN MAKING A MOTION COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN I MOVE TO RECOMMEND ADOPTING ORDINANCES A B C D E F G H I J K L AND AND AND AS INCLUDED IN THE MEETING PACKET THEREBY AMENDING CHAPTERS EIGHT 2122 AND APPENDIX A OF THE CITY CODE WE HAVE A MOTION IS THERE A SECOND SECOND OF A MOTION AND A SECOND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I I THOSE OPPOSED THAT MOTION PASSES ANYONE ELSE INTERESTED IN MAKING A MOTION? COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN I MOVE TO RECOMMEND ADOPTING ORDINANCES O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z DOUBLE A DOUBLE B AND DOUBLE C AT AS INCLUDED IN THE MEETING PACKET THEREBY AMENDING CHAPTERS 917 AND 21 OF THE CITY CODE IS THERE SECOND? SECOND. ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I I THOSE OPPOSED THAT MOTION PASSES THIS ITEM WILL MOVE ON TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. EXCUSE ME ON DECEMBER 2ND IS A PUBLIC HEARING.  THANK YOU. THANK YOU. RIGHT NEXT ITEM ITEM THREE IS A STUDY ITEM ON THE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING STUDY AND PLANNER LINCOLN YOU HAVE THE STAFF REPORT  HELLO AND GOOD EVENING CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS I'M EXCITED TO TALK ABOUT MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING WITH YOU TODAY.  IT CAN BE A COMPLICATED TOPIC SO THERE DEFINITELY WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS ON EACH OF THESE THINGS AND FOR CLARIFICATION AND I'M HAPPY TO CLARIFY ANYTHING THAT HELPS YOU MAKE YOUR FEEDBACK AS STRONG AS YOU WOULD LIKE IT TO BE.  SO FOR TODAY I'LL TAKE YOU THROUGH WHAT IS MISSING HOUSING, WHY WE NEED IT AND THEN I WILL TALK ABOUT THE CODE OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE HAVE AMENDING EXISTING CODE SO THERE'S ALREADY ESTABLISHED STANDARD BUT ADJUSTING THEM WOULD ALLOW FOR MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING TO BE PRODUCED OR MORE EASILY PRODUCED IN THE WITH THESE STANDARDS.  AND THEN I WILL TALK ABOUT CODE OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARE CREATING NEW STANDARDS REGULATIONS AND THEN THERE'LL BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR QUESTIONS AT THE END AND MY ASK FOR CODE OPPORTUNITIES BOTH SECTIONS WILL BE TO EVALUATE EITHER THEM AS A WHOLE OR INDIVIDUALLY. YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THE FEEDBACK AS LUMP SUM. YOU CAN PULL OUT ITEMS BUT HOPING TO GET DIRECTION FOR WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE US WORK ON FURTHER AND PRODUCE CODE AMENDMENTS FOR NEXT TO COME TO YOU NEXT YEAR EARLY NEXT YEAR.  SO WHAT IS MISSING? MIDDLE HOUSING.  SO IT'S IN SCALE IN FORM TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.  IT INTEGRATES WELL INTO SINGLE FAMILY ZONING BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT ARE INVOLVED AND ALSO THE CHARACTERISTIC OF THOSE UNITS TYPICALLY HEIGHTS AREN'T YOU KNOW, AREN'T ABOVE FOUR STOREYS THEY KIND OF HAVE AN ECONOMY OF LAND THAT MAKES THEM JUST BLEND REALLY WELL INTO NEIGHBORHOODS AS INFILL DEVELOPMENT.  SO THERE ARE TYPICALLY LESS THAN 20 UNITS YOU PROBABLY COULD MAKE AN ARGUMENT YOU'VE SEEN SOMETHING SOMEWHERE THAT HAS 32 BUT VERY TYPICALLY THEY HAVE LESS THAN 20. SO THE MOST COMMON FORM THAT WE SEE IN MINNESOTA IS ACTUALLY THE 2 TO 4 UNITS. SO THINGS LIKE DUPLEXES AND FOUR PLEX IS THOSE ARE THE MOST COMMON TYPE OF MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING THAT YOU WOULD SEE IN MINNESOTA IN NEIGHBORHOODS ALL AROUND THE METRO. SO THOSE ARE PROBABLY LOOK THE MOST FAMILIAR TO YOU.  IT'S MISSING BECAUSE IT BECAME CHALLENGING OR PROHIBITED TO BUILD IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES STARTING IN ABOUT THE 1920S AND BY THE 1940S POST-WORLD WAR TWO EXCLUSIONARY ZONING METHODS REDUCED THIS HOUSING TO A SMALL SHARE OF HOUSING BUILT SENSE. SO THERE WAS A HUGE REDUCTION IN THAT TYPE OF HOUSING BEING EXCUSE ME PRODUCED AFTER WORLD WAR WORLD WAR TWO AND ALSO CHANGES WITH FEDERAL HOUSING MORTGAGES THAT INCENTIVIZE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.  SO THOSE TOOK UP JUST A LARGER SHARE OF HOUSING PRODUCTION AND I'VE LISTS AND I'VE SHOWN HERE A VISUAL FROM THE STAFF REPORT THAT KIND OF SHOWS SOME OF THE VARIOUS TYPES OF MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING POSSIBILITIES.  THIS IS JUST KIND OF A GENERAL IDEA OF WHAT FORM MIGHT LOOK LIKE BUT SOME OF THE ESTHETICS OR CHARACTERISTICS CAN BE CHANGED SLIGHTLY WHERE THEY COULD LOOK DIFFERENT THAN THE VISUAL THAT I'VE SHOWN YOU WHICH GIVES THEM SOME FLEXIBILITY ON HOW WE CAN DECIDE IT LOOKS IN BLOOMINGTON IF WE ALLOW IT.  SO THIS IS A TWO GRAPHS THAT I THINK ARE IMPORTANT MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING UNITS ARE OFTEN COMPARABLE TO STARTER HOME SIZE ACCORDING TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS LIKE SALLIE MAE OR FREDDIE MAC THEY CONSIDER A STARTER HOME OR ENTRY LEVEL HOUSING TO BE HOUSING THAT IS LESS THAN 1400 SQUARE FEET MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING IS CAN VERY EASILY ACCOMMODATE THAT TYPE OF OF ENTRY LEVEL SQUARE FOOTAGE BASED ON THE KIND OF ECONOMY OF LAND, THE FORMS THAT IT TAKES. AND AS YOU CAN SEE HERE OVER THE LAST FIVE DECADES THAT SIZE OF HOME HAS BEEN LESS AND LESS CONSTRUCTED OVER TIME THAT NUMBER HAS ALSO CONTINUED TO DECREASE FROM BEYOND THE 20 TENS AND THEN THE MULTIFAMILY 2 TO 4 UNIT PRODUCTION AS YOU CAN SEE GOES THROUGH GOES TO TO 2022 AND THERE ARE SOME SPIKES IN THE MIDDLE LIKE 2000 TEENS BUT IT MEANS FAIR REALLY LOW IN COMPARISON TO KIND OF THE CONSTRUCTION BOOMS OF LIKE THE MID-NINETIES IN THE EARLY 2000.  SO WHY DO WE NEED MISSING METAL HOUSING?  SO IN MINNESOTA AND IN THE MINNEAPOLIS SAINT PAUL BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA WISCONSIN METRO AREA THIS IS AN MSA DEFINED BY THE CENSUS WE HAVE A HOUSING DEFICIT FOR PEOPLE WHO WELL FOR EVERYONE ACTUALLY BUT ESPECIALLY FOR PEOPLE WHO MAKE BELOW 50% AMI AND THOSE WHO ARE BELOW EXTREMELY LOW INCOME.  SO THE SPECIFIC MSA YOU CAN SEE THAT WE ARE IN THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DEFICIT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS FOR THOSE TWO GROUPS AND THEN AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE VERY BOTTOM IT SAYS AFFORDABLE AND AVAILABLE RENTAL UNITS FOR 100 HOUSEHOLDS AT OR BELOW THE THRESHOLD.  SO THAT MEANS FOR EVERY 100 HOUSEHOLDS IN THE METRO AREA THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO PICK 28 UNITS THAT THEY CAN AFFORD. SO IT'S VERY RESTRICTED OF HOUSING SUPPLY FOR RENTALS AND THEN EVEN WHEN YOU LOOK AT AT OR BELOW 100% AMI, YOU CAN SEE IT'S 101 TO 1 FOR THE MINNESOTA AS A WHOLE AND FOR THE METRO AREA PROVIDING ACTUALLY MORE HOUSING FOR ALL INCOME BANDS WOULD ACTUALLY HELP EASE BURDENS FOR ALL INCOME BANDS.  SO 100 OR 100 MEANS THAT THERE HAS TO BE KIND OF LIKE A 1 TO 1 REPLACEMENT. SOMEONE HAS TO BE LEAVING THAT HOUSING TO OR SOMEONE HAS TO WANT THE HOUSING AND THAT CAN CREATE KIND OF VERY DELICATE BALANC.  SO BY HAVING MORE OPTIONS FOR PEOPLE TO CHOOSE FROM AT THEIR INCOME LEVEL AND WHAT THEY CAN AFFORD WE KIND OF HELP ALL THE HOUSING SUPPLY A WHOLE AND HOUSING AFFORDABILITY THESE GRAPHS MAY LOOK FAMILIAR BECAUSE THEY ARE IN THE ANNUAL HOUSING REPORT AND THIS IS HOUSING COST BURDEN BY INCOME IN BLOOMINGTON.  SO AS YOU CAN SEE IF YOU MAKE LESS THAN 75,000 YOU A YEAR AND YOUR HOUSEHOLD YOU CAN HAVE A REALLY GOOD CHANCE OF BEING HOUSING COST BURDEN WHICH IS PAYING MORE OF YOUR HOUSE 30% OR MORE OF YOUR HOUSING COST EXCUSE ME OF YOUR 30 30% OR MORE OF YOUR INCOME ON YOUR HOUSING COSTS. AND SO THAT MEANS YOU NEED MAKE 75,000 OR MORE IN ORDER TO HAVE THE LEAST CHANCE OF BEING HOUSING COST BURDENED . OUR MEDIAN INCOME IS 80 ABOVE 87,000 BUT THAT MEANS 50% OF HOUSEHOLD INCOMES IN THE CITY ARE LESS THAN THAT WHICH MEANS THEY HAVE A HIGH CHANCE OF BEING HOUSING COST BURDEN. AND HERE WE HAVE HOUSING COST BURDEN BY TENURE. SO 20% OF OUR OWNER OCCUPIED HOUSEHOLDS ARE HOUSING COST BURDEN AND 46.6% OF OUR RENTER HOUSEHOLDS ARE HOUSING COST BURDENED.  THESE ARE TWO GRAPHS THAT JUST SHOW THE AVERAGE OF THE MEDIAN AND AVERAGE PRICES FOR HOMES AND FOR RENTAL OCCUPIED HOMES . SO AS YOU CAN SEE THEY'RE GENERALLY INCREASING EVERY YEAR. YOU CAN SEE THAT FROM 21 IF A RENTAL IN 20 FROM 2021 TO 2022 THAT ONE RéGIONS DID DECREASE . THAT COULD ALSO BE ATTRIBUTED TO A LOT OF THE NEW HOUSING THAT WAS BUILT WHICH ARE ONE EFFICIENCY, ONE BEDROOMS ARE KIND OF THE MOST COMMON FOLLOWED BY TWO BEDROOMS, THREE BEDROOMS AND FOUR BEDROOMS ARE BECOMING KIND OF UNICORNS IN HOUSING PRODUCTION WHICH IS WHY YOU COULD SEE YOU MIGHT SEE INCREASES IN THOSE BECAUSE THOSE UNITS ARE NOT TYPICALLY OR COMMONLY BUILT RIGHT NOW AND THEN FOR THE TYPE FOR OWNER OCCUPIED HOMES YOU CAN SEE THAT THE MEDIAN SALES PRICE IS ABOVE 217,000 WITH A MAJORITY 300,000 OR MORE OF THE TYPES OF HOMES THAT ARE IN BLOOMINGTON. AND THIS IS HIGHER THAN WHAT IS CONSIDERED AN AFFORDABLE HOME THROUGH A HUD .  SO THIS IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FROM 2017 TO 2024 JUST TO KIND OF SHOW THE SPREAD OF SINGLE FAMILY AND SPREAD IN COMPARISON OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS TO MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING TYPE TWO TYPES.  SO OF THE LAST SEVEN YEARS ONLY 11 OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED WITH A MAJORITY BEING IN SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. THIS IS REALLY POIGNANT MOSTLY BECAUSE WE NEED MORE HOUSING. WE HAVE A HOUSING DEFICIT AND THE ONLY ANSWER TO HAVE TO NEEDING HOUSING IS MORE IS JUST BUILDING MORE HOUSING.  SO ADDING TO THE ADDING TO THE HOUSING STOCK THROUGH WHAT WE CAN CONTROL BECAUSE THERE'S ALSO THINGS LIKE CONSTCTION COSTS AND OTHER FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE WHETHER HOUSING IS PRODUCED BUT THE CITY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO EASE BARRIERS OR ALLOW FOR MORE PEOPLE TO DESIGN THEIR WAY OUT OF CHARACTERISTICS OF PARCELS BECAUSE PARCELS HAVE THEIR OWN CHARACTERISTICS THAT STILL MEET OUR STANDARDS, PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT, CONTROL OF TRAFFIC AND ARE CONSIDERING SEWER AND OTHER FACTORS THAT THE CITY WILL WANT TO MANAGE AS A WHOLE.  SO HOW IS MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING IMPLEMENTED?  SO THIS IS WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO THE TABLES THAT WERE PROVIDED THE STAFF REPORT HOW I ORGANIZED THIS FOR DISCUSSION IS THAT EACH TABLE IS BROKEN DOWN INTO EACH OF ITS COMPONENTS SO THIS IS ONE THROUGH THREE B OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS OF TABLE TWO.  SO I'LL TALK ABOUT EACH OF THESE ITEMS AND THEN OPEN FOR QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION AND THEN ASK FOR WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS.  SO THE QUESTION IS HOW I CAME TO THESE WAS THE ANSWER TO WHAT WOULD HELP CREATE MORE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING.  SO IF THERE WAS AN ITEM THAT WAS A YES ON MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING THEN THAT WAS KIND OF THE HOW WE GOT TO WHAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND FOR OUR AMENDING OUR EXISTING CODES. AND I ALSO WANT TO MENTION THAT THREE B WAS NOT IN THE STAFF REPORT. THIS WAS IN ADDITION LATE THIS AFTERNOON. SO THIS COMES FROM A REQUEST FROM CITY COUNCIL TO WANT TO TALK ABOUT 80 EWES IN THE FRONT YARD.  SO THIS I'M ADDING IT HERE FOR DISCUSSION AS THREE B AS AND THEN IT WILL BE AMENDED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND INCLUDED FOR CITY COUNCIL WHEN WE GO THERE ON NOVEMBER 18TH IS WHEN IT'S SCHEDULED SO WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT HERE. SO OWNER OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENT FOR 80 USE WHEN YOU BUILD AN NEED YOU THE OWNER HAS TO LIVE IN ONE OF THE UNITS AND AND THERE'S  ONE RENTAL LICENSE FOR THE PROPERTY SO THEY CAN RENT OUT THEIR PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE THEY CAN RENT OUT THEIR ADU BUT THE OWNER MUST LIVE ON THE PROPERTY. MY RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE OWNER OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW BOTH THE ADU AND PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE TO BE RENTED IS A WAY TO ALLOW TWO MORE UNITS TO ENTER INTO THE HOUSING MARKET IF THAT IS WHAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WANTS TO DO WE B WE NEED BOTH HOMEOWNERSHIP AND RENTING OPPORTUNITIES AND WITH LIKE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES HAVE TO USE IF AN OWNER SELLS A AND SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT WANT TO RENT EITHER PROPERTY OR EXCUSE ME EITHER UNIT OR WANTS TO ONLY RENT ONE OF THOSE UNITS HAS THAT OPPORTUNITY BUT THERE IS SOMETHING TO BE SAID FOR PURCHASING A HOUSE THAT ALREADY HAS THE ADU ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF 80 USE AND OTHER THINGS SO IT GIVES MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TO USE THEIR PROPERTY AND IT CAN STILL COME INTO HOMEOWNERSHIP OR INTO RENTING BUT STILL PROVIDING LONG TERM HOUSING FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO LIVE IN BLOOMINGTON AND OR NEED TO BE IN BLOOMINGTON.  WE WOULD ALSO CONSIDER THIS VERY SIMILAR TO OUR DUPLEXES BOTH WHEN WE HAVE THERE'S TWO UNITS ON A PROPERTY AND IT'S IN A LIKE A DUPLEX OR A ZERO. WE ALLOW A RENTAL LICENSE FOR EACH UNIT SO THIS FITS REALLY WELL WITH SOMETHING WE ALREADY DO AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ALREADY KNOWS HOW TO ENFORCE.  SO FOR PROPORTIONATE SIZE REQUIREMENT CURRENTLY THERE IS A FORMULA IN OUR CODE THAT DEALS WITH COMBINED LIVING SPACE OF THE 82 AND THE FORCE FOR SEASON LIVING AREA OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE CANNOT 33% OF THAT TOTAL IS MAXIMUM THAT THE 80 YOU CAN SIZE THAT THE AREA CAN BE B AND THERE'S A CAP CAN'T BE LARGER THAN 960 SQUARE FEET SO AS YOU CAN SEE THAT'S ALL IT'S IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A AN ALGEBRA CONUNDRUM SO WHEN YOU PUT OUT THE VARIABLES ESSENTIALLY WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT THE 80 YOU CANNOT BE LARGER THAN 50% OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AND OR CANNOT EXCEED 960 SQUARE FEET THIS SUGGESTION EITHER TO REMOVE THE PROPORTIONATE REQUIREMENT SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THE MATH BUT KEEP THE CAP OF 960 SQUARE FEET. THE CAP CAN ALSO BE ADJUSTED BUT IN JUST LOOKING AT WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE JUST KEEPING THE CAP OR WE CAN HAVE INCREASE THE PROPORTIONATE SIZE REQUIREMENT AND SIMPLIFY IT AND JUST SAY UP TO 75% OF THE PRINCIPAL THE FOUR SEASON LIVING AREA OF THE PRINCIPAL NOT EXCEEDING 960 SQUARE FEET AS AN ANECDOTE OR AS AN ANECDOTE I'VE HAD MANY PEOPLE CALL AND SAY OH I REALLY WANT MY OR MY PARENTS BOTH TO COME LIVE WITH ME.  