►
From YouTube: July 1, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting
Description
Planning Commission Meeting
A
Good
evening
and
welcome
to
the
boy
july
1st,
2021
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
decision
authority
and
others.
The
city
council
has
final
decision
authority.
A
The
planning
commission
is
made
up
of
seven
volunteers
that
are
appointed
by
the
city
council
to
serve
up
to
three
years
at
a
time
tonight.
Two
of
those
members
will
be
sworn
in
for
their
second
term
of
three
years
tonight,
though,
we
only
have
three
items
on
the
agenda:
none
of
those
being
a
public
hearing.
So
before
we
start,
if
we
can
stand
and
say
the
pledge
of
allegiance
pledge
allegiance
to
the
flag
of
the
united
states
of
america
and.
A
That
would
help
if
the
microphone
was
on,
I
suppose
all
right.
So
tonight
again
we
have
three
items
and
because
the
emergency
order
has
now
been
lifted
and
because
we
are
not
having
a
public
hearing,
you
will
not
see
the
number
that
you
would
normally
see
on
the
bottom
of
the
screen
scrolling
as
a
as
you
would
normally
have
seen
in
the
past
15
months
or
thereabouts.
So
the
first
item
we're
going
to
do
tonight
is
the
oath
of
office
for
our
two
commissioners,
commissioner
goldsman
and
commissioner
roman.
A
So
I
think
the
first
thing
we'll
do
is
we
can
have
you
to
stand.
A
C
A
All
right,
thank
you,
shorten
them
up
there
a
little
bit
for
you
made
a
little
bit
easier
at
the
end.
Apologize
for
that
all
right.
We
do
have
four
commissioners
here
out
of
the
seventh,
so
we
do
have
a
quorum
for
tonight's
meeting.
Our
second
item
tonight
is
the
parks
master
plan
and
we
have
renee
clark
and
julie
farnam
here
to
present
information
for
the
commission.
A
D
D
D
E
A
D
It's
almost
better
when
that
happens
in
person
than
at
home,
because
people
can't
look
at
you
and
and
wonder
so.
The
park
system
master
plan
again
started
about
18
months
ago,
and
we
did
first
meet
with
the
planning,
commission
and
other
commissions
around
that
time.
Some
of
you
may
recall
it
was
our
initial
step
of
gathering
input
on
this
project.
The
documents
really
to
help
us
make
decisions
about
future
park,
improvements
which
parks.
D
D
The
work
plan
of
this
project
and
then
the
details
of
our
research
and
analysis
have
been
discussed
with
city
council
and
our
park,
arts
and
recreation
commission
pretty
extensively
over
the
last
18
months.
The
graphics
before
you
identify
major
contributing
work
products
and
a
summary
of
our
meeting
discussions.
D
D
It
had
an
interactive
map
where
people
could
leave
their
comments,
specific
about
parks
near
them
or
parks
they
knew
about.
There
was
a
priority
voting
for
people
to
select
their
top
five
priorities
that
we
should
consider
for
the
park
master
plan
and
then
part
way
through
we
added
a
survey.
D
That
survey
was
really
to
increase
engagement
and
get
a
little
bit
more
fine-grained
qualitative
detail
from
the
community,
and
we
put
the
hard
copy
some
of
you
may
have
saw
in
the
bloomington
briefing.
I
believe
it
was
the
july
issue
and
then
a
fun
thing.
I
think
that
we
did
was
put
drop
boxes
around
in
different
parks
and
facilities
to
collect
those
surveys.
We
collected
over
200
hard
copies
in
addition
to
the
surveys
that
were
filled
out.
D
The
online
plan
to
promote
everything
we
were
doing
included
several
avenues:
brett
talbot
is
our
communications
specialist
in
parks
and
rec,
and
he
was
instrumental
in
working
with
our
head
communications
department
on
using
our
website.
We
put
signs
in
parks
throughout
the
project
with
the
qr
code
that
initially
went
to
the
project
bloom
website
and
then
later
to
the
let's
talk:
bloomington
engagement,
site
flyers
in
the
sun,
current,
which
we
did
in
spanish
and
english,
our
esubscribes
and
different
social
media
channels
and
then
towards
the
end.
D
Equity
section
two
is
the
parks
bloomington
has.
This
provides
really
an
issue
identification
through
studies
and
analysis,
such
as
a
level
of
service
study.
This
is
the
best
inventory
we
have
of
all
the
amenities,
all
the
parks
park,
land
and
amenities
in
those
parks
and
then
comparing
that
to
national
standards,
so
how
many
ball
fields
per
thousand
people's
type
of
thing.
D
It
also
includes
a
recreation
program
assessment
where
we
looked
and
identified
our
core
programs
in
bloomington,
and
this
overall
provides
a
program
strategy
analysis.
Looking
at
program,
life
cycle
ages,
served
and
then
a
cost
recovery
model
based
on
the
categories
of
service
provided
and
a
recommended
tax
level.
Subsidy
for
each.
D
D
D
Looking
at
other
metrics
like
what
the
five-minute
walk
and
10-minute
walk
is
for
people
that
live
near
near
our
parks
and
then
outdoor
ice
rinks
somewhat
hard
to
compare
on
a
national
standard.
It's
minnesota,
but
we
based
on
user
data
that
we've
got
over
a
number
of
years.
We
have
seen
quite
a
decrease
in
usage
and
changing
climate
has
also
kind
of
really
stressed
use
and
our
resources
to
maintain
the
ranks.
So
you
may
have
remembered
this
year.
D
We
did
reduce
the
number
from
14
to
9
that
we
were
maintaining
needs
identified,
indoor
recreation,
space
generally
bike
skills
parks,
dog
parks.
We
just
have
one
skate
parks.
We
just
have
one
cricut
and
then
fully
accessible
playgrounds.
A
community
of
bloomington
size
typically
has
two
to
four
and
we
don't
have
any
yet.
D
D
This.
We
also
went
to
the
community
with
on.
Let's
talk
bloomington,
where
we
had
priority
park,
elements
that
we
felt
were
missing,
like
inclusive
playgrounds,
skate
park,
dog
parks
and
with
staff
proposed
different
locations
for
each
of
these
and
got
input
on
those
which
contribute
to
a
nada
here's
where
they
will
go
but
suggested
places
for
these
amenities
to
go
once
we
start
individual
park
planning.
D
D
D
Does
the
community
interest
and
opinion
survey
this
statistically
valid
survey
is,
you
know,
definitely
a
quantitative
analysis.
This
and
all
the
studies
are
still
posted
on.
Let's
talk,
bloomington
to
learn
more
about
the
details
of
those
full
reports.
D
D
D
D
So
the
missing
or
underserved
facilities
in
the
park
system
were
identified.
You
know,
based
on
that
level
of
service
study,
community
engagement
and
then
staff
and
and
city
leadership
input
and
our
proposed
in
this
section.
Four,
it
includes
you
know:
inclusive
play
low
potential
locations
for
skate
park,
splash
pad
dog
parks
park,
shelter
buildings
is
something
that
we
discussed
with
council
in
a
little
bit
more
detail,
defining
what
we
mean
by
a
park,
shelter,
building
kind
of
the
the
size
and
programming.
D
We
think
these
buildings
should
provide
and
then
potential
locations
for
them
dispersed
throughout
the
city,
and,
while
I
think
we've
heard
council
talk
about
centers
of
community,
it
hasn't
really
been
pinned
down
and
defined,
but
that
concept
of
providing
centers
of
community
more
localized
places
for
people
to
gather
is
sort
of
addressed
in.
In
this
way,
the
black
lines
on
the
map
largely
align
with
council
district
boundaries
you'll
see
between.
I
think
it's
three
and
four
along
kind
of
35
it
jogs
jogs
a
bit
bitten,
doesn't
quite
follow
council
boundaries.
D
We
are
defining
these
as
service
areas
and
a
way
to
put
a
geographical
lens
across
the
city.
To
provide
equitable
distribution
of
amenities,
so
this
is
this
is
one
way
that
we're
proposing
to
create
balance
and
equity
in
the
system.
Another
way
is
modeled
after
the
milwaukee
play
fields.
