►
From YouTube: December 8, 2022 Bloomington Planning Commission Meeting
Description
December 8, 2022 Bloomington Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting
0:00:00 Start
0:03:07 ITEM 1 PL2022-220
(public hearing) Groome Properties IV LLC (owner)
Automotive Related Services (user)
Conditional Use Permit for minor and major auto repair in a vacant service station located at 1700 East Old Shakopee Road.
0:17:11 ITEM 2 PL2022-221
(public hearing) City of Bloomington
A) Ordinance updating City Code requirements for single-family residential and two-family residential lots and dwellings, and
B) Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to adjust the density ranges of the residential land use categories within the City's Comprehensive Plan.
1:27:26 ITEM 3 City of Bloomington
(study item) Consider approval of draft November 3rd, 2022 Planning Commission meeting synopsis
1:28:49 ITEM 4 City of Bloomington
(study item) Planning Commission Policy and Issues Update
A
A
A
Good
evening
and
welcome
to
the
December
8th
meeting
of
the
Bloomington
Planning
Commission,
the
Planning
Commission
is
made
up
of
seven
volunteer
Bloomington
residents
appointed
by
the
city
council.
Tonight
we
have
a
full
house.
The
commission
advises
the
city
council
on
development
proposals,
development
standards,
long-range
planning
and
transportation
issues.
Our
work
is
informed
by
the
city's
comprehensive
plan,
various
District
plans
in
the
city
code.
For
some
items.
The
commission
makes
a
recommendation
with
the
city
council
having
the
final
decision-making
Authority.
A
In
other
cases,
the
Planning
Commission
can
approve
or
deny
an
application
subject
to
an
appeal
to
the
city
council
for
each
action
item.
There
will
be
a
staff
report,
an
opportunity
for
the
applicant
to
present
then
time
for
any
member
of
the
public
to
provide
testimony.
Our
first
order
of
business
tonight
is
the
Pledge
of
Allegiance.
Please
stand
as
you
are
able
I
pledge
allegiance
to
the.
B
Chair
Roman
Commissioners.
We
have
two
public
hearings
tonight
and
we
can
take
testimony
here
in
the
chambers,
but
we
can
also
receive
testimony
remotely,
if
you're
at
home
tonight
and
would
like
to
call
in
to
testify
on
either
public
hearing
the
numbers
listed
on
the
screen
and
once
you
call
in
just
enter
in
the
access
code,
we
will
also
have
this
phone
number
and
access
code
flashing
on
the
screen
during
the
public
hearing
items.
A
C
Good
evening,
chair
and
Commissioners
item,
one
is
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
minor
and
major
Auto
Repair
located
at
1700
East
Old
Shakopee
Road
staff
receive
correspondence
from
one
risen
and
I
will
address
his
questions
throughout
my
presentation.
We
also
provided
the
correspondence
to
the
Planning
Commission
prior
to
the
meeting.
C
Okay
on
this
aerial,
the
proposed
side
is
highlighted
in
blue
at
the
northeast
corner
of
East
Old,
Shakopee,
Road
and
17th
Avenue.
The
subject
property
is
Zone
B2
and
designated
General
business
and
the
comprehensive
plan
minor
and
major.
Auto
repairs
are
allowed
as
conditional
uses
in
B2
zoning
districts,
and
there
is
a
single
family,
single-family
residential
uses
to
the
west
and
Commercial
uses
to
the
north
and
east
of
the
property.
C
The
existing
site
is
a
non-conforming
service
station
that
was
previous
that
the
previous
owner
vacated
before
September
2021st
2021.
Sorry,
the
applicant
proposes
a
four-bay,
auto
repair
and
detailing
business
in
a
bacon
service
station.
Two
ways
will
be
used
for
auto
detailing
one
for
minor
repairs
and
one
for
both
major
and
minor
repairs.
C
There
will
be,
there
will
be
minor
changes
to
existing
site,
including
a
security
defense
and
security
camera
system
to
secure
the
area
and
decrease
potential
issue.
You
could
use
potential
issues
with
vehicles
waiting
for
repair.
The
applicant
proposes
a
security
fans
and
closing
14
parking
spaces
at
the
back
of
the
site
and
along
17
Avenue
outline
it
in
red,
as
proposed.
