##VIDEO ID:pZ91Ssr5n5E## .  GOOD EVENING. I WOULD LIKE REOPEN THE TUESDAY DECEMBER 17, 2020 FOR HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING THIS BE CONCURRENT WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION THIS EVENING IF I MAY CHAIR I WOULD LIKE TO OFFICIALLY OPEN THE MEETING OF THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL. THANK YOU  ALL. I THANK YOU NICK JOHANSEN, PLANNING SUPERVISOR I'M I'M HELLO HELLO.  OKAY GOOD EVENING I'M EMILY HABECK AND I AM PLANNER THANK YOU MARY CRUZ IS IT POSSIBLE TO SHARE SLIDE DECK SO YEAH THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING HERE IT'S ALWAYS COOL AND MULTIPLE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS CAN COME TOGETHER AND, CONNECT AND GET TO KNOW ONE ANOTHER AND TALK ABOUT VARIOUS POLICY QUESTIONS THAT INTERSECT WITH BOTH OF YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES SO TONIGHT THIS EVENING WILL PRESENT A FIRST ROUGH DRAFT OF OUR CO-LIVING SRO STANDARDS . SO THE PLANNING STAFF HAVE BEEN BEFORE YOU ONCE BEFORE AND IN MORE INFORMAL STUDY SESSIONE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THE GOAL OF THAT SESSION WAS AND WHAT WE FEEL WAS ACCOMPLISHED AS PART OF THAT AND HOW THAT KIND OF SETS THE TABLE AND BUILDS HOPEFULLY TO GETTING YOUR FEEDBACK ON SOME SOME DRAFT LANGUAGE THAT WOULD BE INTEGRATED THROUGHOUT THE CITY CODE MOSTLY IN THE ZONING CODE BUT ALSO IN THE OPPORTUNITY HOUSING ORDINANCE CHAPTER NINE AND THE RENTAL HOUSING CODE AS WELL TECHNOLOGIES IS ALWAYS SO FUN UNTIL IT DOESN'T WORK LIKE A THANK YOU MARY CRUZ  OKAY.  OH I KNEW THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.  GREAT. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. SO PROJECT TIMELINE JUST A QUICK REMINDER ON WHAT WE'VE DONE SO FAR AND WHERE WE'RE GOING. SO WE COMPLETED THE FIRST PART OF THE STUDY SESSION IN JUNE AND JULY OF THIS YEAR.  WE'RE HERE THIS EVENING AT THIS CONCURRENT MEETING ON DECEMBER 17TH IF EVERYTHING GOES FORWARD AND HAS A CONSENSUS OF THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND THE CITY COUNCIL, WE'RE GOING TO PRESENT THIS TO THEM IN A STUDY SESSION IN JANUARY AND THEN IF GIVEN THE GREEN LIGHT WE'D LIKELY TO THE HRA BOARD IN SOME FORM PROBABLY SEEKING A OF SUPPORT OR SOME KIND OF FORMAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE PROJECT AND THEN I GO THROUGH A TYPICAL PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL SO THAT'S LIKELY ARE ANTICIPATED TO OCCUR IN MARCH AND APRIL 2025.  SO JUST A REFRESHER ON WHAT WE DID BACK IN JUNE AND JULY. SO PURPOSE OF THAT FIRST STUDY SESSION WAS REALLY TO KIND OF BUILD MORE COMMON UNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHAT SO AS AREAS ARE SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCIES OR CO-LIVING DEVELOPMENTS SO WE PROVIDED A FEW EXAMPLES. WE PRESENTED DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS THAT MIGHT INFORM KIND OF REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.  WE TALKED ABOUT HOW THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY AND RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS RELATE TO CO-LIVING DEVELOPMENTS.  THERE WAS GENERAL CONSENSUS THAT THAT COULD BE INCREASED OR AMENDED FOR MULTIPLE REASONS.  THE POTENTIAL COURT AMENDMENTS WOULD ALSO CLARIFY THAT CO-LIVING IS A PERMITTED USE IN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS THAT'S THE CASE TODAY JUST THROUGH GENERAL ROOMMATE SITUATIONS YOU RENT A HOUSE TO YOU KNOW FOR UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS THAT IS IN EFFECT SOME FORM OF CO-LIVING AND THEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE THE KIND OF OUTLINE OF WHAT A DEFINITION OF CO-LIVING DEVELOPMENT WOULD LOOK LIKE AND WE GENERALLY PROVIDED A ROUGH OUTLINE OF WHAT YOUR STANDARDS COULD LOOK LIKE.  SO WITH AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT ADDITIONAL WORK ON OPPORTUNITY HOUSING ORDINANCE AND RENTAL HOUSING CODE WOULD BE NEEDED AT A LATER DATE. SO I'LL TURN IT OVER TO EMILY . THANK YOU. THANKS. OKAY WELL, THANKS, NICK.  OKAY, SO NOW I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT DEFINITIONS, SOME CHANGES THAT WE MADE AND THE DRAFT CODE UPDATES THAT WE GAVE YOU. SO FOR THE FAMILY DEFINITION THIS IS AN AMENDMENT WE CURRENTLY HAVE A DEFINITION FOR FAMILY BUT WE WOULD BE CHANGING IT TO BASICALLY SAY THAT SIX OR FEWER ADULTS AND MINOR IN THEIR CARE LIVING TOGETHER AND A DWELLING UNIT MAKE A FAMILY SO IT'S KIND OF A RACE IN THE STUFF THAT IT HAS TO BE BY BLOOD MARRIAGE ADOPTION AND WE KIND OF MAKING IT MORE BROADER WE JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THIS IS STILL A WORK PROGRESS SO WE HAVEN'T LANDED ON THIS DEFINITION EXACTLY.  WE TALKED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH STAFF AND ONE THING THAT THEY SAID IS THAT THIS DEFINITION NEEDS TO BE EASILY ENFORCEABLE FOR THEM. SO WE ARE STILL WORKING ON THAT. TWO NEW DEFINITIONS THAT WE HAVE ARE UNIT AND CO-LIVING DEVELOPMENT. SO FOR THE CORE LIVING UNIT THE GENERAL CONCEPT CONCEPTS WE WANTED TO INCLUDE FOR THAT WOULD IS THAT IT WOULD CONSIST OF A SLEEPING SPACE AND THEN IT MAY OR MAY NOT INCLUDE BATHROOMS AND KITCHENS OTHERWISE THEY WOULD HAVE ACCESS BATHROOMS AND KITCHENS AS COMMON SPACES.  WE ALSO PUT THAT THERE AT LEAST ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS AND DO NOT INDIVIDUALLY CONSTITUTE A DWELLING UNIT AND THEN THE CO-LIVING DEVELOPMENT IS BASICALLY JUST THE BUILDING OR PORTION OF A BUILDING CONTAINS THE CO-LIVING UNITS THE.  NEXT PART KIND OF GOES ALONG WITH THIS VENN DIAGRAM THING THAT WE HAVE HERE. SO STAFF IS WORKING ON CLEANING UP SOME DEFINITIONS RELATED TO THE CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITIES, RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES, BOARDING HOUSES AND NOW CO-LIVING IS KIND OF COMING INTO THIS MIX.  SO THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE HAVING THAT CONGREGATE LIVING HAS SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS THAT CLOSELY RELATE TO RESIDENTIAL CARE. WE NEED TO CLEAN THIS UP BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT THE CONCRETE LIVING STANDARDS TO APPLY TO CO-LIVING WHICH RIGHT NOW ON THIS DIAGRAM WOULD BE THE CLOSEST THING TO BOARDING HOUSE WHICH WE WOULD POTENTIALLY BE GETTING RID OF . OKAY. SO AS FOR THE USE TABLES IN PREVIOUS STUDIES SESSIONS BOARD COMMISSION MEMBERS MADE IT CLEAR THAT WE BE CALLING OUT CO-LIVING WITHIN SINGLE OR TO FAMILY DWELLINGS THAT IT IS CLEARLY PERMITTED IN ALREADY IS JUST DON'T HAVE A UFS IN THE TABLE THAT STATES THAT SO RATHER THAN HAVE THE CODE BE SILENT ON IT WE ARE ADDING IT A USE AND MAKING IT PERMITTED AS.  FAR AS THE CO-LIVING DEVELOPMENTS GO WE MADE THIS PERMITTED IN DISTRICTS WHERE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS ARE PERMITTED SO THAT'S BASICALLY HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AND THEN SOME NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMERCIAL USE ZONING DISTRICTS AND IF I CAN MAKE ONE POINT ABOUT THIS TOO IS THAT IN OUR MEETING WITH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ALSO SUGGESTED ALLOWING CO-LIVING WITHIN THE SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY IN THE ARDECHE ONE A DISTRICT NOT A COMMON DISTRICT THAT WE INTERACT WITH VERY MUCH THERE'S  ONLY SEVEN OF THOSE PROPERTIES IN BLOOMINGTON BUT IN EFFECT THEIR REASONING WAS THAT IF YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE ROOMMATES SIMILAR TO RENTING ANY OF HOME THEN IT SHOULD JUST BE PERMITTED IN THAT DISTRICT TOO. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT THOSE HOUSES ARE ON SEPTIC SYSTEMS.  THAT'S THE REASON WHY THAT DISTRICT EXISTS BUT LIKELY THE FINAL VERSION OF THE ORDINANCE COULD INCLUDE ADDING IT TO THAT DISTRICT AS WELL.  ON TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS SO THERE WOULD BE NO CHANGES IN PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR CO-LIVING SINGLE OR TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS. WE ALREADY HAVE STANDARDS FOR THAT AND WE WOULDN'T BE CHANGING ANYTHING RELATED THAT FOR CO-LIVING DEVELOPMENTS STAFF RECOMMENDING THE PARKING REQUIREMENT BE 0.5 SPACES PER ONE CO-LIVING UNIT AND STAFF WOULD NOT BE RECOMMENDING A REQUIRED COVERED PARKING SPACE AND AS FAR AS BIKE PARKING GOES WE ARE RECOMMENDING ONE SPOT PER FOUR CO-LIVING UNITS AND 90% OF WHICH WOULD BE LONG TERM.  