►
Description
Bloomington Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting
A
All
right
good
evening
and
welcome
to
the
february
25th
bloomington
planning
commission
meeting
the
planning
commission
advises
the
city
council
on
development
proposals,
development
standards,
long-range
planning
and
transportation
issues.
Some
of
the
items
the
planning
commission
has
final
authority
for
tonight.
The
two
items
that
are
before
us
will
go
to
city
council.
One
is
a
consent
item
and
the
other
as
a
public
hearing.
A
A
I
pledge
allegiance
to
the
flag
of
the
united
states
of
america
and
to
the
republic
for
which
it
stands:
one
nation,
under
god,
indivisible
with
liberty
and
justice
for
all,
okay
glenn,
if
you
could
start
us
out
as
usual
for
our
umpteenth
time
in
a
virtual
environment,.
B
Commissioners,
applicants
and
the
public
are
all
outside
the
chambers,
but
you
can
definitely
still
call
in
and
participate
item.
One
and
item
two
are
public
hearings,
so
just
call
the
number
on
the
screen.
One
eight
eight,
eight
seven,
four,
two:
five:
zero,
nine
five
and
then
enter
the
conference
code.
Eight,
four,
six,
one:
zero,
zero
one,
zero,
nine,
eight
and
when
you
call
in
you'll,
be
linked
to
the
meeting
and
you'll
hear
the
meeting
going
on.
A
Typically,
the
the
staff
will
give
a
staff
report
and
then
the
planning,
commission
members
may
ask
staff
of
any
questions
and
then
we'll
move
on
to
the
applicant
for
anything.
They
may
have
to
add
before
taking
a
pause
and
asking
the
operator
to
see
if
there's
anybody
online
for
any
questions
from
the
public
and
then
after
that,
the
public
hearing
is
complete.
The
city
or
the
planning
commission
will
close
the
public
hearing
and
move
on
to
discussion
about
the
item
so
tonight.
A
Our
first
item
is
7601,
auto
club,
road
and
11
245
bloomington
ferry
road.
Mr
p's,
do
you
have
a
staff
report
for
us.
C
Yes,
let
me
share
this
screen
here
to
get
this
started.
Thank
you,
chair
planning,
commission.
This
is
a
type
3
preliminary
final
flat.
It's
going
to
create
three
lots
out
of
two
existing
lots
at
the
properties
shown
and
again,
if
anybody's
watching
there
is
the
number
in
the
conference
code,
which
you
would
call
in
to
provide
testimony.
C
This
has
been
a
lengthy
process
for
this
property
owner.
It
all
started
when
the
property
owner
came
in
and
wanted
to
rebuild
the
60
year
old
home
in
the
location
that
my
cursor
is
showing.
Now
the
red
is
showing
the
existing
property
lines
and
what's
unique
about
this,
is
they
had
a
house
this
again
built
legally
in
the
50s?
We
had
a
house
in
this
location
which
is
occupied.
C
We
have
the
larger
house,
so
we
had
two
dwellings
on
one
lot
that
made
this
a
a
legal
non-conforming
use
and
in
order
for
them
to
change
the
larger
house,
they
had
to
tear
down
the
smaller
house
to
remove
the
non-conformity.
C
C
There
will
only
be
three
lots
with
three
units
where
there
used
to
be
two
lots
with
three
units:
the
property
owner
does
own
all
both
the
properties
before
he
owns
the
historic
home
down
here
this
is,
the
chambers
house
has
a
easement
granted
over
u.s
fish
and
wildlife
land
when
u.s
fish
and
wildlife
acquired
this
property
back
in
79,
and
this
is
primarily
a
bluff
area.
But
the
other
thing
we
looked
at
is
again
the
red
line
being
the
existing
property
line.
There
was
actually
a
shed
over
the
property
line.
C
After
consideration,
we
have
the
blue
line,
which
is
the
new
lot
line
encompassing
the
smaller
house.
The
historic
home
is
basically
unaffected.
This
is
a
very
steep
slope
on
the
west
side
of
the
new
line,
there's
going
to
be
little
or
no
impact
simply
because
of
the
slope
here
and
then
the
remaining
property
would
belong
to
the
primary
holder.
Again,
where
the
applicant
wants
to
construct
a
new
home,
the
orange
line
and
many
of
you
went
through
the
minnesota
valley
watershed
district
change.
C
C
It's
pretty
difficult
without
a
lift
station
to
connect
to
the
to
the
system.
The
sanitary
sewer
is
way
over
in
this
location.
This
house
does
gravity
feed,
so
there's
a
lot
of
complexities
with
this
property,
but
working
with
staff.
We
believe
that
the
applicant
has
a
code
compliant
subdivision,
cleans
up
a
lot
of
non-conformities
and
creates
a
nice
clean
property
for
the
future
for
all
three
dwelling
units.
A
Not
seeing
any
questions,
mr
pease,
is
there
anybody
or
is
the
applicant
online
at
this
time
mr
peace.
A
Not
seeing
any
questions
for
the
applicant
this
time
we'll
go
ahead
and
open
public
hearing.
Mr
p's,
is
there
anybody
online
at
this
point
for
this
application.
A
All
right,
thank
you,
commission
members,
seeing
that
there
are
that
the
applicant
doesn't
have
anything
specific
for
the
planning
commission
and
there
are
nobody
from
the
public
that
entertain
a
motion
to
close
public
hearing.
E
A
D
A
C
This
is
londell,
if
I
may,
I
just
had
somebody
enter
the
inner
call
line.
Can
I
check
to
see
if
they
are
wanting
to
speak
on
this
item?
It
just
came
in,
as
you
guys
were,
closing
the
hearing.
A
Okay,
thank
you
go
ahead,
mr
p's,
and
if,
if
they
do
care
to
speak
to
this
item,
I'll
need
a
motion
from
the
planning
commission.
C
A
E
Thanks
mr
chair,
I
just
have
to
say
this
property
seems
very
unique,
obviously
with
the
historical
nature.
So
I
appreciate
that
staff
looked
at
both
the
historical
nature
of
the
property,
the
the
legal
non-conformities.
You
know
we
talked
about
the
septic
tank
as
well
as
the
bluff
protection.
I
think
they've
come
up
with
a
nice
solution.
So
overall,
I
think
I
just
appreciate
the
staff
looking
at
kind
of
all
of
the
variables
that
go
into
it
and-
and
I
think
I'll
be
very
much
in
support
of
this
application.
A
A
D
E
A
A
Cook
done
hi
and
I
for
myself
motion
passes.
That
item
will
now
move
forward
as
a
consent.
Agenda
item
to
the
march
8th
city
council
meeting
all
right,
we'll
take
a
minute
here,
just
to
make
sure
that
our
operator
has
the
opportunity
to
see
if
there
are
any
additional
people
online
before
starting
item
number
two.
C
A
Right.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
pease.
All
right,
mr
palermo,
can
you
give
us
item
number
two
opportunity:
housing
ordinance.