One
parking
space
will
be
removed
from
the
overall
parking
to
accommodate,
accumulate
defense.
C
C
The
existing
side
has
18
Seer
parking
spaces
where
the
12
spaces
are
required
by
the
city
code.
Staff
has
no
concerns
with
the
parking
as
it
exceeds.
12
required
parking
spaces
for
the
use
for
landscaping.
The
approved
Landscaping
plan
for
the
site
requires
trees
and
tropes
around
the
parking
areas
and
three
in
a
and
a
three
foot
high
fence
along
17
Avenue
and
the
corner
along
East
Old,
Chicopee
Road.
C
It
appears
that
some
of
the
materials
have
survived.
However,
the
required
three
foot
screen
fencil
on
17th
Avenue
has
been
removed.
The
applicant
must
verify
compliance
with
the
approved
Landscaping
plan,
including
the
screens,
the
screen
fence,
or
provide
a
new
plan
with
the
material
counts.
As
stated
by
the
residents
email.
C
There
is
a
history
of
landscaping
not
being
maintained
and
observed
in
the
17th
Avenue
driveway
staff
have
has
added
a
condition
of
that:
a
condition
that
a
15-foot
Clear
View
triangle
at
the
driveway
approach
onto
17th
Avenue
must
be
maintained
as
a
property
has
been
bacon
for
over
for
over
one
year.
The
applicant
must
upgrade
the
parking
lot
lighting
and
security
lighting
as
well
and
provide
indoor
trash
and
recycling
a
conditioner.
A
condition
requiring
a
review
of
revised
plans
for
compliance
has
been
added
as
well.
D
Thank
you,
chair,
Ms
Navarro.
My
question
is
related
to
a
comment
that
I
read
in
the
notes
regarding
I
believe
it
was
from
fire
related
to
the
tanks,
the
fuel
tanks
and
I
think
you
mentioned
this,
but
I
just
want
to
be
just
to
clarify
because
there's
a
two-year
window
in
which,
if
it's,
if
the
tanks
are
not
used
for
two
years,
then
they
have
to
be
taken
out
and
redone.
If
they're
going
to
do
fuel
is
that
correct,
yep.
C
D
Okay,
thank
you
and
if
I
made
one
more
question,
my
other
question
is
related
to
the
screening
on
17th.
Just
a
clarification.
So
there
does
require
a
three
foot
screen
if
you
want
to
go
back
to
that
site
plan
along
the
red
that
red
dotted
line
there,
it's
that
that's
intended
to
Shield
headlights
from
the
surrounding
neighborhood.
C
C
F
Meeting
all
the
requirements
of
the
city
in
doing
as
the
city
wants
done,
I
am
kind
of
excited
to
get
this
business
going.
I
have
approached
a
few
brand
name,
gasoline
suppliers
that
would
come
in
facelift
that
entire
corner.
For
me,
of
course,
I
have
to
pitch
in
some
funding
too,
but
they
they
will
help
me
get
a
nice
brand.
F
I
have
a
couple
different
brand
names
that
are
interested
in
their
location,
so
absolutely
we're
going
to
put
together
a
good
show
and
and
light
up
that
corner
really,
because
that
corner
is
is
a
dark
corner
right
now.
You
know
so
I
think
it
would
be
great
because
we
plan
to
stay
open
till
10
in
the
evening
every
evening
and
do
have
a
good
staff
that
will
run
run
the
business
for
for
us.
A
One
of
the
things
I
know
we
had
heard
from
members
of
the
community
was
what
type
of
Auto
work
it
sounded
like
not
in
your
time,
but
there
was
some
work
done
in
the
past.
That
involved
some
loud
exhaust
that
was
sometimes
disruptive
to
the
neighbors.
Is
that
what
type
of
auto
repair
are
you
envisioning?
Is
it
going
to
be
more
kind
of
custom,
stuff
or
just
more
routine
repair.
F
A
A
G
H
Thank
you,
chair
I
mean
with
respect
to
the
new
entrepreneur.
I'm
excited
for
you
to
start
the
business
I.
This
is
my
neighborhood
and
I
live
in
this
area.
I
commute
I
shop
at
the
Asian
store
right
there
very
frequently
we
get
gas
stations.
