►
From YouTube: January 12, 2023 Bloomington Planning Commission Meeting
Description
January 12, 2023 Bloomington Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting
01:48 Start
03:28 ITEM 1 PL2022-240
(public hearing) Northwestern Health Sciences University
Privately initiated City Code Amendment creating a use definition for “COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY COMPLEMENTARY RETAIL” and “COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY COMPLEMENTARY MEDICAL OFFICE” and adding the use as a permitted use in the R-1 zoning district
14:30 ITEM 2 PL2022-249
(public hearing) City of Bloomington A) City Code Amendment to create Transitional Industrial (TI) Zoning District, and associated performance standards, thereby amending Chapters 19 and 21 of City Code; B) Rezoning of 8605, 8609, 8653, 8701, 8715, 8731, 8801, 8845, 8901, 8925, 8933, 8945, 9001, 9033, 9051, 9117, and 9125 Lyndale Avenue South, 8610, 8630, 8640, and 8708 Harriet Avenue South, 510 and 516 Halsey Lane, 535 and 541 West 86th Street, and 500, 521, and 541 West 90th Street from I-3 General Industrial to TI Transitional Industrial.
47:37 ITEM 3 PL2022-245
(study item) City of Bloomington Study Discussion of Upcoming Sign Ordinance Update.
1:43:17 ITEM 4 City of Bloomington
(study item) Consider approval of draft November 17th, December 8th, and December 22nd, 2022 Planning Commission meeting synopses.
1:46:37 ITEM 5 City of Bloomington
(study item) Planning Commission Policy and Issues Update.
A
A
A
A
Good
evening
and
welcome
to
this
January
12th
meeting
of
the
Bloomington
Planning
Commission,
the
Planning
Commission
advises
the
city
council
on
development
proposals,
development
standards,
long-range
planning
and
transportation
issues.
The
Planning
Commission
is
comprised
of
seven
volunteer
residents
of
the
city
of
Bloomington.
We
have
four
here
this
evening,
so
we
do
have
a
quorum
as
we
begin
this
evening.
I'll
ask
everyone
in
the
chambers
to
please
rise
for
the
Pledge
of
Allegiance.
A
C
A
This
evening
we
have
five
items
on
our
agenda
on
some
items.
The
Planning
Commission
will
make
the
final
decision
while
in
other
items
sometimes
the
city
council
makes
a
final
decision.
We
have
two
public
hearings
tonight.
The
public
is
encouraged
to
provide
testimony
at
public
hearings.
You
can
do
that
here
at
City
Hall
or
you
can
also
do
that
virtually
Mr
marker
guard.
Could
you
provide
some
additional
information
on
Virtual
testimony
which.
D
Are
cooked
in
thank
you.
We
have
two
public
hearings
this
evening
and
you
can
testify
here
in
the
chambers
or
if
you're
watching
from
home
call
in
to
testify.
What
you
would
do
is
call
the
number
on
the
screen
and
then
enter
in
the
access
code
and
then
you'll
be
able
to
to
speak
to
the
items
tonight,
and
we
will
have
this
number
on
the
screen
during
the
various
public
hearings
tonight.
A
E
The
total
campus
size
is
264
739
square
feet
and
then,
as
a
note,
I
just
want
to
mention
that
there,
the
medical
office
and
the
retail
uses
already
exist
today
on
campus
I
just
want
to
highlight
the
city
code
Definition
for
accessory
use,
because
it
is
important
in
this
application.
I
highlighted
two
important
components
of
the
definition.
The
first
is
that
the
accessory
use
cannot
exceed
10
percent
of
the
principal
fluoride
area,
and
the
second
is
that
the
accessory
use
cannot
attract
customers
independently
of
the
principal
use.
E
The
definition
of
this
accessory
use
limits
the
medical
office
and
Retail
uses.
Therefore,
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
create
two
new
use
definitions.
The
first
is
for
retail,
complementary
to
a
college.
University
and
I'll
read
the
definition
before
you.
It
says
complementary
retail
sales
uses
affiliated
with
a
college
or
university
that
do
not
exceed
five
percent
of
the
total
floor
area
of
the
building
in
which
they
are
located
or
five
thousand
square
feet
in
floor
area.
E
Whichever
is
less,
the
retail
store
already
exists,
as
I
said,
and
they
are
not
intending
to
expand
the
area.
The
store
size
is
4
300
square
feet,
which
is
1.6
percent
of
the
total
campus
area.
The
size
complies
with
their
proposed
definition
in
the
store.
They
would
primarily
sell.
Wellness
related
products
such
as
vitamins
supplements,
Wellness
gifts,
equipment,
Etc
and
then
for
the
benefit
of
the
public.
This
amendment
would
not
allow
for
a
standalone
retail
use
in
R1,
so
this
retail
must
be
complementary
to
an
Associated
or
Associated
to
a
college
University
on
site.
E
And
then
the
second
definition
relates
to
medical
office,
as
mentioned
earlier,
accessory
uses
are
limited
to
10
of
the
total
floor
area
and
upon
review
of
their
floor
plans,
the
medical
office
or
their
public
clinics.
They
exceed
10
percent
of
the
total
floor
area,
so
they
currently
have
three
separate
clinics:
totaling,
a
combined
area
of
29
577
square
feet,
which
comes
to
a
total
of
11
of
the
total
campus
size
again
similar
to
the
other
definition.
E
The
medical
office
must
be
associated
with
a
college
or
university,
and
then
this
would
add
those
two
uses
to
our
use
table
in
our
city
code.
So
you
can
see
there
that
I've
added
them
as
permitted
uses
in
our
use
table
in
R1
and
then.
Lastly,
we
did
receive
a
piece
of
a
correspondence
which
I
provided
to
you
in
an
email
and
then
it
should
be
before
you
at
your
seats
and
then
the
applicant
is
in
attendance
tonight.
Should
there
be
any
questions
and
then
I've
provided
the
emotion
and
we
are
recommending
approval.
F
E
F
E
A
A
C
Not
lit
up
so
yeah,
okay
sounds
good
Mike
Tennyson
I
met
the
vice
president
for
clinics
and
Retail
Services
at
Northwestern.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
having
us
here
today
and
I'm
joined
by
our
president
and
CEO
Dr
Deborah,
bushway
I.
You
know
I
just
wanted
to
say
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
be
here
just
a
couple
of
points
of
clarity.
Just
just
for
the
group.
C
The
retail
store
is
it's
it's
kind
of
coexist
as
a
bookstore
as
well
right,
so
we
do
sell
a
lot
of
textbooks
out
of
the
store
IT
services,
our
local
community,
and
on
campus.
We
have
a
lot
of
alumni
that
use
the
store,
though,
that
it's
easy
for
them
to
buy
their
supplements
from
our
store
versus
housing,
a
lot
of
supplements
in
their
actual
clinics,
and
so,
which
is
why
you
know,
we've
obviously
been
you
know,
selling
to
to
our
alumni.
C
The
other
piece
of
clarity
I,
just
wanted
to
point
out
too,
is
on
the
clinics.
There's
actually
four
clinics,
but
one's
Clinic
is
like
kind
of
within
a
clinic,
but
the
clinics
serve
a
variety
of
different
populations.
Some
of
the
clinics
actually
are
serving
internal
communities,
so
they're
not
actually
the
external
market,
and
some
of
them
are
starting
serving
the
external
market.
C
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
a
point
of
clarity
for
people
in
case
you're
wondering
about
I,
don't
know
why
we
have
so
many
different
services
and
offerings
and
so
and
then
one
point
of
clarity
I
just
wanted
to
make
it.
If
you
did
read
through
the
the
document
that
came
from
the
concerned
citizen
about
the
case,
you
know,
if
you
go
into
Target,
it's
actually
a
website.
Their
average
store
size
is
about
130
000
square
feet,
not
forty
thousand
square
feet
so
just
say.
A
A
A
F
F
I
see
that
you
know,
obviously
health
and
well-being
is,
is
important
for
the
community
and
it's
great
that
we
have
these
resources
available
to
our
residents.
It's
a
large
campus
and
I.
Think
as
they
are,
you
know
trying
to
expand
their
offerings
to
clients.
I
think
that
the
facility
has
enough.
You
know
space
and
size,
so
parking
looks
fine,
I,
don't
I,
don't
anticipate
lots
of
traffic,
so
in
in
all
I
think
I'll
be
very
supportive
of
the
application
as
it
stands
in
front
of
us.
G
A
A
F
And
case
pl2022-240
I
move
to
recommend
approval
of
a
privately
initiated
city
code,
Amendment,
creating
a
use
definition
for
College
University,
complementary
retail
and
College
University
complementary
medical
office
and
adding
the
use
as
permitted
as
a
permitted
use
in
the
R1
zoning
district.
There,
thereby
amending
city
code
chapters,
19
and
21.
A
Have
a
motion
and
a
second
to
recommend
approval
of
a
privately
initiated
city
code
Amendment
any
further
discussion,
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye
aye
opposed
that
motion
passes
4-0
and
we'll
move
on
to
the
city
council
at
their
February
6th
meeting.
Thank
you
very
much
with
that.
We
will
move
on
to
item
number
two.
The
city
of
Bloomington
is
the
applicant.
It
is
for
a
city
code
amendment
to
create
a
transitional
industrial
zoning
district
and
also
rezoning
a
number
of
parcels,
I
believe
the
numbers
28.
Mr,
ramler
Olson,
has
our
staff
report
this
evening.
A
D
H
H
The
first
part
is
to
amend
the
zoning
code,
specifically
chapters
19
and
21,
to
establish
the
ti
District
to
include
references
and
to
describe
its
features
and
standards.
The
second
part
of
The
Proposal
is
to
rezone
28
Lots
along
the
east
side
of
Lindale
Avenue
South
between
86th
and
92nd
streets
from
General
Industry.
That's
the
I3
District
to
this
new
zoning
District
transitional
industrial.
Also,
the
ti
District
you'll,
see
at
the
bottom
of
that
semester.