D
You
know
in
a
finer
grain
detail:
this
is
a
work
in
progress.
It's
a
proposed
framework
in
the
plan.
A
major
piece
that
we
are
going
to
be
working
on
over
the
next
year
is
the
park
conditions
rating
piece.
A
lot
of
the
other
data
is
pretty
readily
available
park.
Condition
ratings
are
not
right.
Now.
D
D
The
priority
assessment
of
underserved
or
lacking
in
number
of
facilities
are
proposed
here
in
this
plan,
and
you
know
based
on
that
full
suite
of
engagement.
We
did
and
flagged
here.
You
know
they're
on
the
map
and
flagged
here
as
things
that
as
parks
are
redeveloped.
These
are
amenities
we're
going
to
look
to
locate
across
the
city.
D
A
real
big,
a
big
change
and
something
staff's
really
excited
about
is
community
driven
individual
park
planning
as
we
roll
into
implementation
out
of
this
plan,
a
lot
of
the
investments
in
our
parks
till
now
have
been
more
focused
on
replacement
and
renewing.
What's
there
without
a
lot
of
community
engagement
about
what
they
want
there,
this
community
driven
park
planning
process
is
something
that
we
felt
is
important
to.
D
In
addition
to
those
frameworks
provided
when
we
go
into
a
community
park
say
like
bryant
park,
the
the
maps
identify
potential
facilities
that
could
be
located
there,
such
as
an
inclusive
playground
and
other
things
through
this
process,
using
kind
of
a
typical
planning
model,
starting
with
you
know,
concept,
design,
more
detail
in
a
schematic,
design
and
all
the
way
through
construction
documents.
We
intend
to
engage
the
community
that
live
around
these
parks
to
see
what
they
want
in
terms
of
amenities
and
experience.
D
The
planning
process
will
also
intend
to
be
an
internal
collaborative
process
as
well,
in
order
to
most
fully
meet
community
needs,
so
that's
putting
together
project
teams
that
include
several
departments
across
the
city
and
not
just
you
know,
parks
and
you
know,
parks
and
planning
who
are
natural.
You
know
co-planners
and
partners
in
projects
like
this,
but
bringing
in
folks
in
engineering,
particularly
in
water
resources,
looking
at
how
we
can
integrate
green
infrastructure
into
park,
planning
creative
place
making
and
others
so
that
we're
really
maximizing
public
benefit
through
our
park
planning
the
pros.
D
The
plan
talks
about
implementation
financially
in
sort
of
two
ways:
one
using
a
benchmark
survey,
looking
at
how
much
bloomington
spends
annually
in
our
cip
compared
to
other
similar
communities
locally
and
across
the
country,
and
we're
on
the
low
side
we're
proposing
to
increase
that
to
from
about
one
and
a
half
million
to
three
to
four
million
and
that's
an
estimate
of
what
a
community
park
might
cost,
assuming
approximately
2
million
for
a
shelter
building
and
another
2
million.
D
In
other
improvements,
it's
something
to
be
transparent
to
the
public
and
to
council
that
these
projects
are
expensive,
especially
when
you're
talking
about
community
park
planning,
and
we
need
to
have
buy-in
and
and
support
kind
of
upfront
on
and
transparency
on,
what
that,
what
updating
our
park
system
means
financially.
D
The
plan
talks
about
an
incremental
approach,
doing
kind
of
an
annual
cip
of
about
four
million,
and
also
talks
about
a
potential
to
consider
a
referendum
which
would
allow
us
to
do.
You
know,
obviously
have
more
immediate
impact.
D
This
model
looks
at
kind
of
one
major
park
renovation
of
year
and
what
that
looks
like
over
time
so
by
year,
three
there's,
you
know
the
first
projects
just
coming
to
a
close
and
the
third
one
is
starting
that
concept
design.
So
it's
it
kind
of
shows
the
progress
over
time
as
well
as
sort
of
the
significant
effort
it
is
to
to
do
a
community
driven
park
plan
that
we're
talking
about.
D
So
in
this
final
leg
of
the
master
plan
we
are
presenting
to
commissions
to
some
resident
groups
and
our
park
commission
and
then
bringing
it
to
council
the
end
of
august.
You
may
have
heard
august
2nd
as
our
target
date
for
council
approval
once
the
comment
period
ended
and
we
assembled
our
staff
and
community
comment.
D
So
with
that,
I'm
not
sure
if,
if
any
of
the
commissioners
have
comments
or
feedback
on
what
I
presented
tonight,
we
are
in
the
process
of
revisions
at
this
time.
If
there
are
comments
you
know
shortly
after
tonight,
you
know
I
would
love
to
hear
any
feedback
and
suggestions,
I'm
still
from
this
commission.
D
A
A
I
was
very
impressed
with
just
again
the
engagement
that
this
process
went
through
and
then
you
talking
about
the
community
driven
park
planning
and
I
think
that
just
kind
of
pulls
that,
through
all
the
way
from
the
earliest
phases
into
implementation,
so
I
commend
you
on
that
process.
A
I'm
really
interested
again
in
the
level
of
service
study
and
what
we
have.
I
thought
that
was
very
interesting
from
the
perspective
of
understanding
where
it
is
what
the
conditions
and
then
and
then
planning
for
the
future.
I
think
you
you
called
it
the
projecting
forward
the
park
needs
so
again,
very
good.
I
appreciate
the
information
here
tonight.
I
don't
have
anything
additional
to
that.
Anybody
else
go
ahead.
Commissioner,
goldsman.
C
D
The
the
lack
of
indoor
space
was
identified
through
the
level
of
service
study.
Looking
at,
I
think
the
metric
was
like
indoors
square
footage
per
unit
of
people
and
that's
where
it
demonstrated
we
were
lacking.
D
I
believe
many
other
large
communities
of
our
size
have
larger,
centralized
community
centers.
It
was
a
question
in
the
statistically
valid
survey
that
we
did.
This
plan
was
just
to
identify
looking
at.
Is
there
a
need,
but
didn't
go
any
further
about
addressing
a
centralized
location
versus
decentralized?
D
It
was
looking
at
in
terms
of
indoor
space
what
we
provide
with
those
park,
shelter,
buildings,
that's
really
the
only
indoor
space
that
we're
proposing
through
this
plan,
but
on
the
heels
of
the
community
center
project
initiation
that
we
we
started.
We
did
want
to
understand
more
about
the
need,
so
that
that's
really
all
that
we
established
in
terms
of
the
centralized
location
got
it.
Thank
you,
commissioner.
F
D
F
A
lot
of
the
people
who
responded,
how
many
were
not
english
speakers,
english,
first
language,
for
example,
and
then
in
terms
of
ages
as
well,
would
be
good
to
know
what
kind
of
response
you
got
from
the
people.
D
Thank
you
for
that
question
and
that's
a
really
good
question
information
that
we
did
try
to
collect
throughout
the
project.
I
can
follow
up
with
the
commission
after
tonight
with
what
we
do
know
the
the
statistically
valid
survey
took
demographic
data
and
I
understand
it
matched
our
our
senses
pretty
well
the
project
bloom
site.
D
I
believe
you
were
required
to
enter
zip
code
and
answer
demographic
data
with
that
as
well
age
and
race,
I
believe,
were
included
as
they
are
with
the
let's
talk
bloomington
site.
So
we
have
some
of
that
data
and
I
can't
speak
to
it
real
specifically
there.
I
just
recall
that
we
were
pleased
with
the
way
the
survey
company
early
on
was
able
to
do
a
pretty
good
job
of
of
matching
geographical
and
demographical
makeup
of
the
community.
D
D
F
Or
that
we
want
and
and
there's
also
a
lot
that
talks
about
inclusion
and
equity-
and
I
know
sometimes
people
tend
to
think
that
when
we
talk
about
equity,
we're
only
talking
about
race,
but
beyond
that
too
they,
you
know
amongst
different
different
different
groups
of
people.
What
are
the
things
that
our
community
needs?
You
know
our
kids,
our
teenagers,
our
seniors
people
with
special
needs,
for
example.
So
how
would
this
I'm
wondering
here
as
I
go
through?