ONE THING I'LL ADD ON THIS ONE IS JUST THAT THE CITY CODE CURRENTLY HAS A RESTRICTION IN PLACE ON THE NUMBER OF MOTOR VEHICLES THAT CAN BE PARKED OUTSIDE OF A GARAGE AT BLOOMINGTON RESIDENCES OR PROPERTIES. THIS PROJECT DOESN'T CURRENTLY PROPOSE TO AMEND THAT REQUIREMENT BUT IN TERMS OF JUST HOW THOSE STANDARDS INTERACT WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR CO-LIVING IN A LOW DENSITY ENVIRONMENT, THOSE RESTRICTIONS STILL IN PLACE AS FAR AS THE USE STANDARDS GO THAT WE'VE DRAFTED BASIC STANDARDS WOULD BE APPLICABLE AND THEN ONE THING THAT WE HAVE MADE SPECIFICALLY IS FOR THE DENSITY CALCULATIONS WE CURRENTLY HAVE THREE CO-LIVING UNITS WOULD BE EQUAL TO ONE DWELLING SO THIS WOULD BE APPLICABLE FOR MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM DENSITY CALCULATIONS AND THEN ALSO OPEN REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIFAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS.  WE GOT THIS NUMBER BECAUSE WE FOUND A SIMILAR COMMUNITY HAD FOUR CO-LIVING UNITS EQUAL TO ONE DWELLING AND THEN NOT INCLUDED IN THIS DRAFT RIGHT NOW MINIMUM FOUR AREAS COMMON AREAS AND STORAGE SPACE STAFF ISN'T RECOMMENDING STORAGE SPACE REQUIREMENTS BUT WE WILL HAVE DISCUSSION LATER ABOUT WHETHER TO ESTABLISH MINIMUM FLOOR AND COMMON AREAS .  OKAY UNDER THE OPPORTUNITY HOUSING ORDINANCE UPDATES I KNOW THIS IS OF INTEREST TO THE HRA BOARD SO THERE ARE SOME OF THESE INCENTIVES THAT FIT WELL WITH CO-LIVING DEVELOPMENT AND SOME THAT DO NOT JUST AS A BASELINE STANDARD OR APPROACH TO HOW TO INTEGRATE THIS USE.  SO STAFF WOULD PROPOSE THAT CO-LIVING DEVELOPMENT MEET THE MINIMUM 9% AFFORDABILITY COMPONENT AT THE 60% AMI IT'S VERY POSSIBLE THAT AT MARKET RATE CO-LIVING UNITS MIGHT MEET THAT AFFORDABILITY LEVEL ALREADY. IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE LIKELY NEED TO EVALUATE LATER WHEN THE HRA AND PORTE DO A DO THEIR HOUSING ANALYSIS LATER ON THAT RELATES TO LHO. SO THAT'S ANTICIPATED TO HAPPEN IN 2025. SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE'RE GOING TO ADD TO THAT ANALYSIS WORKING WITH KENNY NIEMEYER IS JUST TO TRY AND CAPTURE WHAT YOU KNOW BASELINE RENTS ARE FOR CO-LIVING OR SRO DEVELOPMENT. THERE'S NOT A TON OF DATA IN THE TWIN CITIES REGION SO IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFICULT ASK BUT CERTAINLY WE CAN GET THERE. BUT IN TERMS OF WHY TO REQUIRE IT PLANNING STARFIELD STILL FEELS THAT THERE'S SOME POSITIVE INCENTIVES THAT CAN BE CREATED TO CREATE LOWER LEVELS OF AFFORDABILITY WITHIN CO-LIVING SO THAT'S JUST KIND OF THE GENERAL PREMISE OF WHY TO JUST INTEGRATED AT THE STANDARD BASELINE LEVEL AT THIS POINT OF HOUSING ANASIS LATER REVEALS THAT MARKET RENTS ARE LOWER FOR THESE TYPES WE CERTAINLY CAN MAKE ADJUSTMENTS LATER TO THE OPPORTUNITY HOUSING ORDINANCE ON AN ONGOING BASIS IN TERMS OF WHAT INCENTIVES TO THE STAFF IS PROPOSING TO INTEGRATE THE CO-LIVING INTO THE WOULD BE THE SITE AREA REDUCTION SITE WITH OPEN SPACE REDUCTION EXTERIOR MATERIALS LANDSCAPE FEE IN LIEU OF THE DEVELOPMENT FEE DEFERMENT WE'RE NOT PROPOSING THAT CO-LIVING BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE PARKING REDUCTION AND THE REASON BEING IS THAT IT'S PROPOSED HAVE A LOWER PARKING REQUIREMENT THAN MULTIFAMILY AND THE ENCLOSED PARKING PROVISION IS IT WOULD BE APPLICABLE OR SOMETHING TO CONSIDER YOU REQUIRE ENCLOSED PARKING FOR CO-LIVING BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING CO-LIVING IS INTENDED TO BE AT A LOWER LEVEL FOR A HIGHER LEVEL OF AFFORDABILITY AND IN ADDITION TO THAT DOES TEND TO HAVE SHORTER TERM LEASES THAN TYPICAL MORE IN THE 3 TO 6 MONTH TO NINE MONTH RANGE. SO BASED ON THOSE REASONS THAT'S KIND OF WHAT FUELED IN TO THAT RECOMMENDATION.  WE DID NOT INCLUDE THESE UPDATES TO THE RENTAL HOUSING CODE IN THIS VERSION THIS VERSION OF THE CODE WE ANTICIPATE THESE UPDATES BEING FAIRLY MODEST AND MINIMAL.  REALLY THE ISSUE HERE IS JUST THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH STAFF RUN THE RENTAL HOUSING PROGRAM NEED TO KNOW WHAT LICENSES ARE APPLICABLE TO CO-LIVING AND INTEGRATE THAT INTO THE CODE . SO I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE A GROUP LIVING LICENSE BUT WE WILL THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE FINAL VERSION OF THE ORDINANCE.  SO NOW ON TO THE MORE INTERACTIVE PART AND HOPEFULLY TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK OF KIND OF WHERE WE'RE HITTING THE MARK , WHERE WE'RE MISSING THE MARK HERE IN THIS FIRST CONCEPT THE FIRST WE SAW WE HAD IT IN THE STAFF REPORT WE HAD SERIES OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU TO CONSIDER AND WE'LL JUST KIND OF WALK THROUGH THEM ON A SERIES OF HERE.  I WANT TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK. ONE THING I'LL SAY THAT KIND OF INFORMS A LOT OF THESE STANDARDS THAT WE PUT TOGETHER IS THAT A LOT OF THE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE HAVE ESTABLISHED CO-LIVING SRO STANDARDS TEND TO BE IN MORE DENSE URBAN TRANSIT RICH AREAS SO EITHER THE STANDARDS ARE HARD TO FIND OR THEY'RE NOT WELL RELATABLE TO BLOOMINGTON'S CONTEXT AND SO KEEP THAT IN MIND AND THAT'S WHY GENERALLY SPEAKING IF SOME CITIES IF THERE IS ANY ALIGNMENT AROUND A STANDARD LIKE THE DENSITY THING THAT EMILY MENTIONED THE 3 TO 1 VERSUS 4 TO 1 OR THE PARKING AS YOU'LL SEE ON THIS SLIDE WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO TEN MORE TOWARDS THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE OF THE RANGE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE BLOOMINGTON IS NOT AS DENSE AND DOES NOT HAVE AS ROBUST OF TRANSIT SERVICES SOME OF THESE OTHER CITIES THAT DO HAVE STANDARDS. SO I JUST WANT TO BE VERY FRONTAL ABOUT THAT SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE PROPOSING A 0.5 PARKING SPACES PER CO-LIVING UNIT AND AGAIN THAT'S KIND OF OUT OF HER BEDROOM BASIS BASICALLY AND THAT IS ON THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE OF THE RANGE THAT WE'VE SEEN THE ALEXANDRA OF VIRGINIA FOR EXAMPLE REQUIRES 0.25 PARKING SPACES PER UNIT SO FOUR UNITS EQUALS ONE PARKING SPACE.  THE PARKING GENERATION MANAGEMENT MANUAL FROM INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS FOR THE MOST COMPARABLE USE TYPE CALLS FOR 0.33 PARKING SPACES PER UNIT WE'RE PROPOSING 2.5 JUST ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THIS CHART HERE IS JUST FOR REFERENCE WHAT WE REQUIRE FOR A STUDIO APARTMENT RIGHT NOW IN THE ZONING CODE THAT'S IN MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS THAT'S 1.6 PARKING SPACES PER UNIT.  KEEP IN MIND WELL NEVER MIND I TAKE THAT BACK SO YEAH THAT'S THAT'S THE QUESTION KIND FOR YOUR DISCUSSION HOW DOES HAVE PARKING SPACE PER PER CO-LIVING UNIT KIND OF FEEL WITH THIS GROUP AND WE'RE CERTAINLY OPEN TO ADDITIONAL ADJUSTMENTS AND MORE RESEARCH IRA WHO'S COMMISSIONER GARY BASS CHAIR WHAT IS THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY ZONING DISTRICT THAT WE'RE PROPOSING ARE ONE OUR VERSUS OURS ONE VERSUS OUR FOUR YEAH THANK YOU FOR THAT CHAIR COMMISSIONER CURRY SO THANKS FOR THAT QUESTION. WHEN WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A GENERAL ROOMMATE SITUATIONS OR CO LIVING IN A SINGLE OR TWO FAMILY DWELLING, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS THAT THOSE SITES BE COMPLIANT WITH THE PARKING FOR SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY HOMES AND CURRENTLY WHAT THAT IS IS TWO SPACES PER DWELLING ONE OF WHICH IS ENCLOSED.  MOST SITES IN BLOOMINGTON TEND TO HAVE MORE PARKING THAN THAT BUT THAT'S CURRENTLY WHAT THE ZONING CODE MINIMUM IS FOR THOSE USES.  SO IN EFFECT IF SOMEONE WERE TO UNDER THIS PROCESS SOMEONE WERE SEEKING TO FORMALLY ESTABLISH A CO-LIVING USE THEORETICALLY, WE COULD USE THE ZONING CODE TO DO A ANALYSIS OF THE PARKING TO ENSURE THEY'RE MEETING THE MINIMUMS. YEAH. AND THE ISSUE ABOUT THE MORE MOTOR VEHICLES PARKED OUTSIDE THE DWELLING OR THE NOT ENCLOSED ALSO IS APPLICABLE CURRENTLY AND THAT'S RELATED TO NUISANCE PROVISIONS AND ANOTHER SECTION OF CITY.  OKAY. THANK YOU. YEP. MR. JOHNSON, THE THE REQUIREMENT AROUND PARKING OUTSIDE OF GARAGE UNITS WHAT WHAT SPECIFICALLY IS THAT? IS IT BASED ON FOOTAGE? NO, IT'S. THANK YOU CHAIR ALBRECHTSEN.  NO IT'S I THINK IT'S IN CHAPTER 12 BUT IT'S IN BASIC NUISANCE PROVISIONS.  IT'S IT'S BASIC CODE COMPLIANCE. THERE'S OTHER ELEMENTS OF COMPLIANCE FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THAT ARE WITHIN CHAPTER 12 AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY REGULATE THERE IS THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES THAT A SINGLE FAMILY SITE BASICALLY THAT ARE PARKED OUTSIDE.  AND SO THERE'S SOME CONCERN THERE THAT AN ACCUMULATION MOTOR VEHICLES AT A PROPERTY DOES HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING ILLEGAL PARKING EITHER OFF A DRIVEWAY SURFACE OR JUST SOME OTHER NUISANCE CHARACTERISTICS. APOLOGIES WHAT IS THE WHAT IS THE USE WHAT WHAT'S CONSIDERED A NUISANCE? HOW MANY CARS? FIVE FIVE?  YEAH. YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE FOUR OUTSIDE OF A GARAGE CURFEW.  