AND THAT INVOLVES KIND OF BUILDING AN 80 YOU HOW BIG CAN MY 80 YOU BE AND I'M AND I DO THE MATH AND I'M LIKE 376 SQUARE FEET AND THEY'RE LIKE OH THERE'S NO WAY THAT MY OLDER PARENTS CAN LIVE IN 376 SQUARE FEET AND I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WE'RE KIND OF DEALING WITH ACCESSIBILITY ON THAT STAGE AND THAT STAGE. SO YOU MIGHT NEED LARGER SPACES FOR PEOPLE TO MANEUVER OR MEDICAL EQUIPMENT OR JUST THE COMPACTNESS OF 376 SQUARE FEET WITH TWO ADULTS AND THIS COULD BE A TROUBLE FOR A CHALLENGE FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO LIVE IN AN ADU. SO WE'RE PROPOSING THAT OWNERS HAVE A LOT MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THE SIZE REQUIREMENT SO THAT WAY THEY CAN MEET MORE OF THEIR NEEDS DIRECTLY.  SO THREE A AND THREE B BOTH DEAL WITH SETBACKS.  SO REAR YARD SETBACKS CURRENTLY TWO IS MUCH MEET THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE SETBACK WHICH IS 30 FEET. THE QUESTION IS DO WE REDUCE REAR YARD SETBACKS TO 15 OR 20 FEET? THIS IS MY RECOMMENDED NUMBER IN ORDER TO PROVIDE SOME MORE FLEXIBILITY FOR PROPERTIES THAT MAY BE SCHALLER SHORT MORE SHALLOW BUT CAN STILL BUT STILL HAVE ENOUGH SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROPERTY AND THEN FRONT YARD SETBACK AND PLACEMENT.  SO THIS IS A ALLOW IT TO USE IN THE FRONT YARD BUT MEET THE 30 FOOT SETBACK WHICH IS FOUR PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES THIS IS LIKE FOR PROPERTIES THAT MAY BE 65 FEET BACK FROM THEIR FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO PUT IN 80 YOU BETWEEN THE HOUSE THE STREET BUT WE WOULD STILL REQUIRE THEM TO AT LEAST MEET THE 30 FOOT SETBACK FOR FOR THE STRUCTURE YOU KNOW PAUSE FOR QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER.  THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. AFTER THE LAST FOUR THREE BE ITEM THREE B WHAT IS THE CURRENT SETBACK CURRENTLY CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER YOU SAY SO RIGHT NOW A 80 YOU COULD NOT BE IN THE FRONT YARD SO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THE FRONT YARD AT ALL SO EVEN IF IT COULD MEET 30 FEET IT COULDN'T BE CLOSER TO THE STREET THAN.  THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.  COMMISSIONER WHITE THANK YOU CHAIR I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT WAS THE MAGIC BEHIND 960 SQUARE FEET AS THE MAXIMUM THE PROPORTIONATE SIZE REQUIREMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE? DO WE KNOW SMIRK OCCURRED YES JR ALBRECHT COMMISSIONER WHITE THAT'S THE THRESHOLD AT WHICH IT BECOMES A TWO FAMILY DWELLING. AFTER THAT YOU COULD STILL DO IT IN BLOOMINGTON IT JUST CLASSIFIED AS A TWO FAMILY DWELLING RATHER THAN AN ADU. IT'S LARGER THAT.  MR. WHITE THANK YOU. AND THEN I WAS JUST CURIOUS I HAVEN'T READ ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FOR ADOS SO APOLOGIES IF I SHOULD KNOW THIS BUT WITH THE PROPORTIONATE SIZE I'M ASSUMING THAT'S ALSO SOMEWHAT TIED TO THE LOT SIZE AND I ASSUME THAT'S IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REQUIREMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT WOULD WOULD ALSO HAVE SOME REQUIREMENTS TIED TO LOT SIZE IS THAT CORRECT COMMISSIONER WHITE YES. SO THE IDEA IS TO EASE IT HERE BECAUSE WE DO HAVE SO MANY OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR 80 USE THAT THE PROP LIKE THE PROPERTY MUST MEET SO THINGS LIKE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OR THE SET THE SIDE SET BACK THE REAR SETBACK EVEN IF WE ALLOW A LITTLE BIT MORE GENEROUS SETBACK THEY'D STILL HAVE TO MEET IT AND THAT COULD ELIMINATE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR AN EDU TO BE BUILT SAY OFF THE BACK OF A HOUSE OR OR DETACHED IN THE BACK YARD.  BUT THERE DOES STILL LEAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF THEM DOING INTERNAL 80 USE OR 80 USE ABOVE A GARAGE LIKE CARRIAGE HOUSES AS THEY'RE SOMETIMES CALLED. SO THERE'S STILL SOME DESIGN OPTIONS BUT IT MEANS WORKING WITH THINGS LIKE OUR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS BUT AT LEAST IT'S NOT AN OUTRIGHT NO .  ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS?  ALL RIGHT. EXCELLENT. SO FOR THIS PORTION WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH EACH ONE AND I'M LOOKING FOR GENERAL CONSENSUS SO WE'LL LOOK FOR I'LL ASK FOR AND MAYBES AND WE'LL ASSUME THAT IF YOU'RE NOT A YES OR A MAYBE YOU'RE NO. SO FOR OWNER OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENT YES TO PURSUE BRINGING FORTH CODE AMENDMENTS OR SO THE IDEA IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR A YES FOR THIS WOULD GO TO CITY COUNCIL AS PART OF THEIR AS PART OF THE STAFF REPORT AND THEN IT WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF BRINGING FORTH CODE AMENDMENTS AS THE NEXT PHASE.  MR. MARKER AND CHAIR ALBRECHT THERE WOULD BE A PUBLIC HEARING OF COURSE AND YOU WOULDN'T BE COMMITTING TO OR HOW YOU VOTE AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING IT WAS JUST ME WHETHER OR NOT TO BRING IT FORWARD FOR CONSIDERATION.  THANK YOU. EASIEST TO DO. THUMBS UP THAT ALL RIGHT IS GREAT.  SO NUMBER ONE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS OWNER OCCUPANTS AND ACQUIREMENT YES'S AND MAYBES.  OKAY AND NO OH NO.  OKAY  EXCELLENT ITEM TWO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS PROPORTIONATE SIZE REQUIREMENT YESES.  EXCELLENT. THANK YOU .  THREE A REAR YARD SETBACK REDUCE REAR YARD SETBACK TO 15 OR 20 FEET.  THIS ONE IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE 15 OR 20 FEET. WE CAN ALSO SINCE IT'LL GO TO PUBLIC HEARING AND FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT CODE AND MOVEMENT IF THERE IS MAYBE BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT THESE NUMBERS I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THAT PART BUT LET'S SAY YES TO CONSIDER 15 OR 20 FEET.  EXCELLENT. THANK YOU.  AND THEN WE HAVE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND PLACEMENT. SO THIS IS IT TO USE IN THE FRONT YARD BUT MEET THE 30 FOOT SETBACK WITH THE NUANCE THAT THIS IS LIKE FOUR PROPERTIES ARE SET VERY UP PROPERTIES THAT HAVE HOUSES THAT ARE SET VERY FAR BACK LIKE 65 FEET FROM THEIR PROPERTY LINE.  YES. IS  MAYBE NOBODY KNOWS.  ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.  SO THESE ARE THE CODE OPPORTUNITIES FOR TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS. THIS IS HOPEFULLY WILL BE A LITTLE BIT QUICKER BUT SO CURRENTLY TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE PROHIBITED IN OUR THREE. THIS IS TYPICALLY OUR TOWNHOME RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.  SO THIS IS ALLOWING DUPLEXES IN OUR THREE IN STAFF OPINION DUPLEXES WOULD WOULD FIT INTO TOWNHOMES VARIOUS TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT. IT'S SO IT FITS WITH SCALE IN FORM.  CURRENTLY DETACHED GARAGES ARE NOT ALLOWED.  I'M LOOKING HERE I'VE GOT TWO FIVES.  SO WILL FIVE, FIVE AND FIVE BE APOLOGIES. SO CURRENTLY DETACHED GARAGES FOUR DUPLEXES ARE NOT ALLOWED. SO THIS IS TO ALLOW FOR IT.  EXCUSE ME.  ACTUALLY I'M GOING TO HAVE I'M GOING TO CALL ON PLANNER JOHNSON TO REFRESH MY MEMORY ON WHAT IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED BECAUSE I THINK I'VE MADE AN ERROR IN MY CHART. NO PROBLEM.  SO FOR TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS CURRENTLY YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN ATTACHED GARAGE ONE PER DWELLING, ONE PER UNIT IN EFFECT.  AND SO WT THIS THE REASON THAT THIS KIND OF SERVES AS A BARRIER IN A LOT OF CASES IS THAT MANY PROPERTIES THAT HAVE DETACHED GARAGES ARE INTERESTED IN CONVERSION TO A TWO FAMILY DWELLING. THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT WITHOUT CREATING ATTACHED GARAGES EFFECTIVELY MEETING OUR STANDARDS. SO THIS IS A MUCH EASIER STANDARD TO ACCOMMODATE WHEN YOU'RE DOING NEWER CONSTRUCTION BUT IF YOU'RE CONVERTING EXISTING PROPERTY TO A TWO FAMILY DWELLING SAY FROM A SINGLE TO A TWO FAMILY, IT DOES CREATE A BARRIER. SO JUST A LITTLE BACKGROUND THERE. THANK YOU. DID I GO TO THE RIGHT TRACK THERE? YES. OKAY. I JUST HAD ALLOW ATTACHED AND I WAS LIKE THAT'S NOT RIGHT. YEAH. THANK YOU. SO THIS IS ALLOWED GARAGES FOR MORE PLACEMENT OPTIONS. THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IMPERVIOUS PERVIOUS SURFACE ICE AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO THOSE WOULD STILL DICTATE WHETHER THIS WAS POSSIBLE BUT IT GIVE MORE OPTIONS FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING OR WHO ARE WANTING TO CREATE TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS.  SO WE HAVE GARAGE SETBACKS. THIS IS REDUCED THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS TO FIVE FEET FOR GARAGES. THIS WOULD BE FOR THE REAR SETBACK. THIS WOULD BE MORE CRUCIAL IF YOU ALLOWED DETACHED GARAGES. SO IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT ULTIMATELY DOES NOT GO FORWARD FIVE FOOT FOR A REAR SETBACK WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE BUT FOR THE SIDE SETBACK CURRENTLY FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS IS FIVE FEET SO THIS WOULD BE A CHANGE TO ALIGN TO FAMILY DWELLING GARAGES AND SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING GARAGES.  ITEM SEVEN IS GARAGES ON CORNER.  SO THIS IS REMOVING THE RESTRICTION THAT GARAGES MUST FACE SEPARATE STREETS FOR TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS. SO CURRENTLY IF A TWO FAMILY DWELLING HAS THEIR ENTRANCE FACING ONE STREET, THEIR GARAGE HAS TO FACE THE OTHER STREET.  SO THIS CHANGE WOULD REMOVE THAT RESTRICTION WHERE BOTH THE GARAGE AND THE DWELLING CAN FACE THE SAME STREET.  THIS IS ONLY FOR CORNER LOTS BUT OUR INTERIOR LOTS BOTH FACE THE SAME STREET WITHOUT ISSUE. SO STAFF BELIEVES THAT THIS DISTINCTION IS JUST ADDING COMPLEXITY AND RESTRICTION WITHOUT A LOT OF ADDITIONS ALL BENEFIT LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS. SO REDUCE THE LOT SIZE FOUR CORNERS FOR TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS TO 14,000. THE CURRENT LOT SIZE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS 16,000 AND REDUCE INTERNAL TO 11,000. THE CURRENT THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT IS 13 FIVE. THIS CAN BE A YES FOR EITHER OR BOTH.  AND THEN LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS.  CURRENTLY TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS HAVE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS BUT ARE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS DO NOT. SO LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE SHRUBS AND TREES. THIS DOES ADD SOME COST TO THE TO THE PROJECT AND ESPECIALLY IN DEALING WITH TWO UNIT DEVELOPMENT. THE COSTS ARE MUCH HIGHER THAN HAVING MORE UNITS TO SPREAD OUT THOSE TYPES OF EXPENSES WITH FOUR SO REMOVING THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT OF THOSE SPECIFICS BUT KEEPING THINGS LIKE OF COURSE THERE STILL ALLOWED TO TO FOLLOW OUR LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE THEY MUST GROUND COVER THEY CAN'T HAVE BARE EARTH BUT JUST REDUCING OR EXCUSE ME ELIMINATING THE REQUIREMENT FOR TREES PER THOUSAND SQUARE FEET AND SHRUBS AND THIS WOULD ALIGN TO IF BLOCK SIZES AS LIGHT SIZES ARE REDUCED LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS WOULD NEED TO BE ADDRESSED IN THAT CASE AS WELL BECAUSE IF WE'RE REDUCING THE LOT SIZE IT WOULD BECOME MORE DIFFICULT TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS IN LANDSCAPING.  SO ITEM 5A2 FAMILY DWELLINGS BEING ALLOWED IN OUR THREE YESES.  OKAY MAYBES NOS.  THANK YOU. FIVE A DETACHED GARAGES ALLOW DETACHED GARAGES FOUR MORE PLACEMENT OPTIONS. YES.  OH YES OF COURSE. YES.  TEN COMMISSIONER WAY PLEASE.  AND JUST ABOUT GARAGE.  OH.  OH. THANK YOU. SORRY ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU, CHAIR.  I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE GARAGE REQUIREMENTS WITH SO WITH A WITH A DUPLEX A TWO FAMILY YOU'RE YOU'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE ONE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE BASICALLY YOU HAVE TO TWO SEPARATE UNITS. YOU HAVE TO HAVE TO ATTACHED GARAGES OR A GARAGE WITH TWO SPACES. IS THAT IS THAT ACCURATE? YEAH. ALL RIGHT COMMISSIONER WHITE SO CURRENTLY YOU HAVE TO HAVE ONE SPACE PER UNIT AND CLOSED AND FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME YOU NEED TO HAVE ONE SPACE ENCLOSED AS WELL. SO AS PART OF THE RECENT ZONING AMENDMENTS THAT WERE FOCUSED ON SINGLE AND TO FAMILY ZONING USES THAT WERE ADOPTED IN MAY OF 2023, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEWED PREVIOUSLY IT WAS TOO REQUIRED AND ENCLOSED SPACES PER UNIT SO THEY DID REDUCE IT AT THAT TIME THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT ELIMINATING THE REQUIREMENT ALTOGETHER .  THEY ULTIMATELY DECIDED TO REDUCE IT TO ONE SOME OF THE TRADE OFFS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED BY OTHER STAFF WHO WORK IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIFICALLY CODE ENFORCEMENT IS THAT SOME OF THE GARAGE SPACES DO PROVIDE SOME UTILITY IN TERMS OF STORAGE MATERIALS AND YOU KNOW EQUIPMENT AND PERSONAL GOODS AND ITEMS FOR PEOPLE. SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS DISCUSSED AS PART OF THAT CONSIDERATION AND BUT I WOULD SAY IT WAS DISCUSSED AS PART OF THOSE AMENDMENTS TO POTENTIALLY GO AWAY FROM IT ALTOGETHER. THANK YOU. I WAS JUST CURIOUS AT THE REQUIREMENT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. YEP.  SO ALLOWED DETACHED GARAGES. YESS OH I THINK WE HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. OH PLEASE. SORRY. I WILL ASK RIGHT NOW COMMISSIONER. I WAS WONDERING FOR LINE ITEM NINE IS THERE ANY WAY WE COULD LIKE I'D BE IN SUPPORT OF LIKE TRIPLEXES DUPLEXES REMOVING THAT THREE OR FOUR UNITS BUT THEN CAN YOU CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR COMMENT ABOUT ALL FOUR LINE ITEM NINE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS? MM HMM. I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OR I WOULD SAY VOTE YES TO REMOVING THAT REQUIREMENT FOR TRIPLEXES AND FOR PLEXUS BUT THEN NOT ABOVE THAT ANY WAY WE COULD RISE IT. ALL RIGHT, I CAN MAKE THAT NOTE. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.  THAT COULD BE A CONSIDERATION. THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY IS FOR TWO FAMILIES BUT I DO GET INTO TRIPLEXES IN THE NEXT TABLE WHICH IS ALSO A GREAT PLACE FOR THIS TO FIT IN THERE. OKAY. THANK YOU.  ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS WHILE WE'RE ON QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ? I GUESS YOU'RE WHITE. SORRY. JUST I'M ALWAYS CURIOUS HISTORY, RIGHT?  WITH THE GARAGES HAVING THE GARAGE HAVING THE FACE. IT'S THE CORNER LOT. THE GARAGE ON CORNER LOT.  I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE ORIGINAL REASONING FOR WHY THE GARAGE HAS TO FACE A DIFFERENT DIRECTION THAN THE FRONT DOOR. IF THERE WAS A IS THAT TRAFFIC FLOW IT WHY?  SO BEFORE BEFORE WE SAY WE SHOULD GET RID OF IT I'M JUST CURIOUS IF THERE SOME SOME PARTICULAR REASON BEHIND IT. YES YES, PLEASE. I THINK IT'S WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO FOR HISTORY WHEN YOU LEAVE GLENN OR ALBRECHT? ACTUALLY SORRY.  CHAIR ALBRECHT I WAS MULTITASKING A LITTLE BIT. CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? I WAS CURIOUS WITH THE THE REQUIREMENT THAT ON CORNER LOTS THE GARAGE FACED A DIFFERENT DIRECTION THAN THE FRONT DOOR. WHY IF WAS SOME PARTICULAR JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT BETTER TO UNDERSTAND WHY BEFORE WE DECIDE WHETHER WE WOULD WANT TO GET RID OF IT OR NOT. SURE JERRY ALBRECHT COMMISSIONER WHITE. I THINK THE ORIGIN OF THAT WAS TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF OR KIND OF RELATING TO THE CHARACTER OF SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS WITH GARAGES THAT EACH FACE A DIFFERENT.  THEY WOULD APPEAR MORE LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. SO I THINK THAT'S REALLY THE ORIGIN. THANK YOU.  AND I THINK THAT WITH THE REDUCTION OF TWO ENCLOSED SPACES GOING DOWN TO ONE ENCLOSED SPACES THAT ALSO MINIMIZES THE IMPACT OF THAT SPECIFIC.  SO THIS IS WITH BUILDING OFF OF THOSE CHANGES THIS KIND OF CASCADES INTO THIS WHERE YOU STILL KIND OF MEET WHAT MAYBE THE ORIGINAL INTENT WAS WHILE ALSO STILL PROVIDING MORE FLEXIBILITY. GREAT QUESTION.  ALL RIGHT. READY TO THUMBS UP THUMBS DOWN TO THE SIDE DETACHED GARAGES.  YES. YES.  AND MAYBE OH EIGHT WAS THAT FIVE YESES OKAY. OH, THANK YOU. SORRY I MISSED COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN, I MISSED YOUR. YES. EXCELLENT. THANK YOU.  NOW ON TO GARAGE SETBACKS.  THIS IS REDUCING SIDE AND REAR TO FIVE FEET FOR GARAGES WHICH MATCHES THE SINGLE FAMILY GARAGE SETBACK.  THANK YOU .  THE ON CORNER LOTS FACING A DIFFERENT DIRECTION REMOVING THE RESTRICTION THAT GARAGES MUST FACE A SEPARATE STREETS.  YES. THANK YOU.  WE HAVE A LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS REDUCING LOT SIZE FOR CORNERS AND INTERNAL INTERNAL DUPLEX LOTS YESES.  THANK YOU.  AND THEN FOR LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS REMOVE THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT TO MATCH SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS.  YES.  MAYBES.  EXCELLENT. THANK YOU CHAIRMAN.  I PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND ON ABSOLUTELY. YOU KNOW THIS THIS ONE IS DISCUSSED INSIDE OUR OFFICE AND SO WHEN WHEN YOU SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS TYPICALLY YOU'RE SEEING THEM ASSOCIATED WITH VERY LARGE DEVELOPMENTS EITHER MULTIFAMILY OR COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL OR THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.  AND SO WE'VE DEVELOPED PROCEDURES OF HOW WE COLLECT AS WELL AS CONDUCT MULTIPLE INSPECTIONS ON THAT.  AND ONE OF THE THINGS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT FOR THIS LOWER DENSITY USE IS WHERE WE DO REQUIRE LANDSCAPING IS THAT WE PERFORM THOSE SAME PROCEDURES ON THESE LOWER DENSITY USES. SO IT'S A FAIRLY FAIRLY SMALL AMOUNT OF PLANTING. SO THE INSPECTION GOES RELATIVELY FAST BUT IT DOES ALSO INCLUDE THAT STAFF TIME TO TRAVEL TO THE SITE MULTIPLE TIMES AND WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER ON THE SURETY. WE'VE ALSO HAD A COUPLE INSTANCES WHERE OWNERSHIP OF THESE UNITS HAS TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER RESIDENT AT THIS POINT AND SOME OF THE LANDSCAPING ITEMS ARE NOT FULLY BUTTONED UP AT THAT POINT. THE DEVELOPER MAY NO LONGER BE INVOLVED THE SITE. AND SO WE HAVE EXPERIENCED ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION WHERE SOME OF THE FOLLOW UP OR SOME OF THAT ISSUES TO THE SURETY CAN BE MORE COMPLICATED THAN JUST WORKING WITH A DEVELOPER OF A LARGER DEVELOPMENT IF THAT MAKES SENSE. SO MAYBE WE MAYBE IF IT'S KEPT WE CAN REVIEW SOME OF OUR COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES AND SOME OF THOSE THINGS. BUT THINK JUST SOME OF THE THINKING HERE WITH POSING THIS IS JUST TO ALIGN OUR LANDSCAPING PROCEDURES WITH LOW DENSITY USES KIND OF HAVE THEM BE SOMETHING AND DIFFERENT THAN MEDIUM DENSITY AND ABOVE IF THAT MAKES SENSE . SO JUST A LITTLE MORE BACKGROUND TURN COMMISSIONERS WITH THE ADDITIONAL CONTEXT WOULD WE LIKE TO REVOTE?  YEAH, LET'S REVOTE. GREAT. ITEM NUMBER NINE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. YES .  MAYBES. OKAY.  EXCELLENT. THANK YOU.  ITEM NUMBER TEN IS THE R3 THREE DENSITY RANGE. SO THIS IS TO INCREASE OUR THREE DENSITY RANGE TO 12 UNITS PER ACRE.  CURRENTLY IT IS AT EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE AND BY INCREASING IT TO 12 UNITS PER ACRE THIS WOULD ALIGN BETTER WITH THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY WHICH ALSO IS 12 UNITS PER ACRE. OUR THREE IS TYPICALLY USED FOR TOWNHOMES SO THIS WOULD JUST ALLOW MORE DENSITY FOR DENSITY AND DIFFERENT FORMS OF TOWNHOMES TO BE IN THIS DENSITY RANGE. SO THIS CHANGE HAPPENS THERE WOULD BE SOME CASCADING WORK FOR THE RANGES OF OUR FOREIGN AR 12 SO THEY MAY BE ABLE TO THEY MAY NEED TO ALSO BE ADJUSTED ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ALIGNMENT WORKS OR TO ELIMINATE REDUNDANCIES.  THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS ON INCREASING THE R3 DENSITY RANGE COMMISSIONER WHITE AGAIN SORRY NEW TO THE COMMISSION. SO I'M STILL STILL LEARNING. IF WE DID CHANGE THIS ARE THERE ANY AREAS OF BLOOMINGTON THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THAT MIDRANGE DENSITY BETWEEN SINGLE FAMILY AND 12 PER ACRE? OR WOULD WE BE ELIMINATING THAT CATEGORY ENTIRELY?  AND I KNOW WE DON'T WE'RE NOT DECIDING TO MOVE. I'M JUST CURIOUS.  SO AS A GENERAL SO I'M LOOKING AT THIS MAP AND IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO SEE EXACTLY WHERE THOSE ZONES ARE.  SO IT IS A A BEIGE COLOR AND YOU CAN IT KIND OF THEY'RE KIND OF SCATTERED CITYWIDE HERE AND WHETHER THEY'RE ALL ALL OF THESE PROPERTIES WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO REDEVELOP OR ADD ADDITIONAL UNITS TO ALLOW TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS OPPORTUNITY OF INCREASED DENSITY. THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO MEET SETBACKS BUILDING CODE AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SO THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPERTY MAY STILL ELIMINATE THAT FROM HAPPENING BUT IT WOULD ALLOW FOR AN AMOUNT OF R3 AND TO HAVE MORE HOUSING ON IT OR HAVE DIFFERENT TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT IT ALL RIGHT, IF I CAN ADD A LITTLE CONTEXT OF THAT AS WELL IS THAT RIGHT NOW WE ONLY HAVE ONE R3 SITE IN BLOOMINGTON THAT'S, A RELATIVELY NEWER ZONING DISTRICT. IT WAS CREATED IN 2015 I THINK. AND SO IT'S JUST THE PENNANT 86TH STREET DEVELOPMENT THAT CURRENTLY HAS THAT ZONING DESIGNATION FOUR IS ONE OF OUR OLDER RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ACTUALLY INCLUDES A LOT OF MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON IT AND I THINK JUST THE THINKING IN TERMS OF INCREASING THE DENSITY RANGES THAT IF YOU KNOW ONE OF THE FEATURES OF MISSING METAL HOUSING IS THAT IT CAN BE ACCOMMODATED IN A COMPATIBLE WAY IN LOWER DENSITY NEIGHBORHOODS.  SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAV ANY OF THESE TYPES OF USES ON A SMALLER SCALE BUT ALSO ON A SMALLER LOT HAVE EVEN IF YOU JUST HAVE A FEW UNITS SAY FOR UNITS ON A RELATIVE ON A SMALLER SITE, THE DENSITY IS ACTUALLY QUITE HIGH AND SO AGAIN DATING BACK TO THE PROCESS WE WENT THROUGH IN MAY OF 23, ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID WITH THOSE ZONING AMENDMENTS WE UPPED THE RANGE OF OUR LOW DENSITY DISTRICT AND THE REASON WE DID THAT IS BECAUSE WHEN WE LOWERED OUR MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND IF YOU EARNED CONSIDERATION OF A HOME AND IN ADU THAT ACTUALLY EQUATES TO JUST OVER 11 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE ON OUR NEW MINIMUM LOT IN OUR ONE SO PEOPLE CAN GET NERVOUS OR CAN GET KIND OF LIKE OH THAT'S A LOT OF DENSITY BUT ON A SMALLER SITE IT GOES UP PRETTY QUICKLY. SO MADAM CHAIR.  YES, GO AHEAD. SO THE TWO THINGS WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE BOTTOM END, JUST THE TOP AND I ALL IN TONS OF FAVOR FOR A DIVERSE DENSITY LIKE LOFT THE DENSITY JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WEREN'T LOSING THE LOW END I GUESS TO SO I'M CURIOUS JOHNSON THE PROJECT THAT'S UNDERWAY THAT YOU'VE DESCRIBED WOULD THAT I KNOW THAT THOSE 15 UNITS SO ACCORDING TO THIS IF THEY IF WE WENT FROM 8 TO 12 HOW MANY UNITS WOULD BE ALLOWED ON THAT SITE? I CHAIR ALBERT I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT ASK ME THAT AND SO THAT'S WHY I'M LOOKING IT UP RIGHT NOW IN TERMS OF WHAT THE ACREAGE IS OF THAT SITE RIGHT NOW AS I WILL BE ABLE TO DELIVER THAT TO YOU IN A MINUTE. THE ONE THING I WOULD SAY THOUGH IS THAT THAT PROJECT INVOLVED VERY TRADITIONAL I WOULD SAY LARGER NEW CONSTRUCTION TOWNHOMES.  I THINK ONE OF THE DIRECTIONS THAT SOME NEWER AND INNOVATIVE DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS ARE GOING TO LOOK AT IS PROVIDING SMALLER SQUARE FOOTAGE UNITS IN A TOWNHOME TYPE PRODUCT BECAUSE IT SUITS ONE PERSON AND OLDER RESIDENTS QUITE WELL . THAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THE TOWNHOMES INVOLVED IN THAT PROJECT I THINK WERE SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINES OF 2500 SQUARE FEET EACH OF LIVING SPACE AND ACTUALLY HAD FULL BASEMENTS AND WHATNOT. SO I WANT TO SAY THE DENSITY OF THAT ONE WAS RIGHT AT THE CAP OF OF THE EIGHT SO IT'S POSSIBLE THEY COULD HAVE ACCOMMODATED A FEW MORE ADDITIONAL UNITS THERE BUT THEY WOULD HAVE DEFINITELY HAD TO SHRINK THE FOOTPRINT OF SOME OF THE UNITS IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE FLOORPLANS THAT INCLUDED IN THAT PROJECT.  SO THERE'D BE SOME TRADE OFF THERE. SURE.  COMMISSIONER, JUST TO CLARIFY, WERE YOU GUYS TALKING ABOUT THE 86TH AND PEN? YEP.  THAT WAS 15 UNITS. I THINK IT WAS JUST IT WAS LIKE 7.8 UNITS PER ACRE. I THINK I REMEMBER IT BEING RIGHT UP TO THE LINE. UM HUM YEAH IT IS YES IT IS THE WORST BEIGE.  I WILL UPDATE THIS MAP ALL TO ENJOY. I'LL TAKE YOUR RESPONSE FOR THIS ONE. I WASN'T GOING TO THROW ANY STONES.  YEAH BUT THIS MAP WILL BE UPDATED TO MAKE THOSE AREAS A LOT MORE CLEAR FOR FUTURE STUDY ITEM SESSION AND CODE AMENDMENTS AND THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY TO IS AS MICHEL HAS INDICATED A COUPLE OF TIMES, YOU KNOW, DENSITY IS ONE THING THAT WE MEASURE. THERE'S ALWAYS IMPERVIOUS SURFACES, ALWAYS SETBACKS. THERE'S ALWAYS OTHER THINGS THAT KIND OF IN EFFECT CONTROL HOW MUCH IMPACT OR THINGS CAN BE CONSTRUCTED ON A SITE. SO IT'S JUST ONE ONE EVALUATION METRIC OF MANY I'LL JUST ADD MY $0.02 BECAUSE SINCE WE ARE IN A STUDY ITEM THIS ONE HAS ME QUESTIONING JUST A LITTLE BIT TO GIVEN THAT WE SAW THE PROJECT ON 86 AND PEN OR 84TH AND PEN OR WHATEVER MULTIPLE TIMES FOR THOSE OF US WHO HAVE BEEN HERE FOR A LITTLE WHILE, THE THE 15 UNITS ON THAT SITE WAS A VERY BIG ISSUE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THOUGH THEY WERE WITH COMPLIANCE WITH THE, YOU KNOW, EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE ,THEY WERE RIGHT UP AT THAT TOP END OF IT AND I WOULD BE THOUGH I SUPPORT ADDITIONAL DENSITY I THINK I WOULD BE CONCERNED TO GO ALL THE WAY TO 12 MY $0.02 COMMISSIONER YEAH YEAH.  THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. I SECOND EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST SAID. SAME CONCERNS AND YEAH.  CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS THIS ITEM CAN ALSO BE PULLED OUT AND WE CAN DO ADDITIONAL STUDY WORK ON IT IF YOU DON'T WANT TO PROVIDE MORE FEEDBACK AT THIS POINT ESPECIALLY WITH THE VOTES WITH ANY OF THESE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS THEY CAN ALWAYS COME BACK AT A LATER TIME OR WE CAN WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE MORE INFORMATION THAT MIGHT HELP WITH THE CASE FOR INCREASED DENSITY TO GO FURTHER THAN IT ALIGNING WITH OUR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.  OUR CURRENT LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IS 12 UNITS PER ACRE SO WE ARE TRYING TO ALIGN SIMILAR LOW DENSITY DEVELOPMENT WITH EACH OTHER FOR SIMPLICITY AND ALSO MORE OPTIONS BUT WE CAN LOOK FURTHER INTO IT AND COME BACK TO YOU WITH MORE INFORMATION IN THE FUTURE. COMMISSIONER, HOW CAN YOU ADD SOMETHING?  YOU KNOW, I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE MY COMMENTS ON THE 86 AND PEN THING SO I WAS FINE WITH THE NUMBER OF UNITS THERE A OF THE R THREE AND R4I THINK MAYBE ALL OF THEM I THINK THEY'RE ALL IN LIKE ARTERIAL ROADS.  SO THIS ISN'T A THING THAT'S GOING TO POP UP IN THE MIDDLE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD.  IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE ON THE INTERSECTION OF TWO BUSY STREETS, WHICH WAS WHY I WAS COMFORTABLE WITH THAT 86 AND PEN DEVELOPMENT. THOSE ARE TWO REALLY BUSY STREETS.  I STILL REMEMBER STANDING OUT THERE AND JUST CONSTANT CARS STOPPING AT THAT STOPLIGHT. IT'S A VERY IT IS LOUD ACTIVE PLACE AND I DIDN'T THINK THAT AFFECTED THE CHARACTER OF THAT PARTICULAR SPOT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.  I WOULDN'T BE IN FAVOR OF IT IF THIS WAS R-1 BUT AFTER THREE OR FOUR I'M OKAY WITH IT ,RIGHT? YEAH.  YOU AND I KNOW WE'RE NOT HERE TO TALK ABOUT THAT DEVELOPMENT BUT ACTUALLY IT'S MY NEIGHBORHOOD. I LIVE AROUND THE CORNER AND I AND I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THE ISSUE OF THESE PARTICULAR PARTIALS BEING ON INTERSECTIONS THAT ARE NOT QUIET CORNERS AND THINK THAT IS SOMETHING TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION SO I MEAN I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WE'RE NOT MAKING ANY MORE LAND IN BLOOMINGTON AND SO WE REALLY NEED TO BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT WE USE WHAT WE HAVE AND SO I THINK OPPORTUNITY FOR INCREASED DENSITY ARE IMPORTANT BUT WE DO HAVE TO BE ALSO VERY RESPECTFUL OF THE CHARACTER OF OUR COMMUNITY AT THE SAME TIME AND ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF WHAT WE'RE BUILDING.  