The
mosque
is
right
in
that
in
that
corner,
I
would
have
loved
to
see
a
different
use.
Go
into
that
spot,
but
I
imagine
for
a
new
business.
H
You
know
having
to
clean
up
environmental
components
that
would
have
just
eaten
up
funds
for
whoever
that
was
gonna
whoever's
gonna
go
in
there,
I
don't
have
necessarily
opposition
to
the
application.
The
use
is
permitted
with
conditions,
so
it's
not
something
that
was
out
of
the
there's,
not
a
rezoning
where
we
could.
H
You
know
challenge
the
use
going
in
there,
but
I'm
just
I
would
have
loved
to
seen
and
I'm
sure
the
neighborhood
would
have
loved
to
have
a
different
type
of
business
instead
of
a
another
gas
station,
because
we
have
already
two
in
that
corner.
But
you
know
I
I,
congratulate
your
new
business.
I
hope
it
all
goes
well.
I
would
be
in
support
of
the
application.
As
proposed,
thank.
D
Thank
you,
chair,
I,
too,
live
in
that
neighborhood,
just
a
few
blocks
away
and
frequent
a
lot
of
those
those
the
other
gas
stations.
So
it's
a
new
one
for
me
to
try
out.
I
am
also
in
support.
However.
I
do
want
to
Echo.
Commissioner
abdi's
comments
regarding
potential
other
uses
in
the
future,
but
I
do
know
that
the
environmental
cleanup
is
very
costly
and
I
am
in
support
of
turning
this
dark
corner
into
more
eyes
on
the
street.
I
do
know
that
it
has
been
vacant.
D
A
I
too
I'm
supportive
of
this
application,
I
I
appreciate
a
reuse
of
a
vacant
building
I
appreciate
the
applicant
and
the
talking
about
you
know
perhaps
signing
on
with
a
major
brand
flag
who
may
bring
more
resources
and
an
aesthetic
I
mean
it.
It's
a
fine
building,
but
it's
very
dated,
and
so
I
think
that
that
gives
perhaps
some
other
resources
for
the
applicant
to
be
able
to
do
something
that,
hopefully,
is
a
positive
for
the
neighborhood
I
think
it's
you
know
always
good
to
have
more
nearby,
auto
repair
options.
I
A
J
A
Motion
passes:
this
is
a
final
decision
unless
an
appeal
is
received
by
4
30
pm
on
December
13th.
Thank
you
item
number.
Two
is
another
public
hearing.
This
is
a
city
initiated
item,
ordinance,
updating
code
requirements
for
single
family,
residential
and
two
family
dwellings
and
comp
plan
amendments
and
economic
developmental
analyst
Palermo
is
with
us
on
this
item.
K
K
As
you
recall,
oh
back,
October
2021.
We
started
talking
about
this,
but
the
HRA
and
board
in
a
study
session,
and
we
had
a
second
study
session
in
January
and
following
those
two
study
sessions
with
your
board
or
your
body,
we
went
to
the
city
council
to
also
get
their
input,
understanding
that
this
is
a
pretty
substantial
update.
As
you
saw,
we
had
several
chapters
that
are
being
addressed
here,
even
a
comp
plan
Amendment.
K
So
we'll
gather
that
input
we
did
Outreach
with
the
community.
We
went
to
the
farmers
market,
we
talked
with
developers
and
gathered
their
input
to
make
sure
we
were
on
the
right
track
and
then,
as
I
shifted
to
my
new
role
in
the
Port
Authority.
As
economic
development,
analyst
has
started
to
continue
to
work
on
this,
and
so
progress
slowed
a
little
bit,
which
is
why
the
timeline
is
extended,
but
we're
here
today
and
hopefully
we'll
move
forward.
K
So,
as
you
remember,
some
of
the
goals
of
the
single
and
two
family
update
are
to
encourage
more
housing
options.
You
know
this
is
one
tool
of
many
single-family
home
is
one
style
of
Home
in
Bloomington
and
is
I
think
in
your
work
plan.
You'll
continue
to
see
more
and
more
housing
Innovation
from
the
planning
department,
planning
division,
but
all
in
the
vein
of
trying
to
increase
affordability,
increase
options,
increase
that
movement
in
the
market
and
try
to
address
racial
equity
and
any
potential
discriminatory
policies
that
have
been
in
our
code.