F
D
F
F
F
For
other
things
to
do
outside
of
bloomington,
so
I
think
the
whole
idea
is
to
keep
our
people
here
to
be
able
to
provide
fun
spaces
for
everyone.
So
I
just
I'm
just
thinking
this
is
one
thing
to
consider
and
when
it
comes
to
cultural
spaces
that
are
not
that
they
are
not
not
all
the
same.
You
know
like
they
don't
repeat
the
same
same
things
in
every
kind
of
building
or
space
or
whatever
that
is
or
trails
or
you
know,
but
that
there
are
certain
places
stops
that
they
all
look
different.
F
That
can
provide
opportunities
for
different
kind
of
cultural
activities.
So
that's
one
thing,
so
I
thinking-
and
it's
just
my
last
comment
on
how
this
is
going
to
benefit
our
youth.
How
is
this
really
going
to
benefit
our
community
if
this
is
approved
and
as
time
goes
by
and
this
is
taking
place?
Is
this
really
going
to
benefit
everyone.
E
Thank
you,
commissioners
and
commissioner
corman.
I
just
wanted
to
respond
and
just
add
another
thing
or
renee
brought
it
up
in
her
presentation,
but
one
of
the
things
that's
going
to
happen
here
is
this:
these
community-based
park
master
plans,
and
so
that's
where
you're
really
going
to
start
getting
into
that
detail
of
what
does
the
community
want
in
in
their
neighborhood
park?
And
so
so
that's
kind.
You
know
this.
E
This
plan
might
not
get
into
all
of
that
kind
of
detail,
but
it's
setting
up
the
process
so
that,
as
we
move
forward
to
implement,
there
will
be
these
opportunities
to
really
kind
of
get
more
into
the
weeds
and
get
closer
to
the
the
people
who
are
going
to
be
using
the
park.
So
I
just
wanted
to
to
just
reiterate
that.
F
Thank
you,
and
so
that's
what
it's
so
important
that
there's
representation
to
make
sure
that
there's
actual
representation.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Thank
you
very
much
clark
for
this
excellent
overview
and
I
will
start
with
the
comments
that
are
in
the
scope
of
what
a
master
plan
is
and
the
things
that
you
talked
about
and
what
I
very
much
appreciate
is
and
you've
heard
it
from
others.
Here
is
that
the
community-driven
planning
piece
and
with
that
it
really
is
about
it
echoes
some
of
the
things
that
folks
have
said
it's
about
creating
equity
in
access,
but
equity
and
access
doesn't
mean
the
same
thing
everywhere
and
that's
that's.
B
I
think
it's
really
important.
I
think
it
acknowledges
that
this
is
not
what
our
our
city
was
in
1970
or
1965,
when
equity
and
everyone
having
the
same
thing
probably
was
the
right
thing
for
for
that
population
at
the
time
the
whole
you
know,
build
it
and
let
them
come,
and
so
this
is
where
I
will
I'll
I'll
bridge
a
little
bit
beyond
what
a
master
plan
is,
but
I
think
it's
related
to
it.
Those
of
us
who
worked
on
the
comprehensive
plan.
B
We
had
a
fair
bit
of
conversation
with
us
that
I'm
sure
you
know
about
our
parks,
but
also
how
we
activate
our
parks,
and,
I
know
that's
outside-
of
the
scope
of
a
master
plan,
but
you
talked
about
the
recommendation
for
the
infusion
of
capital
on
an
ongoing
basis
which
again
not
the
scope
of
this
commission,
but
as
a
citizen
I
resident,
I
support
that,
but
I
think
it's
whether
it
shows
up
in
the
master
plan
or
whether
it's
a
side
thing
about
what
do
we
need
to
do
to
make
these
parks
either
activated
or
or
increase
their
access
once
they're
there?
B
You
know
one
of
the
things
that
we
talked
about
was
you
know
where
gaps
exist
right
and
those
gaps
could
exist
from
a
lack
of
a
facility,
but
those
gaps
also
could
exist
because
of
how
we
program
the
facilities
is
an
antiquated
model
and
the
example
I
like
to
use
with
people
is
the
aquatic
center
fantastic
facility.
We
know
it's
going
to
need
some
investment
in
the
future,
but
it
runs
on
kind
of
a
1975
schedule
right,
it's
it's
open
in
the
morning.
B
It
closes
probably
in
the
next
15
minutes,
families
that
are
today
with
two
working
parents
come
home,
make
dinner
and
there's
no
time
for
their
kids
to
go
to
the
aquatic
center
or
you
you
talked
about.
I
saw
in
the
plan.
B
There
was
a
perception
of
east
versus
west
with
access,
and
is
it
about
access
to
parks
or
is
it
about
access
to
the
programming
we
do
in
our
parks,
and
so
again
I
know
that's
outside
of
the
scope
of
what
a
master
plan
is,
but
I
think
it's
important,
at
least
in
a
master
plan
to
talk
about.
You
know
that
not
only
do
we
have
a
vision
for
what
we
should
build,
but
it
takes
time
and
money
and
staff
to
to
make
it
really
shine
once
it's
there,
so
good
work.
D
D
E
And
I
just
wanted
to
build
on
that
because
and
again
I
think
one
of
the
key
messages
here
in
this
plan
is
that
we
have
not
provided
enough
for
maintenance,
but
also
just
resources
in
general
to
to
staff
and
program,
and-
and
that's
where
you
know,
renee
was
talking
about
the
1.5
to
going
up
to
maybe
three
million
and
and
just
wanting
to
be
very
open
and
honest
about.
E
B
Again,
I
recognize
that
that's
beyond
the
scope
of
I
mean
what
a
master
plan
is
for
and
what
it
does
this.
This
does
that,
but
you
know
I
guess
that's
again,
for
those
who
need
to
know
that
and
hear
that
you
know
a
doubling
of
the
capital
is
definitely
and
perhaps
then
for
our
decision
makers
who
budget
a
doubling
of
the
programming
and
the
staffing
as
well
would
be
something
to
think
about.
G
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I'd
like
to
start
with
a
question
from
ms
farnham.
We
have
a
very
large
portion
of
land,
that's
just
south
of
the
north-south
runway
from
msp.
That's
my
understanding.
We
can't
do
anything
with,
but
sure
would
be
a
great
place
for
a
park.
Could
you
give
me
a
little
more
background
on
what
the
story
is
with
that
land
and
is
there
any
potential
to
get
a
park
there.
E
Yeah,
commissioner,
cookdown
and
and
commissioners-
that's
he's
talking
about
the
area
in
the
south
loop
that
is
under
the
runway.
It's
the
runway
protection
zone
and
it
looks
like
a
big
green
space
and
it's
fenced
off
and
it
is
under
the
control
of
the
airport
zoning
and
it's
our
understanding
from
mac
that
the
federal
government
does
not
allow
people
to
actually
go
in
there,
which
is
why
there's
a
a
fence
around
it.
So
it's
it
cannot
be
used
for
a
park.
E
So
that's
that's
why
it's
just
sitting
there
as
a
nice
green
space.
G
Yeah,
thanks
for
the
information
I
did
just
for
my
own
curiosity
took
a
measurement
on
on
google
maps
between
one
of
the
normal
runways
at
msp
to
fort
snelling
state
park
versus
the
north-south
runway
to
our
blot
of
land.
It
was
almost
the
same
thing.
G
In
fact,
we
had
more
distance
between
our
plot
of
land
there
and
and
the
north-south
runway
versus
the
one
of
the
main
runways
in
fort
snelling
state
park,
and
so
I
would
encourage
the
city
to
maybe
keep
pushing
on
that
and
use
some
resources
to
see
what
what
can
we
do?
I
certainly
recognize
we
can't
put
buildings
there.
We
can't
do
other
things,
but
why
can't
we
have
people
walking
there
or
sitting
on
some
benches
or
doing
some
other
things?
G
I
think
that
would
be
a
great
asset
to
south
loop
in
an
area
that's
going
to
get
filled
up
and
not
have
much
park
land
available
to
it,
and
I
think
we
should
continue
to
not.
You
know
not
just
well
not
be
satisfied.
Perhaps
we
should
continue
to
push
on
that.