H
Amendments,
thank
you,
mr
chair,
so
tonight
I'm
here
to
talk
about
the
opportunity
housing
ordinance.
Amendments
to
this
is
in
chapter
nine,
but
you're,
seeing
it
because
a
lot
of
these
will
affect
how
you
apply
the
zoning
code
in
chapters
19
and
21..
H
So
to
give
you
a
little
history,
the
opportunity
housing
ordinance.
This
is
our
inclusionary
zoning
ordinance,
which
helps
incentivize,
affordable
housing
development
and
you
get
different
incentives
for
different
levels
of
affordability
that
you
provide.
It
also
requires
that
nine
percent
of
our
units
are
affordable
to
some
degree
or
there
is
a
pay.
H
Option,
if
you
don't
provide
those
so
in
2018,
daedalus
and
bay
area,
economics
kind
of
studied,
what
the
economic
impacts
are
for
housing
in
bloomington
and
its
new
housing
development.
What
those
affordability
needs
are-
and
they
created
this
nexus
study
for
which
the
ordinance
was
based
upon.
H
It
was
first
adopted
in
february
25th
2019,
and
it
we
had
a
six
month
kind
of
period
of
education
and
assignment
and
working
with
developers
to
kind
of
implement.
We
amended
it
before
it
went
into
full
effect
in
august
5th,
to
kind
of
clean
up
some
items
that
we
had
found
and
then
in
september
of
2019,
it
went
to
full
effect
and
we've
been
applying
it
ever
since
we
are
here
to
kind
of
give
an
update,
further
incentives
that
we
found.
That
might
be
useful.
H
Some
further
background.
I've
concluded
here
income
limits,
so
our
incentives
are
tied
to
both
how
many
affordable
units
a
percentage
of
the
building,
as
well
as
the
affordability
level
provided.
So
we
have
moderate
income,
which
is
about
80
of
area
median
income.
So
this
is
the
median
income
for
the
metro
area.
This
applies
to
bloomington,
the
department
of
housing
and
urban
development
comes
up
with
these
area
median
incomes
and
it
ties
to
a
lot
of
different
funding
sources.
So
this
is
why
we
use
these
numbers.
H
Low
income,
which
is
applicable,
would
be
eighty
percent
to
fifty
percent
of
area
median
income.
Very
low
income
is
thirty
percent
to
fifty
percent
of
varying
median
income
and,
if
you're
in
a
household
with
less
than
thirty
percent
of
the
area,
median
income
you're
considered
extremely
low
income.
So
they
give
you
a
little
reference.
This
is
the
2020
income
limit
and,
as
you
can
see,
they're
kind
of
great
they
they're
scaled
by
your
your
household
size.
H
So
the
proposed
amendments
really
kind
of
fall
into
three
different
buckets.
We've
got
new
incentives
that
we've
developed.
We've
got
some
modifications
to
existing
incentives
and
some
procedures,
and
then
the
rest
are
really
just
minor
edits
and
clarifications
and
up
items
that
kind
of
help
with
the
readability
of
the
organs.
H
So
I'll
start
with
the
new
incentives
and
this
one
it's
in
an
existing
section,
but
I
really
wanted
to
call
it
out
as
a
new
incentive.
So
this
new
section
on
9.15
would
allow
council
to
apply
these
incentives
to
projects
that
are
fewer
than
20
units.
So
currently
the
the
opportunity
housing
ordinance
applies
to
20
developments
with
20
units
or
more.
This
gives
a
little
bit
more
flexibility
if
there
is
a
project
that
maybe
is
19
or
you
know
lower,
that
they
find
that
it
is
in
the
public
interest.
H
So
here's
a
little
example
of
what,
when
those
smaller
buildings
might
look
like.
B
H
And
then
we
are
to
add
in
a
few
new
incentives,
we
kind
of
restructured
the
numbering
a
little
bit.
So
we
have
nine
point.
One
six
point
zero
two,
and
this
is
a
site
area
reduction,
and
these
next
four
are
very
similar
in
how
we
are
applying
it.
So
it's
a
ten
percent
reduction
in
site
area,
two
percent.
If
nine
percent
of
the
units
are
affordable
at
that
low
income
level,
it
jumps
up
to
twenty
five
percent.
H
If
nine
percent
of
the
units
are
affordable
to
very
low
income
and
up
to
fifty
percent
of
the
site
area
reduction
for
nine
percent
of
units
of
portable
extremely
low,
I
want
to
call
out
that
we've
added
to
these
sections
some
language
to
kind
of
cover
us.
If
we
find
that
it
would
cause
harm,
we
wanted
to
be
able
to
say
well.
This
reduction
is
too
much
of
a
production
and
it
might
cause
an
issue.
So
we
won't
allow
this
so
side.
H
Area
reduction
might
not
be
much
of
an
issue,
but
you
can
see
in
some
of
these.
It
might
so
a
similar
incentive
with
site
with
with
reduction
a
10
with
reduction
for
low
income,
25
percent
production
at
very
low
income
and
a
50
reduction
of
site
width
is
available
at
extremely
low
income
and
then
impervious
surface
recovery.
So
this
is
where
that
kind
of
stop
gap
or
that
ability
for
us
to
say
no.
This
is
going
to
be
harmful.
H
We
won't
approve
this
really
kind
of
as
applicable,
because
you
can
imagine
if
we
have
too
much
surface
area
and
it's
going
to
cause
an
issue
with
our
storm
sewers.
We
don't
want
to
improve
a
proven
incentive.
So
we
kind
of
we've
built
that
into
these
incentives
now
so
surface
area
reduction,
five
percent,
if
you're
providing
nine
percent
of
affordable
units
at
very
low
income
and
10.
H
And
then
the
final
new
incentive
would
be
an
open
space
reduction
very
similar
to
the
others,
10
for
low
income,
25
reduction
for
very
low
income
and
50
reduction
for
extremely
low
income.
H
Now
these
are
more.
These
are
existing
incentives
that
are
being
modified,
so
in
this
one
it
could
kind
of
fall
in
that
kind
of
clarification
or
slight
slight
tweak,
but
we
are
changing.
We're
proposing
to
match
the
state
requirements
for
single
family
home
developers,
a
slight
change
in
the
area,
median
income,
that's
applicable.
We
had
110
area
meeting
income
and
the
state
uses
115,
but
also
in
this
section
we
are
changing.
Well,
we
are
further
clarifying
that
this
is
applicable
to
not
only
new
construction
but
converting
buildings
as
well,
such
as
hotel
conversions.
H
H
If
you
had
60
feet
in
this
just
convoluted
language,
so
we're
really
simplifying
it
and
just
saying
you
get
an
extra
story
at
10
feet
above
the
the
height
limit
map,
so
clean
up
there,
a
little
bit
parking
reduction,
we're
proposing
and
adding
another
incentive
for
very
low
income
or
extremely
low
income,
households,
if
you're
able
to
and
not
only
at
the
nine
percent,
but
it
has
to
be
at
the
20.
