►
From YouTube: June 25, 2020 Bloomington Planning Commission Meeting
Description
Bloomington Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting
A
Good
evening
and
welcome
to
the
June
25th
2020
Planning
Commission
meeting,
the
Planning
Commission
is
made
up
of
seven
volunteer
residents
appointed
by
the
City
Council.
There
are
four
of
us
present
tonight,
so
we
do
have
a
quorum.
The
Planning
Commission
makes
recommendations
to
City
Council
on
certain
items.
However,
on
some
items
we
do
have
final
decision-making
authority
subject
to
an
appeal
to
City
Council
for
each
item.
There
will
be
a
staff
report,
a
chance
for
the
applicant
to
speak
and
then
time
for
public
testimony
before
a
discussion.
We
begin
with
the
Pledge
of
Allegiance.
B
Madam
chair,
this
is
our
7th
remote
meeting
due
to
the
pandemic
of
the
Planning
Commission,
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
people
are
able
to
participate
and
on
that
note
anybody
can
call
in
at
any
time.
During
the
meeting,
the
phone
number
is
on
the
screen:
nine.
Five,
two:
five,
six,
three,
eight
nine,
two
six!
You
can
call
that
number
and
receive
instructions
on
how
to
testify,
and
if
you
prefer,
you
can
do
that
via
email
as
well
planning
at
Bloomington
MN
govt.
C
So
again,
Nick
Johnson
in
the
planning
division.
What
you
have
before
you
this
evening
is
a
city
initiated
city
code
amendment.
This
ordinance
amendment
proposes
revisions
to
chapter
17,
19
and
21
of
the
city
code,
and
it
dates
back
to
some
work
that
we
did
last
summer,
as
well
as
some
ongoing
updates
at
the
state
legislature,
level
for
wireless
facilities
and
the
public
right
away,
so
we'll
get
right
into
it.
Just
as
a
refresher.
C
C
They
are
approximately
120
of
these
macro
facilities
in
the
community,
not
just
on
towers,
but
also
located
on
buildings
and
water
towers
and
other
structures
as
well,
and
then
there's
also
a
variety
of
wireless
facilities
in
the
right-of-way.
When
the
code
provisions
were
adapted
that
addressed
these
types
of
facilities
in
the
right-of-way,
there
was
less
guidance
in
state
statute
as
it
pertained
to
these
types
of
facilities.
C
So
the
the
code
provisions
that
date
back
from
that
1998
updates,
some
of
which
are
out
of
date
and
we'll
explain
the
reasons
why
so
these
facilities
have
been
allowed
in
the
right-of-way.
The
city
had
more
discretion
previously,
as
with
respect
to
requirements
of
colocation
on
existing
towers,
where
these
can
be
located.
The
height
of
these
structures
size
of
the
antennas
we're
ground
equipment
can
be
located,
etc,
and
the
whole
purpose
of
these
regulations,
and
as
well
as
some
of
the
changes
that
we're
recommending
is
really
to
it's
multifaceted.
C
One
is
just
to
minimize
the
visual
impact
of
all
this
equipment
in
the
public
right
away,
but
also
just
from
a
right-of-way
management
perspective
when
you
think
about
the
engineering
division
and
others
who
manage
the
city's
infrastructure,
that's
located
in
that
right
away,
as
well
as
all
the
quasi
public
or
private
utilities.
In
that
area,
there
gets
to
be
a
lot
of
equipment
infrastructure
in
a
confined
space,
so
it
can
be
a
little
bit
of
a
tangle
to
manage.
So
these
regulations
are
intended
to
assist
with
that
both
historic
regulations
and
some
of
the
changes.
C
The
image
on
the
right
is
just
an
example
of
what
we
see,
so
this
is
just
a
small
cell
tower.
Shorter
Tower
and
the
facilities
that
we're
gonna
be
talking
about
tonight
are
really
the
the
small
wireless
facility,
a
type
of
equipment.
These
are
smaller
antennas
in
comparison
to
those
macro
antennas
that
I
showed
you
earlier
and
it
all
kind
of
works
in
a
network
in
concert
with
one
another
and
we'll
share
a
little
bit
more.
