►
From YouTube: April 9 Bloomington Planning Commission Meeting
Description
Live Bloomington Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting
A
Good
evening
and
welcome
to
the
April
9th
Bloomington
Planning
Commission
meeting
the
Planning
Commission
advises
the
City
Council
on
development
proposals,
development
standards,
long-range
planning
and
transportation
issues,
some
items,
the
Planning
Commission
has
final
authority
for
and
others
the
City
Council
will
make.
The
final
decision.
Planning
Commission
is
made
up
of
seven
volunteers
that
are
appointed
by
the
City
Council
to
serve
for
up
to
three
years.
At
a
time
tonight
we
have
six
items
on
our
agenda,
but
before
we
begin
we'll
start
with
the
Pledge
of
Allegiance
I
pledge
allegiance
to
the
flag.
A
As
you
can
see,
things
look
a
little
bit
different
in
the
council
chambers
tonight
in
response
to
the
endemic
that
is
facing
the
United
States
right
now
we
have
changed
the
operations
in
which
we're
taking
place,
but
we
still
fully
intend
and
are
trying
to
serve
the
public
in
the
best
way
possible
and
tonight,
with
a
short
synopsis
of
how
things
will
work
mr.
mark
regard,
would
you
outline
that.
B
Sure
mr.
chair
members
of
the
public,
so
in
Bloomington,
given
the
pandemic
situation,
the
Advisory
Commission
meetings
have
all
been
canceled
through
April
15th,
but
there's
an
exception.
If
time-sensitive
action
must
be
taken-
and
we
did
confer
with
our
applicants
this
evening
and
concluded
that
we
do
have
time-sensitive
items
on
the
agenda.
So
that's
why
we're
moving
forward
with
tonight's
meeting?
B
Luckily,
there's
a
statute
that
addresses
state
statute
that
addresses
meetings
during
a
pandemic
situation.
Somebody
had
some
forethought
there
and
that
statute
says
that
under
a
health
pandemic
or
an
emergency
public
meetings
may
be
conducted
by
telephone
or
they're
electronic
means.
So
that's
what
we're
doing
tonight
is
everybody.
Pretty
much
is
remote,
except
for
Commissioner,
Solberg
and
myself,
and
we
also
have
somebody
in
communication
staff
in
the
control
room.
So
we
only
have
three
people
here
at
City
Hall
in
the
council
chambers
joining
remotely
our
planning,
commissioners,
staff
applicants
and
members
of
the
public.
B
I
would
note
that,
because
we
have
a
remote
meeting,
that
all
of
the
votes
must
be
conducted
by
roll
call
terms
of
communicating
this
unusual
meeting
type,
we
did
send
an
e
subscribe
out.
Last
Friday,
when
the
packet
came
out
and
was
sent
to
over
1900
subscribers,
and
then
we
also
posted
the
information
on
our
website
and
communicated
it
with
anybody.
That's
communicated
with
us
on
items
on
tonight,
communication
explained
how
to
participate
remotely
and
that
could
be
either
watching
the
meeting
online
or
on
cable
television
or
participating
via
computer
or
phone.
B
If
you
are
watching
live
tonight
and
would
like
to
testify,
you
can
call
the
number
on
the
screen,
which
is
nine
five,
two
five,
six,
three,
eight
nine
two
six
or
you
can
email
planning
at
Bloomington,
MN,
dot,
govt
for
instructions
and
we'll
be
able
to
get
you
on
the
WebEx
call.
So
you
can
provide
live
testimony
if
you
would
like
to
do
so
well
have
that
information
scrolling
across
the
screen
tonight,
if
you
are
watching
via
cable
television
or
if
you're,
watching
via
the
online
feed,
which
comes
from
the
cable
television
feed.
B
However,
if
you're
watching
via
YouTube
live,
that
scrolling
feature
does
not
work
and
it
will
also
not
work
if
you're
watching
when
you're
not
live
after
the
fact
and
replay
it
will
not
show
up.
So
just
look
for
the
scrolling
information
if
you'd
like
to
participate
live
in
the
meeting
we
have
heard
from
one
member
of
the
public
that
wants
to
participate,
live
and
I
see
that
he
has
joined
so
we'll
be
able
to
hear
from
him
on
item
number
one,
and
then
we
also
received
five
comments
via
email
as
well.
A
A
C
C
A
E
B
A
E
E
E
B
A
E
E
Existing
home
is
set
back
substantially
from
the
street
itself,
and
the
applicants
are
looking
to
subdivide
the
property
to
allow
residential
development
near
overlook
Drive
itself
as
well.
I
turned
on
the
contours
are
the
elevations
on
this
drawing
or
on
this
image
you
can
see
the
the
area
in
front
of
the
existing
houses
is
quite
flat,
but
behind
the
home
is
really
where
there's
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
slope,
and
this.
E
Have
a
couple
images
of
some
existing
conditions,
so
this
is
looking
east
or
south
east
from
Overlook
Drive
and,
as
you
can
see,
the
area
the
Overlook
Drive
itself
is
on
the
lower
left-hand
side
of
the
image.
We
can
see
the
area
that
it
is
vacant
of
any
buildings
or
doesn't
have
any
buildings
on
it
along
the
street
itself.
We're
not
the
you
know,
a
lot
of
mature
trees
on
the
site
and
that's
a
characteristic
of
the
entire
neighborhood.
E
E
This
is
the
existing
home
as
it
sits
a
couple
days
ago,
but
the
applicant
has
been
doing
quite
a
bit
of
renovations
to
the
home
and
is
proposing
to
retain
this
home
and
will
I'll
provide
some
more
detail
on
how
they
would
accomplish
a
retaining
the
existing
home
and
providing
access
to
that
property.
While
reading
new
property
along
our
new
developable
Lots
along
will
overlook
Drive.
E
This
is
the
final
plat
itself.
The
document
that
would
get
recorded
to
create
new
residential
lots-
this
is
the
entire
plant,
and
so
you
can.
You
can
see
just
the
scope
of
this.
This
piece
of
land,
it's
quite
large,
but
the
Lots
that
we're
focusing
on
today
are
near
overlook
driving.
You
can
see
a
lot
one
and
two,
but
I'll
zoom
in
here.