H
So
not
only
are
you
providing
extremely
low
income
you're,
providing
a
larger
amount
of
extremely
low
income
affordability,
you
would
be
able
to
have
a
50
parking
reduction
now
we
want
to
kind
of
call
out
that
this
might
change
in
the
near
future.
It's
on
our
work
plan
this
year
to
kind
of
to
study
our
minimum
parking
requirements.
So
if
that
number,
if
our
minimum
parking
requirements
changes,
obviously
that
changes
how
these
incentives
impact
development
so
well
likely,
we
might
end
up
having
to
change
this
or
tweak
this
slightly.
H
Another
parking
incentive
we're
changing
our
language
from
saying,
carports
to
unenclosed
parking
spaces,
a
carport
kind
of
has
a
cover
on
top
and
now
we're
just
saying:
unenclosed
parking
spaces.
So
it
could
be
surface
parking
and
further
flexibility
for
this
incentive
and
we're
adding
a
new
reduction
of
that
would
her
new
incentive
that
would
allow
you
have
100
of
required
enclosed
parking
spaces
to
be
unenclosed.
If
there
are
20
of
the
units
are
affordable
to
extremely
low-income
households,
so
again,
deeper
affordability,
extremely
low
income
and
a
larger
amount
than
the
minimum
20.
H
H
And
then
a
storage
space
reduction
would
add
an
additional
incentive
of
reduction
of
75
percent
of
the
required
storage
spaces.
If
you
can
provide
20
again
a
higher
than
the
minimum
nine
percent
and
affordable
to
50
ami
or
below
that
low
inc
income
level.
H
H
You
would
be
able
to
continue
to
count
that
as
an
affordable
unit
for
a
grace
period,
and
we
had
originally
said
five
years
we're
proposing
to
reduce
that
to
one
year.
In
all
reality,
all
these
projects
have
multiple
funding
streams
and
they
have
their
limitations.
So
while
we
say
you
can
have
a
five-year
grace
period,
if
you're
getting
kissed,
if
you're
getting
bonding
money,
if
you're
getting
low-income
housing
tax
credits,
all
these
have
stipulations
that
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
use
that
grace
period.
H
From
what
we've
heard,
there
isn't
much
of
a
demand
because
of
those
multiple
funding
streams
it
just
wouldn't
when
five
years
wouldn't
be
useful.
So
but
things
are
changing
so
we'll
continue
to
have
that
discussion
with
the
development
community
and
then
the
rest
are
really
more
minor
modifications
or
clarifications.
H
We
slightly
some
slight
modifications
to
our
definitions
that
better
align
with
state
and
federal
funding
our
payment
in
lieu
for
affordable
units
we're
clarifying
that
it
needs
to
go
into
the
affordable
housing
trust
fund
before
we
pay
it
out.
This
is
especially
important
for
multiple
phase
developments
that
might
stay
in
and
come
out.
H
We're
clarifying
that
keys
would
be
depositing
the
affordable
housing
trust
fund,
we're
capitalizing,
the
affordable
housing
trust
fund,
so
that
it
you
know
it's
the
title,
so
it
further
clarifies
we're
clarifying
what
expedited
review
process
process
means
really
just
means
you're
getting
to
the
front
of
the
queue
you
know,
there's
not
a
whole
lot.
We
can
do
to
speed
up
a
review,
but
we
can
bring
it
to
the
front
of
the
queue,
affordable,
housing
trust
fund.
I
mentioned
that.
H
And
just
a
few
changes
to
our
objectives
that
talks
about
dispersion,
how
it's
not
just
bedroom
size,
it's
bedroom,
size,
it's
unit
mixed
throughout
the
development
and
then
slight
change
to
the
community
development
director
can
make
recommendations
to
the
city
council
and
whether
to
have
any
other
reductions
that
that
might
work.
This
was
existing,
but
it's
kind
of
clarifying
that
the
community
throughout
the
director
must
make
a
recommendation
to
city
council
whether
or
not
to
support
those
for
the
reductions
that
might
be
petitioned.
For
with
that
I'll
answer.
Any
questions.
A
I
Thanks,
mr
chair,
mr
palermo,
a
question
for
you
regarding
the
increased
height
allowance
with
these
applications.
Can
you
speak
a
little
bit
more
to
the
practical
implementation
of
that
I'm
trying
to
think
in
my
head
of
where
applicants
may
be
limited
by
height
or
what
what
situation
that's
coming
up
in?
Is
there
a
common
situation
where
applicants
are
running
into
height
restrictions,
or
could
you
just
expound
upon
that
a
little
bit.
H
Sure,
mr
chair,
commissioner
cookton
I
I
don't
think
there's
been
a
whole
lot
of
demand.
As
of
yet
on
this
hype
bonus.
There
still
are
limitations
on
the
airport,
zoning
ordnance,
so
there's
some
spots
where
we
just
won't.
We
can't
allow
it
because
of
the
airport,
but
it
allows
for
that
greater
density.
So
you
can
imagine
if
they
free
up
more
space
for
outdoor
activity
space
like
a
pool
or
other
activity
space.
You
might
better
utilize
your
site
more
creatively.
If
you
can
have
that
density
bonus,
so
there
there's
been
stuff.
H
I
don't
know
if
there's
been
a
whole
lot
of
demand,
but
you
can
see
how
it
could
be
applicable
and
how
can
help
be
more
creative,
especially
in
tandem
with
some
of
these
other
reductions,
if
you're
getting
an
open
space
reduction,
maybe
you
need
that
area
to
better
utilize,
your
land
better,
to
have.
A
Commissioner,
cooked
on
that
answer,
your
question.
I
Yes,
it
does.
I
have
a
second
question
if
I
may.
I
Mr
palermo,
if
I
recall
when
we
were
developing
the
opportunity
housing
ordinance,
it
was
pretty
we
were
sort
of
first
first
in
line
to
to
take
something
like
this
on
and
I'm
curious.
Do
you
know
if
our
neighboring
cities
or
some
cities
of
similar
size
in
this
in
this
area
have
started
to
develop
similar
policies
and
procedures
for
their
cities?
I
H
Chair
commissioner,
cooked
in
there
are
other
cities
that
have
similar
ordinances.
I
believe
minneapolis
and
st
paul
both
have
similar
ordinances
and
I
think
st
louis
park
off
so
has
one.
I
know
brooklyn
park
has
some
sort
of
inclusionary
housing
as
well,
so
while
we're
new,
it's
more
and
more,
are
developing
it
and-
and
we're
not
unique
in
this,
especially
throughout
the
nation.
This
is
fairly
common.
To
have
some
sort
of
ordinance
like
this,
but
what's
unique
to
ours
is
that
we
really
do
have
that
nexus.
J
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
mr
palermo.
My
questions
are
around
some
of
the
site
minimums
the
reductions
around
space.
So
I
don't
have
my
exact
notes
up
in
here,
but.