SO AS LONG AS WE CAN TAKE THOSE THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION I THINK IT'S A GREAT CONVERSATION FOR US TO HAVE WHETHER 12 PER ACRE OR 9.754.63 WHATEVER YOU KNOW PICK A NUMBER.  I THINK WE CAN HAVE THAT. WE SHOULD HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.  I DON'T KNOW IF 12 IS THE RIGHT NUMBER BUT IF WE CAN HAVE THAT CONVERSATION I THINK WE SHOULD. SO AND I KNOW WE DON'T DO FRACTIONS IT WAS JUST ONE I'M NOT THAT NEW. WOULD YOU LIKE US TO THUMBS UP THIS POINT?  LET'S IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS LET'S TRY AND VOTE AND SEE WHERE WE LAND AND THEN IF WE HAVE A LOT OF MAYBE THEN MAYBE  WE BRING IT BACK AT A DIFFERENT TIME. IT SOUNDS GREAT INCREASE THE R3 DENSITY RANGE TO 12 UNITS PER ACRE. YES MAYBES. OKAY.  SO WE HAVE TWO YESES AND THREE MAYBES. THIS MAY COME BACK IN FRONT OF YOU AGAIN OR IT WILL REGARDLESS BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD? I DON'T KNOW. MR. JOHNSON, DO YOU HAVE A NUMBER FOR ME? OH YEAH.  I MEAN I DID RECALL IT WAS RIGHT AT THE TOP END OF THE RANGE SO 78I DIDN'T NEED A FOUR PENALTY SIX. YEAH. SO IF IT WAS JUST GO TO 12 HMM. WHAT WOULD BE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS THAT WOULD BE ALLOWABLE THERE? IT'S 1.8 ACRES. SO GLENN'S DOING SOME MATH FOR US. THANK YOU, GLENN.  UH, CHAIR ALBRECHT, IT LOOKS LIKE THE NUMBER WOULD BE 22. THANK YOU.  APPRECIATE THAT. YEP.  EXCELLENT.  SO TSE ARE THE TABLE THREE ITEMS.  SO THE FEEDBACK FOR THE QUESTIONS FOR THIS TABLE ARE MORE BROAD BECAUSE.  THEY WOULD BE BRAND NEW STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS IN THIS ONE.  IT WOULD BE THINGS LIKE FOR EXAMPLES NEW MISSING METAL HOUSING TYPES TRIPLEX THEY WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH VARIOUS STAGES OF STAFF DEVELOPMENT FOR THE BECAUSE WE WOULD NEED A DEFINITION FOR IT WE WOULD NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW IT FITS INTO OUR OTHER USES THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY DEFINE NEED WE'D ALSO NEED TO DETERMINE AS WITH ALL THESE NEW USES WHETHER IT WOULD BE PERMITTED OR CONDITIONAL IN THESE ZONES. SO THIS HAS A LOT MORE WORK THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE DONE AROUND THESE USES AND WHAT KIND OF PROCESS WE WOULD WANT TO TAKE. SO THESE WOULD BE CONSIDERED MAYBE A PHASE TWO THESE MAY COME BACK AS ADDITIONAL STUDY ITEMS IF PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL ARE BOTH IN SUPPORT OF PURSUING THIS ADDING THESE NEW USES AND REGULATIONS SO WE WOULD DO MORE RESEARCH WE WOULD THINK OF THE PROCESS MORE FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END IN ORDER TO CREATE THESE USES AND THEN BRING THEM BACK TO YOU AS POSSIBLE STUDY ITEMS IN THE FUTURE. SO THESE WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR HERE IS POSSIBLY THE VOTE AND POSSIBLY ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK ON WHAT YOU MIGHT WANT THIS TO LOOK LIKE. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE COMPREHENSIVE. IT COULD BE JUST INITIAL THOUGHTS AND THOSE WOULD BE SUMMARIZED INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT FOR CITY COUNCIL FOR THEM TO ALSO CONSIDER THE SAME QUESTION AND PROVIDE DIRECTION ON WHERE WE SHOULD SPEND OUR STAFF HOURS IN THIS TABLE.  SO FOR SO SORRY TO COMMISSIONER COLTON YEAH THANKS FOR THE CHAIR I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU IS LINCOLN SO MISS LINCOLN, COULD YOU GO BACK EARLIER IN YOUR STAFF REPORT TO THE TABLE THAT TALKED ABOUT THE THE LAST SEVEN YEARS OF HOUSING CREATION? OH YES.  SO AS I WAS STUDYING THIS AND I'M GOING I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF MINUTES SO AS I WAS STUDYING THIS LAST NIGHT THIS TABLE REALLY STUCK OUT TO ME AND I'LL START BY SAYING I APPLAUD YOU MS.. LINCOLN AND THE CITY FOR INCLUDING THIS TABLE BECAUSE THE NUMBERS IT'S SHOWING ARE NOT TERRIBLY OPTIMISTIC. THEY'RE NOT VERY GOOD AND I THINK IT'S BEEN REALLY EASY TO JUST NOT INCLUDE THIS AND KIND OF GLOSS OVER THAT AND NOT BE VERY TRANSPARENT ABOUT IT. BUT I THINK WE DID RIGHT THING IN THAT WE'RE SHOWING DATA EVEN WHEN IT'S NOT LIKE THE ROSIEST DATA AND SO I APPLAUD EVERYBODY FOR INCLUDING THIS AND SO IT'S CONCERNING THAT SINCE 2021 IN THE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING CREATION WE'VE CREATED ONE UNIT IN FOUR YEARS AND THAT IS CONCERNING. AND SO THE QUESTION BECOMES IS IT BECAUSE OF OUR CODE ARE WE TOO RESTRICTIVE? WHICH IS WHY WE'RE DOING THIS TO TRY TO LOOSEN UP THE CODE TO MAKE THIS LESS RESTRICTIVE AND THEN WE'LL GET MORE MISSING MIDDLE OR IS IT BECAUSE THE MARKET JUST ISN'T RESPONDING TO THIS AND WE'VE GONE THROUGH QUITE A BIT OF APPROVALS I MEAN AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION WE'VE SLOWLY BUT SURELY GOING THROUGH A BUNCH OF STUFF WITH ADA'S WITH MINIMUM LOT SIZES WITH MINIMUM HOUSING SETBACKS ALL THAT STUFF AND THE MARKET IS NOT RESPONDING TO WHAT WE'RE DOING AND SO AS WE TALK ABOUT THE FUTURE OF ALL OF THIS, I'M A LITTLE TORN BECAUSE I THINK WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS THE RIGHT THING. I'VE BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF ALMOST EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED THIS EVENING AND I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO TO TRY TO LOOSEN THINGS UP IN THE RIGHT WAY BUT TRY TO LOOSEN THINGS UP TO CREATE MORE HOUSING SUPPLY.  BUT THE NUMBERS ARE SHOWING IT'S NOT WORKING AND SO AS WE GO FORWARD. I THINK THERE'S THIS EXISTENTIAL QUESTION OF WE'RE DOING THIS BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO BUT IS THERE OTHER ARE THERE OTHER RIGHT THINGS TO DO THAT MS. LINCOLN COULD BE SPENDING HER TIME ON BECAUSE SHE'S REALLY GOOD AT WHAT SHE DOES AND EVERY TIME SHE'S BEFORE US WE GET THESE AWESOME STAFF REPORTS AND ALL THIS GREAT DATA AND I THINK SHE'S A HUGE ASSET TO THE CITY AND I'M CONCERNED WE'RE SPENDING OUR TIME ON SOMETHING THE MARKET JUST ISN'T RESPONDING TO AND I THINK THERE'S SOME ANECDOTAL DATA OR MORE THAN ANECDOTAL DATA COMING OF MINNEAPOLIS WHO'S ALREADY DONE A LOT OF THIS AND THEIR MARKET'S NOT REALLY RESPONDING TO IT. AND THE MINNEAPOLIS MARKET YOU WOULD THINK WOULD BE YOU WOULD EXPECT TO BE EVEN MORE AGGRESSIVE ON PICKING THIS STUFF UP THEN THEN YOU MIGHT SEE IN BLOOMINGTON AND IF THE MARKET THERE IS RESPONDING TO IT, I THINK IT'S FAIR TO QUESTION WHETHER OUR MARKET HERE IN BLOOMINGTON IS GOING TO RESPOND TO IT. AND SO THE QUESTION AGAIN BECOMES WE'RE DOING IT BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. BUT ARE THERE OTHER RIGHT THINGS TO DO THAT WE COULD BE SPENDING OUR TIME ON AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER TO THAT IS BUT I. I DON'T KNOW I IT A FAIR QUESTION TO ASK CARING COMMISSIONERS. I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT THANK YOU I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS BECAUSE IT'S GREAT I THINK THAT CASE STUDIES HAVE ALSO SHOWN THAT WITHOUT ADJUSTING BOX STANDARDS IT IS DIFFICULT SEE MOVEMENT ON MISSING METAL HOUSING SO SETBACKS AND AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND THEN LOOKING IN THE LONG TERM WHERE THE MARKET COULD CHANGE OFTEN ,WE'RE SIX MONTHS BEHIND BEFORE WE EVEN UNDERSTAND WHERE WE WERE 12 MONTHS AGO OR WHERE WE ARE TODAY.  AND I THINK THERE IS SOME VALUE IN DOING SOME OF THIS WORK NOW AS SINCE IT CAN SIMPLIFY THE CODE IT ALIGNS A LOT OF OUR CODE TOGETHER.  IT EASES WORK IN THE FUTURE FOR STAFF AND FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND CITY COUNCIL . I THINK THAT I DEFINITELY AGREE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO AM MOTIVATED BY THAT SO THAT IS DEFINITELY MY BIAS AND I THINK THAT SAINT PAUL HAS ALSO MADE CHANGES AND THEY'RE SEEING A LOT OF OH A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT THAT DO SEEM OPTIMISTIC AND REALISTIC AND THEY'VE DONE WORK IN AN ADJUSTING THEIR USE TYPES AND BOX STANDARDS. THERE MAY BE A COMPROMISE IN THIS THAT STILL ALLOWS FOR THE CITY TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LAY THE GROUNDWORK SO THAT WAY WE DON'T HAVE TO CATCH UP TO THE MARKET WHEN WE FIND OUT SIX MONTHS AGO THAT IT WAS THERE AND ALSO BALANCING STAFF TIME FOR OTHER VERY IMPORTANT ISSUES. WE HAVE MANY ON OUR WORK PLAN CAN I MAY I ADD THAT CHAIR ALBRECHT IN THAT YEAH YEAH SO JUST ANOTHER CONTEXT SETTER IS THAT WHEN WE DID THESE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING AMENDMENTS THEY BASICALLY WERE ROLLED OUT IN KIND OF THE WORST POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN CONSTRUCTION ENVIRONMENT IN TERMS OF COST OF MATERIALS ,COST OF LAND, COST OF BORROWING.  SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE TO BUILD THIS NEW CONSTRUCTION RATES. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK YOU DO HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT. THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY TOO IS THAT UNLIKE MULTIFAMILY ARE DOING BRAND NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS OUT IN FURTHER OUT COMMUNITIES THE METRO THERE'S JUST NOT A HUGE LARGE BULK ROSTER OF DEVELOPMENT TEAMS WHO DO THIS WORK BECAUSE IT DOESN'T DRIVE AS MUCH REVENUE AS SOME OTHER OF DEVELOPMENT.  AND SO THAT'S THE THING TO CONSIDER IS THAT YOU'RE KIND OF WORKING WITH MORE AN EMERGING AND DEVELOPING GROUP OF DEVELOPERS VERSUS MORE ESTABLISHED AND WELL RESOURCED FIRMS. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT PLAYS A ROLE THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY AND WE DIDN'T INCLUDE IT IN OUR TABLE BECAUSE WE HAVE ISSUED THE BUILDING PERMIT YET BUT I ANTICIPATE FOUR MORE TO FAMILY DWELLING UNITS AT LEAST TWO BEING ISSUED THIS YEAR SOME PROBABLY AT THE TURN OF NEXT YEAR. SO WE DIDN'T INCLUDE THEM IN OUR TABLE TO BE PRECISE AND ACCURATE AND OUR NUMBERS SO WE HAVE SEEN SOME RESPONSE IN THOSE THOSE ARE ON SITES THAT IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE PRIOR TO THOSE ZONING AMENDMENTS AND MAY YOU KNOW A SITE WHERE ONE UNIT POTENTIALLY CAN TURN INTO THREE YEARS A LOT A LOT SPLIT IN SOME OTHER WORK. SO THESE THINGS ARE HAPPENING THEY ARE HAPPENING SLOWLY. THEY'RE NOT HAPPENING AS FAST AS WE WOULD LIKE THEM TO.  BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO SET, YOU KNOW, REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS ABOUT WHAT TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT IS FEASIBLE WITH 7% INTEREST RATES ON THESE CONSTRUCTION LOANS AND SOME OF THE OTHER POST-PANDEMIC JUST CONSTRUCTION ISSUES THAT HAVE OCCURRED. SO I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE BUT I SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS AND YOUR SENTIMENT CERTAINLY YEAH, SURE. ALL RIGHT.  JUST ADD A THIRD VOICE OR DOWN THE LINE AND THE VALUE OF DOING THIS NOW AS MR. JOHNSON SAID, ECONOMICS, YOU KNOW, HAVEN'T BEEN FAVORABLE.  WE NEVER KNOW WHEN THAT WILL CHANGE. WE SHOULD BE READY FOR WHEN IT DOES.  AND THEN ANOTHER ISSUE AS IS WHEN MAINTENANCE OF BUILT OUT CITY WHERE THIS WILL HAVE THE MOST IMPACT IS THOSE POINTS IN TIME WHERE SAY LARGE SITES COME UP FOR REDEVELOPMENT. I'M THINKING OF THINGS LIKE THE BETHANY CAMPUS IF AND WHEN SITES LIKE THAT REDEVELOP THIS WOULD HAVE A LOT OF VALUE IN THOSE AREAS. YEAH AND I'LL JUST GOING DOWN THE LINE OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS THINKING ABOUT WAS THE WE WORKED A LOT ON THE LYNDALE RETROFIT PLAN AND TALKED A LOT THE FACT THAT WE ARE THINKING A FUTURE BUT WE ARE PLANNING NOW AND THOUGH THE WE HAVE TO RESPOND TO WHAT THE MARKET WILL TAKE WE DO KEEP THE VISION OF WHAT THE LYNDALE AVENUE WOODLAND AVENUE COULD BE. SO I THINK IS IT'S PART OF THAT. I ALSO HAPPEN TO BE AT A CONFERENCE THIS MORNING WHERE THE WOMAN ONE WOMAN WAS TALKING ABOUT HOW RISK ISN'T NECESSARILY TAKING ONE BIG STEP AT SORT OF THESE MULTIPLE LITTLE STEPS BETWEEN AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT THIS IS RISKY BECAUSE I DON'T IT IS BUT JUST SORT OF LIKE THINKING ABOUT CHANGE AND CHANGE IN THE LONG TERM CHANGE DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAPPEN LIKE ONE BIG STEP IT CAN BE TINY STEPS THAT LEAD TO A LARGER STEP. SO I COULD SEE THIS HAPPENING AND SEEING THIS BEING IMPACTFUL BUT I, I DO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER COOKTOWN. IT'S IT'S SOMETIMES DISHEARTENING TO SEE THE ACTUAL NUMBERS WHEN WE WANT SOMETHING SO BADLY COMMISSIONER LISA YEAH JUST TO ADD ON I DO SHARE SIMILAR A SIMILAR VIEWPOINT TO YOU COMMISSIONER COOKED IN IF THE BROADER ECONOMIC SITUATION IS MAYBE WHAT PROHIBITED OR PROHIBITED THESE TYPE OF YOU KNOW HOMES BEING BUILT IS THERE ANY WAY THE CITY COULD INCENTIVIZE DEVELOPERS, YOU KNOW, SOME PROGRAM OR SOMETHING TO INCENTIVIZE LOCALLY HERE TO PUSH THE TO BUILD THAT'S YEAH I GUESS THAT'S SOMETHING I THINK THE CITY SHOULD EXPLORE YEAH THE OTHER THING I WAS GOING TO ASK IS THERE'S A LOT OF CITIES LARGER CITIES LIKE ON THE EAST COAST PHILADELPHIA DC BLOOMINGTON THAT HAVE HAD LITTLE HOUSING FOR A LONG TIME BUT IT'S PRE IT'S LIKE REALLY EARLY LIKE FORTIES THIRTIES HAVE WE LOOKED AT WHAT THEY HAVE DONE WITH NEWER METAL HOUSING AND ALSO I THINK THE CITY SHOULD LOOK AT CITIES THAT ARE MORE COMPARABLE IN POPULATION. THERE'S A CITY IN PENNSYLVANIA READING I BELIEVE IT'S HOW YOU PRONOUNCE IT THAT IT'S 94,000 POPULATION AND SO THEY'RE DOING SOMETHING WHERE THEY'RE WORKING WITH DEVELOPERS AND THE COMMUNITY TO BUILD NEW ADDITIONAL LITTLE HOUSING OPTIONS. THEY ALSO HAVE THE OLD ONES BUT I THINK THE CITY SHOULD LOOK AT THAT AS WELL AND YEAH SHARON COMMISSIONERS ANECDOTALLY I LIVED IN DC FOR FIVE YEARS AND SPENT A LOT OF TIME LITERALLY WALKING FOR HOURS AND HOURS AND HOURS AND ALMOST EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD AND IN MY EXPERIENCE IN MY FIVE YEARS THERE BEFORE COVID THIS IS ANECDOTAL AND ALSO A VERY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE.  I SAW THAT A LOT OF FOCUS WAS ON PEOPLE BUYING HOME LIKE ROW HOMES AND ROW HOUSES AND RENOVATING THEM SO THAT HAPPENED. SO IT WAS MORE ABOUT BRINGING UP THE QUALITY OF HOUSING THROUGH RENOVATION AND KIND OF HOW THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS TURN OVER ADDITIONALLY A LOT OF THEM HAD THESE LIKE WALK OUT GARDEN LIKE BASEMENT LEVEL WHERE THEY TURN THEM ALSO INTO TO USE SO AS THEY RENOVATED THEY MADE UNITS.  SO THAT HAS HAPPENED IN SEVERAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND THERE'S ALSO THE BENEFIT OF A LOT OF LIKE HISTORIC DESIGNATIONS AND LANDMARKS THAT KIND OF BRING THAT ATTENTION THERE AND IN AREAS THAT WERE DEVELOPING LIKE NEAR INDUSTRIAL OR MANUFACTURING OR PREVIOUS HISTORICALLY MANUFACTURING THEY'VE KIND OF HAD OPPORTUNITIES THEY'VE REDEVELOPED LIKE COMMERCIAL OR BUSINESS SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE SOMETHING PRETTY UNIQUE AND SPECIAL WHICH HAS ALSO SPURRED ADDITIONAL HOUSING TO BE AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS BE MADE IN THOSE AREAS.  