K
We
always
are
looking
to
encourage
healthy
and
sustainable
Community.
These
are
the
kind
of
lenses
that
we
looked
for
through
all
our
policies
and
updates.
Some
of
the
issues
that
we
deal
with
in
this
code
are
shifting
market
demand.
The
Bloomington
that
grew
up
in
the
50s
is
a
lot
different
today
and
stratification
of
the
market
and
making
sure
that
we're
providing
a
housing
product
for
a
wide
range
of
needs,
and
in
that
we
hope
to
encourage
some
more
affordable
options
and
address
Equity
health
and
environmental
sustainability.
K
K
We
start
to
recover
a
little
bit
in
kind
of
January
2010
and
slowly
build
up,
but
we're
still
not
meeting
that
demand
that
we
we
need
to
have,
and
now
we're
kind
of
in
a
catch-up
period,
and
this
charts
a
couple
years
old,
but
it's
still
very
relevant
today
we
we
are
producing
more
units,
you
see
that
especially
in
multi-family,
but
we
still
don't
have
enough,
and
this
is
for
the
Metro
region.
So
there's
only
so
much
we
can
do
in
the
Metro.
K
But
that's
why
we're
seeing
so
many
different
kind
of
housing
policy
attempts
here
at
Bloomington
to
try
and
encourage
and
stimulate
more
of
that
housing
demand
and
address
some
of
that
catch-up
that
we
need
to
also
our
we
still
have
an
ownership
Gap.
This,
hopefully,
will
encourage
more
housing
types,
maybe
some
more
affordability,
some
movement
in
the
market
that
can
freed
up
some
of
more
affordable
units,
as
maybe
senior
population,
can
move
into
a
smaller
unit
or
a
different
type
of
unit.
So
the
housing
Market's
very
complicated.
It's
not
just
one
product.
K
If
there's
movement
that
happens,
that
frees
up
in
this
production
is
one
side
and
that's
what
this
is
focused
on,
and
then
we
have
other
programmatic
side
too,
to
help
kind
of
encourage
that.
But
it's
important
to
point
out
that
we
do
have
this
home
ownership
Gap,
that
our
white
alone,
non-hispanic
population,
owns
at
a
rate
about
75
percent
of
households,
and
you
can
see
here
just
kind
of
slowly
or
it's
much
less,
especially
for
our
black
and
African-American
population
that
only
owns
at
a
rate
of
20.
K
So,
as
we
said,
this
is
a
big
update.
It
updates
chapter
19
chapters,
21
chapter,
22
and
and
proposed
comp
plan
amendments.
So
there's
a
lot
going
on
here
and
we
really
had
this
broad
scope
to
begin
with,
and
we
really
honed
in
on
kind
of
development
development
policies
and
focused
in
on
the
development
side
as
their.
K
So
in
chapter
19,
just
some
minor
updates,
we
are
looking
to
slightly
adjust
the
two
family
home
definition.
This
we
have
this
provision
in
our
two
family
home
standards
of
a
minimum,
10
foot
common
wall.
We
just
wanted
to
kind
of
match
that
standard,
it's
kind
of
kind
of
wonky,
but
it's
just
to
kind
of
prevent
that
situation,
where
you
just
have
a
minimal
connection
and
call
it
a
two-family
home.
It's
just.
K
We
want
it
to
actually
be
a
two-family
home
that
has
attached
and
we
have
this
provision
and
we
can
also
do
over
under,
but
we
don't
see
a
whole
lot
of
the
over
under
style
and
then
we
also
have
this
kind
of
wonky
language.
Here
that
says
we
can
only
have
one
principle
building
on
a
lot
and
as
we
start
to
talk
more
missing
middle
and
other
kind
of
housing
options,
this
may
become
in
Conflict.
So
we
wanted
to
provide
the
flexibility
needed
as
we
start
looking
at
other
housing
options,.
K
So
chapter
21
is
where
most
of
our
development
standards
are
housed
and
21.301.01
is
where
the
biggest
impact
will
be.