J
We
have
the
areas
where
we
propose
to
offer
personality
outdoor
space
or
whatever
the
term
is
reduction.
50
seems
a
little
bit
aggressive
to
me
for
only
9
affordably
about
the
extremely
low
rate.
How
did
we
come
with
those?
I
think
it's
10,
20
and
50?
I
think
we're.
The
allocations
was
that
I
guess:
where
did
we
assuming
you've
got
sources
and
ideas
from
whether
it's
developers
or
other
cities,
or
how
do
we
get
those
numbers.
H
Yep,
mr
chair,
commissioner,
roman
glenn
might
be
able
to
speak
a
little
bit
more
to
this,
as
he
was
more
involved
with
the
development
of
it.
But
it's
really
born
out
of
how
do
we
get
those
extremely
low
income?
Affordability
rates?
You
know
that's
the
the
hardest.
Obviously
you
have
the
lowest
income
people
that
we're
trying
to
provide
affordability
for
so
you
really
have
to
figure
out.
How
do
we
fill
in
that
gap?
H
So
that's
really
where
it's
born
out
of
we.
We
have
plenty
of
developers
that
are
able
to
provide
that
eighty
percent
and
seventy
sixty
percent,
but
anything
lower,
is
much
more
difficult
and
that's
where
we're
lacking
and
that
you
know
the
met
council
has
provided
numbers
in
our
comprehensive
plan
on
where,
where
we
need
to
grow
our
affordability
and
really
need
to
hit
those
extremely
low
income-
and
this
is
what
we're
hearing
will
be-
have
the
most
impacted
in
these
areas-
and
maybe
clinton
would
speak
more
to
that.
J
In
short,
it's
in
there
whether
it's
in
open
space,
mostly
it's
in
the
open
space
reduction.
You
know
we
go
all
the
way
to
fifty
percent
in
exchange
for
only
nine
percent
extremely
low,
affordable,
but
then
later,
when
we're
talking
about
parking,
we
require
20
at
that
threshold.
In
order
to
give
on
that-
and
I
I
was
just
wondering
how
we
came
up
with
those
either
the
10
25
50,
or
the
decision
only
to
stay
at
the
nine
percent,
which
is
kind
of
our
bare
minimum
standard
for
the
ordinance.
B
Sure,
mr
chair,
commissioner,
roman
and
mike,
if
you
can
bring
up
the
slide
that
relates
to
that
there's
not
open
space
there,
we
go
open
space.
B
J
Okay,
it's
my
concern,
yeah
I'll,
save
that
for
the
discussion
part
and
then
I
excuse
me
one
other
question
I
had
mr
chair.
J
Thank
you,
the
storage
space
reduction.
Also,
I'm
wondering
how
we
again,
this
we've
moved
to
75
percent.
If
we
get
to
20
and
I'm
just
wondering
again,
where
are
how
we,
how
we
came
at
that
number
versus
other
thresholds.
B
Mr
marker
guard
sure
mr
chair,
commissioner,
roman
and
mr
palmer,
if
you
could
advance
to
that
slide
on
the
storage
space.
B
B
So
we
were
looking
at
ways
to
further
incentivize
units
at
that
level
and
basically,
by
getting
20
of
the
units
at
that
level
or
below,
we
thought
the
higher
level
of
flexibility
would
be
warranted.
A
Any
further
questions,
commissioner,
roman
okay,
any
other
commission
members.
A
So
yeah
mr
marketer,
just
following
up
on
on
commissioner
roman's
question,
so
it's
it
what
it!
What
was
the
existing?
I
guess
reduction
at
the
for
storage
space
in
the
ordinance.
I
think
what
we're
just
trying
to
capture
is
what
is
that
change.
B
A
A
All
right,
so
one
of
the
other
questions
I
have
mr
mark
regard
and
just
just
to
understand
when
we
talk
about
site
area,
red
reduction
and
site
width,
if
a
little
more
explanation
on
that
site,
area
reduction,
meaning
the
entire
site
can
be
smaller.
B
Yes,
mr
chair,
so
each
of
our
zoning
districts
has
a
minimum
site
area.
So
if
you
have
a
parcel,
that's
below
that
minimum
side
area
you're,
just
not
able
to
to
redevelop
it
or
to
meet.
If
you
were
to
rezone
it,
for
example,
the
zoning
district
you
might
be
looking
to
rezone
two
would
have
a
a
higher
a
minimum
site
area.
Okay.
B
Mr
chair,
that's
correct,
so
that
is
purely
the
width
of
the
site
so,
along
with
a
minimum
area,
requirement,
there's
also
a
minimum
width
requirement
and
those
two
factors
really
interplay
with
one
another
and
we
thought
it
appropriate
if
we
were
to
have
an
area
reduction
to
also
have
a
width
reduction
along
with
it.
G
Question
I'm
thinking
out
loud
as
a
planner.
I've
reviewed
development
site
plans
and
I'm
familiar
with
you
know
a
world
site
requirement
for
how
the
building
is
situated.
I
guess
my
question
is
overall
for
staff
is
if
a
developer
were
to
come
in
for
a
substandard
lot
and
they
were
to
check
on
some
of
these
desirable
percentages
that
were
interested
in
having
affordable
housing
one.
Can
they
get
all
of
the
incentives
and
two
if
they
do
get
all
of
the
incentives?
G
G
Excuse
me
stumbling
here:
the
percentage
they
meet
the
affordable
percentage
needed
to
trigger
that.
Would
they
get
that
incentive?
In
addition,
can
they
also
get
a
variance
to
significantly
reduce
the
setback
if
they
were
to
build
a
slightly
larger
building,
but
not
give
the
city
more
affordable
housing
than
what
that
incentive
was
triggering?
I'm
sorry,
if
that's
not
making
sense,
but
I
guess
what
I'm
trying
to
figure
out.
Is
they
automatically
get
the
consideration
for
the
incentive
if
they
were
to
come
up
with
that
percentage,
affordable
housing?
G
A
Mr
marker
guard,
or
who
would
like
to
answer
that
one.
B
Sure
I
can
I
can
take
that
mr
chair,
so
yes,
a
developer
could
apply
for
either
additional
flexibility
or
for
variances,
above
and
beyond
the
incentives,
the
incentives,
if
they
didn't
need
to
go
further
than
the
incentives
there
would
be
no
need
they
would
just
qualify
because
of
the
incentive
but
like
in
this
case.
Let's
say
the
incentive
was
50
and
they
wanted
a
60
flexibility.
B
They
could
always
seek
that
either
through
plan
development,
flexibility
or
a
variance
process.
So
that's
not
prohibited.
They
still
have
that
ability.
G
Yes,
thank
you.
Okay,.
A
One
more
question,
mr
marker
garden,
and
just
to
make
sure
we're
we're
understanding
it
so
with
the
incentives
they
theoretically
are
still
coming
through.
The
planning
commission.