THEY ALSO HAVE THE METRO AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS LIKE THE CIRCULATOR WHICH IS FREE AND THE METRO WHICH HAS A PRETTY EXTENSIVE MAP WHERE THEY DO A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT AROUND THOSE TRANSIT STOPS.  SO THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES IN BLOOMINGTON TO KIND OF TAKE THAT AS WELL IN LOOKING AT OUR MAIN TRANSIT STOPS AND AREAS WHERE WE MIGHT WANT TO SEE A MORE CONNECTED NETWORK AND LIKE IN SOME WAY THROUGH SOME SCENARIO PLANNING WHAT COULD BE THE IMPACT IF WE MAKE THESE CHANGES TO THOSE AREAS AROUND WHERE WE MIGHT WANT TO WHERE WE HAVE TRANSIT OR WHERE WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE TRANSIT? SO I THINK IT'S IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A 1 TO 1 BUT THERE ARE SOME LESSONS I THINK THAT YOU'RE RIGHT WE COULD LEARN IN THAT AND THEN ADDITIONALLY INCENTIVIZING IN LIKE OAKLAND THEY HAVE CREATED FINANCING EASIER FINANCING PROGRAMS THROUGH THE CITY IN ORDER FOR PEOPLE TO PURCHASE IN ORDER TO BUILD A TO USE THEY MIGHT ALSO HAVE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS WHERE IF YOU'RE A PART OF THE FINANCING PROGRAM YOU MIGHT GET SOME SORT OF TEMPORARY LIKE USE RELIEF LIKE IF YOU WANTED TO DO I THEIR REGULATIONS ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT IN OURS BUT THEY WOULD DO LIKE YOU CAN DO SHORT TERM RENTAL FOR TWO YEARS AND THEN IT MUST TURN OVER YOU TURN OVER INTO SOMETHING BUT THEY WERE TRYING TO MAKE FINANCING EASIER FOR THESE SMALLER UNITS BECAUSE FINANCING FOR STARTER HOMES IS ALSO CHALLENGING IN ADDITION TO PROVIDING SOME FINANCIAL RELIEF THROUGH THESE OTHER REQUIREMENTS. SO I HAVE HEARD OF MANY TOOLS THAT I THINK WE COULD IMPLEMENT OUTSIDE OF CODE CHANGES LIKE LIKE THESE IN BULK STANDARDS THAT WE COULD LOOK AT AS OF A SEPARATE PROJECT WHERE IT'S LIKE THE TOOLS TOO INCENTIVIZE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING YOU I THANK YOU FOR THAT INSIGHT I APPRECIATE IT I I GUESS TO SUMMARIZE I THINK IT'S GOOD THAT WE HAVE THIS CODE OUT THERE FOR ANYBODY ANY DEVELOPERS THAT DO WANT TO DO IT JUST HAVE IT OUT THERE.  BUT I DEFINITELY I DON'T THINK YOU KNOW, AS A COUNTRY WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE GOING INTO MORE WELL MORE DEBT. RIGHT. AND SO INFLATION IS ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE IN MY OPINION. AND SO OBVIOUSLY THERE WAS OTHER FACTORS DURING COVID THAT LIKE SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES THAT PROBABLY WAS A FACTOR IN THIS OR YOU KNOW THE FOR THIS TOO THAT I GUESS THE DECLINE IN DEVELOPERS BEING ABLE TO BUILD HOMES BUT I DEFINITELY WE SHOULD TRY TO BE AHEAD OF THE CURVE AS A CITY EXPLORE THOSE PROGRAMS AND THANK YOU FOR THAT  FOR WHERE WE WERE HERE YES SO START REORIENTING MYSELF IN TIME AND SPACE.  THANK YOU. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS. I THINK THIS IS REALLY AMAZING DISCUSSION AND I'M REALLY GLAD IT'S HAPPENING.  SO IN LOOKING AT THIS TABLE WITH ALL OF THOSE COMMENTS IN MIND SO THIS IS TALKING ABOUT ALLOWING NEW USES IN ZONES OR CREATING ESTABLISHING NEW USES ALTOGETHER.  SO IN TOWNHOMES THIS WOULD BE TO ALLOW LOW DENSITY TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENTS AS A PERMITTED OR CONDITIONAL USE AND R ONE AND AS I SAID THERE WOULD STILL NEED TO BE A CASCADE OF REGULATIONS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE DEVELOPED AROUND THIS MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE BEING MINDFUL OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SETBACKS TRAFFIC AND OTHER BULK STANDARDS AND SO THIS LOW DENSITY TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE CONSIDERED LIKE FOUR UNITS SO IT COULD BE LIKE TWO. THE CURRENT DEFINITION TOWNHOMES IS A SINGLE STRUCTURE CAN HAVE TWO UNITS WHERE THEY SHARE A WALL AND THAT'S CONSIDERED ONE TOWNHOME STRUCTURE. SO IN THIS CASE ON A LOT THEY COULD HAVE TWO OF THOSE OF THOSE TYPES OF STRUCTURES AND THIS WOULD BE THE OPTION IS NOT AT NO PERMITTED OR CONDITIONAL IS KIND OF THE FEEDBACK THAT I AM LOOKING FOR AND ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL COMMENTS  AND THEN WITH DETACHED TOWNHOMES ALSO COULD BE CALLED COTTAGE COURTS THIS WHERE WE HAVE TOWNHOMES THAT MUST BE ATTACHED AND INCLUDE IT INCLUDE A MINIMUM OF TWO UNITS PER BUILDING AS I MENTIONED BEFORE.  SO THIS COTTAGE COURT COTTAGE STYLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT WOULD ALLOW DETACHED TOWNHOMES. THERE'S ONLY THERE'S ALREADY ONE SUCH DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS IN BLOOMINGTON AND SO THIS WOULD MEAN THAT IF WE ALLOWED THE THE THE TOWNHOMES IN R ONE THEN THEY COULD HAVE FOUR DETACHED TOWNHOMES ON ON A PROPERTY DEPENDING ON OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF COURSE ALSO THERE'S A QUESTION OF WHETHER IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN LIKE R THREE OR R 12 BECAUSE CURRENTLY TOWNHOMES ARE ONLY ALLOWED IN OR TOWNHOMES ARE ALLOWED IN R THREE BUT ONLY IF THEY ARE ATTACHED TO EACH OTHER.  THIS IS KIND OF A LITTLE BIT OF A A POOL THINGS HERE AND DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN YOU MENTIONED THAT ONE EXISTS IN BLOOMINGTON WHERE, IS THAT RIGHT? I HAVE A PICTURE.  THERE YOU GO. THE BLUFFS OF SANDS PIER THIS IS IN O PLANNING MANAGER MARKET GUARD. CAN YOU HELP ME WITH MY GEOGRAPHY EXACTLY.  YES. JAILBREAK COMMISSIONER MCGOVERN HAD SAID THE SOUTHERN END OF LYNDALE AVENUE ON THE BLUFF.  SO THIS IS KIND OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE AND IT HAS LIKE A CIRCULAR DRIVE AND THESE ARE NOT EXACTLY SURE THE SIZE OF THE OF EACH UNIT. DO YOU RECALL WHAT THE KIND OF GENERAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THESE UNITS WERE?  YEAH, THEY'RE VERY LARGE UNITS. I THINK THEY'RE GENERALLY OVER 3000 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT. THE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDES SOME MORE CONVENTIONAL ATTACHED TOWNHOMES IN KIND OF TWO UNIT FORMATS AND THEN ALONG THE BLUFF THESE VILLA HOMES OR DETACHED TOWNHOMES THINK YOU THINK YOU  ACTUALLY EXCELLENT SO IN CONSIDERING ALLOWING LOW DENSITY TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS UP TO FOUR UNITS IS THE KIND OF MAXIMUM WE'RE LOOKING AT CAN BE ADJUSTED OF TOWNHOMES IN R ONE.  YES YES IS  NOS IS GIVE TO ME THESE ARE MAYBES TWO MAYBES YES THANK YOU EXCELLENT AND AND LOOKING THINKING ABOUT TOWNHOMES ALLOWING DETACHED TOWNHOME IN ARE THREE SPECIFICALLY THIS COULD MEAN THAT WE COULD STRUCTURE IT WHERE IT'S ALSO ALLOWED IN R ONE BUT FOR THIS SPECIFIC QUESTION WE'RE JUST COULD WE ALLOW DETACHED TOWNHOMES IN OUR THREE MAYBES THANK YOU . SO HERE WE'RE LOOKING AT A A GROUP THREE THROUGH EIGHT IS A GROUP OF NEW MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING TYPES THAT CURRENTLY DO NOT HAVE DEFINITIONS AND ARE NOT CLEARLY CURRENTLY IDENTIFIED IN OUR CODE TO BE ALLOWED. SO THIS ALL FOUR QUESTIONS FOR ALL EXCEPT FOR TRIPLEXES TRIPLEXES ARE ALLOWED IN MULTIFAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY ZONES.  SO THE QUESTION FOR THESE IS FOUR, FIVE, SEVEN AND EIGHT DO WE ESTABLISH ISH A THIS USE WHERE WE IT AND THEN DETERMINE WHERE IT WILL BE AND WHETHER IT WILL BE PERMITTED OR CONDITIONAL AND THEN THE OPTIONS ARE ALLOWING IT INTO OUR THREE R 12 UNDERSTANDING THAT THESE WOULD ALSO IN SIMILAR DENSITY TO WHAT'S ALREADY ALLOWED IN OUR THREE AND WOULD FIT IN WELL WITH OUR 12 STACKED FLATS.  I LOOKED UP THIS DEFINITION BEFORE COMING IN HERE JUST TO CLARIFY BECAUSE WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A STACKED FLAT THAT'S A DUPLEX AND A TRIPLEX SO STACKED FLATS FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN ARE ALWAYS THREE UNITS AND THEY ARE 3 TO 3 AND A HALF STOREYS AND THEY ARE ONE ON TOP OF EACH OTHER. SO A TRIPLEX CAN BE THAT BUT TRIPLEXES CAN ALSO HAVE DIFFERENT CONFIGURATIONS IN THE STRUCTURE SO THAT'S WHERE STACKED FLATS COMES INTO PLAY I SAY TWO OR MORE UNITS BECAUSE I THINK WE COULD DEFINE THIS WHERE MAYBE WE DON'T HAVE A STACKED FLAT DEFINITION WE INCLUDE IT IN TRIPLEX OR WE CREATE A DIFFERENT UMBRELLA BECAUSE A LOT OF A LOT OF CUSTOMIZE ATION THAT THE THAT THE CITY WOULD BE ABLE TO DETERMINE FOR THESE THINGS FOR TRIPLEXES AND FOR PLEX'S THE QUESTION IS THE SAME DO WE ALLOW IT IN OTHER DISTRICTS B SWI BESIDES MULTIFAMILY LIKE PUTTING IN R THREE AND DO WE ALLOW IT IN R ONE A A PERMITTED OR CONDITIONAL USE?  ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I'M SURE YES. THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. SO FOR ITEM THREE AND FOR WHAT S WOULD IT ESSENTIALLY BE WHAT MINNEAPOLIS.  BUT IS IT HAVING ALLOWING MULTIFAMILY IN SINGLE ONLY OR IS IT MAYBE NOT UP TO CODE ? THERE ARE THREE WHAT IS THREE SPECIFICALLY ARE THREE IS THE TOWNHOME ZONING DESIGNATION CURRENTLY AND IF YOU ALLOW AN R ONE IT WOULD BE YES SIMILAR TO WHAT MINNEAPOLIS SAINT PAUL HAVE DONE AND IT'S NOT ALL OR NOTHING IT COULD BE NOTHING.  IT COULD BE ALL BUT IT ALSO COULD BE LIKE I'M OKAY WITH TRIPLEXES BUT NOT FOR PLEXUS SO THE ANY FEEDBACK LIKE THA IS ALSO MUCH APPRECIATED.  I THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. CHERYL WRIGHT IF I MAY JUST ADD ANOTHER PIECE OF DATA OR INFORMATION THAT ONE OF THE REASONS THAT MINNEAPOLIS AND SAINT PAUL HAVE SEEN MORE DUPLEX ARE TWO FAMILY DWELLING CONSTRUCTION IS THAT WHEN YOU GET TO THE THIRD UNIT UNDER THE BUILDING CODE YOU HAVE TO SPRINKLE THOSE UNITS AND SO IT'S MORE COSTLY DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S NOT OCCURRING IN A FEW LOCATIONS IN A FEW SPOTS BUT IT JUST ADDS ANOTHER LAYER THAT DOES PRESSING ON THE ECONOMICS OF THOSE PROJECTS.  SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WILL BE REVISITED IN FUTURE ITERATIONS OF THE BUILDING CODE BUT THAT'S ALWAYS A SLOW AND A PROCESS AND FULLY OUTSIDE THE CONTROL OF THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON.  SO IF THERE ARE NO THERE ARE QUESTIONS WE CAN OR A FEEDBACK OUTSIDE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE HERE I CAN MOVE TO KIND OF YES NO OR MAYBE SHOULD TRIPLEXES BE ALLOWED IN OTHER DISTRICTS BESIDES MULTIFAMILY LIKE ARE THREE YESES MAYBES OKAY FIVE PHENIX CONSENSUS I LOVE IT SAME QUESTION FOR FOR PLEX'S SHOULD THEY BE ALLOWED IN OTHER DISTRICTS LIKE OUR 30I SKIPPED ROB WE'LL GO BACK TO OUR ONE LET'S JUST WORRY ABOUT OUR THREE SHOULD FOUR BOXES BE ALLOWED IN OTHER DISTRICTS BESIDES MULTIFAMILY I.E. ARE OUR THREE YESES I WANT CLARIFY I THINK I'M CONFUSED. OH YES OF COURSE. SO FOR THE TRIPLEXES WHAT DID WE JUST VOTE ON ARE THREE OR ONE ARE ARE THREE? I'D LIKE TO CHANGE A VOTE. OKAY ARE THREE ALLOW TRIPLEXES AND ARE THREE YESES. OKAY.  MAYBES OKAY. THANK YOU.  SINCE WE GOING BACK LET'S FIX MY AREA AND FIX THIS ALLOW TRIPLEXES IN R-1 AS A PERMITTED OR CONDITIONAL USE. NOW THIS IS SAYING THAT IN FUTURE MEETINGS THAT CONSIDER THIS ITEM COULD BE DISCERNED DETERMINED WHETHER LIKE FURTHER WHERE IT'S ACTUALLY VOTED ON OR DIRECTED FOR RECOMMENDATION WHETHER IT SHOULD BE PREVENTED OR CONDITION FILE.  SO THIS IS THE IDEA OF SHOULD WE LOOK INTO IT FURTHER FOR YESES THIS IS FOR TRIPLEXES IN R-1 AS A PERMITTED OR CONDITIONAL USE YESES MAYBES NOS OKAY  FOR FOR PLEXUS SHOULD FOR FOR PLEXUS BE ALLOWED IN OUR THREE YESES  MAYBES THANK YOU ALL RIGHT FOR ESTABLISHING NEW NEW USES. SO WE HAVE MULTIPLEXES WHICH ARE I WOULD DEFINE AS GREATER THAN FOUR UNITS BUT LESS THAN 15. SO WE'RE JUST KIND OF KEEPING IN ALIGNMENT WITH MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL GUIDE AND THIS IS SHOULD WE ESTABLISH MULTIPLEX AS A USE AND ALLOW IN OUR THREE OUR 12 DID WE THIS ONE YEAH I THINK WE MAY HAVE MISSED THE FOUR PLEX IN OUR 10I TOOK THOSE MAYBE SAYS NO APOLOGIES SHOULD WE ALLOW FOR PLEX'S IN OUR ONE. YES NO MAYBES. OKAY.  YEAH  SO IN LOOKING AT MULTIPLEXES SHOULD IT BE ESTABLISHED USE AND THEN ALLOWING IN R THREE AND R 12 WHICH WOULD ALIGN WITH THE KIND OF GENERAL DENSITY THAT COMES WITH MULTIPLEXES.  YES .  MAYBES AND LOOKING AT STACKED FLATS FOR THIS ONES IN STACKED FLATS IS THREE UNITS. WE COULD ALSO LUMPED IN WITH TRIPLEXES BUT SHOULD WE ESTABLISH IT AS A SEPARATE TO USE AND ALLOW IN OUR THREE OR OUR 12 YES'S MAYBES?  OKAY THANK YOU MY MY HESITATION ON STACKED FLATS IS THE HEIGHT YES THAT FITS INTO OH IT'S NOT ON THE SLIDE ITEM TEN THE HEIGHT LIMITS MAP SO THERE WOULD SO SAY WE SAID YES THERE IS WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE HEIGHT LIMITS MAPPED SO THE HEIGHT LIMITS WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED OR EXCUSE ME THE HEIGHT LIMITS WOULD HAVE TO BE REVIEWED AND ADJUSTED BEFORE STACKED FLATS COULD BE ALLOWED SO IT'S KIND OF THEY THEY ARE OPERATING IN A PAIR IN STACKED FLATS SHOULD THERE BE ESTABLISHED USE AND SHOULD IT BE ALLOWED IN ARE THREE AND TWO ARE 12 YESES MAYBES OKAY AND THEN COURTYARD APARTMENTS ACTUALLY GOING TO POP BACK TO THIS VISUAL HERE COURTYARD APARTMENTS IS ON THE BOTTOM ROW THE SECOND FROM THE LEFT.  SO IT'S A SINGLE STRUCTURE WHERE YOU ENTER IN A COURTYARD AND THEN YOU HAVE THE ENTRANCE TO THE VARIOUS UNITS. JUST TO CLARIFY OOPS HERE YOU GO. YES, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER.  WE THANK YOU CHAIR. I'M JUST CURIOUS SO COURTYARD APARTMENTS ALLOWED CURRENTLY UNDER CURRENT DEVELOPMENT CHAIR ALBERT COMMISSIONER WHITE SO THANKS FOR THAT IT'S IT'S NOT THAT IT'S NOT ALLOWED IT'S JUST THAT EFFECTIVELY WE HAVE WONDERFUL MOTION FOR THAT INCLUDES A YOU KNOW A CIRCULAR A VENN DIAGRAM OF ALL OF THESE THINGS. CURRENTLY MULTIFAMILY IN OUR CODE IS DEFINED AS ANYTHING OF THREE ATTACHED UNITS OR GREATER RIGHT NOW AND CAN BE IN A VERTICAL OR HORIZONTAL ARRANGEMENT.  I THINK ONE OF THE FEATURES OF SOME OF THESE INSTRUMENTAL HOUSING TYPES IS THEY ALLOW YOU TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE NUANCE IN IN WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAN HOW OUR CODE IS CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED . IT WOULD ALSO ALLOW YOU TO ESTABLISH LIMITS ON SAY MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS CONTAINED IN SOME OF THESE BUILDINGS WHEREAS MULTIFAMILY IT'S ONLY GOVERNED BY THE BASE ZONING DENSITY CURRENTLY THAT THE SITE ALLOWS.  