H
H
Okay
yeah,
so
this
is
a
snapshot
of
the
timeline
it.
The
project
kicked
off
in
mid-september.
That's
when
we
met
together
as
a
group
and
decided
on
the
level
of
of
consultation
with
the
residents
and
we
began.
You
know
with
that
in
mind,
creating
an
Outreach
and
engagement
plan
that
we
implemented
in
early
October,
that
meant
door-to-door.
H
You
know
door
knocking
on
all
the
businesses
within
the
area.
That's
proposed
to
be
rezoned,
to
explain
the
project
and
to
enter
to
talk
with
the
business
owners
or
who's
ever
there
at
the
time,
October
27th.
If
you
remember
there
was
a
study
session
where
we,
where
we
had
a
discussion
about
the
the
draft
version
of
the
this
new
zoning
district
and
the
proposal
to
re
rezone,
those
28,
Lots,
I,
think
at
that
time
actually
was
25
and
and
as
I'll
get
into
it.
That
was
expanded.
H
The
next
meeting
was
a
study
session
with
City
Council
on
on
November
14th.
There
were
some
discussion
items
that
come
out
and
came
out
of
that
and
I'll
get
into
that
in
a
little
bit
more
today,
we
we
have
a
public
hearing
just
to
hear
about
the
the
new
zoning
district
and
the
rezoning
and
then
we'll
be
bringing
this
to
I'm.
Assuming
everything
goes
well
tonight,
we'll
be
bringing
to
the
city
council
on
February
6th
for
adoption.
H
H
So
with
that
in
mind,
we
we
actually
relied
a
lot
on
that
plan,
because
you
know
there
was
a
good
amount
of
Engagement
that
came
out
of
it
and-
and
there
was
a
lot
of
good
information,
so
it
already
formed
a
good
basis
for
which
to
proceed
and,
as
I
said,
we
we
selected
consult
as
the
appropriate
participation
level,
and
with
that
we
started
engaging
residents.
As
I
said,
we
went
door
to
door
to
all
the
businesses
within
the
area.
That's
proposed
to
be
rezoned
and
to
explain
the
project.
H
We
also
did
direct
mailings
to
all
the
to
all
those
businesses
and
oh
and
I
should
also
mention
we
did
reach
out
to
those
properties
that
immediately
but
the
but
the
area.
So
we
did
include
a
lot.
A
lot
of
a
lot
of
properties
outside
of
the
rezoned
area
proposed
to
be
rezoned
area,
and
so
there
were
a
couple
instances
of
direct
mailings.
H
There
was
that
that,
where
we
went
door
to
door,
we
actually
handed
out
material
to
explain
the
project
we
actually
and
then
we
did
a
mailing
to
those
properties
just
to
follow
up
into
actually
advertise
the
open
houses
that
were
shown
the
following
week
and
then
there's
the
the
public
hearing.
So
we
have
made
efforts
to
engage
the
residents
that
own
property
within
the
area
next
slide.
H
So
at
that
study
session
late,
October,
October
27th,
as
I
mentioned,
the
one
item
or
one
big
item
that
came
out
of
that
discussion-
was
consideration
of
what
properties
are
included
within
this
new
District.
There
was
acknowledgment
of
some
properties
at
86th
and
Lindale
that
seemed
suitable
to
also
be
included,
and
so
that
was
a
total
of
three
properties.
They
were
they're
all
owned
by
they're,
all
the
same
owner,
and
so
they
were
brought
in
that
raised
the
lot
and
the
amount
of
lots
from
25
to
28..
H
So
that
was
the
big
item
that
came
out
of
there.
Otherwise,
I
think
there
was
a
general
consensus,
or
that
was
staff's
interpretation
that
was
General
consensus,
that
it
was
a
good
idea
to
proceed
with
drafting
the
the
the
zoning
District
at
the
November
14th
city
council
city
council
study
session.
H
In
addition
to
discussing
the
the
new
zoning
district
and
the
proposed
rezonings,
there
was
a
a
resolution
that
was
adopted
that
was
to
initiate
the
rezoning
process
and
then,
on
top
of
that
there
were
some
other
discussion
items
that
were
brought
up.
The
council
had
concerns
about,
or
they
just
had,
discussions
relating
to
the
relationship
between
residential
and
Industrial
uses
within
this
new
zoning
District,
because
we
are
as
I'll
get
into
a
moment,
we
are
proposing
to
add
residential
to
the
area.
H
As
you
know,
as
an
allowed
use
well,
a
conditional
use,
I
should
say
there
was
also
discussion
around
the
district's
impacts
on
the
existing
industrial
within
the
area,
and
then
there
was
also
acknowledgment
of
the
pros
and
cons
of
the
rezoning
approach
that
we're
we're
proposing,
which
is
rezoning
all
28
Lots,
as
opposed
to
going
lot
by
lot
rezoning.
So
those
were
some
items
that
were
discussed
at
that
meeting
next
slide
and
concerning
that
discussion
about
the
you
know,
the
relationship
between
industrial
and
residential.
H
It's
there
there's
already
evident
I
mean
there's,
there's
already
residential
within
the
area-
that's
pretty
close
by
that's
across
the
street
in
Lindale,
it's
not
exactly
within
or
it's
not
in
within
the
proposed
area
to
be
rezoned,
but
there
is
and
there's
even
newer
residential
development
just
south
of
it
there's
Lindale
flats
and
then
what
was
approved
recently
oxboro
Heights
and
then
just
a
little
bit
south
of
that.
Where
was
other
residential
development
and
even
North
kitty
corner
from
the
davanni
site
at
86th
and
Lyndale,
and
then
just
a
little
bit
further
north.
H
H
So,
with
the
introduction
of
this
new
zoning
District,
there's
a
variety
of
amendments
to
the
zoning
code.
There's
chapter
19,
there's
just
some
simple
references
that
need
to
be
inserted
to
to
establish
the
ti
District
within
that
particular
chapter
in
chapter
21,
Division
e,
that's
where
we
actually
Define
the
the
new
District,
the
transitional
industrial
district.
We
also
getting
to
District
specific
standards
and
some
of
those
standards
you
might
be
familiar
with
because
they
were
borrowed
from
other
zoning
districts.
H
Division
H,
which
is
the
the
uses
we
had
to
ass.
You
know
we
we
borrowed
heavily
or
we
we
base
the
useless
based
on
the
I3
district
and
then
just
with
some
slight
permutations,
adding
districts
modifying
some
or
adding
sorry,
adding
uses
modifying
some
uses
and
and
removing
some.
We
set
this
to
distinguish
the
transitional,
Industrial
District
and
the
assemblage
of
those
uses
really
addresses
the
compatibility
between
any
sort
of
differences.
H
I
already
mentioned
that
we
are
talking
we're
proposing
to
introduce
residential,
but
in
limited
forms,
not
single-family
residential.
That's
not
appropriate
for
this
area,
so
multi-family
residential
is
the
is
the
intended.
The
intention
behind
that
particular
use
for
this
District
we're
also
proposing
retail
indoor,
Recreation
and
entertainment.
There's
been
a
burgeoning
interest
in
that
type
of
use,
and
then
cultural
amenities,
libraries
and
whatnot
museums
with
what
we're
proposing
we're,
not
creating
any
con
non-conformities.
H
So
any
sort
of
use
that
that
isn't
appropriate
for
for
the
I3
district
is
is
being
carried
over
for
the
transitional
industrial
that
includes
self
storage
and
I.
Believe,
there's
one
single
family
home
within
the
area
that
we're
speaking
about
rezoning
so
that
those
those
will
remain
non-conformities
with
the
establishment
of
this
new
District
and
we
took
efforts
also
to
accommodate
all
current
uses.
Some
of
the
established
uses
those
that
have
been
established
prior
to
the
adoption
date.
H
So
if
it
were
to
be
adopted
on
February
6th
and
there
was
a
use
that
was
established
prior
to
then
they
could
continue
as
a
legal
non-conforming
use.
That's
for
specific
uses
if
you'll
notice
in
the
in
the
in
the
use
table
that
came
in
the
packet
and
we
also
prohibit
additional
sites
with
uses
that
are
non-alignment
with
the
Retro
plant
retrofit
plan
Vision,
those
are
more
Auto
intense
uses,
some
of
those
other
uses
that
are
more
intense
and
have
bigger
impacts
that
might
affect
the
implementation
of
the
transitional
industrial
district.
H
H
There
we
go
okay,
so
this
is
a
table
just
describing
some
of
the
development
intensity
standards
and
site
characteristics.
It
compares
the
current
I3
district
with
the
B4
District,
as
I
mentioned.
Previously,
we
borrowed
a
lot
of
Standards
from
already
established
districts,
and
this
just
lays
out
the
comparison
of
how
you
know
which
standards
we
we
borrowed
and
how
we
slightly
modified
them
to
fit
within
the
transitional
industrial
district,
we're
proposing
to
double
far.
H
That
should
be
noted
so
again,
like
that's
to
fulfill
the
the
vision
of
the
retrofit
plan,
which
sees
a
more
intense
type
of
development
along
Lindale,
so
upping.
The
far
goes
towards
that
actually
well
yeah
next
slide,
and
on
this
slide
we
it's
just
a
comparison
of
the
setbacks,
also
between
the
I3
district
and
B4.
H
One
of
the
recommendations
that
came
out
of
the
retrofit
plan
was
to
rezone
a
lot
of
properties
along
Lindale
to
B4,
so
it's
just
to
introduce
that
compatibility
between
the
ti
district
and
what
will
eventually
be
be
the
B4
District
in
surrounding
Lots
along
Lindale
Avenue,
and
it
should
also
be
noted
so
that
last
column
abutting
lots
that
are
used
in
zoned
residential.
There
is
a
distance
requirement
between
those
non-residential
non-residential
uses
to
proposed
residential.
H
So
if
residential
work
to
be
proposed,
it
would
have
to
satisfy
these
distance
requirements
next
slide,
and
this
is
merely
to
illustrate
the
the
building
character
that
could
materialize
along
Lindale.