Our
we
are
proposing
to
reduce
our
minimum
lot
size
from
11
000
square
feet,
to
7
800
square
feet
and
for
corners
from
15
000
square
feet
to
11
050
square
feet
currently
about
17.8.
Give
or
take
percent
of
our
Lots
do
not
meet
our
11
000
square
foot
standard
or
they
do
not
meet
our
minimum
lot
width
of
80
feet
and
this
update
will
bring
most
of
that
into
conformance.
K
So
this
will
kind
of
make
sure
that
we
don't
just
have
a
small
lot
snuck
into
a
large
lot
area,
where
I
think
we
have
120
of
those
Parcels
in
the
city,
so
not
a
ton
but
they're
kind
of
neighborhood
specific
and
then
the
r1a
similar
situation.
There's
16
of
those
lots
along
the
bluff,
and
this
kind
of
just
ensures
that
we're
not
sneaking
a
smaller
lot
in
there
into
what's
supposed
to
be
a
larger
lot
area.
K
K
So
one
of
the
concerns
that
we
were
talking
about,
if
you
remember,
was
if
we
go
too
far
too
small
of
a
lot,
are
we
just
going
to
encourage
a
mass
Redevelopment
that
happens?
Are
we
just
going
to
open
up
the
city
to
people
buying
up
a
lot
of
parcels
and
redeveloping
and
doing
too
much
lat
splits?
So
we
reviewed,
we
really
kind
of
thought
the
floor
would
be
about
50
feet
I'm.
So
using
that
as
our
floor,
we
settled
on
60
feet.
K
We
thought
that
was
a
good
compromise,
but
for
the
purposes
of
this
exercise,
I
used
50
feet
as
kind
of
a
high
Redevelopment
potential
in
combination
with
a
low
property
value.
So
if
you
have
well
so
if
you
have
a
wider
lot
and
a
low
property
value,
you
score
it
as
kind
of
a
high
potential
for
redevelopment
and
then,
if
you
kind
of
had
a
high
property
value
or
narrow
lot,
you
had
a
lower
potential
for
redevelopment
and
then
I
did
a
proximity
analysis.
So
it
gets
really
wonky
and
kind
of
hard
to
explain.
K
But
I
was
trying
to
look
at.
Do
we
have
a
neighborhood
where
all
of
a
sudden
there's
too
many
houses
that
have
a
high
Redevelopment
potential
you
can
see.
We
do
have
some
neighborhoods
where
it
kind
of
pops
up,
because
there
are
some
blocks
that
are
just
larger
houses
but
looking
at
it
at
a
broader
scale
and
that
neighborhood
scale,
two
three
four
blocks
out:
you
don't
really
get
too
much
of
a
high
Redevelopment
potential.
K
So
there
isn't
a
whole
lot
of
concern
that
we're
going
to
see
just
Mass
gentrification
we're
anticipating,
maybe
10,
to
20
new
units
as
a
result
of
this
a
year
which
doesn't
sound
like
a
lot.
But
as
we
look
in
the
past,
we
only
have
one
two
three
I
think:
in
a
good
year
we
have
five
new
units,
a
single
family,
so
this
silver
we'll
see
more
and
there's
always
the
relief
valve
of.
K
We
also
discussed
floor
area.
We
currently
have
a
minimum
flooria
floor
area
of
1040
kind
of
thinking,
1040
Ramblers
they're
our
standard
home
in
Bloomington
that
does
include
finished
basements,
and
we
discussed
whether
that
was
a
barrier
or
not
and
kind
of
falling
in
the
middle
of.
Maybe
it's
not
so
much
a
barrier,
but
we
have
a
strong
justification
for
it
and
after
this
Council
study
session,
they
gave
clear
direction
that
we
don't
need
a
minimum
floor
area.
We
want
to
be
flexible.
K
We
would
like
to
you
know
if
we're
going
to
smaller
Lots,
maybe
it
makes
sense
that
we
allow
smaller
houses
as
well
on
the
property
related
to
that
is
storm
water.
We
currently
have
a
standard
for
impervious
surface.
We
can't
we
limit
impervious
surface
to
35
percent
of
the
lot,
where
we're
taking
language
from
our
two
family
home
standard
that
currently
exists
in
applying
it
in
our
single
family
home.