COMMISSIONER WOOTTON, I SEE YOU'RE VIRTUE. WE HAVE WE DO HAVE ONE COMMISSIONER VIRTUAL THIS EVENING SO COMMISSIONER WILTON, I SEE YOUR HAND UP. THANK YOU SO MUCH. CAN YOU GIVE ME OKAY. YEAH. OKAY.  SO MY QUESTION ACTUALLY GOES BACK TO THE DEFINITION OF EXPLANATION.  HOW DOES THIS AS OUR OWN POLICY EXPLANATION RELATE TO WHAT THE STATE DEFINITION IS IN THIS CORRELATION?  YEAH. THANK YOU CHAIR COMMISSIONER WOOTTON, THANK YOU FOR THAT.  SO I WOULD HAVE TO KNOW. FORGIVE ME IF I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY THE DEFINITION THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO. HUD DOES HAVE A DEFINITION I BELIEVE AS WELL. I DON'T KNOW IF THE STATE FOLLOWS THE HUD DEFINITION BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING MEAN EMILY AND I HAVE REVIEWED AN ASSORTMENT OF DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MAYBE IS SPECIFIC TO KIND OF LOCAL REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE NAVIGATING AND THE PLANNING MANAGER HAS BEEN HELPFUL IN THIS REGARD TOO IS HOW TO DIFFERENTIATE THESE USES FROM MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS AND THE REASON BEING IS THAT THEY'RE JUST SUBJECT TO VERY DIFFERENT STANDARDS. MULTI-FAMILY IS SUBJECT TO MORE RIGOROUS STANDARDS. THEY'RE INTENDED TO BE MORE PERMANENT FORMS HOUSING OR LONGER LEASES. AND SO THAT'S ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE'RE NAVIGATING IS HOW TO ENSURE THAT THAT THIS IS NOT SOME FORM WAY OF TO DO KIND OF AN END AROUND OF MULTIFAMILY STANDARDS. SO I KNOW I DIDN'T ANSWER QUESTION DIRECTLY FORGIVE ME BUT I CERTAINLY CAN GET YOU GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT.  I HAD A FOLLOW UP QUESTION. SURE. IN RELATION TO THAT THE REASON I'M ASKING THAT IS BECAUSE YOU ABOUT THE RULES PROBABLY THEY ARE SEGREGATED IN THE SENSE THAT THEY'RE EITHER BY GENDER OR BY INCOME OR BY CULTURE. AND MY QUESTION IS DOES THAT GET CONFUSED OR DO YOU THINK IN EFFECT FAMILY OR A MIX OF PRIVATE ENTITIES AS YOU REFERRED TO? I THINK THAT IN THAT YEAH VERY CHAIR COMMISSIONER WOULD AND SO LIKE DEFINITELY A VERY STICKY THE DEVELOPERS THAT I TALKED TO IT WASN'T A LARGE GROUPING OF THEM IT WAS FEW OF THEM ON SOME OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE'VE LEARNED ABOUT MORE LOCALLY BUT THEY EMPHASIZED VERY STRONGLY THAT YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH FAIR HOUSING LAW OF COURSE. BUT ONE OF THE CHALLENGES IS IS THAT OF COURSE RESIDENTS ARE GOING TO MORE COMFORTABLE IN A ROOMMATE SITUATION WITH THAT CLOSE PROXIMITY AND INTIMACY OF SHARED SPACE LIKE THAT. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE STICKY OR THAT'S THE CHALLENGE IS HOW DO YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH FAIR HOUSING AND THAT'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. BUT DO SO IN A WAY THAT IS ALSO SENSITIVE. MY UNDERSTANDING THE DEVELOPERS WE TALKED TO IS THAT ASSIGNING BY GENDER IS STILL IN COMPLIANCE WITH FAIR HOUSING OTHER FORMS IS NOT SO. SO THAT'S JUST MY EARLY TAKE ON IT OR MY CURRENT UNDERSTANDING AND I GOT ONE LAST QUESTION IF I CAN SO THAT ALSO LEADS TO AS YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT LICENSING AND LOOKING AT LICENSING WE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION UNITS THAT ARE CONVERTED INTO AS RULES.  YEAH CHAIR COMMISSIONER WOULD AND SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO MAINTAIN A RENTAL LICENSE ASSUMING THAT IT WOULD BE A RENTAL UNIT SO YEAH. AND THEY WOULD BE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS SO REGARDLESS CONVERSION EITHER WAY IT'S GOING TO BE INSPECTED IF IT HAS A RENTAL LICENSE.  THANK YOU COMMISSIONER USER.  THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.  MY QUESTION KIND OF GOES BACK TO SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU ASKED BUT BACK TO THE. THIS SOUNDS DIFFERENT. IT'S SPACING AGAINST THAT BUT YOU MENTIONED THERE'S A FIVE CAR PARKING LIMIT ON SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.  IS THAT ON THE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY OR IS THAT ON STREET PARKING? YEAH. CHAIR COMMISSIONER, IS THAT SO? THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. IT WOULD JUST BE ON THE DRIVEWAY ON THE PRIVATE IN EFFECT. SO THIS ARE YOU HEAR ME OKAY. THANK YOU. THE IF YOU HAD CARS PARKED ON THE STREET AS LONG AS YOU'RE ABIDING BY THE LOCAL PARKING RESTRICTIONS THAT'S OKAY. I WOULDN'T COUNT TOWARDS YOUR NUMBER AS MY UNDERSTANDING. SO IT'S CARS PARKED ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY IS WHAT THAT IS SUBJECT TO IS MY UNDERSTANDING. OKAY.  SO IF THERE'S FIVE ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY AND LIKE LET'S SAY TWO ON THE SIDE STREET THAT WOULD BE FINE. IT WOULD IT BE SEVEN IT WOULD JUST BE FIVE. YEAH WITH YOU KNOW THAT'S THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROVISION COULD CERTAINLY YOU THE LANGUAGE BUT IT'S THE MAXIMUM IS FOUR. JUST TO CLARIFY SO FOUR ON A PRIVATE SITE ONCE YOU EXCEED FOUR THEN YOU'D BE IN VIOLATION OF THAT STANDARD . BUT THE MY UNDERSTANDING IS AS LONG AS CARS ARE LEGALLY ON STREET THEY'RE NOT THEY WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THAT REQUIREMENT.  OKAY. SO JUST JUST TO CLARIFY IF IT WAS LIKE LET'S SAY SIX OR FIVE ON A PRIVATE LOT BUT IT'S INTERFERING WITH THE STREET, RIGHT? THE PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY. YEP.  YOU WOULD STILL GET FINED OR SOMETHING EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT AFFECTING. THAT'S THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING RIGHT.  SECOND QUESTION IF YOU DON'T MIND, MADAM CHAIR, IT UH YOU MENTIONED THE CO-LIVING UH CODE WAS SILENT PREVIOUSLY, I BELIEVE. MM HMM. AND I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY HERE DOES MEAN PROHIBITED GENERALLY WITH CITY CODE OR SO BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED IT WAS ALLOWED BUT THEN UNDERSTANDING OF CITY CODES IF IT'S SILENCE, IF CITY CODE IS SIGNED ON A ANYTHING IT'S GENERALLY PROHIBITED IS THAT CORRECT OR ZONE?  SURE. YEAH, SURE. UH, FORGIVE ME. NO THE SO GOOD QUESTION AND REALLY GETS AT THE HEART OF A LOT OF ZONING MATTERS THAT ZONING CODES AND CITY CODES IN GENERALLY ARE NOT PERMISSIVE TOOLS. RIGHT IF IT'S IF IT DOESN'T EXPLICITLY ALLOW SOMETHING AND IT TENDS TO BE PROHIBITED. THE ONE REASON WHY THIS IS DIFFERENT IS THAT RENTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IS EXPLICITLY ALLOWED SUBJECT TO OCCUPANCY STANDARDS. SO IT JUST DOESN'T GET INTO THE NITTY GRITTY SPECIFICS ABOUT ROOMMATE RENTAL SITUATION.  SO IT IS ALLOWED TODAY THIS PROJECT IS NOW TO CHANGE IT. IT'S JUST FROM A USE FROM AN ACTUAL DEFINED USE IF YOU WANTED TO SUBJECT THESE SITES TO ANY ADDITIONAL STANDARDS RELATED TO THIS ARRANGEMENT YOU WOULD HAVE TO DEFINE IT AS A SEPARATE USE IN EFFECT. SO THAT'S KIND OF IT'S THAT AND JUST MAKING SURE THAT IT'S PERMITTED BECAUSE IT'S MORE IN THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY AND THEN IN THE RENTAL HOUSING PROVISIONS. SO YOU HAVE TO KIND OF DRAW A CONVOLUTED TO SEE HOW IT'S ALLOWED BUT IT'S IT'S ALLOWED . YEAH TODAY I THINK. YEAH.  GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER.  SORRY. THANK YOU CHAIR PLANNER JOHNSON I SEE UP ON THE SCREEN THAT IT'S 1.6 PARKING SPACES PER STUDIO APARTMENT. IS FOR EVERY DWELLING UNIT IN A MULTIFAMILY ACROSS THE BOARD IT'S 1.6 OR AS THE I GUESS DOES THE PER BEDROOM RATIO COME DOWN AS YOU GET TO SAY A TWO OR THREE BEDROOM DWELLING. YEAH THANK.  YOU COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A SHOT? SORRY.  CHAIR COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM AS THE AMOUNT OF BEDROOMS GO UP SO LIKE FOR A TWO OR THREE BEDROOM THE AMOUNT OF PARKING SPACES DOES GO DOWN. I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT THE NUMBERS I THINK NICK IS MAYBE LOOKING AT IT I GUESS IT HAS THEM ON HIS IPAD ALWAYS PREPARED. OKAY. SO AS WE APPROACH A THREE BEDROOM DWELLING UNIT, THE CITY CODE I'M SORRY IF I STILL YOUR QUESTION COMMISSIONER COOK IS IS ESSENTIALLY TO ONE SO THREE BEDROOMS, THREE SPACES, FOUR DWELLING UNIT A FOUR BEDROOM IS 3.4 SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT. SO NO NOT FOUR NOT FOR A MULTIFAMILY. WELL I'M LOOKING AT THE TOWNHOUSE. I AM SO SORRY. OKAY. THANK YOU.  SO EFFICIENCY AND ONE BEDROOM IS 1.6 PER UNIT AND THEN TWO BEDROOM AND ABOVE IS 2.0 PER UNIT CURRENTLY. GOT IT. THANK YOU. PLANNING MANAGER MARKET. RIGHT SO.  