It
was
used
in
the
October
27th
presentation,
I,
don't
believe
buildings
are
going
to
be
that
high,
but
nonetheless
you
can
see
that
some
of
the
features
we're
proposing
are
to
restrict
parking
to
the
side
or
rear
and
or
rear.
H
We're
we're
communicating
that
buildings
can
be
closer
to
the
street
so
to
create
a
more
intimate
experience
between
pedestrians
and
the
ground
floor
and
just
buildings
in
general,
so
again
creating
a
more
pedestrian
friendly
environment,
something
that
caters
to
the
safety
and
comfort
comfort
of
pedestrians
and
we're
also
requiring
ground
floor
transparency
and
activation
a
little
bit
more
detail
on
the
activation
requirements
within
the
use
list.
We
are
allowing
warehousing
uses
within
the
transitional
industrial
district.
H
However,
those
come
with
requirements
that
50
of
the
linear
length
of
those
ground
floors
be
active,
uses,
customer
interaction,
Lobby
or
or
retail
front-end
retail
to
some
of
those
warehousing
uses
if
there
were
to
be
established
after
the
adoption
of
the
ti
District.
So
that's
what's
meant
by
activation,
and
then
transparency
kind
of
speaks
for
itself,
where
we'll
be
requiring
some
of
that
transparency
along
the
ground
floor
again
to
create
a
more
active
pedestrian
environment
next
slide.
H
So
getting
to
the
rezoning
proposal,
as
I
mentioned,
it's
28
Lots.
It's
proposed
to
go
from
I3
to
transitional
industrial
there's
already
a
mix
of
industrial
Automotive,
Warehouse
office
and
Retail.
We
want
to
you
know
it's
a
it's
a
eclectic
mix
of
uses
and
that's
something
that
in
within
the
district
itself,
we
wanted
to
encourage
and
maintain
so
you'll
see
that
in
the
list
of
uses
some
of
the
surrounding
uses
again
or
speak
to
the
compatibility
of
rezoning
to
the
ti
District
as
you'll
see,
there's
already
retailing
industrial
to
the
north.
H
There's
commercial
to
the
South
East
is
just
pretty
much
all
industrial
and
then
some
multi-family,
residential
and
Commercial
to
the
to
the
West.
So
it
kind
of
fits
the
proposed
rezoning
again
speaks
to
that
compatibility
between
those
uses
next
slide,
and
it's
also
worth
mentioning
that
there.
This
is
also
in
line
with
the
adopted
2040
comprehensive
plan.
Within
that
document
there
was
a
discussion
of
the
industrial
Redevelopment
strategy
that
came
from
industrial
obsolescence,
study
that
staff
carried
out
I
believe
in
2019,
and
there
from
that
was
the
coding
of
industrial
lots.
H
Lots
that
are
guided
industrial
coded
are
categorized
as
either
protected,
and
there
I
provide
the
definition
of
what
productive
means.
It's
existing
existing
industrial
uses
that
are
still
viable.
They
should
remain
zoned
for
industrial
and
rezoning
should
be
avoided
and
the
other
category
is
transitional
industrial
areas
and
those
include
those
have
already
an
existing
mix
of
uses.
So
it's
not
strict,
Industrial
and
Zoning
is
a
possibility
or
rezoning.
H
The
surrounding
land
use
inconsistency
with
the
comprehensive
plan
which
I've
spoken
about
previously
next
slide,
and
so
these
this
proposed
rezoning
again
relates
to
that
86th
Street
node,
the
the
node,
is,
admittedly,
a
little
bit
shorter
than
meaning
it
doesn't
extend
as
far
south
as
what
we're
proposing,
but
those
are
all
I3
properties
and
rezoning
to
transitional
industrial
will
again
create
that
compatibility
between
other
zoning
districts
along
Lindale
in
order
to
implement
the
retrofit
plan.
So
this
is
all
coming
out
of
that
previous
planning
effort
adopted
in
2021
next
slide.
H
A
Have
yeah
thank
you,
Miss
ramler
rules
and
we
will
move
on
to
questions
and
I'll
get
us
started
here
in
one
of
your
slides.
You
had
these
sort
of
site
characteristics
comparison
of
the
new
it
Zone
versus
some
of
the
similar
zones.
We
looked
at
specifically
this
slide
here:
the
minimum
floor
area
ratio
for
TI.
We
appear
to
not
be
setting
one,
whereas
in
B4
there's
a
0.2
minimum
floor
area
ratio.
Was
there
a
consideration
of
putting
minimum
floor
area
ratio
for
TI.
H
H
Wasn't
it's
not
a
one
for
one
copy
from
from
the
B4
District,
but
we
assumed
that
there
would
nonetheless
be
there
would
be
enough
building
area
to
status,
and
we
assume
that
the
the
market
again
consistent
with
also
the
building
standards,
we're
proposing,
would
satisfy
even
the
minimum
floor
area
ratio
that
you'd
find
in
B4.
So
that
was
I
think
believe
that
I
believe
that
was
some
of
the
thinking
that
went
on.
And
while
we
were
establishing
the
standards
for
the
minimum
floor
area
ratio.
A
H
H
I
can't
do
the
math
in
my
head
on
the
spot,
but
in
order
to
to
to
not
exceed
point
two
I'm,
not
sure
what
the
minimum
building
area
would
be,
but
if
this
floor
area
ratio
is
mainly
speaking
to
bulk,
so
we
have
other
standards
that
require.
For
instance,
we
have
a
building
floor
area
that
you
know.
We
would
assume
that
anyone
coming
into
the
district
would
would
develop
and
to
maximize
the
site
development,
but
that's
something
we
can
certainly
can
reconsider
is
in
as
we're
revising
the
you
know.
H
H
H
H
D
H
D
H
Actually,
chair,
cooking
and
I
just
want
to
be
a
little
bit
more
specific,
actually
adding
on
to
the
planning
manager's
comments.
So
we
are
really
focusing
this
District
as
it
fronts
along
Lindale
and
some
of
the
other
cross,
the
streets
I
cross
with
it
86
90th
92nd.
There
are
some
lots
that
are
proposed
to
front
that
that
do
front
on
Harriet,
and
so
we
do
make
exceptions
for
those
properties,
so
in
that
case
they
would
be
allowed
to
have
Drive
aisles
and
parking
in
between
the
building
and
the
street
on
those
lots.
A
G
Thank
you,
chair,
I,
appreciate
this
coming
back
so
quickly
in
front
of
the
Planning
Commission
I
think
it's
a
good
direction
for
the
Lindale
retrofit
plan.
First
Steps
I
appreciate
the
adding
of
the
additional
Lots
on
that
86th,
Street
and
Harriet
corner
I.
Think
that's
a
good
addition
and
I
am
in
support
of
moving
forward
on
this.
F
Thanks
chair,
I
would
say,
in
addition
to
commissioner
Albrecht
is
that
I
also
am
in
support
I.
Also,
in
addition,
would
like
to
say
I
like
that,
we
didn't
add
any
additional
unconformities.
It's
it's
a
unique
piece
of
this,
as
well
as
I,
allow
or
I
also
I,
also
like
that
we
are
making
the
the
west
side
of
Lindale
consistent
or
more
consistent
with
the
east
side
of
of
Lindell
I.
F
You
know,
coming
into
the
study
session
in
October,
I
didn't
realize
that
the
sides
of
the
streets
made
a
difference
on
what
type
of
business
you
could
do
and
I
like
that.
Now
it's
it's
a
lot
more
consistent
and
I.
Think
it's
going
to
drive
for
a
more
pleasant
and
approachable
a
thoroughfare
through
our
city.
So
overall
I
think
that
we've
done
a
great
job
here
in
getting
our
feedback
and
and
making
it
a
reality
and
I'm
excited
to
see
what
it
will
do
for
actual
development
of
of
the
Lindale
retrofit
plan.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Goldsman
any
further
comments,
I'll
jump
in
as
well
and
just
say,
I
I,
like
what's
being
proposed
here,
I
think
it
was
well
done.
I
would
definitely
like
to
also
appreciate,
say,
I
appreciate
the
public
Outreach
here,
the
the
very
intentional
public
Outreach
of
the
folks
on
Lindale.
That
is
important
and
I'm
glad
we
did
that
if
we
could
just
take
a
second
peek
at
that
minimum
floor
area
ratio
thing
if
you've
looked
at
it
and
are
intentional
about
that,
I'm
fine
with
it.
A
If
there's
no
concerns,
if
that
was
maybe
something
that
you
know,
one
quick
second
pass
to
that
to
make
sure
that
staff
is
comfortable
with
it
I'm
fine,
with
what
staff
wants
to
proceed
with
there
and
I
think
this
is
great.
I
mean
I'm,
really
excited
for
the
future
of
Lindale
I
think
this
is
an
important
step
in
the
right
direction,
for
what
we're
going
to
do
there
and
and
get
Lindale
as
our
our
Main,
Street
and
and
brought
into
the
the
the
the
the
21st
century.
A
G
F
A
A
G
F
G
A
That
that
motion
passes
four
zero.
This
will
proceed
to
the
city
council
on
February
6th.
Thank
you,
Mr
ramler
Olson.
We
will
then
move
on
to
item
number
three
again.
The
city
of
Bloomington
is
the
applicant.
This
is
not
a
public
hearing.
Rather
a
study
item
for
the
Planning
Commission
Mr
Johnson.
You
have
the
staff
report
for
the
sign
ordinance,
update.
I
Thank
you,
chairman
cookton
and
members
of
the
Planning
Commission
nice
to
see
you
this
evening.
I
should
note
that
I
also
have
with
me
assistant,
City
Attorney
Kevin
toskey,
he's
going
to
participate
in
the
presentation
with
me
and
talk
about
some
legal
considerations
as
they
pertain
to
signage.
So
let
me
share
my
screen
here.
I
And
we'll
get
started
so
just
a
quick
agenda
slide.