That's
what
I
would
like,
but
back
to
more
general
comments.
Thank
you
for
your
presentation.
G
I
thought
it
was
great
one
of
the
things
that
I
think
commissioner
corman
talked
about,
that
I'm
really
excited
about
is
park
differentiation
for
me
personally,
I
guess
my
representation
on
this
community
is
the
young
single
person,
demographic
and
a
lot
of
the
parks
in
our
community
do
not
fit
my
desires,
playgrounds,
don't
do
anything
for
me
or
just
open
green
spaces.
G
Don't
excite
me,
but
when
I
see
what
we've
done
in
bloomington
central
station
with
more
modern
artistic
urban
park
with
some
water
features
and
other
things
kind
of
very
dense,
not
a
lot
of
open,
green
space,
but
other
things
that
are
more
something
I
would
like.
I
hope
we
see
more
of
that
in
certain
areas
of
our
city,
where
we
have
maybe
high
concentration
of
renters
or
a
younger
demographic,
or
something
like
that.
I'm
excited
for
us
to
have
more
sort
of
dynamic
urban
parks
in
the
areas
where
it
makes
sense.
G
Certainly
our
park
in
bloomington
central
station
doesn't
make
sense
in
some
neighborhoods,
but
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense
in
bcs
and
I
hope
we
see
more
of
those
things
where
they
make
sense,
perhaps
on
lindell,
where
we're
starting
to
see
more
dynamic
energy,
maybe
that's
another
good
place
for
more
modern
urban
park,
with
some
water
features
or
lighting
and
other
things
like
that.
So
I'm
excited
about
park,
differentiation
and
yeah
other
than
that.
I
thought
it
was
a
very
comprehensive
report,
and
so
thank
you.
A
All
right,
I
think,
that's
most
of
the
comments.
I'll
just
say.
Maybe
a
summary
of
some
of
the
things
I
heard
from
the
commission
were
really
about
paying
close
attention
to
the
communities
that
it's
serving
the
demographics,
the
interests,
the
culture
as
these
move
forward,
and
I
there's
more
to
it
than
just
the
standard
old
planning
practices.
Maybe
that
have
been
used
in
the
past.
A
I
again,
I
think,
you've
done
a
nice
job
of
implementing
the
kind
of
that
strategic
direction
through
the
the
master
plan
here
and,
as
you
can
tell
this,
this
group
is
very,
very
interested
in
planning
for
the
future
and
planning
for
the
people
that
use
our
systems
in
the
city
and
being,
should,
I
say,
maybe
innovative
or
being
more
true
to
them
to
our
our
residents
in
the
city
and
giving
them
what
they
need
and
not
maybe
what
the
existing
system
has
provided.
A
A
All
right
turned
it
off
item
number
three
portland:
the
congress
new
urbanism
study,
ms
barnum.
E
A
E
So
all
right
well
good
evening.
I
know
you're
all
familiar
with
this,
because
I
was
here
in
march
giving
a
an
overview
of
this
but
I'll.
So
there
will
be
a
little
bit
of
background,
but
I'll
try
to
keep
that
to
a
minimum.
Just
wanted
to
again
the
context
of
this
it's
it
was.
This
was
a
joint
project
between
bloomington
and
richfield.
E
In
fact,
I
think
I
missed
a
yeah
here.
We
go.
It
was
a
joint
project
between
bloomington
and
richfield,
and
it's
part
of
that.
What
is
the
congress
for
new
urbanism's,
a
legacy
program
which
is
typically
centered
around
a
a
very
short?
You
know
a
four-day
design,
charette
and
it
was
going
to
happen
in
2020
and
it
got
canceled.
E
It
was
gonna
happen
right
after
everything
shut
down
with
the
the
pandemic,
so
unfortunately
there
had
been
a
lot
of
setup
and
then
we
had
to
just
put
the
brakes
on
and
we
put
it
on
on
hold
for
a
year
and
then
to
move
it
forward.
We
decided
to
do
a
virtual
thing
in
this
year
so
earlier
this
year.
E
So
that's
kind
of
the
background
on
that,
and
this
was
a
joint
project
with
the
city
of
richfield
and
and
we
looked
at
this
area
around
portland
and
and
494,
because
both
cities
have
identified
that
area
as
kind
of
an
older
area
needing
in
need
of
redevelopment.
And
there
was
a
couple
of
major
transportation
projects
happening.
There
was
the
mndot
494
project
and
then,
which
was
also
a
redesign
of
the
portland
interchange
and
then
the
d-line
metro
transit,
which
has
two
stops
in
the
area.
E
We
at
that
point
we
were
all
thinking
that
mndot
was
going
to
have
their
preferred
alternative
selected
by
the
end
of
2019,
and
fortunately
their
project
got
slowed
down
as
well
and
they
just
came
out
with
their
preferred
alternative
a
couple
months
ago.
So
this
project
kind
of
switched
gears
a
little
bit
instead
of
being
able
to
really
kind
of
use
their
recommendation
as
a
foundation
to
to
build
off
of
we
kind
of
focused
on
other
things.
E
So
that's
just
a
little
bit
of
background
on
that
as
well
again,
why
focus
on
portland
494?
I
just
kind
of
went
through
that
and
some
of
the
issues
and
challenges
that
were
identified.
So
one
of
the
big
ones
is
just
how
to
get
around
particularly
well,
because
494
is
a
huge
barrier
between
the
two
communities
and
the
roadways,
they're
old
and
there's
a
lot
of
traffic
being
exits
from
freeways
and
such
and
so
they're,
not
exactly
safe
or
welcoming
for
pedestrians
and
bicyclists.
E
Good
news
is:
there's
transit
enhancements
happening
through
that
area
that
the
d-line,
as
I
mentioned,
and
the
other
thing
is
the
mndot's
preferred
alternative-
will
involve
essentially
closing
off
freeway
access
at
nicolette
and
12th,
which
provides
a
really
great
opportunity
to
make
those
two
crossings
much
more
pedestrian
and
bike
friendly,
and
while
all
the
traffic
will
end
up
at
portland
and
that'll,
be
a
bigger
interchange,
it's
kind
of
a
balancing
act
and
some
some
trade-offs.
E
One
of
the
things
that
the
consultant
looked
at
was
the
zoning,
and
I'm
just
focusing
here
on
the
bloomington
zoning
richfield
has
implemented
a
lot
of
mixed-use
zoning
already
throughout
their
whole
494
corridor.
As
you
know,
bloomington
has
been
in
the
process
of
kind
of
implementing
its
newer
zoning
categories,
as
projects
or
planning
happens
or
as
redevelopment
happens,
but
this
area
has
not
had
that
happen
yet
so
one
of
the
suggestions
is
is
to
take
a
look
at
rezoning,
some
of
the
the
areas,
particularly
the
b2
area.
E
I
know
back
when
I
was
before
you
in
march.
There
was
some
concern
about
the
b2
area
right
at
american
and
portland,
and
the
closeness
to
the
freeway
that
maybe
that's
not
the
greatest
spot
for
new
residential,
perhaps
with
nicolette
and
and
12th
becoming
more
pedestrian
friendly
and
not
freeway
access
points
redevelopment
in
those
areas.
There's
an
opportunity
there
to
maybe
look
at
zoning
that
would
allow
for
more
of
a
mix
of
use
and
particularly
mix
of
use
with
residential.
E
So
you
know
these
are
just
ideas
to
keep
our
our
eyes
on.
This
is
just
some
guidance
as
always
with
redevelopment
we
talked
about
this
a
lot
in
lindell.
We've
talked
about
this
and
pretty
much
all
of
our
district
plans.
Redevelopment
is
so
challenging
because
you've
got
a
lot
of
small
parcels
and
you
can't
redevelop
them
on
their
own.
You
really
do
need
to
consolidate
them
and
they're
usually
owned
by
multiple
property
owners,
and
they
don't
all
want
to
do
the
same
thing
at
the
same
time.
E
So
the
report
we're
calling
it
a
report
because
it's
it
is
very
high
level
and
conceptual
in
nature,
and
so
they
they
did
define
some
goals
and
and
some
principles
so
again
it.