K
You
know,
be
as
simple
as
just
planting
some
more
trees,
so
we're
working
kind
of
on
refining
that
language
just
a
little
bit
more
with
our
public
works.
But
the
intent
here
is
to
ensure
that
35
is
the
standard
and
find
some
way
to
allow,
maybe
up
to
45
with
some
mitigation
in
the
we
really
don't
want
to
see.
Just
a
I
want
more
of
a
bigger
pool
deck.
K
We
also
have
prevailing
setback
for
our
one
zoning
District
this
for
your
front
set
pack
our
standard
front
setback
is
30
feet,
but
if
your
house
was
built
before
1974
I
believe
you
also
were
subject
to
average
of
your
neighboring
properties
and
this
for
one,
it's
kind
of
an
equity
issue
where
you're
subject
to
your
neighbor's
decisions,
and
it's
not.
It's
only
applied
to
older
properties,
not
newer
properties,
and
you
know
it's
also
one
of
those
things.
That's
a
little
bit
harder
to
communicate
when
a
resident
comes
in
and
they
go
well.
K
K
This
one
is
a
little
bit
wonky
too,
for
structure
placement.
We
kind
of
have
this
conflict
in
the
code
where,
in
this
section,
21
301.02,
we
say
that
accessory
structures
can't
be
between
the
street
and
the
the
primary
building
our
principal
building,
but
we
have
more
details
on
that
in
our
accessory
building
section
that
further
differentiates
between
side
yard,
front
yard
and
rear
yard.
So,
in
this
situation
you
can
see
on
the
screen.
We
have
accessory
structure,
that's
between
the
street
inner
principal
building
and
that
the
intent
was
never
to
limit.
K
K
K
This
was
lots
of
debate
we
had
in
with
staff
and
with
boards
and
commissions
and
city
council,
and
some
people
were
under
the
thought.
We
don't
even
need
a
standard
that
the
market
will
take
care
of
it.
Others
preferred
to
keep
the
standard,
and
this
was
kind
of
a
compromise
where
I
think
most
people
felt
comfortable,
allowing
for
one
car
garage
and
understanding.
K
You
have
one
space
in
your
driveway
in
this
example
right
here,
you
know
we
about
15
percent
of
our
Lots,
currently
have
a
single
car
garage,
it's
hard
to
say
some
have
more
off
Park
areas
or
other.
We.
We
don't
have
good
data
on
that,
but
this
is
an
example
of
where
my
my
partner's
grandmother
lives
in
a
very
similar
house.
To
this.
She
lives
alone.
She
only
needs
one
spot
for
her
car
and
she
has
a
nice
little
house
like
this,
and
it
suits
her
perfectly
for
her
needs
in
her
life
Journey.
K
K
K
K
K
K
And,
as
you
recall,
we
have
this
provision
currently
with
grouping
of
two
family
homes.
If
there's
an
existing
two-family
home
and
you're
within
500
feet
on
the
same
street,
you
are
required
to
get
a
plan
development
overlay
in
a
re
which
is
a
rezoning
which
requires
public
hearing
here
and
public
hearing
at
Council.
It's
a
six
to
eight
week
process,
an
application
fee
for
rezoning,
so
it's
pretty
cumbersome
and
limits
kind
of
and
has
had
a
chilling
effect
to
some
degree
on
new
two
family
homes.
K
So
we
discussed
whether
we
even
needed
that
requirement
and
this
kind
of
land
somewhere
in
the
middle.
We
would
continue
to
require
some
sort
of
approval,
a
conditional
use
permit.
This
would
be
at
the
Planning
Commission
level.
It
wouldn't
require
that
Council
level.
You
would
have
decision
making
approval.
So
it's
a
much
faster
approval
process
to
just
do
the
one
public
hearing,
maybe
a
month
if
that
to
to
get
that
through
and
then
it's
a
much
lower
application
fee
as
well,
because
Planning
Commission
is
the
deciding
body.
K
But
in
this
case
it
will
make
it
much
quicker,
much
less
expensive.
It
kind
of
standardizes
it
and
we're
limiting
it.
To
two
lots.