What
we
plan
to
talk
about
here
this
evening
with
respect
to
signage
and
the
sign
ordinance,
we'll
talk
briefly
about
some
of
the
background
in
history,
about
our
existing
sign
ordinance,
we'll
talk
about
what
the
primary
goals
are,
that
staff
have
identified
in
order
to
make
this
project
successful.
I
We'll
talk
a
little
bit
about
some
of
the
engagement
and
research
that
staff
is
completing
in
order
to
try
and
be
inclusive
in
our
process,
but
also
get
the
best
product
and
the
most
kind
of
modern
and
effective
signage.
Provisions
attorney
toskey
will
talk
about
the
legal
considerations,
recent
case
law,
so
some
analysis
being
done
on
our
existing
sign
ordinance
and
then
we'll
get
into
kind
of
the
more
interactive
part
of
the
event.
I
I
So
what
is
the
sign
ordinance?
This
might
be
clear
to
most
of
you
or
all
of
you,
but
also
for
the
members
of
the
public.
The
the
city
code
has
a
dedicated
article
in
our
zoning
code
that
deals
with
everything
pertaining
to
signage
and,
generally
speaking,
sign
ordinances,
regulate
expression.
They
provide
standards
and
requirements
for
all
commercial
and
non-commercial
speech
that
take
the
form
of
Science.
I
Of
course,
generally
speaking,
all
Community
signed
ordinances
represent
some
type
of
balance
between
allowing
for
more
or
less
expression,
while
also
balancing
Public,
Safety
and
Community
Aesthetics.
So
when
we
talk
about
safety,
certainly
in
the
era
of
you
know,
cell
phones
there's
a
lot
of
discussion
about
distracted
driving,
well
signs,
really,
it
was
really
the
original
form
of
distracted
driving
in
terms
of
balancing
Public
Safety.
You
know
signs
and
vision
triangles
can
present
a
visual
obstruction
that
can
present
A
Hazard.
I
So,
just
in
terms
of
the
background
in
history,
the
last
full-scale
overhaul
of
the
city's
sign
ordinance
was
in
1996..
It
was
a
little
bit
of
an
interesting
process
in
that
the
city
appointed
several
members
of
a
kind
of
community
working
group
that
became
I
forget
what
the
the
name
of
it
is
in
the
staff
report,
I'm
blanking
at
it
right
now,
but
effectively
it
had
representation
for
many
different
types
of
businesses
around
the
community,
some
of
which
did
kind
of
inform
or
influence
some
of
the
standards
around
some
of
that
signage.
I
So
a
little
bit
of
an
interesting
approach
to
that.
Since
that
time
there
has
been
no
full-scale
comprehensive
review
of
the
signed
ordinance.
However,
that's
not
to
say
that's
similar
to
any
ordinance
we
have.
There
has
always
been
iterative
and
ongoing
updates
to
it
either
to
address
certain
particular
legal
considerations
or,
frankly,
just
as
the
activities
that
were
always
engaged
in
is
just
trying
to
make
it
better,
and
also
the
public
has
a
role
to
play
in
that.
I
Certainly
there
here
has
been
public
interest
and
feedback
about
certain
aspects
of
the
sign
ordinance
that
have
developed
over
time
and,
finally,
just
on
that
front,
I
guess
incorporating
new
signage
standards
for
some
of
our
newer
zoning
districts.
Some
of
our
zoning
districts
are
more
modern.
Some
of
our
mixed
use-
districts
we've
had
to
add
to
our
signed
ordinance
over
time
to
kind
of
address
those
different
types
of
zoning
districts
and
development
types.
I
So,
as
staff
goes
through
and
works
to
update
our
sign
ordinance,
we're
certainly
going
to
seek
a
lot
of
feedback
from
you
and
the
city
council
about
what
your
policy
preferences
are
on
certain
various
questions.
That
will
inform
the
draft
new
sign
ordinance,
but
as
we
got
as
we've
kind
of
gone
through,
this
we've
gone
through
an
extensive
preliminary
process
on
the
staff
and
of
things
identifying.
Okay,
what
are
the
problems?
Where
do
we
really
need
to
fix
things
and
what
are
really
our
goals
for
this
project
and
what?
I
What
all
of
those
discussions
boil
down
to?
Is
that
there's
three
primary
goals?
A
there's,
been
some
really
significant
case
law
in
the
last
few
years
that
Kevin
taskey
will
talk
about
here
in
a
minute,
and
then
we
need
to
really
pull
our
sign
ordinance
into
conformance
with
those
current
legal
standards.
We'll
talk
about
that.
The
second
important
goal
for
this
project
is
really
to
improve
the
clarity
and
reduce
the
complexity
of
our
current
side
and
ordinance.
It's
not
an
uncommon
occasion.
I
If
you
come
to
Civic
Plaza,
you
find
you
see,
planning
staff
in
a
conference
room
somewhere
having
a
lively
debate.
Sometimes
it's
about
a
certain
provision
of
the
side
and
ordinance
that
that
we
can't
seem
to
agree
on
for
whatever
reason.
So
there
are
instances
where
there's
just
a
little
bit
of
too
much
going
on
in
the
side
and
ordinance
that
makes
it
a
little
bit
too
complex.
So
we
just
do
definitely
want
to
make
it
as
clear
as
possible
and
then
just
improving
the
organization
and
formatting
of
it.
I
This
you
know,
certainly
not
everyday
residents
are
always
in
our
sign
ordinance.
It's
mostly
staff
and
sign
installers,
let's
be
honest,
but
in
businesses
and
things
along
those
lines,
but
we're
in
it
we're
in
it
every
day.
So,
we'd
like
it
to
to
function
a
little
bit
better
and
I
know
members
of
the
public
who
do
use.
It
would
appreciate
that
as
well.
Currently,
the
way
the
existing
site
and
ordinance
is
set
up
is
just
there's
a
lot
of
redundant
lists
of
performance
standards.
I
So
it's
quite
lengthy
and
there's
a
lot
of
ways
to
to
integrate
tables,
to
integrate
figures.
That
could
be
a
much
better
means
to
communicate
these
regulatory
standards,
so
that
would
be
the
third
primary
goal
if
we
so,
as
we
kind
of
evaluate
different
questions
that
we
encounter
as
we
think
about
our
new
standards,
we
kind
of
want
to
continue
to
refer
back
to
these
three
goals.
Is
it
reducing
complexity?
Is
it
more?
Is
it
better
organized
and
is,
in
conformance
with
current
legal
standards?
I
Those
are
questions
we're
going
to
continually
ask
ourselves,
as
we
evaluate
kind
of
the
direction
that
we
take
this
so
in
terms
of
an
anticipated
timeline,
we've
been
doing
research
engagement,
primarily
over
the
fall
here
and
into
the
early
winter.
We've
scheduled
these
study
sessions
now
that
we
feel
like
we're
at
a
a
decent
place
to
get
some
more
focused
feedback
from
you
and
the
city
council
about
some
policy
preference
questions,
one
following
those
study
sessions.
I
It
then
we'll
take
the
the
winter
here
to
draft
our
new
sign,
ordinance
and
draft
form,
of
course,
and
at
some
point
possibly
in
the
the
late
spring,
maybe
getting
into
early
summer.
We
would
consider
scheduling
some
public
hearings.
It's
a
little
bit
undetermined.
What
additional
study
sessions
might
be
appropriate
with
a
draft
ordinance
in
place,
we're
still
evaluating
that,
but
that's
certainly
something
we
can
report
back
on,
but
this
just
gives
you
kind
of
a
rough
timeline
of
what
we
would
be
looking
at
in
terms
of
our
current
process.
J
A
good
evening,
chair
and
members,
my
name
is
Kevin
taskey,
as
you
know,
I'm
a
assistant,
City
attorney,
I
work
with
planning
and
the
rest
of
the
Community
Development
Department
yeah,
just
kind
of
a
legal
introduction,
I
think
most
cities
around
the
country
regulate
signage
through
their
their
land
use
and
Zoning
codes.
It's
kind
of
the
easiest
way
to
do
it,
but
what
that
does
is
introduces
kind
of
more
complexity.
Obviously,
because
Nick
talked
about
what
signage
is
is
part
of.
J
J
There
has
been
a
couple
cases
over
the
past
seven
years
or
so
that
have
kind
of
shook
the
signage
world
and
sent
a
lot
of
cities
scrambling
to
take
a
look
at
their
zoning
code
or
their
sign
codes
again,
just
for
conformance
with
what
the
Supreme
Court
was
saying.
So
we
had
Reed
versus
town
of
Gilbert
was
in
2015..
J
What
that
case
said
was
that,
if
your
sign
ordinance
differentiates
between
signs
based
on
the
message
or
the
content,
basically,
if
you
have
to
read
the
sign
to
determine
how
it's
regulated,
that's
going
to
be
a
major
First,
Amendment
problem
and
the
court
will,
in
99
of
the
cases
strike
that
ordinance
down.
If
it,
if
it
ref,
does
any
regulation
based
on
the
content
of
a
sign,
so
that
was
read
versus
town
of
Gilbert.
J
What
you
saw
in
the
past
was
that
a
lot
of
cities
would
just
Define
say
a
political
sign
as
saying
X,
Y
and
Z
going
forward,
that's
going
to
be
a
problem
after
Reed
versus
town
of
Guild
Albert.
So
that's
why
a
lot
of
cities
went
back
to
their
drawing
board.
Bloomington
has
done
some
piecemeal
kind
of
ordinance
updates
since
2015
to
kind
of
deal
with
that,
but
like
Nick
talked
about
this
is
our
comprehensive
review
of
that.
J
So,
moving
on
just
last
year
was
the
city
of
Austin
versus
Reagan,
Outdoor
Advertising,
which
was
a
case
involving
Billboards
in
the
city
of
Austin
Texas,
and
the
Supreme
Court
in
that
case
said
that
an
off-premise
versus
on-premise
distinction
is
still
valid
and
it's
it's
not
content
based.