C
So
the
state
news,
this
new
state
standards
were
adopted
in
state
statute
in
2017
and
what
these
requirements
do
is
they
do
supersede
or
preempt
our
local
ordinances,
as
with
respect
to
the
requirements
on
small
wireless
facilities
in
it
right
away.
So
in
terms
of
kind
of
updates
from
the
state
law,
new
polls
are
allowed,
it
does
allow
for
some
separation
standards,
we'll
talk
about
that.
It
did
establish
a
50-foot
height
limit
in
the
state
law
for
these
facilities
in
public
right
away.
C
There
was
a
lot
of
language
in
the
statute
that
had
to
do
with
the
fees
and
other
kind
of
agreements
and
permitting
process
processes.
Excuse
me
that
the
city
can
require
of
installers
and
applicant
who
want
to
utilize
the
public
right
away.
I
talked
about
the
spacing
standard
that
the
state
law
did
give
some
space
for
cities
to
provide
some
separation
requirements
and
we'll
talk
about
what
we're
proposing
here.
C
600
feet
a
little
bit
later,
and
the
state
law
also
did
allow
a
window
for
conditional
use
permits
to
city
to
give
cities
the
discretion
if
they
wanted
to
require
conditional
use
permits
for
these
uses
in
single-family
residential
zoning
districts.
So
the
common
misnomer,
the
zoning
districts
in
in
a
zoning
map
to
extend
all
the
way
out
to
the
centerline
of
the
right
away.
C
So
when
you
have
single-family
uses
that
zoning
line
doesn't
just
end
at
the
front
property
line,
but
actually
extends
out
into
the
public
right
away,
and
so
the
way
that
our
zoning
code
is
structured
now,
these
facilities
are
considered
towers
which
are
conditional
uses
in
the
r1
zoning
district.
And
that's
why
you
saw
two
of
these
applications.
Last
year
in
2019,
we
reviewed
two
of
these
small-cell
wireless
facilities,
V
scup.
C
So
this
ordinance
before
you
this
evening
will
address
that
CEP
requirement
and
we'll
talk
about
some
of
the
other
changes.
So
these
are
the
where
these
facilities
are
located
currently
in
the
community.
Most
of
them
are
clustered
around
the
Mall
of
America
and
the
South
Loop
district,
as
well
as
the
Normandale
office
park,
because
these
are
smaller
antennas
with
they
utilize
a
different
frequency
than
the
macro
sites,
a
higher
frequency.
C
With
the
changes
we've
seen
in
the
state
law,
there
is
going
to
be
more
and
more
frequency
to
put
these
facilities
in
the
right
away,
because,
frankly,
it
is
an
easier
approval
process
for
these
applicants
to
work
with
the
city
through
a
right
away,
permitting
process
than
it
would
be
to
negotiate
with
private
landowners.
So,
right
now
we
have
over
ten
in
the
right
away.
They're
reviewed
by
engineering
in
public
works
via
a
permit
process.
C
You
know,
I
think
what
we
see
is
that
the
possibility
is
that
you
know
the
number
of
these
facilities
could
eventually
outnumber
the
macro
cells.
You
know
in
a
ratio
of
ten
to
one,
this
is
kind
of
just
some
prognostication,
so
in
other
words,
you
know
in
a
long
period
of
time.
From
now
there
could
be
many.
Many
of
these
facilities
in
our
community
and
poet
writes
aways.
You
know
what
do
we
just
as
a
reminder
of
what
these
facilities
often
look
like
here
was
one
that
we
reviewed
last
year.
C
They
did
a
replacement
of
a
existing
public
utility
pole.
They
made
the
pole
taller
and
they
extended
an
antenna
on
top
of
it,
be
in
a
canister
and
what
you
often
have
is
other
equipment,
radios,
ground
equipment,
other
cables
and
whatnot
that
are
often
also
deployed
with
the
antenna.
So
it's
not
just
the
antenna
only,
but
that
just
gives
you
a
flavour
of
kind
of
what
these
look
like,
so
getting
into
the
ordinance
itself.