This
is
a
gateway
and
to
to
move
towards
making
this
more
of
a
mixed-use
gateway
and
create
a
more
of
a
sense
of
identity
here,
because
it
is
a
major
gateway
to
both
communities.
E
They
looked
at
providing
some
redevelopment
criteria
around
aging
shopping
centers.
They
didn't
get
deep
into
that
again.
When
we
started
this,
we
were
hoping
that
there
would
have
been
a
plan
from
mndot
that
would
have
given
us
a
little
more
direction
on
what
properties
were
going
to
be
needed
for
the
roadway
improvements,
and
thus
what
were
the
redevelopment
sites
that
might
come
out
of
that,
but
but
we
just
weren't
there
yet.
So
we
didn't
get
into
a
lot
of
detail
there,
also
just
preserving
and
and
providing
more
affordable
housing
options
in
the
area.
E
There
is
a
fair
amount
of
affordable
housing
in
the
area.
The
big
one
here,
I
think,
is
increasing
mobility
and
just
increasing,
especially
for
pedestrians
and
and
bicyclists
through
this
area,
and
then
there's
opportunities
to
enhance
access
to
parks,
smith
park
in
bloomington,
roosevelt
park
in
in
richfield,
and
and
also
just
enhancing
that
public
realm
to
make
it
more
comfortable,
more
attractive.
E
So
the
framework
plan
has
some
high
level
recommendations
again,
enhancing
that
multi
multi
mobility,
some
of
the
priority
routes,
are
really
the
main
ones
that
you're
seeing
in
the
dark
gray
and
again,
as
I
said
before,
there's
a
real
opportunity
with
nicolette
and
12th
to
make
those
much
more
ped
bike
friendly,
also
identifying
opportunities
to
enhance
accessibility
and
safety,
particularly
at
these
crossings.
So
you
can
see
these
red
circles.
E
Those
are
areas
to
pay
closer
attention
to
in
terms
of
how
those
interchange
intersections
or
mid-block
crossings
are
are
designed
and
then
some
of
the
ideas
to
offset
redevelopment
barriers.
We
talked
about
rezoning
so
being
proactive,
setting
the
table
so
being
proactive
about
rezoning,
as
opposed
to
waiting
until
we've
got
a
development
proposal
in
hand,
removing
barriers
in
the
process
so
expediting,
permit
reviews,
fee
waivers,
etc.
These
kind
these
are
the
same
kinds
of
ideas
that
we
talk
about
pretty
much
in
all
of
our
redevelopment
areas.
E
The
consultant
took
a
a
stab
at
kind
of
a
really
a
high
level.
What
are
maybe
some
of
the
parcels
that
might
be
riper
for
redevelopment,
and
this
is
just
using
one
criteria,
which
is
a
common
criteria
that
we
use,
and
that
is
where
your
property
values,
where
the
land
value
greatly
exceeds
the
building
value.
So
those
are
the
parcels
that
you're
seeing
in
that
darker
that
kind
of
teal
color.
E
Obviously,
though,
as
I
said
before,
while
the
building
value
may
not
be
very
high,
the
business
on
that
property
might
be
very
viable
and
the
property
owner
isn't
going
anywhere.
So
so
this
is
just
one
one
thing
to
look
at
when
you're
considering
potential
redevelopment
opportunities
and
the
the
report
suggests
that
you
know
we
be
proactive
working
with
our
hra
and
maybe
even
working
jointly
between
the
two
cities
just
to
identify
some
areas
for
for
redevelopment.
E
Oh
I'm
going
to
go
back
for
a
second
one
of
the
other
things
that
came
up
in,
in
particular
in
the
public,
in
the
engagement
with
the
stakeholders,
was
the
concern
about
relocation.
E
You
know
if,
if
redevelopment
happens
and
and
and
the
desire
to
maintain
local
businesses
and
and
that-
and
we
heard
that
a
lot
on
on
lindell
as
well,
this
is
becoming
a
much
bigger
issue.
You
hear
a
lot
more
about
it
with
redevelopment
everywhere.
I
know,
richfield
has
a
a
policy
of
sorts,
that's
a
redevelopment
assistance
policy,
they
just
rolled
it
out
not
too
long
ago,
and
they
haven't
really
used
it
much
it's
for
only
when
you're
using
public
dollars,
and
it's
there's
lots
of
parameters
around
it.
E
So
I
know
that
the
planner
there
has
not
actually
had
a
lot
of
experience
applying
it.
The
report
has
some
suggestions
on
things
that
we
could
do
to
maybe
take
a
look
at
some
of
those.
I
know
other
areas
that
the
consultant
was
from
atlanta:
they
they
do
that
kind
of
thing
and
they
they
provided
a
couple
of
links
to
some
things
that
atlanta
does.
E
E
The
report
also
lists
out
several
design
standards,
and
these
are,
you
know,
wouldn't
say
generic,
but
but
there
are
design
standards
that
are
have
been
used
in
a
lot
of
different
places.
They
may
not
match
our.
We
already
have
some
design
standards.
I
know
richfield
has
a
design
manual,
we
don't
have
aren't
quite
as
formalized
with
ours.
E
We've
got
some
things
in
our
code,
but
the
suggestion
here
is
that
maybe
we
want
to
take
a
look
at
our
design
standards
and
and
these
design
standards
are
really
aimed
at
giving
greater
priority
to
pedestrians
and
and
bicyclists
and
and
not
so
much
not
as
much
cars
there's
other
design
standards
that
they
provide
different
kinds
of
intersection,
treatments,
the
mid
block
crossing,
etc.
E
They
talk
talk
about
bridges,
vehicular
bridge
and
as
well
as
pedestrian
bridges
and
then
public
spaces.
So
again,
these
are
kind
of
high
level
design
standard
guidance
that
they're
providing.
E
I
want
to
also
just
well
I'll
talk
about
that
in
a
second,
but
throughout
this
process
we
we
did
a
lot
of
outreach,
especially
right
before
we
had
to
close
everything
down
which
was
unfortunate.
But
then
we
we
did
some
more
again
and
you
know
we
sent
out
direct
mail
postcards
so
that
they
went
to
everybody's
house
because
one
of
the
things,
if
you
just
go
to
the
property
owner,
if
it's
in
multi-family
it
just
goes
to
the
owner
of
the
the
building
and
not
to
each
of
the
units.
E
And
so
we
wanted
to
do
direct
mail
which
we
did
and
we
had
several
articles
in
the
briefing
one
of
the
things
about
slowing
this
whole
thing
down
is.
It
gave
us
a
little
bit
more
time
to
to
get
the
word
out
and
we
were
able
to
have
virtual
stakeholder
meetings.
We
had
them
all
set
up
to
be
in
person,
which
probably
would
have
been
a
little
bit
more
interactive
and
and
perhaps
effective,
but
we
did
have
three
stakeholder
meetings.
E
We
had
meetings
with
developers,
area
developers
with
agencies
and
some
property
owners,
and
we
also
had
the
virtual
community
meeting,
which
some
of
you
may
have
tuned
into
that
was
back
in
in
february.
E
There
was
also
some
outreach.
Co-Ed
helped
us
with
some
outreach
to
schools
and
some
of
the
the
churches
in
the
area.
E
Some
of
the
input-
oh,
the
the
consultant,
had
a
a
interactive
website
where
they
had
a
survey
and
they
had
other
kinds
of
ideas
posted
out
there
and
it
was
up
for
a
month.
So
it
was
up
from
the
the
date
of
the
community
meeting
february
24th
until
march
24th,
and
some
of
the
highlights
here
of
the
community
input
was
again
a
lot
of
interest
in
getting
better
bike
pad
crossings
of
494.
E
So
so
those
crossings,
one
of
the
great
things
about
the
mndot
proposal-
is
that
they
are
going
to
put
in
a
new
ped
bridge
right
around
chicago
and
that's
a
major
thing,
because
it'll
come
out
right
by
the
the
walmart
there,
and
so
with
all
the
housing
on
the
north
side
to
be
able
to
get
over.
On
the
other
side,
that's
going
to
be
a
really
good
benefit.