That
is
not,
then,
a
permit
permitted
use
if
they
meet
all
the
incentives
that
and
I'm
understanding
that,
because
the
city
council
comment
of
finding
in
public
interest,
so
that
would
still
come
through
the
process.
Is
that
correct.
B
A
Not
seeing
any
questions,
and
since
the
city
is
the
applicant,
we'll
go
ahead
and
open
the
public
hearing
now,
mr
p's,
do
we
have
anybody
online?
That
would
like
to
speak
to
this
item
we'll
give
the
operator
some
time
to
clarify
or
to
check
on
that.
A
Okay,
thank
you
and
just
a
reminder
that
we
do
try
and
limit
time
just
to
make
sure
that
if
there
are
multiple
people
that
they
have
opportunity
to
speak,
and
so
it
will
start
with
three
minutes
and
go
from.
A
C
F
Yeah,
of
course
my
name
is
dave
higgins,
h-I-g-g-I-n-s
dave
like
david
and
I'm
with
magoff
development
group.
A
All
right,
thank
you,
mr
higgins,
and
so
just
to
make
sure
we
will
start
public
hearing.
I'm
going
to
give
you
three
minutes
and
mr
m.
If
we
can
remark
on.
A
F
Yeah,
I'd
like
to
speak
to
the
amendments
to
section
9.23
regarding
the
storage
space
reduction
and
both
requests
and
encouragement
from
both
study
across
the
metro,
as
well
as
experience
with
development
and
some
actual
data
on
the
demand
for
storage
and
need
for
storage,
and
would
just
note
that
across
a
few
organizations
that
work
in
in
multiple
markets,
both
locally
and
and
you
know,
sort
of
regionally
and
nationally
unaware
of
other
communities
that
that
mandate,
a
base,
one-to-one
ratio,
the
encouragement
and
the
request
would
be
that
the
75
reduction
actually
be
allowed
to
apply
to
the
base.
F
Compliance
of
nine
percent
of
the
units
at
60,
ami
and
and
the
reason.
I
would
cite
that
and
and
request
that
or
be
set
on.
Is
you
know
we
when,
when
we
built
our
project,
the
family
apartments
over
at
bloomington.
F
F
And
what
they
found
in
recent
projects
was
projects
offering,
on
average,
just
under
25
with
percentage
usage
at
the
time
that
they
checked.
F
And
when
we
presented
the
friendly
project
to
the
planning
commission
in
the
council,
back
in
2018,
we
presented
that
in
information
reason,
being
staff
was
hoping
for
us
to
and
recommending
for
us
to
do
the
one-to-one
ratio
applicable
elsewhere
in
the
city.
It
turned
out
for
an
isolated
window
of
time.
The
hxr
district
in
which
we
were
located
actually
didn't
have
the
requirement
it's
since
been
restored,
but
at
the
time
we
worked
with
staff,
we
said
we'd
be
willing
to
do
50
as
a
ratio.
F
F
And
the
way
we
look
at
it
is
if,
if,
if
you're,
trying
to
encourage
anybody's
trying
to
encourage
affordable
housing,
obviously
the
ordinance
is
in
place
to
offer
certain
concessions
to
save
project
costs.
Mr.
F
For
something
that
that
the
market
is
not
showing
demand
for
at
that
level
seems
to
add
cost
unnecessarily.
Mr.
A
Yep
yeah,
if
I
can
just
cut
you
off
that's
three
minutes
for
now,
but
I
just
want
to
check
in
with
the
operator
and
make
sure
if
we
have
anybody
else
that
would
like
to
speak,
that
we
give
them
an
opportunity.
A
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
higgins.
Go
ahead
I'll,
give
you
a
couple
more
minutes.
F
Yeah,
that's
fine!
Just
recalling
the
the
discussion
back.
F
Then
there
was
an
encouragement
to
push
from
the
50
that
we
were
proposing
and
it
designed
into
the
project
to
push
that
up
to
a
hundred
percent
and-
and
although
the
first
fifty
percent
cost
considerably
more
to
add,
the
additional
50
of
storage
would
have
added
to
200
000
or
so
to
the
project
and
again,
at
the
present
time,
we're
under
15
usage
and
over
the
course
of
that
early
lease
up
the
the
number
floated
somewhere
between
you
know:
10
11
14
almost
to
15,
but
it's
yet
to
hit
15
percent.
F
So
it
just
seems
like
a
shame
to
be
adding
cost
when
even
regular
market
rate
projects
are
challenged
by
price
pricing.
But
when
you're
trying
to
create
more
affordable
units
which
we're
in
full
support
of
doing
it's,
just
an
added
cost.
So
candidly
we're
looking
at
a
project
an
additional
project
right
now
and
and
would
be
proposing
a
25
ratio
and
we
out
of
the
box
are,
are
you
know
going
ahead
and
complying
with
the
nine
percent
at
60?
Without
hesitation
we
did.
F
We
did
10
at
80
at
the
at
the
family,
but
this
next
one
we
would
be
down
to
60
it
just
we.
We
don't
see
the
the
benefit
of
adding
costs
for
something
there
isn't
demand
for
in
the
market.
So
I
think
you
would
get
that
much
more
attention
for
or
affordable
in
general.
If
you
continue
to
allow
that
to
drop
and
allow
the
the
balance
of
city
regulation
encouraging
something,
but
also
leaving
flexibility
to
the
market,
to
determine
where
demand
is.
A
Thank
you,
mr
higgins,
just
a
question
for
you.
I
know
you
said
currently
at
15
percent
usage.
Do
you
do
you
char?
How
much
well
I'm
not
going
to
ask
you?
You
probably
don't
want
to
talk
specifics,
but
the
market
rate
for
storage
there
versus
off-site
storage.
Are
they
very
comparable.
F
No,
no
we're
we're.
We
charge
fifty
dollars.
A
A
F
No
just
the
strong
encouragement,
you
know
we
don't
we
don't
find.
We
don't
find
and
many
of
our
peers
across
the
metro
and
other
markets
don't
find
that
that's
a
demand.
It's
not
slowing
down
like
leasing
and
certainly
where
we
have
found
bloomington
to
be
incredibly
competitive
from
the
proactive.
F
You
know,
initiative
and
sophistication
shown
by
staff
in
so
many
respects
and
and
the
strong
partnering.
The
city
shows,
with
the
development
community
to
to
really
sort
of
make
things
happen
and
build
community
out
there.
A
Well,
I
appreciate
the
comments.
Mr
higgins,
I
think
we
we
have
that
that
you
would
desire
that
the
commission
look
at
that
higher
level
of
reduction
at
a
higher
ami.
F
A
C
C
A
Okay,
all
right!
Thank
you.
I'm
glad
you.
You
heard
that
mr
palermo,
all
right
planning,
commission
members,
seeing
there's
no
additional
members
of
the
public
that,
like
to
speak
to
this
item,
I
would
entertain
a
motion
to
close
the
public
hearing.