THAT MAKES SENSE AND JERRY ALBRECHT THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED COURTYARD APARTMENTS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN OUR THREE TODAY BUT THEY ARE ALLOWED ARE ALLOWED OUR M 12 YEAH PER MULTIFAMILY USE I HAVE A QUESTION OH WOULD ESTABLISHING THE MULTIPLEX STAG FLATS CORPORATE APARTMENTS WOULD THAT ILIM ENABLED OR HELP WITH THE BECAUSE I KNOW PART OF THE DESIGN ISSUE FOR SORT OF THIS MISSING MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING HAS TO DO WITH AN AN ENTRANCE AND AN EXIT HAVING SEPARATE ENTRANCES AND EXITS DOES THAT OR AN ELEVATOR OR WHATEVER HAPPENS TO BE EITHER I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT IS BUT WOULD THAT BE WOULD THAT MITIGATE SOME OF THE ISSUE OR SOME OF THE COST IN THAT WAY IN CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS IN MY EXPERIENCE BECAUSE BY PULLING OUT THIS NUANCE AND MAYBE ESTABLISHING SOME DIFFERENT LIMITATIONS LIKE SAY ON HEIGHT OR NUMBER OF UNITS IT COULD ALLOW FOR A DESIGN THAT WOULD MITIGATE HAVING SEPARATE AND ELEVATORS BECAUSE THOSE KICK IN AT A CERTAIN NUMBER OF UNITS IN HEIGHT AND KIND OF WORK TOGETHER.  PLANNING PLANNER NICK JOHNSON DO YOU HAVE FURTHER I WAS CHARLE RIGHT AND THANK YOU MICHELLE. NO, I JUST GOING TO ADD SOMETHING SIMILAR CONTEXT IS THAT THERE WAS SOME LEGISLATION AT THE LEGISLATURE TO LOOK AT ALLOWING SINGLE STAIR MULTIFAMILY UP TO SIX STOREYS OTHER STATES HAVE ADOPTED THAT THAT'S NOT ALLOWED UNDER MINNESOTA BUILDING CODE AND I KNOW THAT WAS SOMETHING THEY WERE LOOKING AT IT THIS LAST CODE STATE CODE COMMISSION AND IT DIDN'T GO FORWARD SOMETHING THAT MIGHT COME BACK BUT IT DOES SAVE A LOT OF COST AND DOES PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DESIGN FLEXIBILITY. OF COURSE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICIALS ARE DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT SINGLE STAIR TOWER JUST MORE WAYS IN AND OUT AS BETTER FOR THEM FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE. BUT THERE'S OBVIOUSLY COSTS ASSOCIATED THAT FROM A DESIGN PERSPECTIVE. SO I WROTE THAT DOWN THAT'S SOMETHING WE PROBABLY CAN DO ADDITIONAL RESEARCH ON AND SEE HOW THESE DIFFERENT LITTLE THESE DIFFERENT TYPES INTERACT SPECIFICALLY WITH THE EGRESS REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH ACCORDING TO HEIGHT AND THE NUMBER OF UNITS.  YEAH, I THINK I WAS I WAS LOOKING AT SOME OF THAT SO THANK YOU THAT ANSWERS QUESTION BUT FOR LIKE A THREE UNIT OR FOUR UNITS YOU KNOW NOT LIKE NOT A SIX UNIT PLUS IT SEEMS PRETTY REASONABLE JUST TO HAVE ONE IN AND OUT.  I AM NOT A FIRE EXPERT SO THAT'S MY $0.02.  SO IN LIGHT OF THAT THE QUESTION IS SHOULD WE PULL THIS ONE OUT FOR MORE STUDY OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROVIDE A VOTE FOR DIRECTION ?  THE OTHER THING I WOULD ADD WOULD BE HELPFUL TOO IS THAT IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU THINK IS VALUABLE IN ARM 12 BUT NOT YOU KNOW SUPPORTED IN R THREE AND THIS IS KIND OF OUR CURRENT CONSTRUCTION OF ZONING DISTRICTS THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH AND TRYING TO KIND OF FIT IT AS NEATLY AND NICELY AS WE CAN INTO OUR CURRENT ZONING CODE STRUCTURE. BUT THAT'S A GOOD FEEDBACK TO HAVE TOO IS WHETHER YOU THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR ONE BUT NOT THE OTHER.  SHOULD WE ALLOW COURTYARD APARTMENTS BE ESTABLISHED AS A USE? YES.  GREAT.  SHOULD IT BE ALLOWED IN OUR THREE YESES TWO MAYBE THREE S'S?  SHOULD IT BE ALLOWED IN R M 12 FIVE? YES. THANK YOU.  SO THIS IS THE R THREE OUR LAST SLIDE LET ME GET TO MY FAVORITE 111 AND 12. SO IN TEN THIS IS JUST IN EVALUATING THE CITY HEIGHTS LIMITS MAP THIS MAY BE ALLOWING AN INCREASE IN HEIGHT LIMITS FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL GUIDED AREAS. CURRENTLY IT IS TO STOREYS.  THIS COULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO INCREASE TO THREE OR A SPECIFIC HEIGHT. IT'S THREE STORIES OR 4040 FEET. SO THIS COULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THREE STORIES AND 50 FEET OR SOME NUMBER I THINK 50 FEET IS THREE STORIES. SO THIS IS A QUESTION SHOULD WE EVALUATE THE CITY HEIGHTS LIMIT OR HEIGHT LIMIT LIMIT MAP IN ORDER TO LOOK AT INCREASING HEIGHT LIMITS FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL GUIDED AREAS?  YES. IS QUESTIONS YEAH.  WHAT IS THE EXACT DEFINITION OF A LOW RESIDENTIAL GUIDED AREA IN TERMS OF CODE SPECIFIC CODE THIS IS GUIDED CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS EXCUSE ME THIS IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL GUIDED AREAS HAVE DENSITY OF 12 UNITS PER ACRE AND MAYBE IT'S GOOD TO BRING UP THE MAP. OH I HAVE A MAP. YEAH, WELL COMMISSIONER, YOU SAID THE LOW AREAS REPRESENT THE BULK OF THE LAND GUIDED FOR RESIDENTIAL USES IN BLOOMINGTON AND MICHELLE'S CORRECT. THE DENSITY RANGE OF 0 TO 12 UNITS IN THAT CATEGORY AND THE DESCRIPTION OF THE CATEGORY TALKS ABOUT MOSTLY SINGLE FAMILY OR SINGLE UNIT HOMES BUT ALSO TALKS ABOUT TWO FAMILIES TO USE LOW DENSITY TOWNHOMES. THAT'S KIND OF IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE CATEGORY IN THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THE BEIGE MAKING A REAPPEARANCE THAT WILL ALSO GET ADJUSTED IN FUTURE AND FUTURE VISUALS.  OH YEAH. THANK YOU GUYS FOR THAT. I'VE TAKEN .  SO SHOULD WE EVALUATE THE CITY HEIGHTS LIMITS MAP IN ORDER TO CONSIDER INCREASING THE HEIGHT LIMITS FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL GUIDED AREAS WE SEPARATING THOSE TWO OUT BECAUSE I THINK WE DIDN'T WE VOTE ON THE FIRST ONE AND NOW WE'RE INCREASE HEIGHT LIMITS YEAH OR DID WE MISS THAT? DID I MISS IT? I THINK IF WE IF YOU WANT TO INCREASE HEIGHT LIMITS FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WE HAVE TO EVALUATE THE CITY LIMIT MAP.  YEAH SO IT'S THE EVALUATION IS PART OF THE PROCESS IS WHAT QUESTION IS INDICATING. SO IF YOU SAY YES TO ANY OF THE TWO FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WE HAVE TO EVALUATE THE MAP AND SURE ALBERT IF I CAN ADD ONE THING TO IS THAT PART OF THIS KIND OF EVALUATION AND INTERNAL AUDIT WOULD PROBABLY BE ALSO LOOKING AT OUR MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL GUIDED AREAS TO SEE WHAT THE HEIGHT LIMITS MAP ESTABLISHES AS MAXIMUM HEIGHTS IN THOSE AREAS BECAUSE IT'S POSSIBLE TO SAY IF YOU WANT TO ADOPT SOME OF THESE USES ARM 12 FOR EXAMPLE OR EVEN AN R THREE IS APPROPRIATE FOR MEDIUM DENSITY IN CERTAIN CASES IF IT'S CAPPED AT A TWO STOREY HEIGHT LIMIT THEN LIKELY SOME OF THESE LIKE STACKED FLATS LIKE SOME OF THESE OTHER MISSING METAL TYPES WOULD CONFLICT WITH WITH THAT HEIGHT LIMIT. SO IT MIGHT JUST BE VERY STRATEGIC OR SPECIFIC LOCATIONS IT MIGHT NOT BE AND IT'S LIKELY NOT TO BE AN ACROSS BOARD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION BUT IT'S JUST AN EVALUATION THAT WE WOULD NEED TO DO DEPENDING ON WHAT TYPES OF USES YOU WANT TO ALLOW, WHERE IF THAT MAKES SENSE YOU'RE I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF INCREASING THE HEIGHT LIMITS FOR MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL GUIDED AREAS NOT LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL THAT AREA. OKAY PERSONALLY I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE WE WANT TO VOTE . ALL RIGHT. LET'S START WITH WELL LET'S DO INCREASE LET'S DO IT ON AN OPPOSITE ORDER INCREASE HEIGHT LIMITS FOR MEDIUM DENSITY MAYBE MAYBES NO.  OKAY.  NO ABOUT LOW DENSITY JUNEAU'S TWO YES ONE MAYBE THIS IS OH YES. LIKELY THIS ONE WOULD COME BACK AS AN ADDITIONAL BRIEF STUDY ITEM BECAUSE IT IS AN EVALUATION THERE WOULDN'T BE NECESSARILY CODE AMENDMENT. SO THIS DEPENDING ON WHAT WE FIND AND EVALUATE PROBABLY WANT TO BRING THIS FORWARD TO MORE DISCUSSION BECAUSE INCREASING HEIGHT LIMITS IS WOULD HAVE SOME MORE POSSIBLY MORE VISUAL IMPACTS THAN SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WERE SUGGESTED SUGGESTED LIVE I LIKE THIS ONE VERY EXCITED AND WITH A BANG CURRENTLY LIVE WORK IS LIVE WORK IS ONLY ALLOWED IN OUR INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS SO I WANTED TO I THREE IP AND T I THERE ALLOWED AS A A CONDITIONAL USE BECAUSE THOSE SITES NEED TO BE EVALUATED FOR SAFETY FOR RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE MAY BE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INDUSTRY SOIL OR THE BUSINESS THAT WAS THERE THAT MAY NOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH SOMEONE LIVING THERE LONG TERM. SO IT'S CURRENTLY A CONDITIONAL USE IN IN INDUSTRIAL ZONING.  THIS SUGGESTION IS TO ALLOW NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS TO ALLOW LIVE WORK IN NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICTS.  STAFF SEES THIS AS A VERY COMPATIBLE WITH WITH NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICTS AND WHAT THEY PROVIDE A NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICTS HAVE AMENITIES THAT ARE CLOSE TO TRANSIT AND HAVING ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR BUSINESSES WHO MAY WANT TO LIVE IN THEIR UNIT HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE THINGS AS WELL AS CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THEIR BUSINESS MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.  IN ADDITION TO THAT THERE'S KIND OF EXPANDED OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEIR BUSINESS. IT ALLOWS THEM TO BE CLOSER TO THEIR CUSTOMERS BECAUSE THOSE WHO ARE VISITING NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS AMENITIES ALSO WOULD HAVE A POTENTIAL TO VISIT THESE AREAS. ARE THESE OTHER THESE ADDITIONAL BUSINESSES FOR LIVE WORK.  SO THE QUESTION IS DO WE ALLOW LIVE WORK AS IT CURRENTLY IS IN NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICTS  QUESTIONS VOTES FOR YES VOTES MAYBE. THANK YOU.  SO NUMBER 12 IS IN THINKING ABOUT WORK IN NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT SPECIFICALLY THIS IS ALSO TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE THE EXCUSE ME PROXIMITY TO AMENITIES AND TRANSPORTATION AND ALSO EXPANDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE OWNER OPERATOR OR IN ORDER TO SUPPLEMENT THEIR INCOME IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THEIR BUSINESS IN THIS LOCATION IS ALLOWING UP TO TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR LIVE WORK WHEN THEY ARE IN NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICTS . THIS COULD BE AS A CONDITIONAL OR A PERMITTED USE SO THERE'S ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR REVIEW. IF IT'S A CONDITIONAL USE, ONE UNIT WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED TO HAVE THE OWNER OR OPERATOR . SO THIS WOULD BE DIFFERENT THAN JUST A COMMERCIAL SPACE WITH RESIDENTIAL OVER IT. WE STILL WANT TO TIE THIS TO A SPECIFIC THING LIVE OWNER OPERATORS BEING CLOSE TO THEIR BUSINESS AND THEN THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A TENANT OR ADDITIONAL OR ADDITIONAL WORKERS IN A SECOND UNIT AND SUPPLEMENT THEIR INCOME.  SO IF A CONDITIONAL USE THE BUSINESS COULD BE EVALUATED FOR STANDARDS RELATED TO OCCUPANCY SAFETY AND PARKING.  SO IN THIS INSTANCE WE WOULD HAVE SOME OVERSIGHT FOR ADDITIONAL CONCERNS JUST A NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS SITE IN GENERAL.  ANY QUESTIONS?  SO WITH THESE 211 AND 12 I GUESS MAYBE ALL OF THEM RIGHT NOW THERE WAS NOTHING BEFORE IN CITY CODE WHICH MEANS IT WAS FROM MY UNDERSTANDING WHICH MEANS IT WAS PROHIBITED . IS THAT CORRECT TERM COMMISSIONERS THIS IS ALSO ONE WHERE THIS IS IS ALLOWED IN SOME INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS AS A CONDITIONAL USE THIS IS EXPANDING IT TO INTO OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE WE WOULD STILL NEED TO BUILD OUT WHAT THE STANDARDS AND PROCESS WOULD BE AS IF IT WAS BRAND NEW BUT WE STILL HAVE THE BENEFIT OF MAYBE A DEFINITION BUT WE'D STILL NEED TO ON THE OTHER PIECES AND CHALLENGE IF I CAN ADD TO THAT SOME OF THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS MULTIFAMILY AND A MIXED USE SETTING AS LONG AS YOU'RE RETAINING SOME OF COMMERCIAL OR NONRESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA.  BUT AGAIN GETTING INTO THE NATURE OF DEFINITIONS AND THE ZONING, IT REQUIRES YOU TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF THREE UNITS TO BE ELIGIBLE TO DO ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT THOSE COMMERCIAL SITES. SO THIS WOULD OFFER A PATHWAY OF A ONE OR TWO UNIT LIVE WORK SITUATION AT A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THIS SO THE QUESTION IS ALLOW UP TO TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS LIVE WORK UNITS EXCUSE ME ALLOWED TO TWO TO RESIDENTIAL USE UNITS IN A LIVE WORK CONFIGURATION IN NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICTS THIS IS I HAVE A MAP FOR THOSE TWO I THINK THIS ONE LOOKS YES EXCELLENT THE PINK AREAS THAT YOU CAN VERY CLEARLY SEE OUR TWO AND BEFORE SO THIS IS WHERE WE WOULD BE CONSIDERING HAVING THIS TYPE OF USE WHERE WE COULD GET AN ADDITIONAL ONE SO CURRENTLY LIVE WORK ONE UNIT IS NOT ALLOWED IN NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICTS SO THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO POSSIBLY HAVE LIVE WORK THERE AT ALL WHICH GIVES US ONE ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN THIS IN THESE AREAS. AND THEN THERE'S THE QUESTION OF SHOULD WE CONSIDER ALLOWING TWO WHERE ONE OF THEM IS OCCUPIED BY THE OWNER OPERATOR SO THE QUESTION TWO QUESTIONS ARE SHOULD LIVE WORK BE ALLOWED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICTS? YES ALLOWED AS A PERMITTED OR CONDITIONAL EXCELLENT MAYBES .  AND THEN THE SECOND QUESTION IS ALLOW LIVE WORK IN NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICTS SO ESTABLISH THAT THAT HAPPENS AND WE ALLOW UP TO TWO UNITS FOR THESE LIVE USES. YES, MAYBES.  OKAY.  NEXT STEPS.  THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR GOING THROUGH THIS WITH ME.  I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU LOOKING AT ALL OF THE DATA AND THE OPTIONS. IT IS KIND OF LOT AND I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU STICKING WITH ME SO IN THE NEXT STEPS EVERY BOARD IS GOING TO SEE THIS PRESENTATION WITH ADJUSTMENTS TO OUR MAPS AND SOME OTHER CLARIFYING THINGS THAT'S SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12TH. SO THAT'S NEXT.  PLANNER JOHNSON WILL BE THE ONE PRESENTING THAT AS I AM UNAVAILABLE CITY COUNCIL IS SCHEDULED NOVEMBER 18TH CURRENTLY PLANNER JOHNSON WILL BE PRESENTING THAT ITEM AS UNFORTUNATELY THE QUANTITIES IT'S I'M UNAVAILABLE THAT EVENING AS WELL SO FEEDBACK WILL BE USED FOR ONE CODE AMENDMENT DEVELOPMENT A LOT OF THAT LIKE I SAID TO BUILD OFF OF CURRENT CODE GIVES MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO ACTUALLY BRING CODE AMENDMENTS FORWARD MORE QUICKLY AND THEN PHASE TWO IS TO BE DETERMINED WHERE THERE MAY BE ACTUALLY OPPORTUNITIES WHERE WE NEED TO BRING FORWARD ADDITIONAL STUDY ITEM SESSIONS OR A MIX OF STUDY ITEM SESSIONS AND CODE AMENDMENTS AND THAT IS ALL I HAVE FOR YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.  