E
E
We
also
had
a
joint
meeting
of
the
two
city
councils
back
in
april
and
so
at
that
meeting
with
that
we
were,
they
had
an
overview
of
the
494,
the
minnesota,
the
mndot
494
study
and,
and
they
discussed
those
changes
to
portland
as
well
as
nicolette
and
12th,
and
then
overall
they,
the
the
recommendations,
were
really
in
draft
form,
so
they
haven't
changed
really
much,
but
they
were
in
draft
form
and
the
councils
expressed
support
for
the
goals
and
the
ideas
presented
and
all
pretty
much.
E
Everybody
agreed
that
this
would
be
a
nice
tool
to
help
people.
Imagine
what
is
possible
out
there
so,
where
we're
at
and
next
step.
So
right
now
we
are
here
to
review
and
recommend
this.
I
know
we
had
talked
about
formally
adopting
this,
but
when
the
plan
was
actually
completed
and
we
we
looked
through
and
it
was
like
you
know,
this
is
really
pretty
high
level
and
conceptual
and
because
there's
recommendations,
some
of
which
we
already
do
but
richfield
didn't
so
they
had
to
be
in
there.
E
We
kind
of
glenn
and
I
kind
of
recon
we
thought
about
it
and
we
decided.
You
know
this
is,
let's
just
accept
this
and
use
it
as
guidance
and
so
as
opposed
to
it
being
formally
adopted
like
we
did
with
lindale
or
like
we
do
with
our
district
plans
so
and
that's
not
to
take
anything
away
from
from
what
it
is,
but
it
also
just
simply
was
not
the
product
of
the
kind
of
scrutiny
that
those
other
processes.
E
So
there
wasn't
a
lot
of
back
and
forth
even
at
the
staff
level,
there
were
some,
but
there
wasn't
a
lot
just
because
it
it
the
consultant
didn't
have
a
big
budget
at
all,
and-
and
we
just
you
know-
didn't
have
a
lot
of
time
on
this,
so
so
assuming
the
the
planning
commission
recommends
moving
this
forward.
This
is
tentatively
scheduled,
then,
to
go
to
council
for
acceptance
july
26th,
and
then
we
would
go
ahead
and
use
it.
E
So
I
did
also
want
to
mention,
because
in
the
staff
report,
there's
a
fair
amount
of
information
about
the
mndot
projects,
so
richfield
felt
really
strongly
that
they
really
wanted
the
the
consultant
to
be
able
to
weigh
in
on
the
mndot
project
and
because,
as
I
mentioned
when
we
started
this,
we
were-
we
had
hoped
that
mndot
would
have
had
a
preferred
alternative
at
the
time
of
when
we
were
going
to
do
the
design
charette
in
march
of
2020.
E
E
I
mean
we
know
that
you're
already
kind
of
working
out
of
scope
and-
and
they
said
well
in
fact
we're
kind
of
looking
at
this,
as,
as
you
know,
a
community
project
for
our
firm,
and
so
we
would
be
willing
to
take
a
look
at
this,
and
so
they
did
and
and
so
they
came
back
and
and
they
included
that
in
in
the
in
the
appendix
we
did
actually
meet.
E
E
Concept
was
not
vetted
through
the
same
kind
of
modeling
that
the
mndot
ones
were,
and
so
you
had
in
your
packet
the
report
that
was
put
out
by
the
by
srf,
basically
saying
that
they
thought
that
there
were
some
fatal
flaws
in
in
that
in
terms
of
congestion
and
and
whatnot
so,
but
it
was
really
important,
especially
to
richfield,
to
include
that
as
an
appendix
to
to
show
that
an
alternative
was
looked
at
and
and
for
it
to
be
there
in
case,
there's
any
value
as
we
get
into
the
details
with
the
mndot
project.
E
E
A
C
Thanks
mr
chair
miss,
I
have
a
question
around
some
of
the
community
outreach
sessions
and
just
kind
of
getting
general
feedback
from
the
property
owners.
You
know,
I
know
that
you
had
a
session
dedicated
to
property
owners.
What
were
their
thoughts
on
redevelopment
and
impact?
And
then,
when
you
talked
about
that
redevelopment
assistance
policy,
were
they
were
they
amenable
to
that
idea
or
just
kind
of
getting
general
feedback.
E
Sure,
mr
chair,
commissioner,
so
what
we
did
was
we
actually
sent
out
letters
to
all
of
the
property
owners
in
that
red
area
and
we
only
got
one
taker
to
have
a
meeting.
E
So
we
offered
this
this
meeting
now
had
we
been
in
in
person
in
2020,
I
I
think
we
had
a
bigger
group
teed
up
to
come,
but
as
it
was,
there
was
only
one,
but
they
had
a
one-on-one
with
the
the
design
consultant
and-
and
really
I
think,
what's
happening
with
some
of
the
property
owners
is
they're
all
in
wait
and
see
mode
with
regard
to
what's
going
on
with
mndot,
because
they
don't
know
with
their
properties.
E
That
said,
I
I
think
yes,
in
terms
of
was
there
interest
or
in
in
or
was
there
concern
about
displacement
and
and
interest
in
maybe
some
sort
of
displacement?
You
know
some
protection
from
displacement,
yes,
yeah.
I
think
there
was
some
interest
and
certainly
when
we
met
with
a
developer,
so
we
met
with
a
group
of
developers.
Who've
done
work,
particularly
in
kind
of
mixed
use,
kinds
of
things,
so
you
may
be
familiar
with
cornerstone
or
colleen
kerry,
who
used
to
be
on
our
port
authority.
E
So
she
was
one
of
the
developers,
for
instance,
and
she's
developed
the
area
over
on
glendale
in
66
and
richfield,
and
so
our
developers
that
developer
group
had
some
thoughts
about
that
too,
and
thought
that
you
know.
That
is
something
that
needs
to
be
that
the
the
displacement
is
is
really
a
tricky
and
an
important
issue
that
we
need
to
pay
attention
to
and
and
they
didn't
have
any
solutions
necessarily
but
recognizing
it
that
that
is
a
a
real
concern.
E
They
also
said
that
you
know
some
of
the
design
guidelines.
It's
like
it's
that
balancing
act,
yeah
improving
the
design,
they
think
is
the
developers.
I
thought
was
very
important,
which
was
probably
what
you
might
expect,
but
they
said
you
know
you
got
to
be
really
careful
because,
where
you've
got
limited
space
and
whatnot,
so
you
you
can't,
you
need
to
be
able
to
be
somewhat
flexible
with
all
of
that,
because
you
know
and
kind
of
pick
what
are
the
the
main
things.
E
What
are
the
things
that
are
going
to
give
you
the
most
bang
for
the
buck?
Essentially,
and
but
the
the
key
takeaway
was
probably
that
flexibility
just
being
flexible
with
some
of
those
design
standards.
Yes
get
design
standards
or
move,
try
to
move
the
bar
up
but
recognize
that
design
standards
can
pose
a
hardship
on
redevelopment.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Ms
farnham.
I
think
this
is
a
good
product
for
the
ability
of,
like
you
mentioned
the
time
constraints.
The
all
the
reasons-
and
I
I
like
many
of
the
of
the
ideas
that
are
in
here
and
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
how
we
you
know.
I
heard
you,
you
talked
about
the
recommendation
to
accept
the
report.
B
I
think
that's
that
makes
sense,
because
it's
not
as
robust
as
we
might
want
to
be
able
to
say
this
is
the
box
we're
going
to
put
this
in,
but
I
wonder
if
there's
something
that
we
also
might
do
as
a
body
to
kind
of
give
it
a
little
more
of
a.
What
I
think
about
is,
I
think
the
this
is
an
area
that
is
ripe
for
some
real.
B
You
know
I
think,
about
what
we
did
over
here
at
98th
and
lindale,
which
is
much
further
along
in
the
concepts,
but
you
know
as
the
as
the
d-line
comes
in.
You
know,
we've
seen
at
the
legislature
in
the
last
couple
weeks
that
bus
rapid
transit
is
they're
willing.
The
legislature
is
willing
to
spend
money
on
these
things
and
with
the
american
boulevard
project.