Commissioner
roman
all
right,
I
have
a
motion
to
close
the
public
hearing.
Is
there
a
second
commissioner
albrecht.
D
A
A
I
Thanks,
mr
chair,
just
for
the
record,
this
is
less
of
a
comment
than
anything,
but
I
do
have
a
business
relationship
with
the
friendly
project,
but
just
stating
for
the
record,
I
was
unaware
mr
higgins
would
be
calling
in,
and
he
and
I
had
not
spoken
before
this
meeting
on
that
particular
aspect
of
his
comments.
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
clear.
A
For
the
record,
thank
you,
commissioner
cook,
and
I
appreciate
that
all
right,
others,
you
know,
I
think
one
of
the
things
going
back
and
and
looking
at
when
we
put
the
opportunity
housing
ordinance
into
place,
was
really
to
incentivize
the
city's
ability
to
help
develop,
affordable
housing
and
what
I'm,
what
we've
witnessed.
I
think
over
the
past
I
guess
about
year
and
a
half
is
that
it
really
has
helped.
But
it's
really
worked
at
that
higher
ami,
the
60
ami.
A
I'm
not.
I
can't
recall
right
offhand,
one
that
was
in
that
20
percent
or
there
might
have
been
one
that
was
lower
than
60.,
so
in
general
I
can.
I
am
supportive
of
the
idea
to
incentivize
these
to
incentivize
the
lower
income
units.
A
I
do
I'm
not
a
hundred
percent
certain
on
whether
the
numbers
are
right,
but,
as
mr
palermo
pointed
out
that
we're
continuing
to
work
on
this
and
that's
the
one
thing-
I've
been
very
happy
to
see
over
the
years
since
we
started
this
process
as
even
as
we
were
putting
it
in
place,
it
changed
so
that
it
could
meet
the
needs
for
the
city
and
so
in
general
I'll
say
at
this
point.
I
I'm
supportive
of
the
ordinance
change
in
front
of
us.
J
I
think
one
of
the
things
we
talked
about
at
the
adoption
of
this
ordinance
was
the
intention
for
it
to
be,
for
lack
of
a
better
word,
a
lie,
a
living
kind
of
ordinance.
That
would
be
a
review
and
modify
how
the
dial
is
turned,
as
we
go
one
of
the
things
that
I
I'm
wishing
we
had
more
of
in
this,
but
I'm
not
really
sure
how
we'd
do
it
at
this
point,
I
wouldn't
I
wouldn't
necessarily
be
opposed
to
putting
forward
what
we
have
here.
J
So
please
to
say
I
don't
take
my
comments
as
a
let's
not
do
this
right
now,
but
we
are
doing
some
we're
offering
more
things
to
bring
us
into
the
lower
affordability
brackets,
which
is
good,
but
what
we
are
not
doing
as
much
of
is
then
also
offering
more
things
to
offer
more
units.
So
I
get
that
you
know.
J
There's
this
push
pull
between.
Is
it
better
to
have
10
units
at
30
or
20
units
at
60
and
there's
no
right
and
wrong
answer
of
you
know
you
don't
want
to
serve
some
and
exclude
others.
J
On
the
other
hand,
I
would
hope
that,
as
we
continue
to
refine
this,
that
we
are
adding
more
things
that
also
increase
for
for
more
quantity
or
more
percentage,
because
we
seem
pretty
much
with
the
exception
of
I
think
parking
we
generally
have
said
you
know
as
long
as
you
get
nine,
that's
going
to
be
good
enough
for
us
and
I
get
I'm
not
a
developer.
J
I
don't
pretend
to
to
know
the
money
in
and
out
and
I
get
that
providing
affordable
within
us
market
rate
development
is
a
challenge
I
just
would
like
to
see
us
in
the
future,
be
a
yes,
and
so
we
want
to.
We
want.
We
want
to
encourage
at
the
lower
affordability
thresholds,
but
I
think
we
also
want
to
and
encourage
more
quantity
through
similar
things.
So
I
don't
know
that
was
quite
a
long
roundabout
way
of
saying
the
same
thing:
three
different
ways,
but
generally
this
is
good
work.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Roman
ver
still
good
comments,
good
comments,
commissioner
goldsman.
E
Thanks,
mr
chair,
you
know
I've
been
taking
notes
as
we've
been
talking,
so
I'm
going
to
just
kind
of
go
through
it
here.
So
I
have
to
agree
with
the
statements
and
just
how
this
is
a
living
document,
and
I
appreciate
staff
coming
to
us
with
updates
on
a
periodic
basis,
because
that's
really
what
I
liked
and
appreciated
about
the
the
this
program.
One
thing
about
this
storage
piece
that
I
just
I
I
think
overall
I
can
support,
but
I
know
we
have.
E
We
had
an
influx
of
off-site
storage
here
in
the
city
city
council
recently
decided
to
do
a
study
to
see
what
off-site
storage
opportunities
exist
in
and
really
halt
any
new
development
of
that.
So
one
thing
I
think
about
is
if
we
are
taking
that
storage
space
reduction
and
putting
that
piece
into
this
ordinance.
E
How
does
that
impact
the
offstate
storage
requirements?
And-
and
these
are
both
kind
of
in
play-
I
don't
know
what
type
of
person
or
resident
uses
those
off-site
storage
and
if
that
applies
to
these
types
of
units,
but
just
something
that
was
sticking
in
the
back
of
my
mind
when
we
were
talking
about
reductions
and
then
the
last
thing
that
I
just
wanted
to
state
and-
and
this
is
starting
to
become
more
of
a
forefront
for
me-
is-
I
think
this
ordinance
is
great.
E
We
we
have,
you
know
the
affordable
housing,
we're
getting
more
units
and
more
types
of
you
know,
units
here
bringing
in
families.
But
one
of
the
things
I
see
that's
missing
here
is
really:
how
do
we
create
this
sense
of
community
to
draw
people
to
come
to
live
in
bloomington,
not
just
because
they
can
afford
to
come
to
live
to
bloomington?
E
So
thinking
about
walkability
parks,
some
types
of
amenities,
you
know
grocery
or
stores
or
cultural
places
for
us
to
be
a
community,
and
I
I
see
we
need
to
put
more
of
that
context
in
into
these
types
of
programs
so
that
we
have
people
who
want
to
come
to
live
here.
Not
just
that
they
can
afford
to
live
here
and
I'm
not
sure
how
to
make
that
happen.
But
those
are
just
kind
of
the
three
things
that
come
into
my
mind
when
when
this
was
presented.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner
goldsmith,
and
you
know
I
think,
that's
there's
a
bit
of
another
thought
that
I
had
in
this
and
really
just
the
as
we
increase
the
number
of
units
or
the
affordability,
the
the
level
of
affordability.