FOR EXAMPLE IF A CO-LIVING UNIT AS PROPOSED FOUR DIFFERENT CO-LIVING UNITS WITHIN A DWELLING THEY WOULD HAVE THE SAME PARKING REQUIREMENT AS A THERE'S A FOUR BEDROOM MULTIFAMILY UNIT IF IT'S TWO AND ABOVE IS 2.0 THAT'S EFFECTIVELY CORRECT YEAH. AND SO ONE OF THE THING I JUST IN GENERAL ABOUT DISCUSSION AROUND MULTIFAMILY REQUIREMENTS IS WITH THE INCENTIVES BUILT INTO THE OJO AND THEN HISTORICALLY BEFORE THE OJO THERE WAS QUITE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF FLEXIBILITY THAT WAS APPROVED ON A PER PROJECT BASIS AND SO NOW A LOT OF THOSE INCENTIVES ARE BUILT IN WITH THE OPPORTUNITY HOUSING ORDINANCE AND SO ONE THING TO NOTE ABOUT YOU KNOW LOOKING AT THIS CHART IT CAN BE SOMEWHAT MISLEADING OR YOU KNOW LIKE WELL IT'S A SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER PARKING REQUIREMENT LET'S FACE IT IS BUT JUST TO NOTE THAT ON A LARGER PROJECT THOSE REDUCTIONS THAT COME THROUGH THE RATIO OR CAN BE FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT YOU KNOW, 20 30% DEPENDING ON THE LEVEL OF AFFORDABILITY. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO INCLUDE FOR CO-LIVING BUT JUST SOMETHING TO KIND OF KEEP IN THE BACK OF YOUR MIND THAT RARELY DOES MULTIFAMILY PROJECT IMPLEMENT AND JUST MEET THE BASE STANDARD OF OUR MULTIFAMILY REQUIREMENT BECAUSE OF ALL BECAUSE OF OTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO REDUCE PARKING REQUIREMENT THESE OR MY PLAN I ACTUALLY WROTE THIS UH MOST LATEST VERSION RULES AND I THINK IT WAS MOST DONE 2019 IS THAT RIGHT. YEAH YEAH YOU'RE CORRECT WITH WITH THEOMPLEXITY OF INCENTIVES AND LIKE THAT RARELY IS THAT THE BASELINE AND IT'S SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND. THANK YOU.  OTHER THOUGHTS ON ANY OF THE QUESTIONS ON THE SCREEN COMMISSIONER MOUA THEATER I'M JUST I'M THINKING THROUGH THIS AND LIKE SAID WITH THE O SHOW THERE'S OPPORTUNITY TO REDUCE PARKING SO IF WE ARE TO GO AT A HALF PER PROPOSED UNIT AND THEY QUALIFY FOR LHO AND THEY DO THE PARKING THAT ESSENTIALLY DRIVES THE DOWN EVEN MORE.  I GUESS MY CONCERN IS LIKE WOULD THERE BE SUFFICIENT PARKING GIVEN THE INCREASED NUMBER OF AND THEN TAKING ADVANTAGE WHICH ARE ALL PARKING REDUCTION AS WELL WOULD THAT CAUSE ISSUES FOR NEIGHBORHOODS FOR STREETS THAT KIND OF THING? YEAH. CHURCH COMMISSIONER MORRIS SO THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. AND JUST TO CLARIFY AT THIS POINT WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO HAVE THE ORIGINAL INCENTIVE APPLY TO CO-LIVING JUST TO CLARIFY THAT AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LARGER SCALE OR THE LARGER CONTEXT CO-LIVING SO JUST ON THAT POINT BUT I MEAN YEAH I THINK YOU KNOW ONE OF THE COMFORT ZONES WE HAVE WITH MULTIFAMILY IS WE HAVE MANY PROJECTS THAT POINT TO WHERE WE HAVE LOTS OF EXAMPLES OF WHAT WE'RE SEEING, WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IS WANTING TO BUILD. HOW DOES THAT MATCH UP WITH OUR REQUIREMENTS RIGHT NOW IN THIS CO-LIVING SPACE IN THE BLOOMINGTON CONTEXT IT'S A LOT OF KIND OF SPECULATION AT POINT WE CAN LOOK AT LOTS OF DIFFERENT STANDARDS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY AND WE SPECIFICALLY SELECTED AND RESEARCHED CITIES THAT ARE MORE SUBURBAN IN NATURE BUT OUTSIDE WITHIN REGIONS THAT HAVE MORE CO-LIVING SRO DEVELOPMENT. AND SO THAT GIVES US A LITTLE BIT OF YOU KNOW, BETTER ALIGNMENT OR MORE COMFORT . BUT I MEAN FRANKLY THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU LIKELY NEED TO KIND OF TRACK REALLY CLOSELY AS YOU AS YOU DEVELOP YOUR FIRST COUPLE OF CO-LIVING PROJECTS AND SEE HOW IT'S FUNCTIONING AND THE PARKING REQUIREMENT MAY NEED TO BE ADJUSTED IN EITHER DIRECTION AND SOME OF IT MIGHT BE LOCATIONAL SPECIFIC AND MIGHT RELATE TO A POTENTIAL REZONING REQUEST FOR A SITE YOU KNOW IS ON STREET PARKING AVAILABLE IN THE AREA. YOU KNOW WHAT OTHER POTENTIAL MIGHT EXIST WITH COLLECTOR HIGH VOLUME ARTERIAL ROADWAYS NEARBY SO THAT TEND TO HAVE PARKING RESTRICTIONS?  IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF I DON'T WANT TO USE THE TERM SPECULATION OR GUESSWORK BUT IT'S MORE LIKE THIS IS OUR BEST EDUCATED GUESS FOR WHAT WE THINK WOULD MAKE SENSE IN A BLOOMINGTON CONTEXT RIGHT NOW. BUT IT DOES NEED TO BE TESTED IN REAL WORLD.  CAPRICIA CURRIE THANKS TO YOUR I GUESS KIND OF QUESTIONS AND WHY WHY DO WE NEED TO CREATE A PARKING REQUIREMENT IF BASICALLY MODELING WHAT THE EXISTING ZONING IS LIKE?  IT SOUNDS LIKE ADDITIONAL WORK THAT JUST COMPLICATES KIND OF GOVERNANCE PROCESS AND I WOULD THINKS THE CITY ALREADY HAS TO DO. YEAH THANK YOU.  THE QUESTION ERIC MR. CURRY SO WHY CREATE A CO-LIVING USE SEPARATE FROM MULTIFAMILY EFFECTIVELY? NO. WHY CREATE SPECIFIC PARKING REQUIREMENT IN ADDITION TO WHAT THE CITY ALREADY HAS?  YEP. OKAY IF THERE'S SPECIFIC PARKING REQUIREMENT ALREADY FOR THAT FOR THAT ZONE IS ALREADY ALREADY WORKS ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE SINGLE FAMILY OR THE HIGHER DENSITY? I GUESS SPECIFICALLY ONE ONE OR R.S. ONE ON OUR FOR BECAUSE I MEAN HOW ARE YOU HOW WOULD THE CITY MONITOR THAT YEA NO THANK YOU FOR THIS CLARIFYING QUESTION. SO THE POINT FIVE PARKING SPACES PER UNIT WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE LOW DENSITY SETTING. THAT'S IT'S A STANDARD THAT'S DEVELOPED AND ADOPTED ONLY FOR THE HIGHER DENSITY KIND OF FORM THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT CAN TAKE CAN PLACE IN AND JUST TO JUST CONTINUE THAT THREAD ONE SO IF THAT WAS NOT CLEAR MY APOLOGIES BUT THE THE OTHER POINT IS THAT WHY CREATE A SEPARATE PARKING STANDARD GENERAL ONE IS JUST THAT THE USE CHARACTERISTICS ARE DIFFERENT THERE'S TENDS TO BE MOTOR VEHICLE OWNERSHIP RATES AMONG RESIDENTS OF CO-LIVING IN ADDITION TO THAT AS THE ENCLOSED PARKING REQUIREMENT AND THAT'S THAT YOU KNOW THE CITY'S GOTTEN FEEDBACK ABOUT IN THE PAST IT COSTS A LOT OF MONEY TO BUILD ONE ENCLOSED PARKING STALL PER UNIT AND IT'S OBVIOUSLY A VERY VALUABLE AMENITY ESPECIALLY IN MINNESOTA WITH PRETTY HARSH WEATHER BUT IT COMES AT A COST AND SO IF ONE OF THE GOALS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT TYPE IS TO TRY AND SEEK AND MAINTAIN HIGHER LEVELS OF AFFORDABILITY, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WOULD SUGGEST REMOVING AS A REQUIRED COMPONENT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT TYPE.  THANK YOU. I JUST HAVE A COMMENT THE THE PARKING FOR CO-LIVING IS PROPOSED SEEMS VERY REASONABLE I DON'T THINK IT'S TOO HIGH OR TOO LOW BUT IN CONJUNCTION BICYCLE PARKING IT SEEMS LIKE IF YOU'RE PULLING AT ONE LOVE LEVER YOU SHOULD BE KIND OF LETTING ANOTHER GO AND MAYBE A GOOD WAY TO DO THAT WOULD BE TO OFFER INCENTIVES THROUGH THE OPPORTUNITY HOUSING ORDINANCE FOR MORE BICYCLE PARKING OR INDOOR PARKING VERSUS OUTDOOR BICYCLE PARKING TO INCENTIVIZE ALMOST THAT THAT WOULD BE A TOP PRIORITY FOR THE DEVELOPER WHO'S LOOKING THIS TYPE OF UNIT.  I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PER SE OF BICYCLE PARKING THAT WE IN MULTIFAMILY AS OF RIGHT NOW AND WHETHER IT'S INDOOR OUTDOOR BUT IT SEEMS AS THOUGH IF WE'RE LOWERING THE PARKING WE MIGHT WELL INCREASE THE THE AMENITY IS FOR BICYCLE PARKING PROSPECTIVE COMMISSIONER LISA DE I AGREE WITH YOU MADAM CHAIR ON THAT ONE I'M GOING TO ASK A QUICK QUESTION WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE IN THAT VENN DIAGRAM BUBBLE CHART? THINK OF RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES LIKE WHAT IS THE CORRELATION THERE I WAS CONFUSED THERE YEAH IF YOU CLARIFY THANK YOU. YEAH SURE. COMMISSIONER ISSA SO RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES ARE IT'S A USE THAT WE HAVE IN OUR CODE THAT FALLS WITHIN THE CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITIES AND TYPICALLY WE THINK OF RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES AS BEING SOMEWHERE WHERE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO RECEIVE CARE AND SO WE HAVE SPECIFIC CODES IN OUR CODE FOR LIKE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE YOU CAN HAVE THERE AND AND WHERE LIKE ZONING DISTRICTS THEY CAN BE IN AND SO I GUESS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO POINT OUT WITH THIS CIRCLE THING IS THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF OVERLAPPING DEFINITIONS AND CO-LIVING IS POTENTIALLY GOING TO FALL WITHIN THIS AND SO NOW THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT CO-LIVING WE ALSO KIND OF WANT TO UNRAVEL THESE OTHER DEFINITIONS AND MAKE SURE THAT FOR EXAMPLE WE'RE NOT SEEN TO BE A  CO-LIVING DEVELOPMENT YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THE STANDARDS FOR CONGREGATE WHICH MAY INCLUDE LIKE REQUIRING CARE OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. YEAH I MEAN IF I CAN JUST ADD A LITTLE BIT TO THAT IS THAT THIS IS ONE OF THE MORE COMPLEX USE DEFINITIONAL SITUATIONS I HAVE ENCOUNTERED IN MY PLANNING CAREER AND SO MUCH AS A LOT OF CITIES SEEM TO DEVELOP A LOT OF DIFFERENT TYPE OF GROUP LIVING USES BECAUSE THEY ALIGN WITH EITHER VARIOUS LICENSES OR KIND OF WHAT BUILDING CODE OR HOUSING CODE DEFINED AS THESE DIFFERENT USES AND RIGHT NOW AS IT'S DEVELOPED BLOOMINGTON PERENNIALS POINT IS THAT THE STANDARDS FOR CONGREGATE LIVING EVEN THOUGH IF YOU READ THE DEFINITION AND ARE VERY MUCH ALIGNS WITH WHAT AN SRO IS BASICALLY THE STANDARDS FOR IT IN OUR CODE ALIGN WITH RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES THAT PROVIDE CARE THAT HAVE STAFF THAT HAVE THAT TAKE CARE OF PEOPLE IN EFFECT.  