So
what
Austin
did
similar
to
what
we
do
in
Bloomington
is
that
any
new
billboard
is
prohibited
in
any
expansion
of
a
billboard
has
to
come
into
consider
conformance
with
current
sign
standards
similar
to
what
we
do
here
and
the
card
said.
Yeah,
that's
fine!
J
J
So
we're
working
with
the
green
espa
Law
Firm,
one
of
their
attorneys
John
Baker,
who
I've
kind
of
met
through
just
City
attorney
stuff
in
Minnesota,
is
kind
of
a
national
expert
on
signage
and
land
use
cases.
He
litigates
and
advises
cities
around
the
country
on
land
use
issues
and
has
done
a
number
of
presentations
and
kind
of
manuals,
unsigned
code
updates
for
other
cities
and
states.
So
we're
working
with
him
and
I've
kind
of
went
through
and
kind
of
looked
for
problems
in
our
code
and
kind
of
done.
J
Some
preliminary
work
on
the
legal
end.
Then.
What
we'll
talk
about
tonight
is
more
of
policy
issues
so
kind
of
the
direction
we
want
to
go.
You
know
what
do
you
want
for
as
far
as
science
signage?
How
is
it
calculated
that
type
of
thing,
whereas
I
was
looking
at
say,
you
know
making
sure
our
con
or
signs
aren't
content
based
how
our
non-conformity
is
going
to
be
treated?
J
How
do
we
do
sign
code
variances,
those
type
of
more
media
legal
issues,
of
what
I've
been
looking
at,
so
we
kind
of
have
a
good
base
of
reference
now
and
we're
ready
to
kind
of
move
into
the
next
phase
of
the
project,
just
kind
of
a
summary
of
kind
of
the
First
Amendment
issues
that
we
want
to
look
at
with
sine
codes.
Is
that
a
so
the
First
Amendment
does
apply
will
have
to
be?
J
Can
you
know
it'll
it'll
inform
all
our
decision,
making
going
forward
on
sign
regulation
kind
of
number
two
is
that
you
don't
want
to
favor
any
non-commercial
speed
or
favor
any
commercial
speech
over
non-commercial
speech.
So
we're
looking
for
instances
of
that
in
our
code
we
have
a
section
that
exempts
certain
categories
of
signage
from
permitting
regulations
so
that
that's
kind
of
a
source
where
that,
where
that
problem
can
come
up,
you
know
if
you're
exempting
certain
types
of
signage,
whereas
other
signage
requires
a
permit.
J
There's
a
potential
for
some
for
some
issues
there.
So
what
we
really
want
to
do
is
is
make
sure
that
we're
regulating
signage
based
on
kind
of
what's
happening
on
the
property
rather
than
what's
happening
on
the
sign
and
so
I
guess,
basically
we're
just
trying
to
go
through
and
and
kind
of
apply
those
principles
throughout
our
code.
J
So
we
can
kind
of
have
a
good
base
of
what
we're
doing
now
and
then,
like
I,
said
Nick
and
and
we'll
get
some
feedback
from
you
tonight
about
how
we
want
to
do
policy
wise
with
you
know:
setbacks,
sign
sizes.
How
is
it
calculated
and
that
type
of
stuff
those
regulations
are
always
viewed
under
kind
of
a
lesser
constitutional
threshold
or
test
where
we
to
be
challenged.
I
I
So
moving
forward
just
a
kind
of
a
note
about
some
of
the
engagement
we've
done
and
some
of
the
research
that
we're
performing
so
engagement
around
side
ordinances
can
be
a
little
bit
odd
or
outside
the
norm
of
as
I
said
earlier,
that
it
kind
of
is
a
topic
that
represents
a
very
specific
and
focused
group
of
people,
whether
it
be
businesses
or
sign
installers.
Certainly,
staff
is
part
of
that
too,
but
in
terms
of
the
Outreach
we've
done
done
to
date.
I
So
one
of
the
things
that
we
did
is
that
we
cured
a
list
of
all
the
parties.
Who've
been
issued
a
signed
permit
at
the
city
of
Bloomington
in
the
last
five
years
and
that
turned
out
being
113
different
parties,
so
we
sent
them
a
sign.
Ordinance
survey,
trying
to
get
a
an
understanding
of
you
know,
is
this
really
more
of
an
internal
staff
perception
some
of
the
challenges
that
we
have,
that
we
perceive
or
is
it
something
that's
widely
viewed
out
in
kind
of
the
signage
Community?
I
Unfortunately,
only
six
people
per
completed
the
survey.
The
results
surprised
us
a
little
bit:
they,
they
were
kind
of
demonstrating
a
certain
level
of
satisfaction
with
bloomington's
sign
ordinance
if
I
had
to
guess
what
that's
about
I
think
that's
more
reflective
of
the
fact
that
many
cities
need
to
update
their
signed
ordinances
and
that
many
cities
signed
ordinances
are
kind
of
a
redundant
list
of
never-ending
standards.
That's
my
guess,
but
some
did
some
did
present
some
interesting
ideas
for
us
to
consider.
As
we
draft
our
signed
ordinances.
I
For
example,
some
cities
exempt
face
changes
in
terms
of
doing
sign,
permits,
I'm,
not
I,
certainly
wouldn't
commit
one
way
or
the
other
that
here,
but
just
you
know
they
presented
some
interesting
ideas
and
some
of
their
comments
we'll
take
that
into
account.
Another
thing
we
did
is
that
we
did
send
a
survey
out
to
30
Metro
cities
or
30
kind
of
peer
communities
here
in
the
Twin
Cities
metro
area,
and
really
what
we're
identifying
with
that.
I
One
is
trying
to
answer
some
really
key
specific
policy
questions
that
relate
to
the
Bloomington
ornament
evidence
as
well
as
get
a
sense
of
what
communities
have
recently
updated
their
signage
standards.
In
a
more
comprehensive
way
and
then
specifically
asking
the
staffs
of
those
organizations
how
they
view
the
effectiveness
of
their
sign
ordinance,
so
we
wouldn't
want
to
be
pulling
from
signed
ordinances
or
pulling
ideas
or
referencing
them
from
a
research
and
Analysis
standpoint
if
they're
not
well,
not
well
viewed
by
their
own
staff
who
Implement
them.
So
that
was
helpful
in
that
regard.
I
I
In
addition
to
that,
we
did,
we
did
a
table
at
the
Bloomington
Farmers
Market.
No
one
wanted
to
talk
to
me
about
the
signed
ordinance.
So
I
was
a
little
disappointing
or
expected
I,
don't
know
which
but
yeah
so
that
that's
some
of
the
Outreach
we've
done
in
terms
of
the
the
research
that
we're
doing
so.
I
Certainly
there
is
a
whole
assortment
of
kind
of
best
practice
and
best
concept,
research
out
there
around
signed
ordinances
and
we're
certainly
collecting
that
in
fact,
John
Baker
recommended
it
had
some
good
recommendations
for
us
in
that
regard.
In
addition
to
that,
we're
also
studying
and
researching
side
ordinances
from
other
local
and
National
jurisdictions
that
are
viewed
with
a
high
level
of
Effectiveness
and
legal
Conformity
to
today's
standards.
I
So
it's
kind
of
a
collection
of
you
know:
there
is
model
ordinances
out
there,
I
put
that
more
in
the
best
practices
and
Concepts
category,
and
then
it's
identifying
cities
that
are
more
that
have
some
similarities
to
Bloomington,
but
also
have
a
recently
updated
and
effective
sign
ordinance.
So
that
kind
of
gives
you
you
the
flavor
of
how
we're
pulling
some
of
our
ideas
and
standards
so
for
now
we're
kind
of
moving
it
more
into
the
interactive
part
of
the
presentation.
So
we're
going
to
ask
I
forget:
is
it
4,
14
or
11?
I
I
forget
the
number
of
questions.
It
was
four
yeah
that
sounds
right,
but
we've
got
a
number
of
questions
around
these
different
topics
that
we're
seeking
feedback
from
and
in
order
to
get
that
feedback.
We
certainly
can
discuss
things
and
answer.
Questions
back
and
forth
and
I'll
try
and
provide
a
kind
of
a
summary
level
explanation
of
what
we're
looking
for
and
what
the
topic
really
calls
for
as
we
go
through
it,
but
we're
going
to
try
this
polling
activity
using
using
some
equipment
called
Turning
Point.
I
It's
it's
equipment
that
the
city
has
had
for
a
while.
Recently
the
use
of
virtual
meeting
environments
kind
of
went
away
from
that,
but
now,
of
course
we're
all
back
in
person.
So
we
thought
we'd
get
a
kind
of
dust
off
the
cobwebs
of
it
and
see
if
it
will
work.
So
the
the
there's
a
picture
on
the
slide
of
what
the
clicker
looks
like.
Basically,
all
the
buttons
are
either
numerical
or
letters
all
the
polls
that
we'll
have
for
you
this
evening.
Our
letter
buttons.
I
What
you're
going
to
watch
for
is
that,
on
my
slide,
there'll
be
a
small
toolbar
which
I
have
in
the
center
of
the
slide
up
in
the
top
right
portion
of
the
screen,
and
it
has
that
small
polling
button
on
the
far
right
hand
of
it
it'll
either
say:
pull
close
or
pull
open.
The
pole
closes
in
red
and
the
pole
open
is
in
green.
So
when
it's
green,
it
means
that
we
can.
We
can
collect
your
results.
I
I
A
I
That
chair
cooked
and
that's
a
good
question
so
in
in
combination
with
you
and
the
city
council,
that'll
bump
up
the
numbers
a
little
bit
and
if
it's
something
that
it
can
becomes
more
of
a
a
tie,
vote
scenario,
then
I
think
it
might
solicit
some
conversation
and
discussion
about.
Why
those
why
that
is
and
why
you
know,
what's
informing
the
kind
of
preferences
that
are
at
play.
I
I
Thank
you
Emily.
Those
are
all
live,
then
ready
to
go
okay.