E
Well
for
code
requirements,
there's
there's
quite
a
few
requires
that
we
have
to
review
when
thinking
about
residential
flats,
and
so
we
did
analysis
of
of
these
code
requirements,
including
a
site
area.
The
minimum
is
11,000
square
feet.
I
have
the
proposed
Lots
a
lot
one
two
and
three
op
three
of
course,
is
quite
large
because
that's
the
remainder
of
a
lot
with
the
existing
home.
E
So
it
does
meet
the
lot
area
requirements,
not
with
the
code
minimum
for
a
lot
width
is
only
80
feet,
but
we
do
have
something
called
median
lot:
width
which
tries
to
blend
new
residential
lots
within
an
existing
neighborhood,
and
we
do
a
calculation
and
the
median
lot
width
or
the
minimum
lot
width
for
this
is
80%
of
the
median
lot
with
within
500
feet
doing
that
calculation.
The
code
requirement
is
97
feet,
so
17
feet
larger
or
wider.
E
If
you
will,
then
the
minimum
proposes
exceeds
that
so
that
that's
also
compliant
I'll
provide
a
little
more
detail
in
terms
of
the
building
setbacks,
but
we
have
revealed
something
called
prevailing
that
facts
which
again
tries
to
blend
new
buildings
or
new
homes
within
established.
Neighborhoods,
where
we
average
adjacent
properties,
but
the
maximum
enforceable
setback
is
65
feet.
In
this
case,
the
setback
is
65
feet,
a
couple
additional
items
willing
to
step
back
a
long
overlooked
circle
which
all
is
to
the
east
and
that
would
serve
or
apply
to
the
existing
home.
E
That
is
also
compliant
as
well
as
rear
suspects.
One
thing
we
don't
know
until
or
wouldn't
know
until
a
building
permit
is
submitted
is
what
the
lock
coverage
or
impervious
surface
coverage
is
for
a
particular
property
and
that's
something
that
we
would
review
as
part
of
like
a
certificate
of
survey.
E
Well,
going
on
to
the
preliminary
plat,
the
premiere
plat
is
much
more
detail.
It
has
on
tours
or
topography
a
lot
of
other
existing
conditions,
type
information
that
does
not
that
is
not
included
in
the
final
plat
and
one
thing
that
the
the
applicant
would
like
to
do
ultimately
is
to
have
to
construct
a
single-family
home,
but
then
also
construct
a
two-family
new
family
dwelling.
They
would
like
to
ultimately
develop
three
new
residential
lots
and
that's
depicted
on
the
perimeter
preliminary
plan
again
zooming
in
on
the
lot
one
to
the
east.
E
They
would
like
to
develop
a
family
dwelling
and,
on
the
last
lot
to
a
single-family
home,
it's
important
to
note
that
we're
not
asking
the
Planning
Commission
to
make
a
recommendation
out
of
two-family
dwelling.
The
applicants
has
been
transparent
that
that's
what
they'd
like
to
do
ultimately,
but
what's
before
you
today,
it
is
really
a
three-lap
plan
to
create
two
new
residential
lots.
Should
this
plant
be
approved,
the
applicant
would
then
have
the
ability
to
go
through
an
additional
review
process
to
have
a
two
family,
a
building
or
proof,
we'll
make
sure
that's
clear.
E
But
I'll
address
some
of
the
code
requirements
that
we
have
to
review
relative
to
the
two
family
dwelling.
The
mall
I
understand,
there's
a
lot
of
text
on
the
slide,
but
I
think
it's
important,
given
the
concern
that
we
heard
from
members
of
the
public
related
to
a
two-family
dwelling
and
one
of
the
one
of
the
pieces
of
concern
related
to
a
two-family
dwelling
was
the
increased
density
and
how
that
increased
density
could
change
the
character
of
this
neighborhood
and
the
code
actually
deals
with
that.
E
Quite
specifically-
and
we
have
a
number
of
performance
standards
related
to
to
family
dwellings,
but
even
starting
in
the
purpose
section
of
the
to
family
dwellings.
Performance
standards
is
that
it's
intended
to
accommodate
two
family
dwellings
with
in
predominantly
single-family
areas,
so
the
intent
of
the
code
or
the
explicit
purpose
is
to
try
and
allow
some
to
family
dwellings
with
in
predominantly
single-family
neighborhoods,
provided
that
they
meet
the
performance
standards
that
we
have
in
the
city
and
I've
included
a
few
of
those
here
under
C
1
R,
1
zoning.
This
is
an
our
zoning.
E
Here
is
R
1
the
site
size,
the
minimum
site
size
for
a
two-family
dwelling
is
15,000.
The
proposed
is
just
under
20,000
so
that
that
standard
is
met
as
well
as
the
site.
Width
for
a
two-family
dwelling
is
a
100
feet
and,
in
this
case,
they're
proposing
a
little
over
120
feet.
Those
are
just
a
few
items
that
we
look
for.
We
in
reviewing
to
family
dwellings
again
we're
not
asking
a
Planning
Commission
to
take
action
to
tell
a
dwelling,
but
the
feedback
we
were
heard
from
the
public,
given
a
concern
that
we
wanted
to.
E
E
One
unique
feature
about
this
lot
is
that
overlook
circle
actually
extends
to
this
Lots
boundary,
and
so
that's
how
the
applicant
is
able
to
propose
a
new
driveway
to
overlook
circle
and
not
have
access
directly
from
overlook
Drive.
You
can
see
on
this
drawing
how
the
existing
driver
would
be
removed
to
make
way
for
the
new
single-family
home.
E
E
One
thing
to
note
is
the
the
shed
as
well
as
the
garage
would
have
to
be
removed
or
relocated,
because
essentially
the
image
here
would
become
the
front
yard
for
this
property
and
detached
accessory
buildings
are
not
permitted
between
the
home
base
of
the
home
and
the
front
yard.
So
those
elements
would
have
to
be
relocated.
E
I'll
touch
on
prevailing
setback
briefly,
so
this
is.
This
is
the
image
within
city
code
and
again
for
for
whole
new
development
or
additions
of
homes,
even
in
established
neighborhoods,
you
have
to
average
the
setback
of
adjacent
properties.
In
this
case
we,
but
we
exclude
corner
Lots.