C
What
the
specific
changes
are
and
again
the
whole
intent
of
this
is
to
align
our
code
with
the
state
law
adopted
in
2017,
not
to
make
it
consistent
with
state
statute.
So
in
terms
of
facility
size
we
previously
are.
We
currently
have
a
restriction
of
3
cubic
feet
that
would
increase
to
6
cubic
feet,
and
this
is
really
just
to
be
consistent
with
the
the
definition
of
a
small
wireless
facility
in
a
state
statute
in
a
kind
of
related
performance
standard.
C
We
also
increased
the
maximum
arm
extension
or
attachment
length
off
a
pole
from
2
feet
to
3
feet,
so
just
to
note
that,
as
well
from
a
facility
high
perspective,
as
I
noted
before
the
state
law
standard
is,
youth
is
whatever
the
greater
of
the
of
50
feet
or
the
existing
condition
is
that's
what
the
maximum
height
of
this
facility
can
be.
In
other
words,
if
you're
replacing
an
existing
pole
at
that's,
currently
60
feet,
you
could
replace
that
pole
with
us
with
a
small
wireless
facility
at
60
feet.
C
So
it
does
allow
for
replacement
of
poles
that
are
already
existing
and,
above
that
50
foot
threshold.
It
does,
as
I
noted
before
it
does
provide
more
guidance
on
allowing
new
poles
in
the
public
right
away,
as
opposed
to
a
replacement
or
an
attachment,
and
so
that
is
what
is
reflected
in
the
use
table,
we'll
talk
about
that
and
in
the
performance
standards.
C
17
I
do
want
to
touch
on
one
thing:
we
provided
an
update
with
respect
to
public
correspondence
we
received
earlier,
but
another
thing
that
we
frankly
missed
as
staff,
and
it
was
a
no
mission
on
our
part-
is
that
when
we
crafted
this
ordinance,
we
were
really
focused
on
those
residential
districts,
because
that's
where
we
currently
have
been
seeing
the
need
for
these
conditional
use
permits.
So
we
made
all
of
the
residential
districts
we've
made
at
our
antenna
in
the
right
away.
C
That
are,
you
know,
subject
to
those
standards
in
chapter
17,
we
made
all
those
permitted
uses.
One
thing
we
forgot
to
do
is
to
update
all
of
our
commercial
and
industrial
zoning
district
use
tables
with
the
exact
same
language.
So
one
thing
that
we
are
requesting
this
evening
is
just
a
slight
modification
and
revision
to
a
suggested
motion
guidance
from
the
Planning
Commission
that
you
also
support
making
the
use
the
technical
use
just
permitted
within
our
commercial
and
industrial
zoning
districts
as
well.
C
We
sent
the
draft
out
for
review
and
comment
to
all
the
different
applicants
that
we've
had
thus
far,
and
it's
not
a
it's,
not
a
large
number.
It's
probably
five
different
entities
who
has
done
work
in
Bloomington
with
respect
to
these
types
of
facilities,
but
we
did
get
review
comments
back
from
Verizon
Wireless
and
they
submitted
kind
of
a
number
of
different
suggested
revisions
and
modifications
to
the
ordinance
that
they
thought
were
appropriate.
We
certainly
appreciate
that
they
do
that.
C
C
Basically
what
we
did
and
what
we
sent
out
to
you
earlier
is.
We
did
review
their
suggested
revisions
and
additions
kind
of
our
small
Wireless
team
and
we
did
go
through
them
and
review
them
in
terms
of
what
do
we
think
is,
has
merit
and
can
be
supported
and
which
one
of
the
changes
that
they
requested,
which
we
do
not
concur
with
and
therefore
do
not
recommend
recommend,
be
adopted.
So
we
color-coded
that
for
you.
C
Hopefully
it
was
easy
to
kind
of
sort
through
that
quickly
with
that
color
coding,
I
have
just
an
example
of
that
on
the
page,
but
the
changes
that
we
record
that
we
recommend
be
adapted
were
highlighted
in
green
in
that
version
and
the
the
changes
that
we
did
not
support
were
highlighted
in
orange.