So
what
we're
gonna
do
to
see
if
this
actually
works
and
I
should
mention?
If,
if
it
does,
the
equipment
does
not
work,
we're
going
to
have
you
fill
out
a
piece
of
paper
so
much
less
exciting
or
for
maybe
I,
don't
know
if
the
maybe
we'll
raise
hands
just
so
everyone
can,
and
maybe
that
would
not
be
anonymous,
so
that
would
be
a
bummer,
but
so
there
is
a
backup
plan.
I
Hopefully
this
works,
but
here
is
our
first
test
poll
catch
question.
So
now
the
poll
is
open.
You
can
press
your
response
if
you
point
it
at
my
computer
over
here
and
I've
got
one
response,
three
still
waiting
on
one
okay,
so
four
responses.
What
is
your
favorite
mode
of
transportation?
I
know
what
I
would
pick,
but
I
will
see
what
you
say:
oops,
oh
no.
I
I
You
can
change
your
response
to
in
the
middle,
so
I
won't
jump
again
this
time.
My
apologies
just
takes
a
minute
after
we
advance.
So
three
at
75
percent
of
you
bike
is
your
favorite
mode
of
Transportation.
That's
mine
too!
That's
what
I
would
have
said.
So
that's
just
a
test
that
has
nothing
to
do
with
science,
for
the
record.
I
Okay.
So
getting
so
now
that
we
know
that
this
works
we're
going
to
actually
get
into
the
get
into
the
actual
questions
that
we're
interested
in
learning
from
you,
and
so
the
first
question
we
want
to
ask
is
just
in
terms
of
your
own
perception
traveling
through
the
city
of
Bloomington,
just
just
so
everyone's
aware
so
freestanding.
Steins
includes
ground
signs.
Monument
signs
pylon
signs.
The
range
of
sign
allowance
from
a
size
standpoint
in
the
city
of
Bloomington
ranges
significantly.
I
It's
determined
by
whichever
sign
District
you
are
in,
which
is
tied
to
the
underlying
zoning
and
allowed
land
uses.
So,
for
example,
residential
sites
are
going
to
have
much
lower
allowances
for
freestanding
signs
and
wall
signs
or
building
signs
for
that
matter
than
our
commercial
sites,
and
I
would
also
note
that
in
some
of
our
commercial
sites
actually
having
proximity
to
Interstate,
494
or
35W
or
Highway
77,
that
also
does
inform
increases
in
a
loud
sign
size.
I
So
the
first
question
we
want
to
ask
specifically
about
freestanding
signs
is
just
about
your
perceptions
about
how
the
current
Bloomington
Side
ordinance
is
operating
now
and
while
we
might
talk
about
different
methodologies
to
calculate
allowed
signage
for
well
more
specifically
for
building
signs,
but
we're
really
getting
at
here
is
is
the
existing
kind
of
condition
working
well
for
the
city
of
Bloomington.
So
with
that
the
poll
is
open.
So
our
are
the
existing
signs
freestanding
signs
in
Bloomington,
too
small,
just
right
or
too
large,
okay,
so
we're
getting
some
consistency
or
consensus
there.
I
So
the
next
question
moving
on
to
building
signs,
currently,
the
existing
Bloomington
sign
ordinance
regulates
building
signs
by
the
specific
type
of
sign.
That
is,
with
the
exception
of
wall
and
projecting
signs,
have
some
cross
appeal.
But
with
the
other
than
that
there
are,
there
are
several
different
building
sign
types
in
the
Bloomington
sign
ordinance,
there's
wall
signs,
there's
awning
signs,
there's
canopy
signs,
there's
portica,
share
signs,
they're,
separate
allowances
for
entrance
signs
in
different
sign
districts
and
different
uses.
So
again,
as
we
kind
of
go
through
these
questions.
I
Think
about
those
three
goals
that
I
talked
about
at
the
beginning
of
the
presentation.
One
of
our
goals
is
really
to
reduce
complexity,
kind
of
eliminate
so
much
of
the
redundancy,
and
that
is
occurring
there,
and
so
our
question
with
respect
to
this
is:
should
we
create
an
overall
allowance
for
building
signs
per
building
elevation
or
per
Frontage,
or
did?
Does
the
the
Planning
Commission
Council
appreciate
or
prefer
the
current
situation,
which
is
having
dedicated
allowances
by
sign
type?
So
that's
the
question.
I
Mr
Johnson.
Can
you
explain
the
word
allowance
allowances
so
every
wall,
every
building
in
in
Bloomington,
depending
on
the
use,
depending
on
the
sign
District
that
it's
in
again,
which
is
tied
to
zoning
I,
didn't
talk
about
sign
districts,
a
lot
it
was
in
the
report.
If
you
want
me,
I
can
talk
about
sign
districts
I
might
have
to
if
I
keep
referencing
it
here
this
evening.
But
allowance
is
the
size
of
the
sign.
The
square
footage
your
x
x,
business
is
allowed
to
have
200
square
feet
on
a
given
building
elevation.
I
That's
kind
of
the
pot
by
which
they're
erecting
wall
signs
and
I
would
I
would
note
one
thing
we
as
you
can
think
about,
as
we
think
about
sign
sizes.
It's
kind
of
it's
not
frequent
that
businesses
maximize
their
full
allowance
according
to
our
existing
ordinance,
but
that's
something
we'll
think
about
when
we
draft
our
standards,
so
so,
in
other
words
on
this
one,
just
should
the
new
ordinance
just
to
have
building
signage
more
generically,
or
should
we
continue
to
have
separate
allowances
by
type.
I
Okay,
75
25,
okay,
we'll
keep
that
in
mind,
then
this
next
question
has
to
do
with
how
we
calculate
building
sign
area.
So
currently
the
sign
ordinance
calculates
this
is
most
specifically
utilized
for
wall
signs,
but
our
wall,
signage
allowances,
chair,
cooked
and
asked
that
question
before
what
is
an
allowance?
It's
really
the
size
of
the
sign
and
what
is
it
calculated,
based
on?
I
Currently,
it's
calculated
calculated
based
on
wall
area
up
to
a
maximum
level
of
height,
many
other
sign
ordinances
calculate
calculated
based
on
linear
Frontage
or
the
linear
length
of
the
building
wall,
as
opposed
to
doing
an
area.
One
of
the
challenges
with
doing
a
calculating
it
by
a
percentage
of
a
wall
area
is
that
oftentimes
buildings
are
obviously
in
not
uniformly
shaped
in
any
given
one
way.
Here's
an
example
where
this
particular
property
actually
has.
I
I
Thank
you,
wow
must
have
been
a
long
week.
Thank
you,
so
here's
an
example
where
some
of
these
decorative
parapets
actually
artificially
create
more
sign
wall
area
for
a
building.
In
addition
to
create
some
interesting
measurement
considerations,
it's
not,
as
if
staff
doesn't
have
the
ability
and
the
technology
to
accurately
calculate
these
types
of
areas,
it
just
adds
a
little
bit
layer
of
complexity
that
makes
it
a
little
more
complex
than
necessary.
I
In
addition
to
that,
what
I
would
say
is
that
in
a
situation
that
we
get
a
lot
often
very
often
the
case
is
multi-tenant
retail
centers
if
oftentimes
it's
very
easy
to
dig
up
the
drawings
from
the
building
with
respect
to
linear
tenant
Frontage,
as
opposed
to
having
full
architectural
drawings
of
a
building.
So
it's
a
little
bit
easier
for
the
sign
installer
and
for
the
business
owner
to
kind
of
know
what
their
allowance
is
going
into
it.
It
reduces
some
of
that
friction
that
regulatory
friction
on
the
front
end.
I
F
A
F
I
We
do
chair
cooked
and
commissioner
goldsman,
we
do
the
height
does
matter,
but
we
cap
it.
So
the
existing
sign
ordinance
is
capped
at
25
feet.
So
when
you
calculate
a
wall
area
for
the
purposes
of
the
allowance
of
the
amount
of
signage,
it's
the
linear,
Frontage
say
it's
a
60
foot
tall
building.
We
would
still
cap
it
at
25
feet,
and
so
it's
it
would
be.
You
know
whatever
the
length
of
the
building
is
times
25
at
that
instant.
So
we
do
cap.
It.
F
I
I
Okay,
correct
and
if
and
let
me
back
up
a
little
bit
to
explain
that
a
little
bit
further
before
you
answer
the
question
and
what
that
what
that
would
mean
is
that
there
would
also
be
a
multiplication
Factor.
So
the
way
that
the
existing
sign
ordinance
uses
wall
area.
Is
it
multiplies
it
by
a
percentage
depending
on
how
much
signage
is
allowed
in
that
particular
sign
District?
I
So
four
percent
of
wall
area
can
be
your
sign,
eight
percent,
whatever
the
case
may
be,
what
a
linear
Frontage
Factor
does
is
it
also
has
a
multiplication
Factor
usually
like
one
to
one,
so
one
you
get
one
for
every
foot
of
Frontage
you
get.
You
get
a
square
foot
of
signage.
For
example,
you
had
a
40
foot
long
bill.
I
You
get
40
square
feet
in
a
high
in
a
more
intense
type
of
District
you
might,
it
might
be
1.5
times
the
linear,
Frontage
or
two
times,
even
in
a
very
kind
of
commercial
heavy
type
District.
So
those
factors
there
isn't
so
similar
to
wall
area,
there's
also
a
multiplication
factor
and
that's
what
that's?
What
becomes
the
lever
by
which
you
decide
how
much
signage
a
property
is
allowed
say
in
a
residential
area?
I
I
This
one
is
signed
construction,
so
this
one
this
one
has
a
little
bit
more
clear,
Visual
and
aesthetic
consideration.
So
I
feel
like
this.
One
is
a
good
one
to
ask
the
public
kind
of
their
perspectives
on
and
get
some
good
feedback
from
Planning
Commission
and
Council.
So
there's
two
basic
types
of
building
signs:
there's
cabinet
signs,
which
is
usually
like
a
rigid
geometric
shape.