ALL RIGHT. NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS ANOTHER STUDY ITEM ON PARK DEDICATION AND PLANNING STANDARDS REVIEW AND PLANNING SUPERVISOR JOHNSON HAVE THE STAFF REPORT. THANK YOU CHAIR ALBERT I'LL TRY AND BE BRIEF ON THIS ITEM. THIS IS A 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN PROJECT THIS MORE IN KIND OF THE THE MANDATORY VERSUS DISCRETIONARY I WOULD DESCRIBE IT AS AND I'LL EXPLAIN WHY HERE IN A MOMENT AND I WOULD SHARE IT ALSO IS A COLLABORATION WITH OUR LEGAL STAFF SO TO KEVIN TASK FOR HIS WORK AND SUPPORTING ME THROUGH THIS PROCESS SO I'M JUST GOING TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF A BACKGROUND OF WHY WE'RE DOING SOME PART DEDICATION BASICS AND THEN A SUMMARY OF THE DRAFT BEFORE YOU I WOULD SAY THE PURPOSE OF THIS INFORMATIONAL UPDATE IS TO NOT KIND OF SPRING A PUBLIC HEARING. I KNEW WITHOUT ANY KIND OF HEADS UP IN TERMS OF WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. SO IT'S YOU KNOW, YOU GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS OUTSIDE OF A HEARING SETTING. I WOULD SAY WE ARE GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH AT CITY COUNCIL WITHOUT STUDY SESSION.  SO IF THAT JUST GIVES YOU SOME KIND OF IDEA THE NATURE OF THE OF THIS WORK.  SO AS I MENTIONED IT'S PART OF THE WORK PLAN THE NEED FOR THIS PROJECT AND ACTUALLY DRIVEN BY A RECENT RECENT MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT CASE PWS VERSUS CITY OF BURNSVILLE THAT DEALT WITH PARK DEDICATION AND TO MAKE SURE DON'T STUMBLE ON MY ANALYSIS HERE I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO ASSISTANT ATTORNEY KEVIN TO ASK YOU JUST GIVE A QUICK SNAPSHOT OF WHAT THE KEY HIGHLIGHTS OF THE CASE WAS. YEAH. THANKS SO CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER. SO WE'RE THE AREA OF COLD OF LAW CALLED EXACTIONS. SO WHEN YOU TAKE FEE FROM A DEVELOPER TO COUNTER THE IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT IT'S CALLED AN ACTION THERE'S A COUPLE YOU KNOW PREREQUISITES TO THAT SO A WE HAVE TO HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO GET THE FUNDS WHETHER THAT BE THROUGH PARK DEDICATION OR SEWER AVAILABILITY CHARGES THINGS LIKE THAT. THE CITY OR THE STATE HAS TO GIVE US THE AUTHORITY THROUGH STATUTE SO WE HAVE THAT FOR PARK DEDICATION WE HAVE IT FOR SEWER AVAILABILITY CHARGES TO SOME CITIES HAVE GOTTEN INTO TROUBLE WHEN THEY ASK FOR TRANORTATION IMPACT FEES AND THERE'S NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO DO IT SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE THAT AND THAT'S BOXES CHECKED HERE. THERE'S A COUPLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS TOO WHEN YOU TAKE TOO MUCH MONEY THERE'S NOT A NEXUS BETWEEN THE PROBLEM AND THE SOLUTION OR IF YOU TAKE TOO MUCH MONEY TO COUNTER THE THE IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT CAN BE CONSIDERED A TAKING SO THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD BE TO COMPENSATION FROM THE GOVERNMENT FOR THAT SO THEY'VE BEEN TO SUPREME COURT CASES THAT KIND OF GIVE US A FRAMEWORK. NOLAN AND DOLAN THEY RHYME THERE'S TWO CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS THERE HAS TO BE AN ESSENTIAL NEXUS BETWEEN THE CONDITION OR THE FEE AND THEN THE GOVERNMENTS NEED TO MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF THE PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S THE NOLAN CASE AND THEN THERE MUST BE A ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY BETWEEN THE SPECIFIC CONDITION OR THE AMOUNT OF FEES AND THE EFFECTS OF THAT PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S THE DOLAN CASE. SO THOSE TWO TESTS ARE WITH US WHENEVER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TAKING MONEY FROM DEVELOPERS FOR IMPACT FEES.  LAST YEAR SOMEONE CHALLENGED THAT OR A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO IN BURNSVILLE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO PAY THE PARK DEDICATION FEE SO THEY SUED BURNSVILLE WENT ALL THE WAY UP TO THE SUPREME COURT. SOME TAKEAWAYS FROM THAT ARE THAT THE SUPREME COURT MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT SAID PARK DEDICATION STATUTE COMPLIES WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL SO IT CREATES A FRAMEWORK IT'S UP TO CITIES TO DO THE LEGWORK.  THE FRAMEWORK IS THERE CONSTITUTIONALLY THE STATUTE ACTUALLY SAYS HAS TO BE A NEXUS AND ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY.  SO UNDER THAT STATE LAW, MUNICIPALITIES STILL HAVE TO EVALUATE THEIR PARK CONDITIONS FOR IT FOR THOSE TWO THINGS NEXUS AND PROPORTIONALITY.  THE GOOD THING THEY DID SAY WAS THAT CITIES COULD USE FORMULAS DO THAT AS LONG AS THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, JUSTIFIED WITH SOME DATA AND EVIDENCE. SO THAT WAS GOOD NEWS FOR US. WE USE A FORMULA MORE CITIES USE A FORMULA OR SOME SORT OF A FEE STRUCTURE CALCULATE WHAT PARK DEDICATION IS. SO BASED ON THAT CASE LAW WE THOUGHT IT'D BE A GOOD IDEA TO REEVALUATE OUR PARK DEDICATION AMOUNTS AND OUR FORMULA AT TIME JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE, YOU KNOW, STILL KIND OF COMPLIANT WITH THE LAW IN THE NEW CASE LAW.  SO THAT'S A LITTLE BACKGROUND IN THE CASE. NICK AND I HAVE MET WITH ASSESSING ENGINEERING IN DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS THAT KIND OF CALCULATE AND WORK ON THIS FEE AND WE'RE PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT THERE'S A NEXUS . OBVIOUSLY WE NEED MONEY FOR PARKS DEVELOPMENT CREATES EMPLOYEES, NEW RESIDENTS IN THE CITY. THERE'S MORE DEMAND ON PARK SYSTEM.  ALL OF OUR PARKS NEED TO BE UPGRADED BECAUSE THEY'RE FROM THE SIXTIES AND SEVENTIES. SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE PARK DEDICATION FEES.  BUT WE THINK THAT THE NICK CAN TALK ABOUT THE FORMULA IN A MINUTE BUT.  WE THINK IT CREATES THAT PROPORTIONALITY AND THE NEXUS REQUIRED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. SO THAT'S A LOT OF LEGAL IS I THINK THESE THESE CONCEPTS ARE SOMEWHAT INTERESTING I THINK BECAUSE THEY'RE CONSTITUTIONAL BUT I COULD SEE HOW YOUR EYES WOULD GLAZE OVER IF YOU IF YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS STUFF A LOT.  SO THAT'S JUST KIND OF LEGAL BACKGROUND THAT CAN ADD AND YOU CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AFTERWARDS. YEAH. THANK YOU KEVIN . I MEAN THANK YOU KEVIN . SO THE I GUESS IN SUMMARY I THINK THE IF I'M LOOKING AT IT HIGH LEVEL I THINK THE NATURE OF REVIEW REVEALED THAT THE CITY'S PARK DEDICATION PROCESS IS SOUND AND IS WORKING WELL. ON THAT BEING SAID, THERE ARE SOME OPPORTUNITIES TO MAKE SOME TWEAKS IN LIGHT OF THIS COURT CASE TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT STRONGER AND IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK AND SO THAT'S EFFECTIVELY WHAT WE'RE BRINGING TO YOU IN THIS ORDINANCE. I PUT A BOARD ON THE SLIDE ABOUT MANDATORY VERSUS DISCRETIONARY PROJECT. I WOULD JUST SAY THIS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT WE ARE EXPEDITING THE PACE OF IT SOMEWHAT AND THE REASON BEING IS THAT IN OUR VIEW THESE ARE MANDATORY THINGS THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO DO TO PROTECT US FROM ANY POTENTIAL LIABILITY OR HELP STRENGTHEN OUR POSITION WHEREAS YOU KNOW, DISCRETIONARY LIKE MISSING MEDAL FOR YOUR PREVIOUS ITEM IS A LOT OF THESE ARE DISCRETIONARY THAT THE CITY CAN MAKE FROM A POLICY STANDPOINT THIS IS MORE IN THAT MANDATORY BUCKET.  HOWEVER I WILL SAY THAT ONCE WE OPEN UP THE SECTION OF THE CODE IT DOES GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO TRY AND RESOLVE OTHER KIND OF LONGSTANDING ISSUES THAT WE HAVE NOTICED AS A STAFF AS WE'RE WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY. AND THIS ORDINANCE DOES INCLUDE A COUPLE THOSE THINGS AS WELL JUST SOME BASICS OF OUR PARK DEDICATION PROCESS SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE A YOU KNOW THE FIRST BULLETS WE'VE MENTIONED YOU KNOW THE CITY CAN REQUIRE LAND OR FEE FOR DEVELOPMENT. IT'S AUTHORIZED UNDER STATE LAW SO DON'T WANT TO REGURGITATE THAT. BUT JUST A POINT ABOUT OUR PROCESS THAT WE ALLOW THE LESSER OF EITHER A FLAT 10% OF UNDEVELOPED LAND VALUE WHICH IS THE MOST COMMON SYSTEM YOU SEE AMONG CITIES. AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE A PROPORTIONAL VALUE CALCULATION WHICH IS MORE SOPHISTICATED THAN WHAT MOST CITIES EMPLOY RELATED TO TRYING TO CALCULATE ITS PARK DEDICATION FEE AND IN THE CASE OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND THAT'S MORE OFTEN THE THAT THEY'RE DOING PROPORTIONAL VALUE CALCULATION AND WHAT THAT DOES IS IT TRIES TO CALCULATE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CITY'S PARK SYSTEM THINKING ABOUT REPLACEMENT AND THOSE THINGS AND IT TRIES TO ASSIGN A FEE BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF EMPLOYEES AND THE AMOUNT OF RESIDENTS IN THE CITY.  THERE'S ALSO A 9010 COST SHARE RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL THAT TRIES TO MAKE ALL THESE THINGS VERY FAIR AND AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE IN TERMS OF IMPACTS ON THE CITY'S PARK SYSTEM.  JUST A NOTE THAT THE FEE MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO PLAT SO I KNOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION ONLY REVIEWS TYPE THREE PLANS RIGHT NOW BUT JUST NOTE THAT YOU KNOW YOU OFTEN SEE THAT CONDITION ASSOCIATED WITH IT AND THEY HAVE TO SATISFY PRIOR TO THE PLAT BEING RECORDED COULD I COULD I JUST JUMP IN REAL QUICK NICK. YEAH CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS THE ONLY THE TRIGGER FOR BEING ABLE TO CHARGE PARK DEDICATION IS SUBDIVIDING PROPERTY SO IF YOU'RE CREATING NEW LOTS YOU CAN YOU CAN CHARGE PARK DEDICATION BUT IF NOT YOU DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO IT SO THE ONLY TIME IT COMES INTO PLAY IS THAT WHEN I REPLIED IS CREATING A NEW LOT OR SOMETHING OR THERE'S A DIVISION OR SOME SORT OF PROPERTY SPLIT THAT CREATES MORE SLOTS THAN THERE USED TO BE. SO THAT'S THE THE TRIGGER WE HAVE IN STATE TO REQUIRE IT. WELL THANK YOU KEVIN FOR THAT REMINDER AND IF THERE'S ANY LEGISLATORS WATCHING THAT STATUTORY SYSTEM I WOULD GUESS IS SLIGHTLY LESS EFFECTIVE THAN LOOKING AT COLLECTING THOSE FEES THAT A BUILDING PERMIT LEVEL BUT THIS IS THE SYSTEM WE HAVE AND WHAT WE OPERATE UNDER SO BUT YEAH GOOD CLARIFICATION THERE.  SO WE ATTACHED A DRAFT ORDINANCE TO THIS STAFF REPORT . IT WAS THERE FOR YOUR REVIEW. WE OUTLINED ALL THE CHANGES CONTAINED THEREIN. JUST A QUICK OVERVIEW. SO ADDING PROVISION TO THE PARK DEDICATION FINDINGS AND PURPOSE CLARIFYING THE DEVELOPMENT EMPLOYEES DEFINITION AGAIN THIS IS JUST US BEING TRYING TO BE AS PRECISE AS POSSIBLE SO THAT WE'RE BEING FAIR WITH THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AND LANDOWNERS PARK DEDICATION FOR MULTI-PHASED DEVELOPMENT. SO YOU'VE PROBABLY SEEN A FEW PLATTING VARIANCES COME THROUGH YOUR APPLICATION. Q IN THE PAST AND REALLY THAT'S BEEN DONE AS A MECHANISM TO DEFER PARK DEDICATION FEES ON FUTURE PHASES.  FRANKLY THAT'S NOT THE BEST MECHANISM TO DEAL WITH MULTI-PHASED DEVELOPMENT. SO WE ARE TAKING THIS OPPORTUNITY TO TRY AND IMPROVE UPON THAT ISSUE AND THEN CREATING A NEW LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND LOT PROCESS.  SO UNDER STATE LAW IT KIND OF SETS THE PARAMETERS FOR WHEN PLANNING REQUIRED AND STATE LAWS SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS AND CONSOLIDATIONS FROM THE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS.  SO WE ARE PROPOSING TO ESTABLISH A NEW ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS FOR THAT AND THEN YOU KNOW VARIOUS DEFINITION AMENDMENTS ADDITIONS IN THE SUBDIVISION AUDIENCE AND THEN A COUPLE CLARIFYING ACTIONS ON THE EXCEPTIONS TO PLATTING. SO TYPICALLY YOU HAVE TO BE APPLIED A LOT TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT. WE WANT TO ADD TO THAT THAT PUBLIC SCHOOL PROPERTIES ARE ELIGIBLE TO FOR THAT EXCEPTION AND THAT'S TYPICALLY BECAUSE THESE PROPERTIES ARE SO LARGE THAT IT'S VERY COSTLY TO PLAN THEM AND THEN ALSO CLARIFYING ON STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES AND RETAINING WALLS OUR LOTS SO OUR NEXT STEPS ARE TO HOLD A PUBLIC SCHEDULE, A PUBLIC HEARING IT IS SCHEDULED IT WILL BE AT YOUR NEXT MEETING AND THEN IF OUR SCHEDULE REMAINS ON TRACK WE PRESENT THIS TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 16TH. SO THAT IS MY UPDATE AND WE'RE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.  BUT AGAIN THIS PROJECT IN OUR VIEW IS MORE IN THE MANDATORY BUCKET THAN THE DISCRETIONARY BUCKET. BUT WE DIDN'T WANT TO THROW YOU RIGHT INTO A PUBLIC HEARING WITHOUT SOME PREVIEW.  THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ?  ALL RIGHT. SEEING THAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.  THE NEXT ITEM WE ON OUR AGENDA ITEM FIVE IS A STUDY ITEM. IT IS OUR PROPOSED 2025 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE PLANNING MANAGER MARK CARD  CHAIR ALBRIGHT COMMISSIONERS WE HAVE DEVELOPED A DRAFT SCHEDULE FOR YOU WAS IN YOUR PACKET WOULD INCLUDE 24 MEETING DATES TWO PER MONTH AND THEY UP ON THE SCREEN HERE IN YELLOW SOME OF THE THINGS WE CONSIDERED AND PROPOSING THESE DATES TRIED VERY HARD TO AVOID ANY LEGAL RELIGIOUS HOLIDAYS CONFERENCES SUCH AS APA JULY SPRING OR FALL BREAKS FOR THE BLOOMINGTON SCHOOL SYSTEM AND SOME DATES THAT JUST HAD SOME QUORUM CONCERNS. FOR EXAMPLE, JULY 3RD WOULD TYPICALLY BE A DIFFICULT DATE TO HAVE  QUORUM SO WE TARGETED TRYING HAVE 11 DAYS BETWEEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OR ALTERNATIVES OR HAVING FOUR DAYS 18 DAYS OR 25 DAYS AND THE 11 DAYS IS REALLY THE SHORTEST WE CAN DO AND TURN ON ITEM AROUND A GIVEN WHEN THE PACKETS FOR THE COUNCIL ARE TO RELATIVE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DATE. SO HAVING THAT 11 DAY TIMELINE BETWEEN THE TWO MEETINGS IS THE MOST EFFICIENT FOR APPLICANTS SAVES THEM THE MOST TIME.  SO HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SCHEDULE AND WE ARE REQUESTING A MOTION TONIGHT FOR ADOPTION . THANK YOU. COMMENTS QUESTIONS .  COMMISSIONER HOOTEN YEAH THANKS FOR THE CHAIR.  YOU KNOW AS WE'VE DOWN IN THE NUMBER OF MEETINGS WE HAVE WHEN YOU AND I FIRST STARTED YOU WERE BEFORE ME WE USED TO HAVE QUITE A BIT MORE MEETINGS AND I DON'T KNOW SOMETIMES FEEL LIKE MAYBE THE PENDULUM HAS SWUNG A LITTLE TOO FAR WHERE MEETINGS ARE GOING QUITE A BIT LONGER THAN THEY USED TO AND WE HAVE TWO OR THREE STUDY ITEMS IN A SINGLE MEETING AND MAYBE THEY'RE NOT AS EFFECTIVE THEY COULD BE SO I CAN LIVE WITH 24. I THINK THE NUMBER SHOULD BE A LITTLE HIGHER JUST SO OUR MEETINGS DON'T GET SO SOMETIMES.  BUT THAT'S JUST MY INITIAL THOUGHT.  