B
You
know
when
we
had
staff
were
here
a
couple
of
months
ago,
roughly
briefing
us
on
the
494
project,
and
I
remember
we
saw
some
of
the
concepts
or
the
ideas,
at
least
for
the
crossing
at
portland
in
484
and
the
comments
that
came
from
this
body
about
you
know
it
was
not
a
didn't
appear
to
be
thoughtful
for
pedestrians
and
bicycles.
It
had
some
allowance
for
it,
and
so
my
question
is
maybe
not
a
question
as
much
as
a
comment
about
you
know.
B
How
do
we
use
this,
or
is
there
a
different
language
we
use
to?
You
know,
accept
or
endorse,
or
whatever
it
is
some
of
the
concepts
such
in
such
a
way
that
you
know
and
maybe
as
staff
think
about
their
work
plan
and
and
where
the
right
energy
should
be
going
forward
about
again.
It's.
How
do
we
you?
You
commented
about
landowners
and
businesses
wanting
to
you
know
they.
B
They
don't
want
to
be
pushed
out
and
we
don't
want
to
push
people
out,
but
we
also
want
to
be
thoughtful
because
our
our
vision
in
this
body
is
about
what
the
city
can
be,
which
isn't
always.
Sometimes
it's
compatible
with
the
immediate
desire
of
someone
who
wants
to
develop
a
property,
but
sometimes
it's
not,
and
so
again
I
think
the
the
concepts
that
are
in
here
on
a
broad
scale,
I
think,
are
consistent
with
the
things
we've
talked
about
as
certain
pockets
of
our
city
will
urbanize
more
than
others.
B
E
Mr
chair,
commissioner,
roman,
I'm
not
exactly
sure
that
I
have
a
good
answer
for
you,
but
one
thought
that
went
through
my
mind
and
it
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
recommendation
you
might
make
tonight
but
moving
forward.
For
instance,
when
we
put
together
the
work
plan,
we
can
say
in
the
work
plan.
E
You
know
this
is
an
item
that
is
was
recommended
or
is
advancing
the
recommendations
in
the
portland
report,
the
lindell
strategy,
south
loop
plan,
or
whatever
I
mean.
Maybe
we
can
do
a
better
job
of
tying
those
things
together
and
I
don't
know
if
that
would
be
helpful
but
other
than
unless
there
were
some
things
that
you
wanted
to
point
out
in
your
motion
that
were
of
particular
importance
to
prioritize.
E
But
I
I
I
think
the
the
motion.
The
resolution
is
fairly
broad
and
basically
directing
staff
to
utilize
this
as
a
tool
in
various
kinds
of
decision-making,
moving
forward
and
staff,
as
well
as
the
planning
commission,
the
city,
council
and
other
commissions.
So
thank
you.
B
For
that
I
don't
have
a
specific
outcome
today,
but
I
do
think
that
this
is
a
good
foundation
and
that
we
should
not
delay
in
expanding
on
it.
I
guess
because
change
will
come
to
this
area
and
it
will
either
be
change
that
we
are
pleased
with
or
change
that
we
wish
we
had
helped
guide
in
a
different
direction.
So
that's
all.
A
Yeah,
I
think
to
that
point
as
soon
as
you
brought
that
up
it
was
we
had
that
study
five
years
ago,
four
years
ago,
community
centers-
and
this
was
one
of
them
that
came
out
as
a
priority,
and
certainly
a
lot
of
the
goals
and
principles
were
laid
out
here.
A
The
process
put
probably
the
wrong
word
more
legitimacy
behind
it,
but
to
give
more
guidance
to
us,
because
I
think
again,
that's
really
helpful
for
us
as
a
planning
commission,
to
have
that
more
formalized
guidance,
because
everybody's
got
a
good
idea.
It's
just
whose
is
better
and
and
so
trying
to
figure
that
out
and
having
that
really
involvement
with
the
businesses
and
and
the
the
community.
A
Maybe
not
as
much
kind
of
frailing
as
as
something
without
a
plan,
but
it's
hard
to
really
push
developers.
I
think
from
this
side
of
the
bench
to
say:
well,
we
we've
got
some
ideas,
so
other
commission
members,
commissioner
goldsman.
C
Thanks,
mr
chair,
I
would
agree
having
something
more
formalized
helps
us
have
something
to
fall
back
on.
If
a
developer
comes
and
says
they
want
to
put
x
on
the
property,
we
can
look
at
city,
guidance
and
code
and
and
zoning,
but
in
unless
we
have
something
more
concrete
to
fall
back
on
a
lot
of
times.
We
just
we
have
to
follow
city
code
and
if
it
ticks
all
the
boxes,
then
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
sway
so
yeah.
C
I
would
agree
having
something
in
within
the
work
plan
to
put
some
framework
around.
What
do
we
envision?
How
do
we
build
in?
You
know,
sustainability
and
more
pedestrian
friendly,
and
what
does
it?
What
are
some
concepts
that
we
can
rally
around
would
really
help,
especially
as
those
developers
do
come
in
and
say,
here's
what
we
can
do
and
we
have
something
to
say
we
can
do
that
back,
be
helpful.
G
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
have
a
number
of
thoughts
that
I'm
going
to
try
to
get
out
with
all
comments.
I
may
ask
some
questions,
but
they'll
be
rhetorical,
so
you
only
feel
the
only
answer
if
you
feel
the
need
to
or
want
to
or
have
some
ideas.
So
the
three
things
that
stuck
out
to
me
most
in
the
findings
from
our
surveys,
etc,
were
sort
of
these
three
principle
themes.
One
was
connectivity,
I
think
most
of
that's
taken
care
of
by
the
mndot
project.
G
I'm
not
sure
what
we
do
with
this
body
has
much
to
do
with
that.
The
other
two
were
preservation
of
existing
commercial
tenants
and
redevelopment,
and
I
think
those
last
two
are
competing
interests
in
some
ways
that
we
want
to
preserve
what
we
have,
but
we
also
want
new
stuff
and
I
think,
there's
a
real
competition
there
and
I
think
that's
tough
and
one
thing
that
stuck
out
to
me
is:
I
was
sort
of
thinking
about
this
and
I
thought
about
it
a
lot.
G
Last
night
I
was
looking
around
and
the
strip
center
on
the
west
side
of
portland.
I
counted
17
tenant
spaces
and
17
tenants.
Everyone
was
full
in
that
strip
center
and,
I
think
that's
meaningful,
and
so,
when
you
look
at
that
strip
center,
you
look
boy.
G
We
can't,
I
think,
there's
like
I
said
the
third
thing
in
that
present
in
those
findings
where
we
want
redevelopment-
and
I
think
that's
I
think-
that's
real-
I
I
don't
think
we
want
to
see
that
neighborhood-
that
that
zone
stay
the
way
it
is
for
the
next
20
years
and
I
hope
it
doesn't,
and
so
we've
got
this
competition,
and
so
how
do
we
find
this
balance
of
keeping
existing
commercial
while
also
redeveloping?
And
I
think
that's
that's
a
real
paradox.
I
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
that.
G
G
G
One
of
the
things
I
was
thinking
about
was
we
have
a
very
large
shopping
mall
that
wanted
to
do
some
lighting
and
signage
stuff
that
our
code
didn't
allow.
Well,
we
took
their
proposal,
we
modified
it
and
we
made
something
that
works,
and
I
think
this
is
what
we
can
do
here
and
I
don't
know
how
that
works.
But
I
think
that's
our
challenge
is:
how
do
we?
You
know
we
have
protected
industrial.
We
have
protected,
affordable
housing.
How
do
we
protect
commercial?
G
Because
I
feel
that's
really
important
to
this
neighborhood
and
the
residents
of
this
neighborhood?
They
want
that
and
I
think
that's
really
important
for
us.
So
again,
that's
all
rhetorical.
The
other
thing
I
thought
a
lot
about
was
when
you
look
at
this
report
that
was
prepared
by
the
consultants.
A
lot
of
it
was
sort
of
the
mixed
use.