That's
backlit,
typically,
the
the
sign
on
the
bottom
part
of
the
slide,
the
Best
Friends
Animal
Hospital.
I
That's
an
example
of
a
cabinet
sign
and
the
other
form
of
a
typical
wall
or
building
sign
would
be
what's
called
Channel
letter
construction
type
sign
and
those
are
individual
cut
letters
that
also
have
typically
they're
lit
they're,
not
always
lit,
but
they
are
they,
as
you
can
see,
in
Grand
Sichuan,
for
example,
or
in
GNC
and
the
other,
the
top
portion
of
the
slide.
Those
are
individually
cut,
letters
that
are
mounted
on
a
signed
band
and
so
that
that
kind
of
gives
you
an
idea.
I
So
currently
the
blooming
10
sign
ordinance
does
not
allow
a
mixing
of
these
sign
Types
on
the
same
wall
or
the
same
building.
There
is
a
Prohibition
against
mixing
cabinet
and
channel
letter
signs.
We
do
have
some
non-conforming
situations
in
the
community,
but
so
here
on
the
slide,
we
have
three
examples.
You
have
a
channel,
only
situation,
a
cabinet
sign
situation
on
the
top
right,
both
of
those
would
be
permitted
by
code
and
then
on
the
bottom
portion
of
the
slide.
I
You
see
a
situation
that
is
currently
non-conforming
legally
so,
but
is
non-conforming,
and
so
one
of
the
questions
we
kind
of
want
to
want
to
key
into
is
whether
or
not
a
mixing
of
sign
types
is
an
acceptable
arrangement
in
the
future
sign
ordinance,
a
couple
things
to
think
about
really.
This
is
really
more
of
an
aesthetic
consideration
versus
more
of
a
kind
of
property
owner
preference
type
situation,
one
thing
to
think
about
route,
Channel
cut
and
I.
I
Don't
think
this
should
drive
the
bus
on
this
necessarily
but
Channel
letter
signs
are
tend
to
be
more
expensive
than
cabinet
signs.
So
there
is
maybe
an
equity
component
to
that,
but
really
what
we're
getting
is
oftentimes
a
particular
business
that
moves
into
a
multi-tenant
center
has
a
sign
that
they
have
implemented
elsewhere
or
want
to
utilize
and
in
some
cases,
because
the
pattern
of
the
existing
building
is
already
either
one
or
the
other
channel
or
cabinet.
They
can't
implement
the
sign
that
they
desire
some
on
the
property
owner
side
of
things.
I
I
would
say
that
it's
very
mixed,
some
property
owners
are
very
have
very,
do
have
strong
preferences
about
that,
and
in
that
case
there
still
is
that
private
interaction
between
them,
the
property
owner,
is
still
going
to
be
able
to
dictate
in
some
cases
what
type
of
sign
they
erect.
But
there
are
Property
Owners,
also
who
who
don't
have
strong
preferences
in
that
regard
and
are
more
focused
on
just
getting
the
tenant
moved
in
and
operating.
I
Okay
sounds
good
continuity,
so
moving
forward
I
use
space
signage.
This
is
a
this
only
relates
to
a
few
distinct
uses
in
Bloomington,
but
I
as
I
was
sharing
with
you
before
about
kind
of
some
of
the
history,
not
that
all
of
the
special
use,
signage
Provisions
in
the
existing
ordinance
were
based
on
kind
of
the
community
working
group
that
worked
on
it.
Some
of
them
may
or
may
not
have
been,
but
one
of
the
things
that
the
Bloomington
Side
Normans
has
is
special
standards
for
special
uses.
I
So
we
want
to
make
sure
that
that's
in
line
with
Planning,
Commission
and
Council
desires
and
goals
I'm
happy
to
discuss
it
more
if,
if
need
be,
but
the
poll
is
open
on
this
one
as
well,
so
the
question
would
be:
can
we
should
we
eliminate
use-based
signs
where
feasible
and
we
still
need
to
do
some
evaluation
on
our
end
on
which
ones
we
think
can
be
eliminated?
Okay,
thank
you.
I
The
next
topics
we're
going
to
have
four
questions
on
electronic
science.
These
are
very
popular
signage
discussions
and
so
in
many
different
communities,
they
simply
refer
to
these
sign
types
as
electronic
signs
or
dynamic
signs.
Some
communities
do
break
out
the
different
types
of
electronic
or
dynamic
signs
and
Bloomington
happens
to
be
one
of
those
communities.
I
In
our
sign
ordinance.
We
have
them
broken
out
based
on
changeable
Copy,
Type
signs
versus
Graphic
Signs.
There
are
also
video
signs.
Those
are
subject
to
separate
standards.
I
don't
have
slides
prepared
to
that.
I
certainly
can
discuss
those
standards
if
you
like,
but
really
what
we're
going
to
focus
on
the
next
couple.
Slides
are
these
changeable
copy
versus
Graphic
Signs,
and
so
the
first
question
would
be
and
I
feel
like.
I
Some
of
these
questions
are
interrelated,
so
there's
not
a
perfect
order
to
do
them
in,
but
maybe
we
can
kind
of
have
a
Roundup
discussion
about
these
next
couple.
Questions
at
the
end,
but
the
question
in
this
case
is:
should
the
city
maintain
two
distinct
types
of
electronic
signs
and
before
we
do,
the
poll
I
want
to
emphasize
that
the
reason
that
some
cities
differentiate
them
is
that
the
visual
impact
of
these
sign
types
is
more
with
graphic
type.
Science
versus
changeable
copy,
changeable
copy,
simply
a
dark
background
with
text.
I
Typically
so
poll
question:
should
multiple
electronic
sign
types
be
maintained
in
our
future?
Sign
ordinance
pulls
open
everyone's
getting
fast
at
putting
in
their
preferences.
That's
great,
so
preference
is
more
towards
no
in
this
category.
We'll
talk
about
it
more
at
the
end,
should
electronic
graphic
display
signs
be
allowed
in
residential
districts
So.
Currently,
the
only
types
of
electronic
signs
allowed
at
your
place
of
assembly
at
your
city
park
sites
that
are
zoned
R1
are
the
changeable
copy
signs.
I
The
graphics
type
signs
currently
are
not
allowed
per
the
sign
ordinance,
and
one
of
the
questions
would
be
is
whether
it
be
subject
to
standards
or
not.
What
should
there
be
allowances
for
Graphic
Signs
in
in
our
residential
districts?
One
thing
I
will
share
about
these
sign
types
that,
as
the
technology
continues
to
improve
the
signs,
are
also
becoming
a
little
bit
more
affordable
from
a
price
point
standpoint.
I
You
know
with
like
daktronics
and
other
types
of
Technologies.
Now
previously
there
was
more
more
and
more
in
the
guts
of
assign
in
order
to
make
it
a
Graphic
Signs.
Nowadays,
with
the
way
the
technology
is
going,
it's
pretty
simple
able
to
trans
any
sign
that
can
do
change
or
copy
in
many
cases
can
also
do
Graphics,
that's
kind
of
the
direction
that
some
of
it
is
going.
But
that
being
said,
you
know
again
thinking
about
visual
impact.
Should
these
sign
types
with
Graphics
be
allowed
in
residential
districts.
I
Great
split
on
that
one
okay
sounds
good,
so
the
next
one
has
to
do
with
an
issue
surrounding
Public,
Safety
and
kind
of
traveling
safety.
There's
also
some
aesthetic
considerations
here,
but
one
of
the
key
regulatory
factors
in
electronic
science
has
to
do
with
static
dwell
time,
and
the
reason
being
is
that
what
it
really
means
is
the
frequency
at
which
the
sine
phase
is
changing
on
these
electronic
signs.
In
the
case
of
changeable
copy,
it's
just
simply
a
message:
the
change
of
Graphics.
It's
a
changing
image
that
can
go
quite
quickly.
I
The
city
standards
are
that
changeable
copy
science
can
change
every
eight
seconds
for
graphics.
It's
a
a
static
dwell
time
of
20
minutes
in
terms
of
what's
happening
out
in
the
Twin
Cities
I've
done
less
research
about
this
topic
nationally,
but
in
the
Twin
Cities
the
range
is
actually
pretty
staggering.
How
disparate
or
how
varied
it
is.
You'll,
see
some
cities
with
standards
and
actually
the
seconds
for
graphics
or,
and
they
maybe
most
likely
in
those
cases,
have
just
one
type
of
electronic
sign.
I
If
you
were
to
go
to
a
one
of
the
considerations
for
going
to
just
one
type
of
electronic
sign
from
a
regulatory
perspective
is
that
that
would
make
it
difficult
for
you,
then,
to
kind
of
differentiate
between
those
two
sign
types
from
a
static
dwell
time
perspective,
so
something
to
think
about.
But
basically
the
question
we
want
you
to
answer
here
is:
should
we
retain
our
existing
dwell
time
standards,
or
should
we
reduce
dwell
time
for
graphic
display
signs?
So
that's
the
question
A
or
B.
In
that
respect,.
I
Okay,
retain
the
current
standards
sounds
good,
so
in
researching
some
other
communities
as
well.
There's
some
components
that
the
city
of
Bloomington
does
not
is
not
currently
actively
included
in
the
the
Bloomington
signed
ordinance
in
some
communities.
They
do
have
size
restrictions
in
terms
of
the
size
of
electronic
sign.
They
can
have
that
might
be
a
proportionality
test
like
it
can
only
be
50
percent
of
the
max
sign
size
or
it
can,
or
it
might
just
be
a
flat
number
like
in
this
District.
I
The
largest
electronic
sign
you
can
have
is
50
square
feet,
for
example,
so
there's
different
ways
to
do
it.
Bloomington
doesn't
currently
have
a
size
restriction.
Your
allowance
for
electronic
signage,
just
mirrors,
that
of
which
your
either
your
freestanding
sign
or
your
wall
sign,
can
be
swapped
out.