SO WE KIND OF HAVE TO SEPARATE THOSE TWO THINGS OUT AND IT'S JUST GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF WORK TO UNTANGLE THAT.  IT'S A VERY MUCH IN THE WEEDS OUR PROBLEM TO SOLVE THE THING BUT YEAH IT'S KIND OF A PAIN THAT MAKES TOTAL SENSE. THANK YOU GUYS.  COMMISSIONER COOKSON THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.  THIS I THINK WOULD A DEVELOPER OR OWNER OF THIS THIS TYPE OF FACILITY BE ABLE TO CHARGE FOR A PARKING SPOT?  HM CHAIR COMMISSIONER COOKED IN THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. YOU WANT TO TAKE A CRACK AT THAT BUT I'M SORRY REPEAT THE QUESTION MR. JOHNSON WOULD A DEVELOPER OR WHOEVER OWNS THIS ULTIMATELY BE ABLE TO CHARGE FOR A PARKING SPOT?  IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. IF THEY WERE NOT SUBJECT TO THE INCENTIVES IN THE JOE, I BELIEVE THEY WOULD CITY CODE . SO THAT MAY BE ONE REASON TO EXPLORE JUST FROM A COST CONTROL PERSPECTIVE. OBVIOUSLY IF THERE WAS A CITY SOME FORM OF CITY SUBSIDY IN THE PROJECT THAT COULD BE A CONDITION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT THEY NOT DO. SO IF THEY WERE REQUIRING MINIMUM LEVELS OF AFFORDABILITY.  BUT JUST AS THE CITY CODE SETS TODAY THAT LANGUAGE PROHIBITING THAT ARRANGEMENT IS TIED TO THE INCENTIVE OF THE PARKING REDUCTION.  AND SO IF CO-LIVING IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE PARKING REDUCTION YOU'D LIKELY HAVE TO CREATE SOME OTHER PATHWAY TO DO THAT AND I'M SURE I, I THINK WE'RE A LITTLE LOW AT 0.5 AND ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS THAT IF IF WE HAVE SIX UNITS AND THERE'S ONLY FOUR PARKING SPOTS, YOU'RE EITHER GOING TO HAVE AN INEQUITY PROBLEM WHERE SOME PEOPLE GETTING IT THAT THEIR NEIGHBOR DOESN'T. AND WHY IS THAT? I'M NOT SURE WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO START CHARGING FOR IT, WHICH I THINK IS THE MORE LIKELY SCENARIO IF YOU HAVE PARKING SPOTS THEN THE NUMBER OF UNITS YOU'RE GOING CHARGE FOR THAT PARKING SPOT AND NOW YOU'RE SORT OF UNDOING THE WE'RE TRYING TO DO BY CREATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SO I THINK, I WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE AT 1.0 THAN 0.5. COMMISSIONER THREE THANK YOU CHAIR YEAH I AGREE WITH COISSIONER COOKED AND I IT WOULD BE I MEAN IT'D BE SAFER TO START WITH A HIGHER NUMBER AND GO DOWN RATHER THAN END UP WITH THAT YOU CANNOT UNDO A A LOWER PARKING LOT TO A TOO LITTLE PARKING PROVIDED AH I MEAN I'M JUST TRYING THINK OF I MEAN YOU COULD UNLESS YOU COULD FIGURE OUT A WAY TO YOU KNOW OFFER SOME SORT OF LIKE PROOF OF PARKING WHERE WHICH YOU SOMETIMES MORE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WHERE THEY WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY EXPAND THE PARKING IN THE FUTURE. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WOULD JUST BE SAFER TO BE ON THE HIGH SIDE AND SEE WHAT KIND OF PUSHBACK YOU GET FROM THE FROM THE COMMUNITY AS TO WHETHER IT'S NOT FEASIBLE TO DEVELOP A CO-LIVING DEVELOPMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE. COMMERCIAL OFTEN YOU KNOW THINGS WHEN I'M SURE I FORGOT TO ADD AS TO WHY I THINK WE'RE A LITTLE LOW IS MY OTHER CONCERN IS THAT OUR MOST TRANSIT DEVELOPED AREAS OF THE CITY I THINK ARE SOME OF THE LESS LIKELY PLACES WE'RE GOING TO SEE THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.  I'M KIND OF THINKING WHERE COULD I LIVE IN BLOOMINGTON AND NOT OWN A CAR? I LIVE WITH BLOOMINGTON CENTRAL STATION. I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE THESE THERE.  I COULD LIVE OUT IN AN AMERICAN. SURE WE'RE GOING TO SEE THESE THERE NORMAN DELIC MAYBE I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE THESE THERE SO OKAY MAYBE AROUND 90TH AND LYNDALE OR SOMETHING BUT WE'RE JUST NOT YOU KNOW IN THE CONTEXT OF BEING ABLE TO LIVE IN A PLACE A CAR WE'RE NOWHERE NEAR AS ADVANCED AS IS BEING ANNAPOLIS IS AND THINK THE AREAS WHERE WE ARE ABLE TO LIVE WITHOUT A CAR IN BLOOMINGTON I'M NOT SURE THOSE ARE THE PLACES WE WOULD SEE THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THANK YOU FOR YOUR FEEDBACK. ONE THING I WOULD MENTION THAT RELATES TO THAT TO A DEGREE IS THE IF THE CITY WERE TO ESTABLISH A HIGHER PARKING REQUIREMENT THEN IT MAY MAKE MORE SENSE TO THEN MAKE A DEVELOPMENT ELIGIBLE FOR THE PARKING REDUCTION OFFERED IN NHL THE ONLY THING TO BE COGNIZANT OF THEN IS AGAIN THE 20 UNIT CUT OFF BUT IN A CO-LIVING SETTING IT'S PRETTY EASY GET TO 20 BUT YEAH SO JUST A THOUGHT THERE IF WE KEEP GOING WE'LL SEE IF THIS THING WORKS AGAIN HERE. ALL RIGHT.  DID I GO TOO FAR? NO. SO ONE THING THAT OUR MULTIFAMILY STANDARDS HAVE THAT WE DID NOT INCLUDE THIS DRAFT AND KIND OF JUST GETTING YOUR QUICK FEEDBACK IS WE HAVE DESIGN STANDARDS. YOU KNOW, MAYBE GLEN CAN TO HOW OFTEN WE'VE ACTUALLY HAD TO ENFORCE THESE ARE A UTILIZE THESE STANDARDS BUT WE HAVE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS AROUND FACADES IF THERE'S MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ON A SITE THEY HAVE TO BE ARCHITECTURALLY COMPATIBLE YOU HAVE TO HIRED EXTERIOR AIR CONDITIONERS THAT KIND OF THING.  MOST ARCHITECT ARCHITECTS AS WELL AS JUST MINIMUM BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS, ENOUGH ARTICULATION AND WINDOWS AND THINGS ON IT THAT BREAK UP THE FACADE OF A BUT THESE ARE OUR STANDARDS CURRENTLY IN OUR MULTIFAMILY AND SO WE DID NOT INCLUDE THEM IN THE DRAFT THEY COULD BE APPLICABLE TO HIGHER DENSITY CO-LIVING DEVELOPMENTS AS WELL SO I JUST WANTED TO GET PEOPLE'S FEEDBACK ABOUT THAT OR IF THERE WAS SOME FORM OF DESIGN STANDARDS WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING AND THAT'S KIND OF SMALL TEXT THERE. SO FORGIVE ME I SEE SOME PEOPLE SQUINTING TRY TO READ THAT BUT BASICALLY BLANK FACADES, MULTIPLE BUILDINGS AT A SITE, AIR CONDITIONERS THIS IS SOMETHING WE COULD EASILY INTEGRATE INTO THE USE STANDARDS FOR THIS USE BUT JUST SEEKING YOUR FEEDBACK ON IT I HAVE JUST A QUICK THOUGHT THAT THESE STANDARDS SEEM TO BE JUST SORT OF A GOOD NEIGHBOR WAS MY INITIAL THOUGHT SO I WOULD I WOULD TEND TO LEAN TOWARDS INCLUDING THOSE STANDARD IN CO-LIVING DEVELOPMENT AS WELL OR MAYBE OVER A CERTAIN NUMBER OF UNITS YOU KICK IN THE MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING DESIGN STANDARDS UNDER A CERTAIN NUMBER OF UNITS MAYBE IT'S A LITTLE MORE LENIENT WE MAY CONSIDER ISA YEAH. THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. I THINK AFTER READING THE HIGHLIGHTED LINES I THINK THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE BECAUSE LET'S SAY FOR EXAMPLE ON IT IT'S THE SECOND ONE THE MIDDLE ONE LOTS OUTBUILDINGS SECTION IF THE DEVELOPER DID WANT TO HAVE MORE TIED BUILDINGS ON ONE LOT OR WHATEVER I DON'T THINK THE DEVELOPER THAT'S DEVELOPING THIS SRO SHOULD BE PROHIBITED AND THEN AS FAR AS AIR CONDITIONING LIKE I'M NOT A DEVELOPER OR ANYTHING BUT I THINK MOST OF THEM ARE CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONING NOWADAYS SO DON'T THINK IT WOULD GET THAT BULKY LIKE IF A DEVELOPER DID WANT TO BUILD THIS ANYWAYS BUT THAT'S KIND OF MY INITIAL THOUGHTS OVERALL I BELIEVE THAT INITIALLY I MY THOUGHTS ARE TO HAVE CO-LIVING DEVELOPMENTS NOT SUBJECT TO DESIGN STANDARDS AND MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ARE SO THANK YOU CHAIR MY INITIAL THOUGHTS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE DESIGN CENTERS EQUIVALENT I THINK ESPECIALLY WITH THE APPROACH OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING ESPECIALLY, LARGER SCALE DEVELOPMENT IS TO ENSURE THAT A IT'S SPREAD OUT THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND B DOESN'T STAND OUT THAT WE'RE MIXED INTO NEIGHBORHOODS THAT YOU KNOW ONE CAN LOOK AT YOUR UNIT AND SAY OH YOU'RE AT THIS BUILDING . WE KNOW WHAT THAT CONSULTATION MEANS, RIGHT? AND SO NOT HAVING THAT ALLOWS A YES IT DOES SUPPORT DEVELOPERS MAKES IT CHEAPER BUT ALSO IT GOES AGAINST WHAT I THINK OUR THOUGHT WAS WITH OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE SPREADING IN OUR OTHER CITY AND THAT IT LOOKS, FEELS AND THE COMMUNITY IS SET UP THE SAME WAY SO THAT NO ONE FEELS IN PARTICULAR LIKE THEY'RE BEING SINGLED OUT.  I THINK THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF SRO AND CO-LIVING IS TO YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO GROW AND MOVE THROUGH THE HOUSING CONTINUUM WITHOUT HAVING THOSE ADDITIONAL CHALLENGES THAT SOMETHING LIKE NOT HAVING THE SOCIAL STANDARDS SET UP COULD POTENTIALLY BRING OUT.  