Getting
into
the
specifics,
there
was
some
definitional
changes
and
some
permit
and
agreement
clarifications
that
Verizon
noted,
which
was
really
helpful,
and
we
do
think
that
those
things
have
merit.
C
We
do
support
the
adoption
of
those
more
specifically,
the
ordinance
specified
that
colocation
agreements
and
other
things
should
be
required
in
all
support
structures
when,
in
fact,
that's
really
only
applicable
on
city-owned
facilities,
so
there's
other
entities
that
own
poles
in
the
right
away,
Excel
and
others.
So
our
location
agreement
is
really
just
a
city
process,
so
some
of
those
changes
were
welcomed.
Two
of
the
changes
that
Verizon
requested
that
we
do
not
support,
have
to
do
with
the
separation
of
four
new
poles.
C
They
requested
shrinking
that
down
to
three
hundred
feet
so
that
you
could
have
two
new
poles
per
block
again,
just
recognizing
the
intent
and
purpose
of
our
it's
was
to
from
you
know,
try
and
manage
the
right
away
as
well
as
minimize
the
visual
impact
of
just
having
more
additional
equipment
pulls
in
the
right
away.
We
did
not
support
that
reduction.
C
State
law
clearly
specifies
that
separation
is
allowed
on
the
part
of
the
city,
so
we
did
not
support
that
particular
revision
and
then
Verizon
also
requests
that
we
eliminate
an
antenna,
surface
size
performance
standard
that
the
city
is
utilized.
Our
legal
has
evaluated
that
standard
and
does
confirm
that
it
does
not
conflict
with
the
state
law.
C
So
we
would
recommend
to
keep
that,
and
there
was
some
other
changes
as
well
that
just
have
to
do
with
how
these,
overall,
how
the
city
code
relates
to
these
small
wireless
facilities
in
terms
of
some
references
back
to
the
zoning
code
in
chapter
19,
I'm
happy
to
go
through
some
of
those.
If
there
are
questions,
but
in
summary,
Verizon
provided
us
a
good
service
by
providing
us
these
comments,
we
support
some
of
them,
don't
support
others.
We've
communicated
that
to
them
and
I'm
sure
they'll
want
to
continue
to
engage
and
discuss
that
with
us.
C
But
that's
just
an
overview
of
how
that
process
works,
so
we
are
recommending
that
the
ordinance
that
goes
forward
to
the
the
City
Council
ultimately
do
include
the
revisions
that
we
have
highlighted
in
green
and
ultimately
should
Planning
Commission
confirm
or
confer
with
that
or
concur
with
that
we
would.
We
would
revise
the
ordinance
to
take
take
those
changes
into
account.
C
We
are
recommending
approval
of
this
ordinance.
We
recommend
the
Planning
Commission,
recommend,
approval
or
adoption
I
do
have
a
suggested
motion
for
you
here.
You
know
the
big
takeaway
from
this
one
is
again
currently
these
uses
our
conditional
use
permits,
and
we
think,
with
just
the
ever-changing
nature
of
this
industry
and
what's
coming
down
the
pike
that
if
we
don't
make
these
changes,
we're
likely
to
see
a
high
volume
of
these
conditional
use,
permit
applications
for
a
facility
that
is
fairly
well
regulated
by
the
state
law
and
the
city's
permit
process
administered
by
public
works.
A
Thank
you,
so
one
question
I
have
regarding
the
separation,
so
it
looks
like
the
public
also
had
suggested
some
language
of
or
otherwise
approved
by
the
city.
So
in
not
accepting
that
language
and
keeping
the
600
feet.
If
there
are
situations
where
applicants
want
to
try
and
have
structures
within
that
600
feet,
is
there
an
avenue
for
them
to
do
that,
or
is
that
simply
a
variance
or
how
would
they
go
about
doing
that?
Yeah.
C
Man
I'm
sure,
thanks
for
that
question,
that's
a
good
question
because
the
I
should
have
mentioned
this,
but
the
way
I've
described
it.