I
I
Basically,
senior
planner
londel
p
is
informed
me
that
actually,
under
some
State
energy
code
and
other
other
codes,
they're
actually
supposed
to
be
doing
that
anyway,
but
because
that's
not
a
city
ordinance,
it
would
be
something
to
contemplate
if
that
were
a
standard,
particularly
in
proximity
to
residential
uses.
If
that's
something
that
we've
found
to
be
important,
it
might
be
worth
something
adding
to
the
zoning
code,
the
only
flip
side
or
challenge
associated
with
that
is
that
anything
you're
going
to
put
in
the
city
code.
I
You
better
be
willing
to
enforce
it
against,
and
typically
that
involves
nighttime
inspections,
so
that
that
is
a
consideration
there,
but
some
cities
are
doing
it
and
it's
something
that
can
sitter.
So
with
this
one
I
didn't
update
this
slide,
there's
actually
four
choices
here
on
this
one,
you
could
do
a
size
restriction.
You
could
do
an
operational
time
restriction
if
you
wanted
to
add
that
you
could
do
both
a
and
b
or
you
could
do
no
additional
restrictions
so
for
options
to
pick
from
here
and
the
poll
is
open.
I
So
this
one
might
be
a
little
bit
kind
of
Staff
being
in
its
own
head
a
little
bit
potentially
we'll
see
how
kind
of
how
much
the
public
Keys
into
this
one.
But
right
now,
currently,
we
have
what's
called
a
uniform
sign
design
process
in
Bloomington,
and
some
cities
have
a
similar
type
approval
process.
Some
do
not
what
it
really
is.
It
deals
with
signage
on
multi-tenant
buildings,
most
commonly
in
terms
of
basically
dedicating
what
the
signage
allowance
is
for
a
particular
tenant
space.
What
the
sign
construction
is
going
to
be.
I
You
know
some
of
them
dating
back
to
the
70s
and
80s
in
Bloomington,
even
specify
fonts
and
letter
sizes
like
they
can
be
very
specific
and
they
don't
have
to
be
from
a
regulatory
perspective,
but
that's
just
some
of
the
things
we
see
and
then
so
it's
multi-tenant
buildings,
it's
developments
with
multiple
building,
multiple
primary
buildings
that
the
signage
has
to
match
on
multiple
primary
buildings.
There
is
also
some
special
use:
signage
regulations
like
hotels
and
car
dealers
that
have
to
get
a
USD
per
our
code.
I
So
again,
just
thinking
about
trying
to
reduce
complexity
make
things
a
little
bit
more
streamlined.
It
does
require
a
land
use
approval
so,
as
you
know,
kind
of
similar
to
getting
a
signed
permit,
but
more
similar
to
getting
a
zoning
administrative
approval,
someone
has
to
submit
a
UNIF
uniform,
signed
design,
either
a
new
one
or
an
amendment
from
through
the
planning
and
zoning
department
prior
to
them,
getting
their
sign
permit.
So,
just
to
give
you
an
idea
of
like
kind
of
the
administrative
steps
that
are
necessary
so
with
this
particular
process.
I
Hopefully,
I
didn't
convolute
that
too
much
or
just
talk
a
bunch
of
gibberish,
but
basically
we're
asking
for
three
potential
scenarios.
One
would
be
to
remove
or
eliminate
usds
as
a
process.
Multi-Tenant
buildings
would
simply
be
regulated
by
their
linear
Frontage
or
their
wall
area,
whatever.
Ultimately,
we
select
in
that
regard,
and
that
would
kind
of
be
it.
I
We
do
have
some
who,
like
our
process
now,
that's
probably
not
the
majority
position,
but
some
do
kind
of
like,
like
the
fact
that
we
have
it
and
then
the
third
option
would
just
be
to
maintain
the
existing
structure
and
system,
as
is
so
really
you're.
Talking
about
elimination,
kind
of
an
optional
process
or
a
maintain.
The
existing
status
quo.
I
I
As
you
know,
they've
obviously
been
doing
a
lot
of
art
installations
around
Bloomington
and
one
of
the
issues
that's
kind
of
cropped
up
around
murals
is
that
there
are
it's
not
within
the
sign
organs,
but
there's
other
cities,
city
code
standards,
particularly
around
exterior
materials,
that
really
limit
or
preclude
the
installation
of
murals
on
buildings.
If
you
notice
a
lot
of
the
mural
installations,
around
town
have
been
done
on
screening
walls
on
the
highway
over
ramp
on
a
few
other
sites.
I
City
Hall
certainly
has
one,
but
that's
kind
of
the
exception,
not
the
common
and
the
way
our
exterior
material
standards
look
at
it
as
a
secondary
material.
Currently
that
you
can't
paint
directly
on
a
primary
material,
and
so
what
this
next
question
really
is
asking
it's
it's
a
very
general
question:
it's
should
staff
basically
pursue
some
city
code
amendments
and
the
adoption
of
a
murals
policy
in
order
to
facilitate
or
make
it
a
little
bit
easier
easier
from
a
regulatory
standpoint
to
install
murals.
So
really
it's
just.
I
I
One
of
the
cases
that
Kevin
talked
about
was
the
Austin
case
that
was
decided
recently
in
the
the
critical
element
element
of
that
is
off-premise,
signage
and
so
Billboards
new
Billboards
are
currently
prohibited
in
Bloomington.
A
lot
of
that
is
on
the
basis
of
aesthetic
considerations,
but
also
those
unto
their
definition
or
off-premises
signs.
You
know,
no
one
is
erecting
a
billboard
for
where
their
business
is
already
located.
It's
always
a
traveling
advertisement
or
message
of
expression.
I
Typically,
so
the
the
question
that
we
would
ask
around
Billboards
is
is
either
a
return
or
current
standards
as
they
exist,
which
is,
for
the
most
part
of
prohibition,
be
to
allow
additional
Billboards
subject
to
standards
or
C,
consider
opening
selected
areas
of
the
community
only
to
additional
Billboards.
So
those
are
the
three
options
that
we
would
suggest
in
this
particular
case.
The
poll
is
open.
I
I
So
that's
kind
of
the
end
of
the
polling
exercise.
Thank
you
for
participating
in
that
I.
Don't
know
how
smooth
that
went
or
didn't
go,
but
at
least
it's
a
way
to
kind
of
everyone
get
their
voice
in
and
kind
of,
a
more
expedited,
efficient
manner.
I'm
happy
to
take
questions
about
all
the
things
we
talked
about.
You
might
have
some
questions
or
discussion
items
about
it
in
terms
of
next
steps,
really
getting
heavy
in
the
Drafting
and
writing
mode.
So
at
some
point
we're
going
to
have
we
I
mean
the
assistant
attorneys.
I
B
A
I
A
I
I
A
lot
of
those
have
been
set
up
in
pretty
thoughtful
ways
in
terms
of
where
those
areas
are
located
and
kind
of
what
purpose
they
serve.
So,
for
example,
the
class
5
district
has
some
of
our
more
intense
retail
type
uses
so
C2
C3
kind
of
the
South
Towns
and
where
you're
going
to
have
freeway,
Frontage
and
kind
of
more
your
big
box
or
more
intense
commercial
type
activities.
So
it's
not
tied
to
any
Geographic
reason
or
Parcels
themselves.
What
it's
tied
to
is
the
underlying
zoning
District
very.
I
Anything
else
you
need
from
us
I,
don't
think
so.
No
we're
going
to
take
your
feedback,
we're
going
to
do
the
same
exercise
with
the
council,
we're
going
to
put
our
heads
together
following
that
and
if
we
strongly
disagree
with
you
in
any
certain
way,
we'll
make
sure
we
make
a
compelling
case
as
to
why
but
of
course,
honor
your
feedback.
Thank.
F
Thanks
chair
I
think
these
were
fun
and
I
know
that,
as
as
a
commission,
we're
very
usually
very
expressive,
and
we
can
talk
about
things
for
a
long
time,
and
this
was
a
very
concise
way
to
get
our
feedback.
So
I
thought
it
was
great
and
then
I
also
really
appreciated
the
visuals
that
you
provided.
It
helped
me
understand
what
you
were
saying
so
I
liked
the
presentation
and
I
liked
the
clicker
as
well.
I
I
A
All
right,
we
will
then
move
on
to
item
number
four,
which
is
the
consideration
of
approving
the
draft
meeting
minutes
from
three
different
previous
meetings
and
I.
Think
we're
going
to
take
these
one
by
one
with
our
reduced
amount
of
Commissioners
here
this
evening
and
I
will
be
leaning
again
on
Mr
Market,
to
remind
us
of
how
many
people
we
need
here
so
we'll
start
with
November
17th
Commissioners
president
of
that
meeting,
where
commissioner
Roman
commissioner
goldsman
commissioner
Abdi
myself
and
commissioner
McGovern
so
one
two.
A
D
A
A
A
Thank
you,
commissioner,
Albrecht
available
at
that
meeting
where
Paige
Roman
commissioner
goldsman
Nelly
Corman
commissioner
Albrecht
commissioner
Abdi
myself
and
commissioner
McGovern.
So
that
was
seven
of
us
and
we
have
four
here
this
evening,
so
we
could
vote
on
that
one
as
well
so
I
will
then
look
for
a
motion
for
the
December
8th
meeting.
A
D
A
D
Cookton
and
Commissioners
next
scheduled
meeting
is
January
26th.
However,
we
did
not
receive
any
applications
for
that
meeting
and
there
were
no
items
continued
tonight
to
that
meeting.
So
we'll
have
a
pretty
big
gap
here
until
February
16th
will
be
your
next
meeting
and
we
do
have
three
items
that
were
received
yesterday
for
that
agenda.
D
One
is
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
hockey
training
facility.
The
second
item
is
a
expansion
of
the
Luther
Hyundai
car
dealership,
and
the
third
item
is
a
potential
item.
It's
still
not
finalized,
whether
it
won't
be
on
the
agenda,
but
it
would
be
a
study
item
potentially
discussing
single
room
occupancy
standards,
which
is
on
your
work
plan
for
2023.