I WOULD LIKE TO PIGGYBACK OFF OF THAT AND SAY 100% AGREE ESPECIALLY IN THE FACT, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS A BIG KEY THING WHAT THE SHOW IS US MAKING SURE THAT IT WAS EQUITABLE AND WE WEREN'T WE WERE MAKING IT EQUITABLE AND AND NOT CUTTING ON LOOKS AND FEELS AND DESIGNS JUST BECAUSE IT WAS AFFORDABLE DOESN'T MEAN IT SHOULDN'T KEPT TO THE SAME STANDARDS. SO I'M VERY MUCH SUPPORTIVE OF KEEPING THAT FOR THIS AS WELL. COMMISSIONER KITCHEN ARE HUGE. YES, THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. I AGREE WITH THE PREVIOUS COUPLE OF COMMENTS. I AM NOT A FAN OF LETTER B HERE THAT LANGUAGE THAT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR PLAN DEVELOPMENT OF OUR CODE AND I DON'T LIKE THAT THERE AND I DON'T LIKE IT HERE WHAT I HAVE FOUND IS THAT THAT ENDS UP BACKFIRING ON IN THE AS WE GO FURTHER DOWN THE LINE SO WE HAVE THAT AT THE 90TH AND LYNDALE SHOPPING WITH FESTIVAL AND WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING IS OKAY SO TT WAS ALL BUILT THEY ALL LOOK THE SAME AND THEN 20 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD A NEW DEVELOPMENT HAS TO COME IN AND THEY'RE STUCK FOLLOWING 20 YEAR OLD DESIGN STANDARDS SO THAT BANK OF AMERICA HAS TO BE DONE ON A BRICK INSTEAD OF A NICE GLASS FACADE LIKE THEY WANTED TO DO . SO I AM NOT A FAN OF MAKING BUILDINGS LOOK THE SAME I THINK THEN YOU'RE STUCK WITH DESIGN STANDARDS THAT ARE IN CASES DECADES OLD  CAN BE SURE COMMISSIONER YOU SIR.  THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I DO UNDERSTAND WHERE COMMISSIONER MOUA AND CHAIR THE HRT BOARD SORRY I FORGOT YOUR NAME BUT IT'S COMING FROM UH BUT ME PERSONALLY I GREW UP IN LOW INCOME HOUSING IN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON AND MY THOUGHTS ON THAT, YOU KNOW, IF WHAT IF ALL RIGHT. I GUESS THE QUESTION FOR ALL OF US TO THINK ABOUT IS WHAT IF THESE LIKE DO WE PRIORITIZE THE LOOKS OF AN AREA ARE LOOKING CHEAPER THAN ANOTHER PART OF THE CITY OR ANOTHER VERSUS WHAT IF IT'S JUST MORE AFFORDABLE FOR THE DEVELOPER AND THEN ONTO THE RESIDENTS YOU KNOW BUT IT STILL DOES MAYBE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT OR STANDS OUT WHAT DO WE PRIORITIZE MORE YOU KNOW BECAUSE I ME PERSONALLY I WOULD RATHER HAVE SOMETHING MORE AFFORDABLE LIVING HAVING A SPACE MORE AFFORDABLE THAN BEING LIKE HEY THERE GOES THAT LOW INCOME OR THE HOOD OVER THERE OR WHATEVER YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN SO YEAH THAT'S MY THAT'S  THANKS FOR THE FEEDBACK I MEAN I THINK THE GENERAL GOOD NEWS AND ALL THE PROJECTS THAT WE'VE REVIEWED IN THE LAST FIVE OR MORE YEARS IS THAT THIS RARELY HAS BEEN AN ISSUE. THANKFULLY MOST OF THE ARCHITECTS ON PROJECTS IN BLOOMINGTON ARE BRINGING A PRETTY FAVORABLE PRODUCT AND THINGS THAT THE CITY CAN BE PROUD OF . SO BUT I APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK AND WE'LL TRY AND WE'LL TRY AND SQUARE IN OUR NEXT ANOTHER VERSION THAT GOES TO A PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'LL SEE CITY COUNCIL FEEDBACK ON THIS AS WELL LATER IN THE MONTH.  NEXT QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION EMILY DAVID SO OUR NEXT QUESTION IS SHOULD IT USE STANDARDS INCLUDE A MINIMUM FLOOR AREA PER UNIT?  SO STAFF HAS SEEN RANGES BETWEEN 70 SQUARE FEET AND 250 SQUARE FEET. SO AND THIS EXAMPLE THAT'S IT'S FROM SAINT PAUL AND THEY A UNIT THAT INCLUDES A BATHROOM THAT IS 192 SQUARE FEET. SO ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF OF POTENTIALLY CREATING A MAXIMUM FOUR AREA PER UNIT IS THAT IT'S GOING TO DIFFERENTIATE MULTIFAMILY UNITS AND USES THE MINIMUM FOUR AREA OF AN EFFICIENCY HERE IS 400 SQUARE FEET. SO WE'RE TRYING KEEP THESE SMALLER AND AFFORDABLE ALL OTHER BENEFITS THAT COME FROM THAT. THE ONLY THING I MIGHT ADD TO THAT EMILY THANKS IS THAT THE IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE BUILDING CODE REQUIRES 70 SQUARE FEET IS THE MINIMUM FOR A SINGLE AND SO ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS TO ESTABLISH A SLIGHTLY HIGHER MINIMUM THAN THAT IS THAT YOU'RE PAVING THE WAY TO ALLOW MULTIPLE PEOPLE TO LEGALLY OCCUPY THAT SPACE. SO YOU DON'T KIND OF GET INTO THAT CONUNDRUM WHERE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE A SINGLE OCCUPANT RENTS SPACE FOR THE FIRST LEASE BUT THE SECOND LEASE HAS, YOU KNOW, TWO PEOPLE AND THEN IT JUST KIND OF BECOMES A CHASING OR TAIL OF THING.  SO THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE THINKING ABOUT WITH RESPECT TO ESTABLISHING A MINIMUM UNIT SIZE FOR CO-LIVING AND IF THAT WERE THE CASE I THINK IT'D BE 120 I WANT TO SAY 110 OR 120 COMMERCIAL OH SORRY I A SENIOR PLANNING PLANNING SUPERVISOR SUPERVISOR JOHNSON A REP ANSWERED MY QUESTION ON THE I WAS GOING TO BRING UP I JUST I KNOW IN COMMERCIAL BUILDING SETTINGS FOR BATHROOMS,  CLOSETS THINGS LIKE THAT IF YOUR SPRINKLING THE BUILDING FIRE SPRINKLERS IF YOU'RE UNDER 70 SQUARE FEET YOU TYPICALLY CAN GET AN EXEMPTION DEPENDING THE USE OF THE BUILDING AND MY I'M TRYING NOT TO STUMP PLANNER HERE I'M SORRY. OKAY I WAS GOING TO ASK IT SINCE THESE CONSIDERED BEDROOMS NO MATTER THE SIZE OF THE BEDROOM THEY WOULD IF IF SPRINKLER WAS REQUIRED FOR THE SIZE OR OCCUPANCY OF THE BUILDING THEN THE BEDROOM WOULD NEED A SPRINKLER HEAD REGARDLESS OF THE FLOOR AREA, CORRECT? YEAH MAN THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.  SO COMMISSIONER CUNNINGHAM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT ANY OF THIS OF DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE OF A SINGLE OR TWO FAMILY DWELLING IS GOING TO REQUIRE SPRINKLERS TYPICAL TO ANY HIGHER LEVEL OF RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY.  SO I THINK IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT THESE ARE ALL GOING TO BE SPRINKLED BUT FOR A ROOMMATE SITUATION AND A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.  THANK YOU , COMMISSIONER CARY. SORRY.  THANK YOU. SURE. HAS THERE BEEN ANY TRENDING? HAS THERE BEEN A NUMBER PROPOSED AT ALL? I MEAN DEFINITELY SEE A NEED FOR POTENTIALLY HAVING A LARGER MINIMUM THAN WHAT WE'VE GOT FOR MULTIFAMILY JUST AGAIN KIND OF BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU'VE OUTLINED BUT TO WHAT SHOULD THAT BE HIGHER COMMISSION CARRIES A LARGE LARGER MINIMUM THAN MULTIFAMILY SO YEAH YEAH FOREVER REFERENCE MULTIFAMILY HAS WE CAN CERTAINLY PULL UP THOSE STANDARDS AS WELL I THINK IT'S 400 SQUARE FEET FOR AN EFFICIENCY UNIT AND THEN IT KIND OF GRADUALLY GOES UP.  YOU DO A ONE BEDROOM, TWO BEDROOM, THREE BEDROOM AND WE CAN GET THOSE STANDARDS OUT HERE IN A MOMENT. BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING ALL OF THESE CO-LIVING UNITS OR THESE SLEEPING SPACES,  BEDROOMS OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO REFER TO THEM AS ARE TO BE SMALLER THAN AN EFFICIENCY APARTMENT BECAUSE IT TYPICALLY DOES NOT INCLUDE MUCH OF THAT COMMON SPACE SERVING.  THE UNIT YEAH I WAS THINKING ABOUT IT ON A PER PER MORE IN THE TRADITIONAL MULTIFAMILY SENSE RATHER THAN ON PER UNIT LIKE INDIVIDUAL LIVING LIKE BEDROOM OKAY I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YEAH. SO ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE BEEN THINKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IS EFFECTIVELY IN THIS EXAMPLE HERE ON THE SCREEN AND THIS IS THE UPPER LEVEL OF A SIX UNIT ONE ACTUALLY BUT EFFECTIVELY WHAT SOME OF THESE STANDARDS CAN RESULT IS CAPPING THE AMOUNT OF UNITS THAT IS CONTAINED WITHIN A SINGLE POD. SO IF YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT LIKE A DORMITORY OR A TRADITIONAL BOARDING HOUSE YOU COULD HAVE AS MANY AS SAY 20 UNITS ALL SHARING A COMMON SPACE AND THAT'S AN EMILY WILL PRESENT A SLIDE ABOUT MINIMUM KIND OF COMMON SPACE PER UNIT. THAT'S ANOTHER STANDARD WE'RE THINKING ABOUT BUT EFFECTIVELY WE'RE NOT PROPOSING WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO CAP THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT ARE SHARING A POD OR A KITCHEN IF THAT MAKES SENSE. WE HAVEN'T SEEN CITIES DO THAT . IT TENDS TO KIND OF WORK ITSELF OUT JUST WITH THE MARKET AND YOU KNOW THE IF YOU CAN'T HAVE TOO MANY UNITS SHARING A KITCHEN BECAUSE THEN YOU'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO USE YOUR COOKING FACILITIES.  RIGHT? IT WOULD JUST BE TOO MUCH DEMAND BUT YEAH THAT'S AN INTERESTING IDEA. WE HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THAT EITHER.  YEAH. SO LOOKING AT THIS I'M KIND OF THINKING ALONG THE SAME LINES OF WHAT COMMISSIONER ISA MENTIONED WHICH IS WITH  SHARED OR CO-LIVING IT KIND OF APPEALS TO A SPECIFIC NICHE OF PEOPLE PEOPLE WHO MAY NOT BE ABLE TO LIVE IN YOUR TYPICAL APARTMENT OR TYPICAL MULTIPLE FAMILY SETTINGS. SO I THINK WITH THAT I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC NUMBER IN MIND. I'D ALSO BE INTERESTED IN HEARING WHAT NUMBER COULD BE THROWN OUT THERE BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND THAT GOOD IS BETTER THAN PERFECT. SO WHILE I WOULD LOVE TO SEE KIND OF GOING ALONG THE SAME LINES OF THE DESIGN THAT YOU KNOW EVERYTHING IS IS HOMOGENOUS AND PEOPLE DON'T FEEL THE SENSE OF OH THAT'S A LOW INCOME AREA.  