A
lot
to
the
east
is
a
corner
a
lot.
So
we
don't.
We
don't
count
that
and
a
lot
to
the
West
is
the
setback.
There
is
over
200
feet
in
order
to
create
an
average.
E
E
E
Significant
trees
is
a
threshold
before
there
has
to
be
a
reforestation
plan
and
based
on
the
the
tree
plan
that
was
submitted
by
the
applicant
there.
They
it
would
not
exceed
that
threshold.
The
tree
plan
is
something
that
we
think
could
evolve,
because
they
don't
have
final
designs
on
the
homes
that
would
be
built,
and
so,
if
a
home
is
relocated
in
a
certain
way
that
might
cause
the
removal
of
a
tree
that
they
didn't
anticipate,
that's
something
that
we
would
think
might
evolve
a
little
bit.
E
E
Now,
for
single-family
neighborhoods
or
really
any
development
along
public
rights-of-way,
we
want
there
to
be
sidewalk
and
for
a
new
commercial
development.
That
often
means
rebuilding
sidewalk.
If
there
is
substandard,
sidewalk
or
widening
it,
and
the
same
is
actually
the
case
for
single-family
neighborhoods.
E
On
this
image,
you
see
the
fence,
that's
roughly
where
the
property
boundary
is
and
that's
where
a
fence
with
our
I'm
sorry,
a
sidewalk,
so
I've
next
image
is
essentially
the
red
line
on
this
graphic
would
be
where
sidewalk
would
be
located
and
we're
we're
supportive
of
the
City
Council
waving
the
sidewalk
requirement
for
several
reasons.
One
is
there
there
isn't
a
sidewalk
network
within
this
neighborhood.
The
nearest
sidewalk
is
on
Dirk
C's
to
the
west,
north,
south
and
I'm,
not
aware,
don't
believe,
there's
any
sidewalk
elsewhere
in
the
entire
neighborhood.
E
Second
overlook.
Drive,
at
least
this
section
11
with
Drive,
has
intended
to
be
reconstructed
in
2020,
and
while
the
road
would
be
reconstructed,
a
sidewalk
would
not
be
included
on
the
foreseeable
future.
Over
several
decades.
The
city
would
not
be
engaged
in
constructing
sidewalk
along
overlook
drive,
though.
We
feel
that
having
a
small
section
of
sidewalk
in
isolation
doesn't
represent,
doesn't
represent
the
public's
best
interest.
F
E
A
E
Good
Thank
You
mr.
chair,
the
family
dwelling
process
and
I'll
actually
I'll
go
to
an
extra
slide
that
I
had,
and
this
is
taken
directly
from
the
code
dealing
with
two
family
dwelling
review
processes
and
it
requires
final
site
and
building
plan
approval.
But
then
I've
highlighted
how
the
review
processes
with
the
planning
manager
or
other.
In
other
words,
the
planning
manager,
has
the
ability
to
approve
to
family
dwellings.
E
E
G
E
Mr.
chair
Commissioner,
don't
know
the
exact
setback
or
prevailing
setback.
It's
not
the
homes
on
the
north
side
of
the
proper
are
the
street.
Aren't
they
don't
have
the
same
level
of
setback
like,
for
example,
the
property
to
the
west?
Is
a
200
plus
foot
setback?
It's
not
aware
of
any
properties
on
the
north
side
of
the
street
that
have
that
significant
setback
I
rarely
because
they're
not
they're,
not
as
large.
Typically,
lots
are
not
as
large
and
they're,
not
in
the
bluff.
E
A
D
E
Mr.
chairman,
that's
correct,
so
the
the
65-foot
backs
of
them
was
essentially
designed
for
a
scenario
where
you
have
really
large
setbacks
and
which,
in
some
cases,
can
make
it
impossible
to
do
any
sort
of
building
addition
or
new
construction
without
a
variance.
And
so
while
we
want
to
acknowledge
and
respect
greater
than
minimum
setbacks,
the
city
wants
to
have
a
maximum
requirement,
and
this,
and
the
number
that
ultimately
was
chosen
is
65
feet,
which
is
more
than
twice
the
minimum.
The
city
called
minimum,
which
is
30
feet.
E
E
I
think
the
our
engineering
division
as
they
review
any
sort
of
driveway
a
permit
would
need
to
make
sure
that
it's
the
grade
is
acceptable
for
the
improvements
on
that
all
the
Sacketts
in
their
review
that
they
didn't
find
it
to
be
a
potentially
have
an
adverse
impact
on
the
existing
improvements.
However,.
A
B
B
H
Okay,
I
have
the
owner
Andrew
Dibble
on
instant
message
here.
Sophie
has
anything
to
add
I'm,
just
acting
as
a
developer.
Here,
just
a
few
comments.
The
owner
and
I
conducted
a
neighborhood
meeting
last
fall
and
at
that
time
we
had
proposed
to
to
family
dwellings,
and
the
preconceived
notion
from
the
neighborhood
was
that
it
was
to
be
an
affordable
housing
development
and
we
didn't
hear
any
concerns
about
density
at
that
time
because
of
city
code
and
inability
to
do
to
to
family
dwellings.
H
Here
we
have
changed
to
this
plan
of
a
single-family
and
a
two-family
dwelling
just
to
clarify
that
there
are
no
plans
here
for
affordable
housing.
All
the
development
will
be
market
rate
and
it
will
conform
to
the
overall
appeal
and
design
of
the
neighborhood.
We're
not
planning
any
six
or
seven
thousand
square
foot
McMansions
here.
H
The
exterior
design
and
appeal
from
the
street
should
conform
to
the
rest
of
the
street
and
will
adhere
to
all
building
code
city,
ordinances,
on
Heights,
impervious
surface
areas,
required
landscaping,
tree
preservation,
etc,
and
just
to
close
to
borrow
from
mayor
Busey
development
in
the
city
needs
to
be
a
surgical.
One
as
we're
completely
built
out
and
and
as
a
community
in
need
of
additional
housing
options,
this
is
one
way
of
providing
additional
options
for
our
current
and
new
prospective
residents.
B
I
I
A
A
D
Thank
You
mr.
chair,
my
question
is
related
to
the
neighborhood
meeting
that
mr.
furlong
had
had
mentioned
and
his
initial
proposal
regarding
affordable
housing.