A
A
What
about
the
kids
and
where
do
they
go,
and
maybe
there's
something
we
can
have
staff
continue
to
look
at
with
this
opportunity:
housing
ordinance
in
the
future
as
to
maybe
it
is
a
site
reduction,
but
it
has
to
be
in
proximity
to
something
else
or
so
that
our
families
that
are
moving
to
the
community,
not
just
for
the
affordable
housing,
but
because
there's
parks
very
nearby
or
those
sorts
of
things.
So
I'll
I'll
leave
it
at
that.
Commissioner,
albrecht.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
echo
commissioner
roman's
comments
regarding
both
more
units
in
the
extremely
affordable
range,
but
also
just
a
general
increase
in
units
overall.
My
understanding
is
that
at
nine
nine
percent
of
any
given
building,
if
we
do
that
of
every
development
that
ever
happens
in
the
city
of
bloomington,
we
still
won't
be
at
the
units
in
which
we
need
to
be
at
to
provide
affordable
housing
to
the
folks
to
meet
the
demand
there.
So
I
I
agree.
D
I
think
the
sheer
amount
is
is
important
here,
and
so
that
leads
me
to
comments
regarding
folks,
like
mr
higgins,
which
thank
you
for
making
comments
and
and
companies
and
organizations
who
are
really
looking
at
bloomington
to
develop
and
and
make
an
impact
bring
in
dollars
to
produce
units
overall
and
really
having
them
at
the
table.
D
And
I
know
I
wasn't
a
part
of
the
original
ordinance
and
then
the
conversations
there,
but
I
do
know
that
there's
a
lot
of
insight
and
things
are
changing
in
the
development
world
regarding
you,
know,
costs
and
the
ability
to
actually
get
projects
done
so
just
encouraging
staff
and
this
commission
to
keep
that
in
mind,
because
I
do
think
that
the
iterative
process
of
this
ordinance
is
great.
But
I
think
that
you
know
a
more
regular
ability
to
take
a
look
at
this
based
on.
D
What's
happening
in
the
market
is
really
important
as
well.
Developers
such
as
mr
higgins,
who
obviously
is
looking
at
sites
in
bloomington.
You
know,
can
provide
a
lot
of
really
great
insight
as
he
did
today,
so
that
this
can
be
a
really
useful
tool
to
spur
a
lot
of
development
and
more
production
overall.
So
that's
all.
I
have
to
say.
G
Thank
you
chair.
I
first
want
to
thank
commissioner
goldsman's
comments.
I
really
it's
not
something
that
I
personally
think
that
we
haven't
is
really
proposed
when
it
comes,
we
care
about
the
units
coming,
but
not
so
much
about
once
they
come
what
their
life
is
like.
So
I
really
appreciate
you
bringing
that
comment
to
the
table
and
I
hope
the
city
and
whatever
ordinance
in
the
future
of
the
programmatic
stuff
would
be
considered
to
ensure
families
have
walkable
services
that
they
need
that
they
could
either
walk
to
and
the
parking
reduction.
G
The
thing
after
I
heard
that
comment
for
me
was
it
assumes
that
a
lot
of
folks
would
you
know
the
sites
would
be
located
in
a
good
transit
system.
Then
hopefully
that
would
be
part
of
the
development
review
to
ensure
that
if
they
are
requesting
parking
reduction
thus
be
located
in
appropriate
transit
locations
and
the
need
for
open
spaces.
Hopefully
that
could
also
be
triggered
once
they
are
reducing
impervious
service
that
you
know
they're
likely
not
going
to
provide.
G
You
know
outdoor
play
areas
and
whatnot,
but
I
really
that
hit
hard
for
me
and
when
I
hit
when
I
heard
that
it
became
personal,
because
I
want
to
make
sure
that
families
are
getting
beyond
just
housing
once
they
come
to
bloomington,
I
would
for
staff
just
a
feedback
for
me
when
I
was
reading
these
through
comments.
It
was
hard
for
me
to
reference
what
was
before
so
previous
language.
I
know
when
we're
talking
about
the
storage
language.
G
We
saw
a
language
that
was
brought
up
by
staff
about
what
the
current
language
is
versus
the
amendments
that
is
being
proposed
for
the
ordinance.
It
would
be
helpful
to
kind
of
see
both
because
I'm
not
too
familiar,
and
I
cannot
dig
out
where
all
these
ordinances
are
currently
in
the
current
language.
G
I
think
it'd
be
helpful,
like
whenever
we're
proposing
the
ordinance
that
we
do
see
what
the
previous
language
was
is
currently
to
what
we're
going
to
look
at
in
terms
of
like
what
we're
trying
to
adapt
to
the
proposal.
I
think
those
are
just
some
comments.
I
appreciate
thank
you.
J
Thank
you.
The
comments
by
others,
reminding
me
of
the
the
other
piece
of
my
original.
That
item
that
actually
led
to
my
original
questions
was
yeah
on
the
open
space
reduction,
and
you
know
it
would
be
nice
if
we
had
some
sort
of
a
tie
to
within
a
certain
again,
not
gonna
hold
this
one
up,
but
within
a
certain
proximity
to
a
park
or
a
play
area,
and
that.
J
A
G
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
just
listening
to
all
the
comments
and,
as
you
make
reference
to
that
sense
of
community,
you
know
how
important
it
is
as
the
planners
know
or
when,
when
you're
developing
those
those
type
of
plans
to
keep
the
needs
of
the
community
in
mind.
And
when
we
talk
about
community,
you
know
all
the
people
that
make
part
of
that
community
with
all
their
different
needs
in
all
different
ages,
and
you
know,
levels
of
life
and
experiences,
cultures,
etc.
G
So,
keeping
that
in
mind-
and
and
I
like
how
staff
continues
to
look
at
what
what
is
what
is
best,
what
is
needed
to
be
changed
accordingly
to
to
the
times,
and
especially
during
this
time
as
we've
gone
through
this
pandemic,
and
the
pandemic
is
leaving
so
many
things
behind
that
are
we're
gonna,
be
seeing
for
the
years
to
come.
Definitely
think
this
is.
G
This
is
very
important
when
it
comes
to
our
youth,
providing
those
spaces
for
our
children
and
for
families
to
to
feel
attracted
to
bloomington
and
to
move
here
always
keeping
in
mind
also
the
needs
of
our
teenagers.
You
know
our
teenagers
have
gone.
G
All
of
our
kids
have
gone
through
a
lot
through
this
pandemic,
but
especially
our
teenagers
are
in
a
in
a
very
sensitive
place
right
now
and
if,
if
we
can
be,
we
can
have
a
city
that
provides
those
type
of
spaces
where
they
can
feel
where
they
that
they
belong
and
they
want
to
stay
and
find
the
things
that
are
recreational
or
activities
or
things
that
are
fun
for
them
to
and
stay
so
that
they
stay
here
and
don't
go
to
other
cities
or
other
places.
G
Looking
for
ways
to
entertain,
you
know
if
we
can
provide
those
type
of
spaces
in
in
areas
where
there
can
be
also
educational
opportunities,
recreational
opportunities,
etc.
That
would
be
ideal.