I THINK WITH THAT AND ALSO WITH THE MINIMUM SQUARE PEOPLE REALLY JUST NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THINK MOST PEOPLE WILL PREFER COSTS BEING LOWER IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM OBVIOUSLY WITHIN REASON OVER PERFECTION. SO I THINK WITH THIS WE CAN KIND OF TAKE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT APPROACH WITH THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE WITH OUR OTHER TYPE OF SETTINGS.  COMMISSIONER COOK TO THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MR. JOHNSON DO WE HAVE A MINIMUM SIZE FOR HOTEL ROOMS?  WE DO NOT FORGIVE ME.  CHAIR'S CHAIRS MR. COOK THEN WE DON'T HAVE A MINIMUM SIZE OF A HOTEL ROOM BUT THEY ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO BUILDING AND FIRE CODE FOR I FORGET THE THE NAME OF THE USE THAT IT IS IN THE BUILDING AND FIRE CODE BUT IT'S SUBJECT TO MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS SO IT'S NOT IN THE ZONING CODE BUT EFFECTIVELY IT IS GOVERNED BY THE BUILDING AND HOUSING CODE . YES, IF I MAY GO FOR IT IF I RECALL WE DO HAVE DORM ROOMS IN OUR CODE . IS THERE A MINIMUM SIZE FOR DORM ROOMS? THERE'S NOT SO AGAIN IT WOULD BE GOVERNED BY BUILDING AND FIRE CODE . YEAH AND JUST I MEAN JUST FOR TO BE CLEAR I EXPLICITLY SAY THIS WE HAVEN'T INCLUDED THIS IN THE DRAFT. WE WANTED TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK BEFORE WE WENT THERE BUT IF THE CITY WERE TO MOVE IN THIS DIRECTION AND I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS MR. EASY BUT I THINK WHAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT MOST LIKELY FROM A STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS PROBABLY HAVING A MINIMUM ADEQUATE TO HAVE TWO OCCUPANTS BECAUSE I JUST THINK THAT THAT'S THE MOST EFFECTIVE JUST JUST IN TERMS OF MANAGING THE OCCUPANCY, THE DEVELOPMENT AND SO THAT LIKELY WOULD BE SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 120 110.  BUT WE NEED TO DO A LITTLE BIT MORE RESEARCH AND CONFIRM THAT A JUMP IN QUICK GOOGLE SEARCH SO THANK YOU WITH A GRAIN OF SALT BUT IT LOOKS LIKE OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS ARE 70 SQUARE FEET PER ONE PERSON OR ONE BEDROOM SO THAT'S THE MINIMUM BUT 60 SQUARE FEET FOR USABLE FLOOR SPACE FOR EACH OCCUPANT.  SO FOR HOTELS AN IDEAL SO IN LINE WITH TWO PEOPLE WOULD BE 120 SQUARE FEET. THANKS MIKE.  MR. MILLER PETER MY INITIAL THOUGHTS ON IT IS JUST FLEXIBLE ALITY SO LIKE THE LOWEST POSSIBLE AND THEN ALLOW THE MARKET AND THE DEVELOPERS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT SIZE THEY NEED EVEN IF IT IS AT 70 SQUARE FEET AND THEY DECIDED THAT WAS WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO AND NO ONE WANTED TO RENT THEM. THEY COULD KNOCK DOWN A WALL AND HAVE 140 SQUARE FEET BUT THAT'S UP TO THEM IN THE MARKET TO DECIDE.  SO I'D LIKE TO SEE MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THAT I TEND TO AGREE WITH I CHOOSE NOT INCLUDING A FLOOR AND SEEING AT THE MARKET WILL BEAR. I WE HAVE WE HAVE A LOT MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS AND CO-LIVING AND LETTING THE MARKET KIND OF DICTATE WHAT HAPPENS. I THINK AT LEAST A START IS A GOOD GOOD START.  ALL RIGHT. GOOD FEEDBACK. THANK YOU ALL.  LAST QUESTION SIMILAR TO THE LAST ONE SHOULD USE STANDARDS INCLUDE A MINIMUM MINIMUM OF COMMON SPACE PER UNIT SO IS ASKING SHOULD THERE BE LIKE A MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR LIKE THE KITCHEN AND BATHROOMS IF THOSE ARE GOING TO BE SHARED AND WHATEVER COMMON LIVING SPACE THERE MIGHT ALSO BE SOME OF THE POSITIVES FOR THIS IS IT WOULD REQUIRE AN AMOUNT OF SPACE COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE GOOD AMENITIES AND GOOD COMMON SPACE THERE AND SOME OF THE NEGATIVES ARE THAT IT WOULD JUST BY MORE COMMON SPACE YOU'RE DECREASING THE AMOUNT OF BEDROOM SPACE AND UNIT CREATION.  YEAH I WOULD ADD THAT THERE'S THIS UNLIKE THE MINIMUM UNIT SIZES AND MAX UNIT SIZES THIS IS WE'VE THIS IN THE CITIES THAT WE'VE STUDIED WE SEE THIS ONE LESS FREQUENTLY I THINK ON THE ON ONE OR TWO OCCASIONS. SO I THINK RIGHT NOW JUST FROM A REGULATORY STANDPOINT THIS MIGHT BE MORE ALIGNED WITH KIND OF LETTING THE MARKET DO WHAT THE MARKET DOES.  BUT WE WANTED TO BRING IT UP JUST FOR THE OPPORTUNITY OF A MINIMUM AMENITIES FOR RESIDENTS ON A PER UNIT BASIS AND B ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THERE'S PROBABLY A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DENSITY AND THE AMOUNT OF UNITS THAT CAN BE CREATED AND THE REQUIRING A COMMON SHARED COMMON SPACE. THE HIGHER YOU SET THAT THE LESS THE MORE COSTLY IT'S GOING TO BE ON A PER UNIT BASIS.  COMMISSIONER COOK COMMISSIONER SIR THANK YOU CHAIR I WOULD ACTUALLY THE SAME ANSWER YOU GUYS GAVE FOR THE PREVIOUS ONE I WOULD SAY TO LET THE MARKET KIND OF DICTATES I THINK HAVING MORE RESTRICTIONS EARLY ON INITIALLY IS IS NOT GOOD SO YEAH COMMISSIONER OFTEN IT'S BEEN NORMALLY I'M LET THE MARKET DO WHAT IT WANTS TO DO GUY BUT THE MARKET IS OUT TO MAKE A PROFIT AND LIKE THE MARKET RIGHT NOW IS IT BUILDING THIS TYPE OF HOUSING BECAUSE IT'S NOT MAXIMIZING PROFIT AND SO IF WE'RE JUST GOING TO LET THE MARKET DO WHAT THE MARKET WANTS TO DO, IT'S GOING TO BE THE SMALLEST OF EVERYTHING MAKING THE MOST JUST BARELY SCRAPE FOR THE TENANT BECAUSE I THINK THAT THAT'S THE GOAL OF THE MARKET WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO GET REALLY EXPENSIVE STUFF WHICH IS WHAT OUR MARKET IS RIGHT NOW. AND SO LIKE I THINK OF OUR ROLE IN THIS IS TRYING TO HELP THE TRYING TO HELP THE PEOPLE WHO NEED A ASSISTANCE RIGHT NOW. AND SO IF IF WE A GOVERNMENT CAN SAY WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET THE DEVELOPER MAXIMIZE PROFIT HERE, THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THEM TAKE A LITTLE BIT LESS TO IMPROVE THE EXPERIENCE FOR THE USER.  THAT'S WHAT I WOULD PREFER IN THIS CASE MARKET RATE HOUSING I'M ALL FOR IT. WE HAVE A LOT OF WE'RE GOING TO KEEP DOING IT IN THIS CASE WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO HELP PEOPLE WHO NEED SOME ASSISTANCE AS SOON AS THEY DO . I'M IN FAVOR OF US HAVING SOME SOME MINIMUM STANDARDS. I'M I'M BOTH THE LAST QUESTION AND THIS QUESTION I I HEAR THAT AND I UNDERSTAND THE THE WANT FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MINIMUM COMMON HOWEVER I THINK IT DOES IT IT DOES INCREASE COST TO ACTUALLY BUILD WHICH IS THEN PASSED TO THE RESIDENT SO YOU COULD ANTICIPATE HIGHER RENT AND I'M FORESEEING THERE COULD BE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT INTERESTED IN COOKING AT ALL AND THEREFORE THEY DON'T WANT ACCESS TO THE KITCHEN AND THEY DON'T CARE AT ALL.  SO I WOULD JUST LEAN TOWARDS LETTING IT BE WHAT IT WHAT THE MARKET WILL BEAR AND THEN BASED ON WHAT WHAT THE NEEDS ARE OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING THERE THEN THAT CAN BE THAT CAN BE IMPACT. BUT I'M CURIOUS SO THE COMMON SPACE DOES THAT INCLUDE BATHROOMS, A CHAIR IT COULD POTENTIALLY THE BATHROOMS COULD BE AN EACH UNIT OR THEY COULD BE LIKE SHARED.  SO I WOULD THINK IF THEY ARE SHARED AND IT'S CONSIDERED COMMON SPACE I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A REQUIREMENT OF NUMBER OF RESTROOM STALLS OR FACILITIES OR WHATEVER IT HAPPENS TO BE PER PER BEDROOM BUT I DON'T THINK NECESSARILY THE REST OF IT NEEDS TO BE DICTATED BY MINIMUM COMMON SPACE AND CHAIR CHAIR I SHOULD HAVE MAYBE CLARIFIED TO AT THE BEGINNING THAT INFORMS THIS CONVERSATION A LITTLE BIT IS THAT THE BUILDING AND BUILDING CODE DOES HAVE SOME MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR COOKING AND BATHROOM FACILITIES AS WELL SO THAT WOULD INFORM SOME OF THIS AT A BARE MINIMUM BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH BUILDING CODE COMMISSIONER. YOU SAY YEAH I WOULD SECOND THAT. I THINK IF IT'S ALREADY A CHALLENGE TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP OR HAVE DEVELOPERS CREATE CO-LIVING DEVELOPMENTS IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE MORE OF A CHALLENGE IF YOU CREATE MORE RESTRICTIVE LANGUAGE. AND SO WHAT I IN REALITY WHAT THAT WOULD END UP HAPPENING IS THAT THESE DEVELOPERS WOULD SAY WELL THIS IS JUST TOO MUCH. I'D RATHER JUST BUILD A REGULAR APARTMENT AND THEN ENDS UP HAPPENING IS YOU ACTUALLY JUST ENTIRELY MISS OUT ON THAT CO-LIVING SPACE AND SO I KIND OF AM MORE OPEN TO WHAT YOU WERE KIND OF MENTIONING.  