My
first
question
is:
what
was
the
reception
from
the
neighborhood
regarding
affordable
housing?
Why
did
you
decide
to
go
direction
and
then
follow-up
to
that
is
what
is
the
general
price
point.
H
H
Can
answer
your
part
of
the
first
question?
The
reason
why
we
did
a
neighborhood
meeting
is
anytime.
You
propose
changes
like
this,
especially
in
this
neighborhood.
It's
good
to
have
involvement
of
of
the
neighbors.
As
the
last
thing
you
want
to
do
as
a
Andrew's
living
here,
he
doesn't
want
to
upset
his
neighbors
and
and
we'd
rather
start
off,
knowing
that
we
have
agreement
on
what
we'd
like
to
propose
and
and
that
it's
generally
acceptable
for
the
neighborhood
and
that's
what
we
found.
The
only
adverse
response
we
had
was
a
concern
about
affordable
housing.
D
G
G
I
G
I
A
D
C
H
A
B
I
C
B
B
B
A
I
B
E
E
A
Why
don't
I?
While
we
wait
I'll
go
ahead
and
summarize
or
see?
We
have
four
different
emails
that
I
see
in
front
of
me
that
came
on
item
number
one
and
the
first
one
they
received
notice.
They
live
across
from
the
lot
splitting
a
lot.
One
lot
into
three
lots
would
be
okay
with
us
if
they
were
going
to
be
single-family
residence,
but
they
understand
that
it
will
be
condos.
A
Therefore,
increasing
density
they've
lived
across
from
the
property
for
two
years,
two
years
of
construction
and
interference
in
the
quiet
neighborhood
that
they
enjoy
and
they've
shared
that
information
with
mr.
Dibble,
and
that
was
from
a
from
the
residence
at
2930
overlook,
have
another
email
from
2821
West
112th
Street
summarized
it
was
okay
with
them
the
the
variance
process.
A
Third
email
looks
like
from
28:15
overlook,
drive,
they've
reviewed
the
city
website
with
regards
to
the
materials
and
are
exciting
to
express
concerns
about
the
resulting
density
that
the
parcel,
if
the
application
would
be
approved
with
the
duplex,
were
duplex
in
a
single-family
home.
They
walked
extensively
in
the
neighborhood
and
are
concerned
that.
A
A
B
C
Great,
so
this
is
a
Nathan
reader.
I
am
the
neighbor
to
this
loss.
I've
lived
here
for
15
years
and
we
love
the
neighborhood.
It's
a
great
neighborhood
and
mr.
Dibble
Claude
is
a
beautiful
loss
and
you
know
has
been.
You
know
been
there
for
many
many
years,
so
putting
putting
two
new
Lots
changes,
the
the
characteristic
of
the
neighborhood,
particularly
the
south
side
of
overlook.
It
would
add
densities,
it's
not
really
there.
C
Now,
as
far
as
I
think
that's
the
main
concern
of
people
in
the
neighborhood
is
not
really
about
affordable
housing.
Otherwise
it's
really
just
about
putting
a
duplex.
You
know
right
now,
where
there's
one
house
having
a
centrist
or
just
really
changes
the
characteristic
of
the
neighborhood
in
the
density.
C
I've
got
kind
of
multiple
things
calling
into
my
phone
may
be
related
to
this
meeting.
So
you
know
we,
you
know,
don't
I,
don't
know
yet
about
the
against
the
applicant.
I
understand
it's
their
property,
but
this
is
you
know.
This
is
literally
my
backyard
and
you
know
we
just
wanted
to
retain
the
characteristic
that
we
have
in
the
neighborhood
where
people
have
yards,
and
you
know
we
don't
have
neighbors
right
on
top
of
each
other.
C
It's
a
it's
a
neighborhood
where
a
lot
of
people
who
are
willing
to
walk
and
walk
through
and
just
maintaining
you
know
some
space
between
buildings,
maintaining
the
trees,
those
sorts
of
things
I
think
really
important
for
the
aesthetic
and
the
value
of
the
neighborhood
I.
Think
if
you
start
putting
duplexes
in
I,
think
it
would
set
a
precedent.
You've
got
big
loss
if
you
put
a
number
of
duplexes
in
or
even
just
dividing
these
blocks
up
into
a
lot
of
smaller
Lots
I.
A
C
A
B
F
A
B
C
C
B
B
A
B
I
B
F
Thank
you.
I
name
is
Dennis
Mahalo
I'm,
a
homeowner
in
the
neighborhood
I've,
been
here
about
thirteen
fourteen
years.
I
also
have
a
concern
about
the
density
impact
Oh
along
the
street.
Here
we
we
do
have
a
immense
amount
of
foot
traffic
through
this
neighborhood
a
lot
of
dog
walkers
and
that
sort
of
thing,
and
after
looking
everything
over
and
looking
at
the
plat
and
the
setback
and
everything
I
I
think
I
would
be
perfectly
comfortable
with
two
single
family
homes
in
this
plan.
I
think.
F
F
F
Being
out
of
character
with
the
neighborhood
and
I
guess,
I
feel
very
strongly
about
that
it
pushes
the
the
housing
lines
out
of
very
close
to
the
edges
of
the
property.
It
effectively
makes
the
frontage
there
much
less,
because
you're,
basically
putting
three
homes
in
on
that.
Oh
I,
guess
230
foot
frontage
on
overlook
that
we
have
there
and
that
starts
that
starts
looking
pretty
crowded,
plus
the
trees
it'll
have
to
be
removed,
oh
and
that
as
well
so
I
just
wanted
to
add
my
two
cents
yeah.
F
The
other
thing
that's
bothering
me
here
is
that
for
this
meeting
and
for
this
approval
it's
only
the
final
plat
and
the
final
plot
just
has
the
two
logs,
which
I
don't
think
a
lot
of
people
have
a
lot
of
objection
to
in
in
general,
but
once
this
gets
approved,
the
approval
process
for
the
duplex
is
an
administrative
action.
That
is
the
way
I
understand
it
will
not
have
another
public
review
and
I
think
there's
a
disconnect
there.
I
I
feel
like
these.