So
I
am
in
support
of
this
plan.
A
All
right,
commissioners,
any
further
discussion
you'd
like
to
have
on
this
item
or
any
changes.
I
guess
one
of
the
things
I
think
about.
We
talked
a
little
bit
about
storage
and
mr
higgins
comments
and
if
I
am
correct
in
part
of
this,
it's
there
is
always
an
opportunity
to
ask
for
variances.
On
top
of
the
standards
correct.
Mr
marker
guard.
B
Sorry
I
was
muted
mr
chair
commissioners,
that
is
correct.
A
developer
could
apply
for
or
request
additional
flexibility
above
and
beyond
the
incentives.
Now
there.
If
it's
a
variance,
you
would
need
to
be
able
to
make
the
findings
if
it
were
plan
development
flexibility,
there
would
need
to
be
a
public
purpose
for
that
flexibility,
so,
but
you
definitely
can
make
that
request.
A
Okay,
just
thinking
about
that,
and
and
I
mean
I
think,
what
we
don't
know
is
the
exact
number
in
some
of
this-
and
I
think,
there's
concerns
is,
as
commissioner
goldsman
reminded
us
all-
that
we've
had
this
other
side
of
the
house
that
really
may
or
may
not
be
affected,
but
we're
seeing
these
off-site
storage
facilities
that
we're
really
growing
in
bloomington.
A
I
don't
know
if
planning
commission
members
have
any
other
thoughts
on
that.
Just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we're
kind
of
that
we're
at
least
talking
a
little
bit
more
about
mr
higgins's
comments.
So.
A
Commissioner,
corman
is
your
hand
still
up,
or
did
you
have
a
new
comment?
Oh
no
hand
was
still
up
all
right,
you're
on
mute,
so
you're,
okay,
commissioner,
roman,
thank.
J
You,
mr
charity,
your
question,
you
know,
I
certainly
I
trust
mr
higgins,
expertise
in
his
field
and
that
I
think
you
mentioned
the
the
I
guess
variance.
I
don't
know
if
that's
the
right
word,
but
the
you.
A
J
The
ability
to
request
a
different
threshold,
one
of
the
things
that
I
strive
for
and
it's
it's
a
competing
interest
right
when
we're
trying
to
help
developers
manage
cost
in
order
to
provide
more
affordable
units.
I
also
strive
less
to
strive
as
much
as
we
can
to
ensure
that
the
the
quality
and
the
opportunity
and
the
experience
is
as
close
to
on
par
with
other
places
in
the
community
as
well.
J
So
my
preference
is
to
not
go
farther
than
we
are
proposing
here,
but
much
like
some
of
the
things
that
have
come
here
like
the
carport
thing.
For
example,
we've
had
two
or
three
that
have
requested
to
not
have
that,
and
those
of
you
will
recall
I've
advocated
that
we
not
give
on
that
at
the
beginning,
but
we
find
ourselves
that
the
experience
that
the
staff
has
found
is
that
developers
have
said
this
is.
J
Be
helpful
and
now
we
are
revising
our
ordinance
accordingly,
so
I
think
we
are
giving
some
in
the
direction.
I
would
like
to
see
how
that
plays
out,
because
again
I
want
us
to
where
we
can
advocate
for
things
that
are
is
comparable
to
elsewhere
as
possible,
because
otherwise
folks
will
potentially
end
up
having
to
rent
a
storage
facility
and
if
folks,
are
really
at
the
extremely
low
income,
and
maybe
they
don't
have
a
car
public
transportation
to
our
storage
facilities
are
fine.
J
But
are
you
really
going
to
be
able
to
bring
some
sort
of?
I
don't
know
what
it
might
be
if
you
celebrate
christmas,
are
you
gonna
really
bring
that
artificial
christmas
tree
on
the
bus
from
the
storage
unit
two
miles
down
the
road
versus
in
your
building,
so
just
a
thought.
A
Thank
you,
mr
roman.
I
appreciate
those
comments,
any
further
comments
from
commission
members.
Otherwise
I
would
entertain
a
motion.
D
I
just
had
one
more
thought
in
and
it's
similar
to
what
we
were
talking
about
with
parks,
which
I,
like
the
idea
of
you
know
open
space
reduction.
Only
if
you
know
there
was
access
to
a
park
is
there
a
way
in
which
we
we
can
write
the
ordinance
to
suggest
that
if
they,
if
the
unit
already
has
x,
number
x
square
footage
of
storage
space
in
it
that
somehow
it's
waived,
because
I
do.
I
agree
with
commissioner
roman
that
you
know
we
want
to
provide
the
same
level
of
experience.
D
But
one
unit's
design
is
not
the
same
as
another
unit's
design.
Some
units
have
a
lot
of
storage
space
tons
of
closets.
You
know
huge
closet,
walk-in
closet
for
every
bedroom
and
others
don't
and-
and
I
don't
know
if
that's
been-
that
may
have
already
been
thought
of.
But
I
wonder
if
there's
like
some
some
sort
of
pull
that
we
could
incorporate
in
that
way,
not
suggesting
we
do
that
right
now,
but
just
just
a
thought.
A
Just
yeah,
commissioner
or
commissioner
albrecht,
you
know
great
guidance
for
staff
to
continue
looking
at
and
developing.
So
thank
you.
A
All
right
again
any
further
comments
or
thoughts.
Commissioners.
D
E
A
All
right,
commission
members,
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
to
recommend
approval
of
an
ordinance
amendment
as
attached
in
the
staff
report
related
to
preservation
and
development
of
affordable
housing
units,
thereby
amending
chapter
9
in
the
city
code.
Is
there
any
further
discussion,
not
seeing
any
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
by
roll
call?
Commissioner
goltzman
aye,
commissioner
corman
aye,
commissioner
roman
aye,
commissioner
albrecht
aye.
A
A
Cookton
aye
and
I
for
myself
motion,
passes
the
opportunity,
housing,
ordinance
amendments,
we'll
move
to
city
council
meeting
on
march,
8th
for
a
public
hearing
and
just
a
reminder:
staff
you.
You
got
those
comments,
some
of
the
thoughts
from
planning
commission,
so
I'm
getting
a
head
nod
from
mr
marker
guard.
A
All
right
now,
we'll
move
on
to
item
number
three
for
commission
members,
which
is
consider
approval
of
the
draft
planning,
commit
planning,
commission
synopsis
of
january
28th
of
2021,
and
commissioner
corman
and
commissioner
goldsmith.
You
were
two
commissioners.
There
were
absent
boy.
My
my
lips
are
not
working
inside
this
mask
right
now.
J
A
All
right,
we
have
a
motion
to
approve
and
commission
looking
for
a
second
commissioner
albrecht.
Second,
all
right,
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
to
approve
the
planning
commission
synopsis
from
january
28
21
any
further
discussion,
not
seeing
any
all
those
in
favor,
say
aye
by
roll
call.
Commissioner
goltzman
epstein
all
right.
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Corman.