It's
almost
like
there's
no
opportunity
to
have
additional
facilities,
and
that's
not
the
case
because
one
of
the
what
this
regulation
really
only
pertains
to
is
adding
new
poles
and
within
a
single
600
feet
block
of
right
away.
You
know,
there's
any
number
of
utility
poles
lighting.
You
know
light
poles,
there's
a
number
of
different
structures
that
they
can
either
replace
or
co-locate
on,
just
to
be
a
pole
attachment
permit.
C
So
there's
a
lot
of
other
opportunities
and
then
beyond
that
I'm.
You
know
what
Verizon
mentioned
is
that
in
its
often
in
commercial
or
mixed-use
districts,
where
there's
higher
concentration
of
users
where
they
need
more
than
one
per
600,
they
also
have
the
ability
to
negotiate
private
landowners
to
install
these
facilities
on
light
poles
on
buildings
on
other
areas
other
than
new
poles
in
the
public
right-of-way.
So
I
very
much
want
us
to
stress
that
there's
multiple
opportunities
for
the
wireless
companies
to
locate
these
types
of
facilities,
regardless
of
that
600
separation.
D
D
B
There
we
go
underneath
myself.
Thank
you.
Yes,
commissioners,
madam
chair,
all
of
the
applications
that
we've
seen
to
date
would
not
be
affected
by
these
changes.
All
the
applications
that
we've
received
are
in
compliance
with
the
state
statute.
So
really
the
change
to
our
city
code
here
tonight
would
just
mr.
Johnson
mentioned,
bring
our
code
into
alignment
with
the
state
statute.
B
C
A
B
A
A
This
seems
I
think
like
a
good
way
to
go,
considering
that
there
is
not
a
lot
of
discretion
and
if
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
conditional
use
applications
because
of
this-
and
it
just
seems
hopefully
like
saving
a
lot
of
time
and
energy
from
staff
and
the
Commission
for
things
that
we
don't
really
have
discretion
over
I
appreciate
staffs,
looking
at
the
public
comment
and
advising
as
to
what
they
do
and
do
not
recommend
adoption.
I
am
in
agreement
with
the
staffs
recommendations
on
those
also
I
know.
A
There
was
some
I
think
reference
to
question
regarding
notice
and
so
forth
with
these
and
I
think
it
makes
sense
that
with
other
utilities,
there's
not
a
notice
requirement,
and
so
there
shouldn't
really
prepare
to
be
one
with
this.
So
I
am
in
support
of
the
current
motion,
that's
being
put
forth
by
staff.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I,
just
like
to
echo
your
comments.
I
agree
also
regarding
notice.
I
also
picked
that
up
and
agree
with
not
not
having
a
need
for
notice.
At
that
point
too.
I
think
this
is
this
is
great
work
by
staff
and
I
want
to
thank
Xcel,
Energy
I'm,
sorry
for
Verizon
Wireless
for
contributing
their
their
comments.
I
think
that
was
helpful
for
clarification.
E
Inks
panel
chair,
if
I,
could
I'd
like
to
make
a
motion.
Go
ahead
in
case
pl
to
0
to
0-9
3
I,
move
to
recommend
the
adoption
of
an
ordinance
updating
the
city's
regulations
pertaining
to
small
wireless
facilities
installed
in
the
public
right
away
to
ensure
compliance
with
Minnesota
statute,
including
revised
commercial
and
industrial
zoning
district
used
tables
and
including
staff
supported
revisions
to
the
ordinance
submitted
by
the
public
Chris.
A
A
B
Madam
chair,
so,
depending
on
what
the
City
Council
does,
with
upcoming
appointments
to
the
Planning
Commission,
this
may
be
the
last
meeting
for
chair
person,
Bennett
and
vice
chair
person.
Goodrem,
so
I
wanted
to
recognize
that
and
thank
you
both
for
six
years
of
excellent
service
being
on
the
Planning
Commission.
It's
a
big
time
commitment,
there's
no
pay,
but
you
do
have
the
opportunity
to
influence
policy
and
development
in
the
city,
so
I
hope
it
was
a
positive
six
years
for
both
of
you
and
yeah
on
behalf
of
staff.