F
Two
things
ought
to
be
joined
if
they
plan
on
putting
a
duplex
on
there.
That
should
be
taken
into
consideration
in
approval
for
the
final
plat,
but
the
way
this
process
is
set
up.
That's
that's
not
how
it's
being
done
so
I
have
a
concern
about
that
from
a
process
standpoint,
and
that's
really
the
end
of
my
comments.
A
A
H
You
Thank
You,
commissioner,
so
just
to
respond
to
a
few
things.
We
heard
city
ordinance
limits
the
number
of
two-family
dwellings
within
a
certain
area.
So
if
we
built
one
here,
we
couldn't
build
another
one.
Two
blocks
down
the
street
construction
time
has
been
generally
about
five
months
on
these.
So
it's
not
a
long
drawn-out
process
and
I'd
want
to
note
that
the
circle
to
the
east
was
a
bluff
lot.
That
was
carved
up
in
1989
and
all
of
those
homeowners
would
not
have
that
opportunity
to
own
a
home
in
Bloomington.
H
If
that
approach
wasn't
taken
as
we're
doing
nothing
different
than
what
was
done
in
the
cul-de-sac
just
to
the
east,
we
did
notify
all
of
the
owners
within
a
radius
I
think
it
was
500.
Foot
radius
last
fall
with
a
postcard
that
had
bright
red
all
caps,
bold
print.
That
said,
overlook
development,
meaning
so
certainly
had
notice
of
that
and
I've
heard
that
the
word
duplex
a
lot.
This
is
not
a
duplex.
It's
a
two-family
dwelling,
it's
two
separate
individual
homeowners.
H
D
Mr.
chair,
one
question
that
I
have
is:
have
we
heard
anything
from
the
public
for
the
for
the
property
to
the
west
and
giving
you
a
little
bit
of
information
on
why
I'm
asking
the
question?
Is
the
property
immediately
to
the
west
is
currently
for
sale
and
that
property
is
being
advertised
with
the
ability
to
divide
that
lot
as
well
into
three
separate
lot?
So
I
wondered
if
we've
heard
from
the
property
owner
there
or
the
public
on
the
knowledge
and
just
the
overall.
I
It's
my
understanding
from
the
agent
of
that
property
that
they've
had
they
have
an
accepted
purchase
agreement
on
it
and
the
people
that
are
buying
that
are
not
buying
it
to
split
it
up,
they're
buying
it
to
renovate
the
existing
home
I
think
further.
The
3001
overlook,
which
is
the
property
to
the
west,
isn't
wide
enough
to
meet
the
96
foot
width
requirement
to
that
neighborhood.
I
So,
even
if
the
particular
buyer
wanted
to
split
it,
they
would
have
to
go
through
a
variance
process
in
order
to
do
that.
So
I
understand
that
he's
advertising
that
or
the
agents
of
the
advertising
a
certain
way,
but
that
way
is
not
likely
given
the
layout
of
that
lot
and
from
my
understanding,
the
people
that
are
buying
at
they
have
an
accepted
offer.
I
A
D
A
D
Thanks
mr.
chair
I
think
we've
we've
heard
from
the
applicant
as
well
as
the
the
neighborhood
as
and
staff.
One
area
that
we
haven't
discussed
in
length
is
really
around
the
sidewalk
and
I
actually
used
that
neighborhood.
Quite
a
bit
walk
my
dog
and
I
would
be
in
favor
of
waiving
the
sidewalk
instruction.
D
Just
for
the
sake
of
there
is
no
other
sidewalk
on
that
street.
It
wouldn't
make
sense
to
have
the
the
lonely
sidewalk
as
well
as
the
removal
of
all
of
those
trees
would
be
obviously
an
impacted.
The
the
neighborhood
and
aesthetics
so
overall
I
think
you
know
the
the
applicant
has
met
all
of
their
requirements
and
it
looks
to
see
that
you
know
partner.
D
G
G
However,
again,
as
is
my
drum
to
beat,
you
know
be
here,
we
are
rebuilding
a
street,
a
street
where
we
have
heard
from
multiple
members
of
the
public
how
busy
it
is
and
how
much
people
like
to
walk
and
we
are
failing
to
put
sidewalks
in
as
we
rebuild
streets
and
so
I
just
think.
It's
a
really
big
mistake
on
the
part
of
the
city
I'm,
the
planning
side
of
the
the
streets
segment
to
very
diversity
and
I
would
like
to
have
that.
G
You
know
staff
take
that
back
and
let
them
know
as
far
as
the
actual
application
again
given
the
parameters
of
what
our
ability
in
our
purview
as
a
Planning
Commission
are
the
Planning
Commission.
Our
job
is
not
to
weigh
those
other
issues.
Our
job
is
doesn't
meet
the
conditions
of
the
code
and
it
does,
and
so,
given
that
the
ability
to
subdivide
this
into
three
separate
Lots,
it
does
meet
those
those
requirements
and
so
I
find
myself
in
support
of
it.
Because
that
is
the
extent
of
the
scope
of
our
overall.
A
D
A
All
right,
I'll,
just
chime
in
here
as
well
I
think
you
know
this
is
an
interesting
application
before
us
again.
The
the
plat
subdividing
one
lot
into
three
and
what
will
now
be
potentially
in
the
future,
although
that
has
yet
to
be
determined
up
to
four
homes
but
to
everybody
else's
comments.
The
application
meets
the
intent
to
the
ordinance
for
the
subdivision
and
for
that
I
can
support
it.
D
B
C
A
D
B
D
A
D
D
A
B
A
B
C
C
You
remember
that
in
tall
office
buildings,
some
stories
or
more,
we
used
to
require
that
signs
be
in
the
top
20
feet
of
the
building
and
then
in
the
miscellaneous
issues.
We
changed
that
to
also
allow
or
in
the
bottom
20
feet
of
the
building
kind
of
signaling,
where
the
entrance
of
the
building
is.
C
The
proposal
is
to
have
an
in
lieu
of
your
freestanding
sign
to
reallocate
that
freestanding
sign
to
that
wall.
Signage
in
that
lower
part
of
building
for
20
feet
of
building
it
would
be
required.