COMMISSIONER MILLER I'M WHAT PUBLIC HEALTH WOULD SAY ABOUT MIGHT BE MINIMUM YOU KNOW, BARE MINIMUM SIZE FOR COMMON SPACES BECAUSE I'M GUESSING THEY WOULD HAVE TO SOME IDEAS ,SOME RECOMMENDATION YOU KNOW YOU GET A CERTAIN AMOUNT PEOPLE TOGETHER IN THIS AMOUNT IT'S YOU KNOW NO LONGER HEALTHY SITUATION OR THE POTENTIAL IS THERE FOR IT TO BECOME AN UNHEALTHY SITUATION I B I WONDER IF THEY HAVE ANY INPUT OR WHAT THEY WOULD SAY. YEAH. CHAIR COMMISSIONER MILLER, THANKS FOR THAT SUGGESTION CAN FOLLOW UP WITH PUBLIC HEALTH STAFF OKAY TO PROCEED.  OKAY.  SO THE NEXT STEPS ARE THAT WE ARE PLANNING ON TO A STUDY SESSION WITH COUNCIL IN LATE JANUARY AND THEN PUBLIC HEARINGS COULD BE AS EARLY AS MARCH APRIL IF I CAN ADD ONE THING TO THAT. SO FOR TRADITIONALLY FOR SOME OF THESE PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN PROJECTS OR ZONING PROJECTS THAT YOU HAVE THAT DO INTERSECT STRONGLY WITH HOUSING POLICY, WHAT WE'VE DONE IS COME BEFORE THE HRA BOARD FOR SEEKING A LETTER OF SUPPORT OR GUIDANCE MORE FORMALLY SO I WOULD SAY THAT WE'RE PLANNING TO DO THAT AND IF THAT'S WITH YOU ALL AND WE CERTAINLY CAN COORDINATE WITH SARAH AND THE HRA STAFF ON SETTING A GOOD MEETING DATE PRESENT THAT FOR YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION THAT WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED THANK YOU . WONDERFUL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR FEEDBACK.  ANY LAST QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ? JUST A QUICK QUESTION. DO YOU GUYS ANTICIPATE KIND OF ANOTHER MEETING SIMILAR TO THIS AFTER END OF THAT KIND OF DATE GRANT GRAPH THAT YOU GUYS HAD? SO IN TERMS OF IT GOING CURRENT, YEAH, CONCURRENT MEETING NOT FOR THIS SPECIFIC ITEM BUT.  I THINK GENERALLY THAT'S GOOD FEEDBACK TO GET THAT IF THIS IS A FORMAT THAT THE BOARDS LIKE TO SHARE SPACE SHARE IDEAS I THINK IT BENEFITS BOTH AND WE AS STAFF CAN WORK TO COORDINATE THAT. OF COURSE THERE'S ALWAYS THE CHALLENGING OF SCHEDULING AND GETTING EVERYONE IN THE ROOM AT THE SAME TIME PROBABLY DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS THAT'S MY GUESS BUT WE'LL WE'LL TAKE THAT FEEDBACK AND THINK ABOUT WHICH PROJECTS MIGHT BE A GOOD FIT FOR THAT COMMISSIONER.  WELL, COMMISSIONER WATSON HAS A QUESTION.  OH MY QUESTION IS ON THE LETTER OF SUPPORT WHAT ARE YOU ANTICIPATING NEEDING.  YEAH CHAIR THANK YOU COMMISSIONER AND I WOULD GUESS IN MARCH OF 2025 PROBABLY ALONG SHORTLY BEFORE ON A PARALLEL TRACK TO THE PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE MY GUESS.  OKAY AND YOUR FRIEND IS THERE A POSSIBLE FRAMEWORK FOR THAT LETTER IT'S IMPORTANT TO SAY SO OUR IS WE CAN CERTAINLY THINK ABOUT THAT I THINK IT'S JUST MORE ALONG THE LINES OF IN SUPPORT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THE CONTINUUM OF HOUSING AS DIRECTED BY THE BLOOMINGTON COMPREHENSIVE PLANS HOUSING ELEMENT AND OTHER POLICIES OF THE CITY AND HRA. WE CERTAINLY COORDINATE ON WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE BUT IF YOU HAVE SUGGESTIONS WE WE HAPPILY ACCEPT THEM. WHAT IS THE CLARIFICATION I WANT TO MAKE SURE IF IT IS A CIVIC DAY IT'S OUR OLD THAT WE HAVE A FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING WHAT THAT NO THANK YOU. I DON'T THINK SO I THINK IT'S MORE JUST IT'S MORE FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCILS TO KNOW WHERE THE HRA BOARD STANDS AND BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IS GIVING YOU ALL DIFFERENT TOOLS IN YOUR TOOLBOX TO APPROACH YOUR WORK. SO I THINK IT'S MORE SO JUST KIND OF BEING ON THE RECORD THANK YOU. I'LL ALSO JUST ADD CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS THAT A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM THE HRA BOARD IS SOMETHING WE WOULD DRAFT AND BRING TO THE HRA BOARD FOR APPROVAL. SO AT THAT TIME WE COULD ALSO LOOK AT WHAT'S DRAFTED AND CONSIDER ANY CHANGES OR ADJUSTMENTS MADE AT THAT TIME. COMMISSIONER MUELLER THEN COMMISSIONER MUELLER I'M SORRY IF THIS REPEATS SOMETHING THAT WAS OR IN MONTHS EARLIER DISCUSSIONS IS THIS A PREEMPTIVE SETTING UP THESE STANDARDS?  HAVE THERE BEEN INQUIRIES INTO SRO HOUSING FOR THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON? YEAH. CHAIR CHRIS MUELLER, THANK YOU. SO WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN RECENT INQUIRIES ON THE HIGHER SCALE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.  WE HAVE YOU KNOW, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PROBABLY CAN COUNT ON ONE HAND THE NUMBERF ROOMMATE RENTALS THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY. SO THAT DOES EXIST.  SO I THINK IT'S MORE A PREEMPTIVE MOVE I WOULD SAY THAT THIS USE TYPE IS STARTING TO BE DEVELOPED IN MINNEAPOLIS AND SAINT PAUL. I STILL THINK WE'RE ON THE EARLY EDGE OF THIS IN THIS REGION BUT IT'S PROBABLY GOOD TO GET SOME BASELINE RULES IN ORDER AND AND I MEAN I'LL SHARE AGAIN WHAT THE WHAT ONE OF THE DEVELOPERS I SPOKE WITH IS IF YOU CAN JUST REEVALUATE YOUR FAMILY, YOUR OCCUPANCY.  THAT ALONE IS A VERY SIGNIFICANT POLICY MOVE BECAUSE A LOT OF CITIES HAVE NOT EVALUATED THAT KIND OF KEY OR COMPONENT OF THE REGULATIONS IN A LONG TIME.  SO KUDOS TO SAINT PAUL FOR DOING SO RECENTLY IN 2020.  THANK YOU.  COMMISSIONER MOUA, I'M JUST ASSUMING YOU'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO THE HRA TO DO A FINAL PRESENTATION BEFORE THE HEARINGS TO GET THE LETTER OF SUPPORT NOT JUST SEEKING LAWYERS FOR BOTH UPDATING YOUR ON THE PRESENTATION, RIGHT? YES. THANK FOR THAT QUESTION .  ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS SEEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE HRA THE MEETING AS A AND APOLOGIES CHAIR IF I MAY. WOULD YOU HAVE A SECOND ITEM ON THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED IS A STUDY ITEM. THAT'S OKAY. IT'S A GENERAL DISCUSSION OPEN OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMISSIONERS TO THOUGHTS AND ASK QUESTIONS. I DON'T KNOW MR. MARC REGARD IF YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.  ALL RIGHT. I APOLOGIZE, MADAM MADAM CHAIR, THIS PURPOSE OF THE SECOND ITEM IS JUST OPEN ENDED ITEM TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY. YOU KNOW, IF THERE ARE A AND PLANNING COMMISSION WANT TO BRING UP ANY ISSUES RELATED TO HOUSING DISCUSS THEM YOU YOU KNOW COULD BE THINGS LIKE OPPORTUNITY OR CHALLENGES OR INNOVATIONS THAT YOU'RE SAYING ANOTHER IS THINGS OF THAT NATURE AS LONG AS IT'S WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF HOUSING ANYTHING WOULD BE FOR DISCUSSION LOOKING FOR ANY DISCUSSION POINTS.  I WILL THROW ONE THING OUT THERE THAT I KNOW WE'VE MET ABOUT YEARS AGO AND THAT WAS THE CLUSTER HOUSING AND YOU ALL ARGUING BECAUSE YOU KNOW THIS IS SOMETHING I'VE REALLY BEEN INTO AND I THINK OF THAT TOO WITH THE LIVING A LITTLE BIT HAVING LIKE ONE MAIN FACILITY WITH THE COOKING AND WHATEVER AND THEN HAVE SMALL CLUSTER HOUSES AROUND.  I SEE THIS REALLY TAKING OFF. I KNOW OF MANY ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE BUILDING THEM THE TINY HOUSES AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND I KNOW THERE'S PROJECTS MINNEAPOLIS SO JUST KIND OF SOMETHING TO THROW OUT THERE TO MAKE THAT CONVERSATION CONTINUES BECAUSE I DO THINK WE HAVE SOME LOFT PROPERTIES SIZES THAT COULD HELP TO HOLD THESE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENTS.  YEAH, MADAM CHAIR, JUST TO RESPOND BRIEFLY TO THAT, IT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT STAFF IS LOOKING INTO SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF MISSING THAT WHOLE HOUSING . YEAH. THINKING OF IT IN TERMS OF COTTAGE COURTS OR DETACHED TOWNHOMES. DIFFERENT WAYS THAT WE COULD ACCOMMODATE THAT STYLE OF DEVELOPMENT BUT YEAH ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS COMMISSION WELL THANK YOU CHAIR BUT I GUESS THE THING I'M MOST INTERESTED IN IS THE STATE HAS COMMITTED A LOT OF TIME AND RESOURCES MISSING MIDDLE AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I KNOW STAFF IS DOING AND I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT YOU DO AND BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE FULLY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF EVERY OPPORTUNITY, EVERY RESOURCE, EVERY THAT WE CAN GET INTO EVERY GRANT TO HELP CONTINUE TO DRIVE THIS .  I KNOW LAST WEEK WE JUST HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PORT ON LA MONEY AND SO EVERYTHING WE CAN DO TO ENSURE THAT BOONTON CONTINUES TO STAY ON THE LEADING END OF IT INSTEAD OF THE TRAILING END IS THE THING I'M PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN THE TERRITORY RIGHT SEEING DONE I GUESS I WILL CLOSE OUT THE DECEMBER 17TH MEETING OF THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION AND I WILL ADJOURN THE TUESDAY DECEMBER 17TH, 2012 FOR HOUSING ITEM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING MEETING  AND