G
Let's
get
some
residential,
some
commercial
to
sort
of
mix
these
developments,
and
I
think-
and
I
kind
of
talked
about
this
last
time
this
came
before
so
I
think
in
a
bubble
that
that
works
really
well
and
it's
very
similar
to
what's
being
proposed
on
lindale,
and
I
think
that
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
But,
as
I
was
thinking
about
this
last
night,
they're
just
to
me
as
a
resident
of
the
city,
there's
there's
a
different
feel
between
lindale
and
what
we
have
at
portland.
G
There's
there's
something
different
about
it
and
I
don't
know
if
I
can
technically
put
my
finger
on
it,
but
there
is
something
different
there
and
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
occurred
to
me
was
lindale
seems
to
be
it's
old.
But
it's
working
there's
a
lot
of
there's
a
lot
of
tenants.
There
there's
a
lot
of
activity.
There
there's
a
lot
of
business
there
and
it's
it's
working
and
I
think
in
portland.
G
I
don't
know
if
it's
because
there's
more
traffic
or
the
these
two
strip,
centers
I'm
thinking
of,
are
very
far
away
from
the
street,
but
there's
a
different
feel
there
and
I
I
think
it
would
be
my
opinion
that
we
should
take
a
slightly
different
approach
to
what
we're
doing
in
this
neighborhood
at
portland
and
then
to
what
we're
doing
at
lindale.
When
we've
talked
about
this,
this
lindale
gateway
plan.
It's
a
it's
more
long
term.
It's,
let's
really
focus
on
getting
the
right
development.
Let's
be
very
careful
about
it.
G
It's
having
min
metro
transit
update
some
of
their
facilities.
I
noticed
we
have
like
the
oldest
style,
concrete
bus
benches.
You
can
get
from
metro
transit,
maybe
it's
convincing
them
to
put
in
nicer
facilities
to
again.
Just
start
to
put
some
energy
into
this
neighborhood
because
there
seems
to
be
less
energy
in
this
neighborhood
than
there
does
on
lindale,
and
so
I
would
ask
that
we
consider
potentially
a
slightly
different
approach
for
this
corridor
than
we
have
on
lindale,
where
it's
it's,
maybe
it's
more,
maybe
immediate.
Maybe
it's
not
as
grand
25-year
plan.
G
Let's
be
very
careful
about
this,
I
still
think
we
want
to
plan.
I
still
think
we
want
to
be
careful,
but
it'd
be
my
opinion
that
maybe
we
have
more
immediate
needs
at
this
corridor
than
we
have
at
lindale
should
approach
it
slightly
differently.
So
again
all
rhetorical
food
for
thought.
Those
are
my
thoughts.
E
Sure,
mr
chair,
commissioner
cookson
just
I,
I
think
one
of
the
things
that's
going
to
drive
some
of
the
change
here
I
mean.
I
don't
think
that
I
know
that
is
the
the
mndot
project
and
in
terms
of
immediate
I
mean
nothing,
moves
exactly
really
fast
like
immediate,
but
it's
my
understanding
that
by
the
end
of
this
year,
mndot
will
have
a
pretty
good
idea
of
parcels
that
they're
going
to
need
for
the
the
project,
and
currently
the
project
is
scheduled
to
begin
construction
or
is
it
complete?
Construction,
2020,
23.
E
E
would
be
a
little
bit
fast
for
anybody,
so
that
is
going
to
drive
a
lot
of
decisions
because
properties
that
are
going
to
be
well.
For
instance,
I
know
you,
you
had
a
question
earlier
yesterday
about
the
the
gas
station
there
and
mndot
has
acquired
that
gas
station
and
got
a
demolition
permit,
and
it's
under.
I
don't
know
if
it's
completely
gone
yet,
but
it's
it's
in
the
process
of
being
demolished.
E
So
so
that
was
one
where
you
know
that
property
was
clearly
identified
as
needing
to
be
acquired
and
mndot
moved
forward
on
that
the
other
properties
aren't,
as
ever,
the
properties
are
in
different
states
of
of
acquisition,
as
I
understand
it,
and
I'm
not
that
close
enough
to
it
to
you
know,
I'm
just
to
be
dangerous,
probably,
but
so
that's
going
to
have
a
big
impact,
and
likewise
I
talked
about
what
happens
on
nicolette
and
12th,
so
those
those
things
there
I
mean
perhaps
what
what
ends
up
happening
because
of
that
that
project
is
that
you
know,
as
we
start
thinking
about,
I
mean
we
always
have
more
to
do
than
we
have
time
to
do.
A
E
That
stretch,
and
maybe
looking
at
some
identifying
some
sites
that
maybe
make
sense
for
redevelopment,
or
at
least
proactive
rezoning,
for
instance,
to
start
setting,
setting
the
table
and
and
glenn.
I
have
not
talked
about
this,
so
I
I
don't
know
if
we're
on
the
same
page
on
that
one
or
not,
but
it's
something
that
that
I
have
thought
about
as
I've
thought
about
this
plan
and
how
to
move
some
of
these
things,
these
things
forward.
E
But
I
do
think
that
the
first
thing
in
front
of
us,
because
it
is
staring
at
us
right
now-
is
just
we
need
to
get
some
decisions
from
mndot.
We
need
to
know
where
get
some
of
those
stakes
in
the
ground.
If
you
will
to
know
where
we're
going
to
go,
and
that's
just
it's
we're
right
on
the
cusp
of
that
and
and
so
there's
not
at
this
point.
E
You
know,
I
think
it's
imperative
to
kind
of
wait
to
see
what
direction
that
that
puts
us
in,
but
but
I
do
think
that
that
sets
this
whole
area
up,
for
maybe
some
more
focused
thinking.
Sooner
than
later,.
G
Yeah
thanks
mr
chair,
and
thank
you
for
all
that
information.
Ms
farnham.
I
I
think
what
I'm
hearing
from
you
is
that
the
the
the
first
pin
to
the
first
domino
to
drop
is
the
mndot
thing,
and
may
I
suggest
that
we
we
check
back
in
after
we
hear
more
from
india.
Maybe
it's
every
six
month
this!
G
This
commission
has
a
study
session
or
every
year
or
whatever,
but
I
I
I
would
like
to
hear
more
of
what
mndot
is
coming
back
with
and
I'd
like
for
us
to
keep
talking
about
this.
I
think
this
is
notably
an
area
of
our
city
that
could
use
some
redevelopment
and
I'd
like
to
for
us
to
keep
checking
in
on
it.
A
All
right
sounds
good.
I
can
tell
you
that
mndot
is
very
close
to
knowing
what
will
happen
here,
especially
since
mndot
did
just
receive
a
60
million
dollar
grant
for
the
project,
which
will
help
move
their
494
project
along
so
but
very
good
comments,
commissioner
cook
down,
it
should
come
back
for
review
for
with
the
planning
commission.
I
think
that's
a
good
thing
so
and
I'm
sure
our
public
works
staff
will
be
happy
to
bring
it
back
all
right.
Other
thoughts,
comments.
A
Commission
members,
no
all
right
so
again.
Part
of
the
question
here
is
the
staff
recommends
acceptance
via
the
following
motion
of
just
simple
acceptance:
do
we
want
to
add
with
and
provide
staff
that
additional
guidance
to
add
something?
A
Looking
at
this
particular
area
within
upcoming
work
plans
that
can
be
evaluated,
I
mean
we're,
not
it'll
have
to
be
evaluated
with
all
the
other
needs
in
the
next
work
plan.
So
if
you
want
to
that's,
you
can
make
that
motion
yeah.
Commissioner
roman,
thank.
B
G
A
All
right,
commission
members
there's
a
motion
in
front
of
us.
I
will
second,
that
all
right,
commission
members
motion
in
a
second
in
front
of
us
to
recommend
the
city
council
accept
the
portland
gateway
report
as
attached
in
the
packet.
Any
further
discussion,
not
seeing
any
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
by
roll
call.
Commissioner
goldsmith.
C
A
Commissioner
corman
aye
commissioner
roman
aye,
commissioner
cookton
aye,
and
I
for
myself.
The
planning
commission
does
recommend
that
the
city
council
accept
the
portland
gateway
report
as
attached
to
the
staff
report.
All
right.
Let's
see.
A
That
concludes
our
last
item
for
the
evening
and
with
that
that
will
conclude
the
july
1
2021
planning
commission
meeting.