They'd
be
the
same
street
frontage
as
a
permitted
freestanding
sign,
like
I
said
it
would
be
within
the
20
feet
of
the
ground,
would
have
to
also
language
says
near
the
primary
building
entrance,
so
the
intent
is
really
to
signal.
This
is
where
the
entrance
of
the
building
is
and
activate
the
street,
and
it's
only
4
tall
office
buildings.
C
So
we
have
in
our
sign
code
a
district
for
a
tall
office
building,
7
stories
or
more.
You
would
still
need
to
get
a
sign
permit
as
normal
that's
reviewed
by
staff
to
be
reviewed
for
code
compliance,
the
total
additional
square
footage
for
signage.
Your
freestanding
sign,
you're
allowed
up
to
a
hundred
square
feet,
so
you
just
would
essentially
be
reallocating
that
one
hundred
one
hundred
square
feet
to
the
wall
near
an
entryway
staff
is
in
the
work
of
this
proposal
for
one
the
total
signage
is
not
changing.
C
Most
of
more
of
our
new
office
buildings
are
more
urban
in
design,
so
they're
up
to
the
street
I'm
having
that
sign
by
a
door,
it
really
activates
for
the
pedestrian
environment,
as
people
are
walking
by
that
sign
thing.
Those
where
the
entrance
is
where,
as
a
sign
you
know
and
the
top
20
feet
of
a
7-story
building
is
not
that
noticeable
they're
kind
of
two
different
audiences
and
then
in
reality
it's
the
effect
of
having
that
is
not
much
different
than
what
really
is
permitted
with
the
freestanding
sign.
C
You
could
technically
have
a
freestanding
sign
that
six
feet
from
the
wall
that
would
have
the
same
effect
as
a
wall
sign,
but
it's
essentially
more
expensive.
Could
you
have
to
put
a
foundation
in
and
you
know
it
while
it
functions
the
same?
It's
just
an
added
cost
for
the
property
owner,
so
we
don't
need
that.
It
needs
to
be
in
that
place.
C
A
All
right,
thank
you
all
right.
Mr.
marker
guard
has
left
me
all
by
myself
and
the
Chamber's
here
so
we'll
see.
If
we
can
do
this
and
he's
covered,
it
covered
up
the
list
where
all
the
commissioners
are
so
we're,
gonna,
try
and
play
this
by
ear.
Are
there
any
questions
of
the
commissioners
for
staff?
On
this
particular
item.
A
C
A
A
B
A
A
D
A
G
You
this
is
Commissioner
Roman
in
case
BL
0
0
4
0
I,
moved
to
recommend
approval
of
the
ordinances
attached
to
the
staff
report
to
amend
the
city
code
to
allow
an
additional
wall
sign
in
lieu
of
a
free-standing
sign
for
office
buildings
with
7
stories
or
more
thereby
amending
chapter
19
of
the
city
code.
All.
A
A
C
A
J
B
J
J
J
Okay,
sorry
about
that.
So
yes,
this
is
a
continued
application,
a
self
storage
facility.
It
was
submitted
by
u-haul
of
southern
Minnesota.
So,
just
to
reiterate,
there
was
a
number
of
outstanding
conditions
and
areas
of
non-compliance
that
the
Planning
Commission
wanted
to
see.
Further
study
on
and
some
revised
plans
and
additional
design
work
done
so
u-haul
of
Minnesota
and
their
design
team
did
submit
revised
plans
addressing
all
of
these
specific
comments
of
the
Planning
Commission,
and
so
what
staff
put
together
to
respond
and
review
those
revised
plans?
J
Is
they
did
issue
a
supplemental
memo
to
the
Planning
Commission,
going
over
all
those
specific
questions
and
requests
for
updates?
So
hopefully
you
have
that,
and
hopefully
it
was
fairly
straightforward.
That
being
said,
what
we'll
do
here
in
this
PowerPoint
slide
is
identify
what
the
specific
updates
are
that
are
encapsulated
in
the
revised
plans
and
also
discuss
how
they
impact
the
recommended
conditions
of
approval
by
staff.
J
Okay,
just
to
reorient
reorient
you
to
the
site
again,
this
is
the
industrial
portion
of
the
Lyndale
Avenue
corridor.
Just
to
the
north
of
90th
Street.
There
were
some
industrial
uses
at
these
sites.
They've
since
been
demoed,
you
can
see
the
two
properties
outlined
in
yellow,
so
this
is
the
revised
site
plan
that
u-haul
has
submitted,
and
so
what
I'll
do
here
is
go
over
specific
issues
that
were
raised
by
the
Planning
Commission
in
on
March
19th
and
and
relate
how
they
affect
conditions
of
approval.
J
So
the
updates
that
were
submitted
by
u-haul
are
identified
in
yellow,
highlight,
hopefully
you
can
see
those
this
is
just
going
through
those
previously,
the
recreational
vehicle
outdoor
storage
area
was
insufficient
and
size
did
not
meet
code,
so
they
were
able
to
increase
that
to
a
code
complying
area
or
size.
So
you
see
that
area
highlighted
as
such
staff
has
removed
that
as
a
recommended
condition
of
approval.
J
So
as
such,
the
condition
pertaining
to
the
city,
engineer's
review
of
parking
access
and
circulation
plans
has
been
amended
to
remove
that
specific
reference
to
code
complying
parking
islands.
Another
issue
that
was
updated
in
the
revised
site
plan
was
the
provision
of
a
sidewalk
along
Halsey
Lane.
This
was
not
a
specific
element
that
was
requested
by
the
Planning
Commission,
but
the
design
team
did
address
elements
of
the
staff
comments
with
their
revised
plans,
so
they
are
now
showing
a
code
complying
sidewalk
along
Halsey
Lane,
just
a
small
little
box
here.
J
The
condition
recommended
condition
of
approval
still
remains
in
place,
because
the
city
engineer
has
to
review
the
quantity
before
accepting
it,
but
they
did
provide
a
bike
rack
meeting
the
engineers
request
in
terms
of
providing
that
feature
just
circling
back
to
the
Halsey
Lane
sidewalk.
Sorry,
that
condition
recommended
condition
of
approval
was
also
removed
from
the
recommended
list
of
conditions
in
the
memo
getting
to
the
request
regarding
building
materials
and
the
elevation
plans.