I TEND TO AGREE ACTUALLY I WAS THINKING ABOUT THAT WALKING IN HERE TODAY I KNOW WE GOT RID OF SORT OF THE STUDY MEETING VERSUS MANY MEETINGS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS. WE'D HAVE DIFFERENT MEETINGS FOR THOSE AND I WOULD ALSO BE IN FAVOR OF HAVING MORE MR. MARKER AND I HAVE A QUESTION IF WE FORESEE CONFLICTS AT THIS POINT, IS IT FAIR FOR US TO THINK ABOUT AND MOVE MEETINGS OR IS THAT SORT OF THAT DOES IT REALLY WORK THIS THIS IS THE SCHEDULE THAT WORKS FOR COUNCIL. YEAH CHAIR ALBRECHT THIS WOULD DEFINITELY BE THE TIME IF YOU NOTICE ANY OF THESE DATES THAT ARE JUST NOT WORKABLE ESPECIALLY THEY'RE NOT WORKABLE FOR MULTIPLE OF YOU THAT COULD WOULD BE A CONCERN. WE DO HAVE OF COURSE BALANCE THAT WITH KIND OF THE EFFICIENCY AND GETTING ITEMS THROUGH THE PROCESS QUICKER ANY CONFLICTS I I'M NOT SURE IF EVERYONE WAS ABLE TO TAKE A LOOK I'M SURE CAPTAIN I DON'T HAVE KIDS SO I'M FINE.  THIS DOESN'T MEAN YOU DON'T HAVE CONFLICTS, COMMISSIONER. WHAT?  I'M LIKELY TO HAVE A CONFLICT WITH ONE OR THE OTHER OF THE OCTOBER MEETINGS DUE TO WORK. BUT I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE YET. BUT IT'S THAT'S IT.  SO APPARENTLY I'M THE ONLY ONE WITH CONFLICTS THAT'S OKAY.  I CAN MAKE IT WORK. IT'S TOTALLY FINE.  ANY ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS ABOUT ADDING ADDITIONAL SHORTENING OUR MEETINGS OR KEEPING THEM ON DATES? COMMISSIONER LISA YEAH, I AGREE WITH ADDING MORE MEETINGS HAVING THE MEETINGS MORE CONCISE AND FAIR.  COMMISSIONER WHITE I HAVE NOTHING TO COMPARE TO SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SCHEDULE USED TO BE.  I THINK THAT AFTER ABOUT 2 HOURS ESPECIALLY WITHOUT A BREAK WE ALL START TO LOSE THE ABILITY TO PROCESS INFORMATION . SO WHILE I AM RARELY A FAN OF ADDING MORE MEETINGS I WOULD RATHER PENCIL THEM IN AND CANCEL THEM IF WE DON'T HAVE ITEMS AND I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THAT SEEMS BE THE APPROACH THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN BY STAFF WHICH I APPLAUD AND APPRECIATE THAT IF THERE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT ITEMS TO HAVE A MEETING THE MEETINGS HAVE BEEN CANCELED AND I WOULD BE A PROPONENT OF CONTINUING THAT APPROACH.  BUT I ALSO THINK THAT HAVING MEETINGS THAT GO FOR MORE THAN TWO AND A HALF HOURS WE NEED TO SCHEDULE A BREAK OR SOMETHING TO REFRESH. WE'RE GETTING CLOSE. YEAH BUT WE START I I'M LOSING FOCUS SO MR. MCGREGOR IS THAT STILL POSSIBLE?  CHAIR ALL RIGHT. YEAH, YOU COULD DEFINITELY ADD MORE MEETINGS.  IT'D BE GOOD TO TALK ABOUT WHICH DATES YOU HAD OR I GUESS FIRST OF ALL HOW MANY ADDITIONAL MEETINGS YOU WOULD LIKE AND THEN WE CAN FOCUS IN ON WHICH DATES WORK BEST FOR THAT.  I'M HAVING A HARD TIME SAYING WHEN BECAUSE I'M ONLY THROUGH JULY, ONLY HERE THROUGH JULY. SO I WOULD SAY AUGUST SEPTEMBER BUT KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT ON ME. SO YES, MR. WHITE, I GUESS I WOULD NOT BE FULLY AWARE OF THE WORKFLOW OF THE THE COMMISSION. I GUESS I WOULD BE CURIOUS WHETHER WE COULD APPROVE THIS CALENDAR OR AND ASK THE STAFF TO LOOK PROJECTED WORKFLOW FOR THE YEAR AND SUGGEST SOME ADDITIONAL DATES AND APPROVE THAT AT OUR NEXT MEETING.  THAT'S A POSSIBILITY NOT TO SPEAK FOR STAFF.  I THINK THE THE TROUBLE IS WE'RE A VERY REACTIVE COMMISSION AND SO WHEN THE APPLICANTS COME BEFORE US THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE REALLY IT'S OUR MEETING AND TO ME THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS AND THAT'S THE OTHER BENEFIT OF HAVING MORE MEETINGS IS THAT IT'S BETTER FOR THE DEVELOPER COMMUNITY WE GIVE THEM MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO COME BEFORE US WITHOUT WAITING.  UH WELL PERSONALLY  SUMMER MONTHS I WON'T SAY IT'S IDEAL BUT SUMMER MONTHS ARE BETTER FOR MY SCHEDULE GIVEN THAT I HAVE LESS WORK CONFLICTS BUT THAT WOULD JUST BE ME AND ALSO KIND OF THE JANUARY FEBRUARY TIME FRAME IS PROBABLY OKAY TO TO ADD THE COUPLE ADDITIONAL BUT ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT ADDING IF 24 NOW DO WE WANT TO GO TO 28 AND ADD FOUR MEETINGS? YEAH, I'M SURE THE NUMBERS I WAS THERE IN MY HEAD WERE 28 OR 30.  WE COMFORTABLE THAT I THINK 28 SEEMS REASONABLE. LET'S START THERE ALL RIGHT LET'S TO 28 IF THAT'S WORKABLE SURE COMMISSIONERS WHAT I CAN DO WE CAN FOUR MORE MEETINGS AND JUST I'M GUESSING SPREAD THEM OUT THROUGHOUT THE YEAR PROBABLY AVOIDING HOLIDAY ONE PER QUARTER YEAH ONE PER QUARTER AND I'M HEARING YOU KNOW JUST KIND OF TRUST STAFF AND PICKING FOR ADDITIONAL DATES. YEAH I THINK I MEAN, I THINK THERE'S A FEW OPPORTUNITIES HERE TO NOT HAVE THREE IN A ROW WHICH IS KIND OF NICE SO YOU LOOK AT LIKE MARCH 27TH YOU DON'T HAVE THREE IN A ROW. JUNE 12TH WOULD NOT HAVE THREE IN A ROW SO THAT SEEMS TO BE THE MOST EFFECTIVE IS.  YOU DON'T HAVE THREE IN A ROW SO MAYBE THAT'S THE PLACE TO START COMPONENT  YEAH. THOUGHTS, DISCUSSION WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. YEAH.  JERRY ALBRECHT I GUESS WHAT WE WOULD WANT THEN IS JUST THE AND YOU COULD AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD IN FOR ADDITIONAL MEETINGS ONE PER QUARTER. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE WILLING TO MAKE THE MOTION COMMISSIONER?  GOOD QUESTION. YES. SO JUST TO CLARIFY IS THIS A MOTION APPROVING THE SCHEDULE AND THEN WE'RE JUST GOING TO LEAVE IT AT YOUR DISCRETION TO TO DO THAT OR ARE WE SEEING WHERE YOU WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK FOR US WITH THE FINAL SCHEDULE JUST SO I'M CLEAR ON THE MOTION, I BELIEVE THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO MOVE THE MEETING SCHEDULE AS PROPOSED ADDING AN ADDITIONAL FOR UNDER STAFF GUIDANCE CHAIR RIGHT. WE WOULD PREFER THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE DEVELOPED WHO'S LOOKING TO MAKE THEIR APPLICATIONS AND TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT THEIR DATES WOULD BE FOR EXAMPLE IN JANUARY. I THINK THAT'S FINE ALL RIGHT. I'M SURE TO ADOPT THE 2025 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE IS ATTACHED TO THE MEETING PACKET WITH A MOFICATION TO INCLUDE FOR ADDITIONAL MEETINGS FOR A TOTAL 28.  IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND ALL RIGHT. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I, I ALL THOSE MOTION CARRIES.  ALL RIGHT.  I ASSUME THAT WILL THE FINAL MEETING SCHEDULED IN OUR EMAIL IN THE NEXT MONTH OR SO CHAIR AUBREY COMMISSIONERS PROBABLY TOMORROW ALL RIGHT.  PROBABLY TOMORROW EVEN BETTER. THANK YOU.  ALL RIGHT. THE NEXTTEM WE HAVE FOR THIS EVENING IS ITEM SIX AS A STUDY ITEM IT'S CONSIDERING APPROVAL DRAFT OF THE SEPTEMBER 19TH, THE OCTOBER 3RD AND OCTOBER 10TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SYNOPSIS IS LOOKS LIKE EVERYONE WAS PRESENT AT THE SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER 3RD MEETINGS.  SO IF THAT'S OKAY WE COULD LUMP THEM TOGETHER AND THEN DO THE OTHER ONE AS SEPARATE UNLESS THERE ARE ANY AND IT'S THOUGHTS DISCUSSION WE HAVE FOR ANY THE NOTES SO TO BE CLEAR APPROVE ING WHICH WE ARE ABLE TO APPROVE THE 19TH AND THE THIRD MEETING SYNOPSIS IS COMMISSIONER WHO DID MADAM CHAIR MOVE TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FROM SEPTEMBER 19TH 2024 AND OCTOBER 3RD 2024 IS PRESENTED . SO A SECOND SECOND ALL RIGHT. THERE'S A MOTION IN A SECOND TO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I I THOSE MOTION CARRIES THE DECEMBER OR SORRY OCTOBER 10TH MEETING CHERISE AND COMMISSIONER WHITE WERE BOTH ABSENT.  HOWEVER WE DO HAVE ENOUGH IN ATTENDANCE TO APPROVE THOSE MEETING THAT MEETING SYNOPSIS COMMISSIONER COOK DID MOVE TO IMPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SYNOPSIS FROM OCTOBER 10TH 2024 IS PRESENTED SO WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I I THOSE OPPOSED AND THOSE ESTIMATIONS STAY RIGHT MOTION PASSES.  ALL RIGHT. OUR FINAL ITEM THIS EVENING IS ITEM SEVEN. IT'S A STUDY ITEM PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY AND ISSUE UPDATE. MR. MACGREGOR CHAIR ALBERT COMMISSIONERS ARE NEXT MEETING IS IN TWO WEEKS AND WE HAVE JUST ONE ITEM SO FAR ON THAT AGENDA WHICH IS THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE CERTIFICATION AND PLANNING STANDARDS AMENDMENTS THAT WE DISCUSSED IN STUDY SESSION TONIGHT LOOKING FORWARD TO DECEMBER 5TH WE HAVE TO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA OUR ANNUAL WELL 2025 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN DISCUSSION AND THEN STUDY REGARDING THE SMALL BUSINESS FRIENDLY CODE AMENDMENTS AND AMENDMENTS AND THEN I ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT THE PREVIOUS MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION REQUESTED CONSIDERING CONCURRENT MEETING WITH A HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.  WE LOOKED AT DOING THAT THIS EVENING WHEN WE HAD THE MISSING MIDDLE DISCUSSION SCHEDULES DID NOT ALIGN WELL FOR THAT BUT THEY DO ALIGN WELL FOR THE DECEMBER 17TH HRA MEETING THE HRA WOULD LIKE TO INTE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ATTEND THEIR MEETING. THEY'VE ATTENDED THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING THE LAST SEVERAL TIMES THEY'VE HAD A CONCURRENT MEETING SO THAT IS A TUESDAY NIGHT, DECEMBER 17TH. THEY'RE THINKING THEY HAVE SOME BUSINESS THEIR OWN THEY WOULD NEED TO CONCLUDE WOULD TAKE ABOUT A HALF AN HOUR SO PROBABLY STARTING AROUND 6:30 P.M. AND NOW DECEMBER 17TH I'VE HEARD FROM A COUPLE OF YOU THAT YOU'RE AVAILABLE AND JUST WANT TO MAYBE CHECK IN WITH THE OTHERS AND SEE IF THAT IS A DATE WOULD BE FAVORABLE FOR A CONCURRENT MEETING.  I'M MR. BERGER AND I KNOW I ASKED THIS QUESTION BUT JUST TO CONFIRM SO EVERYONE IS HEARING THE SAME MESSAGE THIS WOULD BE A AN ADDITIONAL MEETING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SO IT WOULD NOT COUNT AGAINST YOUR ATTENDANCE RECORD? YES GENERAL THAT'S CORRECT. IT WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS A SPECIAL MEETING BECAUSE IT'S NOT ON YOUR ADOPTED SCHEDULE AND AS SUCH WOULD NOT COUNT AGAINST THAT 75% CODE MANDATED STANDARD.  COMMISSIONER THANK YOU CHAIR WOULD IT COUNT FOR IT IF YOU WERE TO ATTEND TURNOVER MISSIONARIES WOULD NOT COUNT WAY AS A SPECIAL MEETING MR. COOK TO MANAGER AFTER GOING THROUGH THAT AND TONIGHT FOR BETTER PART OF 2 HOURS ARE WE SURE WE WANT TO DO THAT AGAIN WITH TWICE AS MANY PEOPLE GOING THROUGH THE SAME INFORMATION IT'S GOOD QUESTION YES GENERAL BREAK SO COMMISSIONER IN 15 I SHOULD CLARIFY WHAT WOULD BE ON THE AGENDA THAT NIGHT WE'RE THINKING IT WOULD BE SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY STANDARDS?  YOU'VE HAD ONE STUDY SESSION ON THIS. THIS WOULD BE THE NEXT STUDY SESSION PRIOR TO A PUBLIC HEARING ON CODE AMENDMENTS.  SO THAT WOULD BE DISCUSSED IN THERE MAY OR MAY NOT BE ON THE AGENDA. A SECOND STEP ON MISSING MIDDLE WE HAD A FIRST DISCUSSION TONIGHT. THE HRA WILL HAVE THE SAME DISCUSSION NEXT WEEK AND WHAT WE NEED TO CIRCLE TOMORROW TO TALK ABOUT IT BUT THERE MAY BE SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA TO TALK MORE ABOUT MISSING MIDDLE COMMISSIONER HOUSTON I THINK I HAVE AN UNPOPULAR OPINION BUT WE SHOULD SHARE THEM.  I PERSONALLY AM NOT THE BIGGEST FAN OF COMBINED MEETINGS WITH OTHER COMMISSIONERS. NOT THAT I DON'T RESPECT WHAT THEY DO BECAUSE I DO BUT I THINK THERE'S TOO MANY COOKS IN THE KITCHEN AND YOU LOSE YOUR VOICE WHEN THERE'S SO MANY PEOPLE IN HERE AND YOU'RE JUST NOT AS ENCOURAGED ISN'T THE RIGHT WORD BUT YOU'RE NOT MOTIVATED PERHAPS TO SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS WHEN KIND OF LIKE THERE'S SO MANY PEOPLE AND WANT TO KEEP IT MOVING WHATEVER AND MAYBE THEY LOSE THEIR EFFECTIVENESS AND SO I DON'T KNOW I'M THEY'RE NOT I DON'T FIND THEM AS EFFECTIVE AS WHEN IT'S A SMALLER GROUP OF US AS A SINGLE COMMISSION.  I WAS THE ONE WHO SUGGESTED IT SO LET'S SEE WHAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT IN THE PARKING LOT.  WELL, I THINK THE THE INVITE HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE IS THAT THE CHAIR?  ALL RIGHT. THE HRA HAS EXTENDED AN INVITE. OKAY.  IT'S UP TO YOU WHETHER TO EXTEND IT. YEAH, I'M DEFINITELY IN SUPPORT OF IT. I THINK IT'D BE COOL. OKAY, WELL FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE ABLE TO ATTEND WE WILL ATTEND.  I THANK YOU. I AM ALSO I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA I I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ABOUT A LOT OF VOICES AT THE TABLE.  I THINK IN THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE THERE'S A OPPORTUNITY THAT THAT OUTWEIGHS THAT.  I WOULD SAY THOUGH IF WE COULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT WE ATTEMPT TO KEEP OUR AGENDA FOR THE DECEMBER 19TH MEETING A LITTLE SHORTER IF AT ALL POSSIBLE SINCE WE'LL HAVE TWO MEETINGS THAT WEEK. SO THAT WOULD BE VERY MUCH APPRECIATED ESPECIALLY IT IS THE WEEK BEFORE A MAJOR HOLIDAY THAT WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED ANY ANY ON WHAT THAT MEETING WON'T LOOK LIKE?  JER ALBRECHT I THINK ONE OF THE ITEMS WOULD BE ADOPTION OF THE WORK PLAN TALKING ABOUT IT ON THE FIFTH STUDY SESSION AND THEN ADOPTION AND THAT MEETING LOOK TO PLAN PLANNING SUPERVISOR JOHNSON IF HE KNOWS OF OTHER ITEMS ON THAT AGENDA . YEAH, THANK YOU, GLENN. I WOULD SAY THAT THE NEED USE THE DECEMBER 19TH MEETING IS AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PREROGATIVE HAD YEARS WHERE THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS ADOPTED THE WORK PLAN WITHIN THE CONFINES OF ONE MEETING ONE DISCRETE MEETING WE'VE HAD OTHER BECAUSE THERE'S NO PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENT IT'S AT YOUR DISCRETION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.  BUT LAST YEAR WE DID HAVE A STUDY SESSION AND WE CAME BACK WITH AN UPDATED VERSION OF THAT BASED ON THE FEEDBACK THAT WE GOT. SO THAT'S REALLY AT YOUR DISCRETION.  I WOULD MAKE ONE MINOR CORRECTION AND THIS IS THE ALL THE BEHIND THE SCENES WORKING RIGHT NOW IS I FORGOT TO UPDATE GLENN ON THE SMALL BUSINESS CODES AND PROCESSES IS THE MORE LIKELY TRACKING TO THAT SECOND MEETING IN DECEMBER AT THIS POINT BUT I'M NOT AS COGNIZANT AS THE DEVELOPMENT  APPLICATIONS. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY TO TRACKING TO THAT DATE BUT I COULD BE WRONG. YEAH COMMISSIONERS ON THE TERMS OF THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS WE HAVEN'T REACHED THE SUBMITTAL DEADLINE FOR THAT MEETING BUT.  I'M NOT AWARE THAT ANY HAVE COME IN TO DATE FOR MEETING BUT POINT WELL TAKEN AND I AGREE I DEFINITELY AGREE. I THINK YOU ALL RIGHT ANY OTHER ITEMS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE ISSUES?  ALL RIGHT. WELL SEEING NONE.  THAT CONCLUDES OUR NOVEMBER 7TH, 2024 MEETING OF THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION. HAVE A GREAT DAY