J
I
just
want
to
get
to
the
revised
architectural
plans
that
they
provided
so
there's
some
elements
that
have
changed
since
the
previous
meeting.
So,
first
and
foremost,
the
Planning
Commission
requested
that
first
floor
windows
on
the
Lyndale
Avenue
West
West
elevation
be
provided
all
along
the
first
floor
of
the
building
in
order
to
provide
enhanced
street
presence
and
safety
and
security
for
the
facility
along
Lyndale
Avenue
there.
So
you
can
see
that
on
the
western
elevation
they
are
providing
Windows
continuously
along
the
first
floor
on
the
north
side
of
the
facility
in
the
western
elevation.
J
That's
that
retail
area.
If
I
need
to
go
back
to
the
floor
plan.
I
certainly
can
pull
that
up
too.
But
if
you
recall
that's
that
retail
area
where
they
do
sell,
moving
supplies
and
other
incidental
retail
activity
and
then
on
the
south
side,
that
is
a
travel
corridor
similar
to
the
other
levels
of
the
facility,
that
is,
a
travel
corridor
serving
individual
self
storage
units.
J
In
terms
of
other
changes
that
were
made
submitted
by
the
architect,
they
did
change
out
some
of
the
exterior
building
materials
they
previously
were
showing
small
sections
stone,
veneer
and
thin
brick
in
some
areas.
These
were
removed
in
favor
of
a
uniform
precast
concrete,
which
is
a
code
complying
material
in
the
industrial
zoning
districts.
So
I
just
want
to
raise
that,
but
as
such,
the
materials
do
meet
code
staff
did
remove
that
condition
as
well
from
the
revised
list
of
recommended
conditions.
J
Getting
two
updates
to
the
landscape
plan.
There's
a
number
of
updates
made
to
that
plan
to
make
it
code
complying
as
well.
They
did
add
parking
island
trees
to
this
larger
Island
in
front
of
the
facility,
as
well
as
the
new
islands
that
border
the
RV
storage
area.
So
you
can
see
those
trees
highlighted.
J
Another
issue
that
was
raised
had
to
do
with
the
screening
of
surface
parking
within
40
feet
of
a
public
street,
so
you
can
see
here
where
my
cursor
is
the
highlight
that
shrubs
were
added
to
screen
those
vehicles
in
this
north
south
parking
tier
east
of
the
building
on
the
west
side
of
the
site.
There
was
some
comments
that
pertained
to
foundation
plantings
at
the
building,
as
well
as
providing
additional
separation
along
the
Lyndale
Avenue
sidewalk,
which
is
heavily
traveled,
so
they
did
provide
those
foundation
plantings
along
the
western
building
elevation.
J
They
did
space
out
some
of
the
evergreens
in
order
to
get
a
better
visibility
in
those
windows
that
were
requested
by
the
Planning
Commission
us.
There
were
some
adjustments
with
those
plants
as
well.
This
area
highlighted
here
previously.
There
was
some
trees
located
in
this
bed,
which
is
nice,
but
it
as
the
tree
grows.
J
Trees
that
are
very
close
to
public
sidewalks
tend
to
be
maintenance
issues
for
the
city
in
terms
of
trimming,
as
those
branches
continue
to
grow,
so
we
did
have
them
remove
trees
that
were
in
too
close
a
proximity
to
the
public
sidewalk
as
well
and
uniformly.
It's
not
highlighted
on
the
plan,
but
if
you
recall
there
was
one
tree
located
in
the
public,
right-of-way
and
other
landscape
material
within
public
easements
we're
on
the
plan.
J
So
all
that
material
has
been
moved
out,
some
some
of
the
materials
in
close
proximity,
but
none
of
the
trees
and
shrubs
are
now
located
in
the
public,
right-of-way
or
public
easements
of
record.
So,
just
to
note
in
terms
of
how
this
impacts,
the
proposed
condition,
the
condition
it
was
revised
only
to
require
the
landscape
surety,
which
is
a
financial
security
that
the
city
requires
to
ensure
the
health
of
the
material
for
one
full
growing
season
after
it
is
planted.
J
So
that's
what's
reflected
in
the
revised
condition,
just
a
note
about
some
other
changes
that
came
in
with
the
proposed
facility
as
they
were.
You
know
moving
things
around
on
the
architectural
floor
plans
as
it
pertained
to
looking
at
the
materials
and
other
things.
They
did
shrink
the
retail
sales
area
and
increase
the
overall
number
of
storage
units
they
might
have
I
think
they
managed
stood
some
of
the
sizes
of
some
of
the
units
as
well,
and
what
that
resulted
in
was
an
increase
in
the
number
of
storage
units
from
868
to
903.
J
The
only
practical
impact
that
has
on
the
site
and
other
plan
review
is,
as
it
pertains
to
off
street
parking
and
by
shrinking
the
retail
area
and
increasing
the
number
of
storage
units
that
parking
requirement
actually
came
down,
and
the
reason
for
that
is
that
retail
is
the
highest
driver
of
parking
in
our
city
ordinance,
so
just
to
note
that
the
site
is
still
in
compliance
with
the
parking
requirements.
Just
this
is
just
a
revised
analysis
for
the
record,
so
some
other
miscellaneous
issues
and
updates
that
came
up
at
the
meeting.
J
There
was
a
request
to
give
an
update
on
where
the
project
stands.
With
their
stormwater
management
review
at
the
Nine
Mile
Creek
watershed
district,
the
applicant
was
able
to
provide
a
letter
of
conditional
approval
from
9
Mile
Creek
that
was
included
in
the
packet,
and
so
when
a
project
has
conditional
approval.
The
outstanding
items
remaining
are
providing
performance
bonds
and
entering
into
maintenance
agreements.
There's
some
other
miscellaneous
things.
J
J
The
previous
reviews
of
self-storage
facilities
solicited
that
you
know
for
when
these
facilities
faced
residential
uses,
whether
a
budding
or
across
the
street.
It
is
a
good
standard
to
limit
the
the
corridor
and
I
kind
of
display
windows
lighting
during
the
nighttime
hours.
You
all
came
back
with
their
revised
project
description
offering
to
extinguish
those
lights
with
exception
of
safety
and
security
lighting
between
the
hours
of
10
p.m.
and
6
a.m.
so
we're
certainly
encouraged
by
that,
and
we
did
include
a
condition
of
approval
that
does
pertain
to
the
lighting
next
next
issue.
J
There
was
some
discussion
at
the
meeting,
and
certainly
some
back-and-forth
between
staff
and
the
applicant
about
the
specific
language
as
it
pertains
to
what
types
of
activities
are
allowed
that
are
associated
with
the
truck
rental
facility.
That
u-haul
operates
across
the
street
I'm
having
a
report
that
that,
through
some
additional
work
and
discussion,
staff
and
the
applicant
came
to
an
agreement
on
some
language
that
satisfies
both
parties.
J
So
that
is
that
conditional
language,
if
need
be
I,
can
pulp
the
specific
language.
One
thing
I
forgot
a
bullet
on
is
that
they
also
submitted
their
MPCA,
no
permit
declaration,
so
that
condition
was
also
remove
from
the
revised
list
of
conditions.
Well
with
all
these
changes,
I
hope
it
wasn't
too
confusing,
but
hopefully
the
staff
memo
spelled
it
out
that
when
we
were
describing
these
conditions
and
discussion
topics,
we
were
referencing.
The
previous
staff
report
just
for
reference.
J
As
a
result
of
a
lot
of
these
changes,
I've
talked
about
the
revised
list
of
recommended
conditions
has
been
remembered,
so
unfortunately
it
doesn't
translate
condition
to
condition
to
the
exact
number
that
you
were
looking
at
before.
But
that
being
said,
all
the
items
that
we
talked
about
should
be
properly
reflected
in
the
revised
list
of
conditions.
J
So
staff
is
still
recommending
approval
on
this
project.
They
did
substantial
work
to
address
a
number
of
the
items
raised
by
the
Planning
Commission.
We
do
have
two
recommended
motions
for
you:
I
do
have
some
extra
slides
with
the
conditions
and
other
things
should
that
arise.
Otherwise,
I
can
stand
for
questions
Thank.
A
D
J
Yeah
acting
sure
Solberg,
commissioner
goldman.
They
have
not
submitted
any
plans
for
signage,
we're
still,
including
a
recommendation
that,
like
any
development,
they
have
to
meet
the
city
code
for
signs
this,
this
properties
in
the
i3
zoning
district.
So
they
are
subject
to
the
class
for
signed
district
standards.
That
would
which
would
allow
wall
signs
and
freestanding
signs
that
you
know
specific
setbacks
and
sizes
and
those
types
of
things.
J
A
Any
other
questions
for
staff
from
Planning
Commission
members
all
right.
That
being
said
at
this
point,
we
did
close
the
public
hearing
last
time
we
heard
this
subject
so
at
this
point,
I
would
be
looking
for
a
motion
from
one
of
the
planning
commission
members
to
reopen
the
public
hearing.
Do
I
have
a
motion
so.
G
C
D
A
B
K
K
D
Thank
You
mr.
chair
I,
just
noticed
in
the
change
in
the
language
regarding
the
use
of
the
property,
which
was
condition
number
26,
that
he
a
revised
language
eliminated
the
word
pickup
of
rental
trucks
and
trailers.
I,
wonder
it
says:
parking
storage
center.
Is
there
a
reason
why
hiccup
was
also
was
eliminated
from
that
and
is
there
a
plan
to
use
the
cipher
or
pickups
of
rentals.
C
K
J
K
B
J
A
A
C
A
C
Applicant
for
pulling
this
together
on
the
short
notice,
there
was
a
it's
my
last
meeting,
a
number
of
items
that
were
missed
him
had
questions
on
that
being
the
final
review
of
this
type
of
problem.
That's
a
project
to
make
sure
that
we're
approving
something
that
we're
well
aware
of,
what's
be,
what's
being
approved,
I
think
by
looking
what
I
saw
so
far
that
the
changes
that
were
made
made
it
more
code
compliant
the
building
materials.
I
knew
it'd,
be
a
some
type
of
compromise.
G
You
mr.
chair
I
will
echo
all
your
good
rooms,
continents.
I
think
this
is
a
much
improved
application.
I'm
creative
the
applicant
hears
concerns
the
Commissioner
raised.
The
staff
was
able
to
modify
some
of
the
language
to
address
some
of
the
concerns
that
the
applicant
had.
It
looks
like
you
know
the
parking
thing
that
they
would
like
a
little
bit
more
clarity
on.
We
were
able
to
provide
it
looks
like
in
this
process.
They
aren't
even
increasing
their
their
storage
capacity
by
4%,
so
hopefully
that's
a
positive
for
them.
G
I
did
look
back
at
the
previous
design
and
my
home
I
can
tell
it
looks
like
where
we've
lost
the
thin
brick
is
where
he
gained
the
windows,
and
so
for
me.
I
will
take
that
as
a
plus
and
I
think
the
other
requirements
of
the
lighting
I'm
glad
that
we
are
attentive
that
even
though
code
doesn't
treat
multifamily
the
way
it
treats
single-family
in
this
situation.
So
are
those
reasons
that
I
am
ready
to
support
this.
It
weathers
are
all.
D
Thanks
acting
chair,
I
just
wanted
to
comment
to
the
addition
of
the
windows
as
well
as
the
landscaping
I
feel
really
helped
the
walkability
of
the
neighborhood.
You
know,
with
the
redevelopment
of
Lyndale
Avenue
really
being
walkable
to
the
street.
Didn't
scream.
Streetscaping
is
really
going
to
be
important,
so
I
appreciate
the
addition
and
and
I
think
it's
a
lot
more
welcoming
now
that
those
elements
have
been
added
Thank.
A
C
Thank
you
serious
I'll
make
I'll
make
the
motion
so
in
case
number
PL
2
0,
2
2,
0
2
6.
Having
been
able
to
make
the
required
findings,
I
move
to
adopt
a
resolution
approving
a
conditional
use
permit
or
a
4-story
900,
a
3
unit
cell
storage
facility
located
at
8901
Lyndale,
Avenue,
south
and
5
1
5
Halsey
Lane,
subject
to
the
conditions
and
clear
requirements
listed
in
the
revised
resolution.