You
know
understand
you
might
have
that
in
the
situation
like
two
family
lot,
that
splits
down
the
middle
and
Screen
two
New
Lots
and
just
kind
of
marries
well
with
these
Provisions
to
help
kind
of
encourage
that
development.
K
So
with
all
these
updates,
it
kind
of
triggered
a
comprehensive
plan
Amendment,
because
our
densities
are
changing
because
our
minimum
lot
sizes
are
going
down.
Our
our
potential
density
is
increasing,
so
we're
in
this
update
we'll
be
adjusting.
Our
density
ranges
to
be
consistent
with
the
update
and
we're
taking
this
opportunity
as
well
to
kind
of
adjust
some
language
in
our
industrial
land
use
description
to
match
our
Suburban
retrofit.
K
So,
first
with
our
comprehensive
plan,
the
the
density
ranges.
Currently
we
are
limited
to
five
units
per
acre
and
for
low
density.
Our
medium
then
goes
five
to
ten,
and
our
high
density
goes
from
10
to
150
units,
an
acre,
we're
proposing
to
adjust
our
low
density
residential,
which
is
where
our
R1
predominantly
is
located
up
to
12
units
an
acre.
K
So
we
got
to
that
number
because
if
you
take
a
7
800
square
foot
lot,
it
ends
up
being
about
5.6
units,
an
acre
so
slightly
above,
but
if
we're
also,
then
allowing
an
accessory
dwelling
unit,
that's
a
second
unit.
On
that
parcel.
We
could
potentially
get
up
to
11.1
units
an
acre
so
moving
to
12
units.
An
acre
would
put
us
into
compliance
with
the
single
family
and
an
Adu
and
kind
of
adjust
our
our
density
range
appropriate.
K
And
so,
if
we
move
to
12
units
an
acre,
you
can
see
that's
higher
than
our
medium
density.
So
we
need
to
adjust
our
medium
density,
so
we're
proposing
to
move
that
to
5
to
15
and
you
can
see
they
overlap.
This
is
not
completely
unique
in
the
Twin
Cities.
This
is
something
that
other
cities
have
done
as
well,
and
it
actually
provides
better
flexibility
for
us,
as
we
think
of
our
R3
zoning
District
that
sometimes
might
be
in
an
ldr
or
an
MDR.
You
know
it
gives
us
that
flexibility
now
to
kind
of
adjust.
K
We
did
discuss
this
approach
with
the
Met
Council
and
they
were
in
support
of
it.
They
they
are
the
ones
who
informed
us
that
other
communities
do
this
overlap,
so
they
had
no
concerns.
We,
you
know,
following
our
normal
comprehensive
plan,
approval
process,
we
have
to
send
to
adjacent
jurisdictions.
We've
had
17
responses
so
far,
I
think
we
had
two
more
I
think
we
handed
it
out
from
Eden
Prairie
and
the
Metropolitan
Airport
commission.
They
had
no
comments.
The
only
comment
we
got
was
from
Riley
Purgatory
Watershed
District.
K
K
So
this
is
just
the
language
and
we're
also
taking
this
opportunity,
then
to
just
expand
because,
like
I
said,
this
is
one
of
many
options
that
you'll
be
hearing
about:
two
family
homes,
low
density,
Town,
Homes,
Cottage,
home
developments
Etc.
These
are
all
things
that
we've
been
talking
about
and
we'll
continue
to
talk
about
and
want
to
have
that
flexibility
moving
forward.
K
Then,
lastly,
with
our
comprehensive
plan,
because
we're
doing
this
amendment,
we
thought
this
was
a
good
opportunity
to
discuss
in
our
industrial
zoning.
We
have
we
discussed
in
the
Suburban
retrofoot
melindale
Avenue
Suburban,
retrofit
plan
kind
of
this
transitional
industrial
uses
that
are
kind
of
in
this
middle.
It
could
be
residential.
It
could
be
just
a
wider
mix
of
use,
understanding
that
Lindale
is
kind
of
a
little
bit
interesting
animal
that
it
already
has
this
mix
of
uses
there.
K
H
Thank
you,
chair
I've,
seen
this
item
study
area
and
I,
it's
been
a
while,
so
one
I
want
to
say
I'm
a
little
bit
disappointed
that
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
the
residents
who
would
be
impacted
or
property
owners
who
are
not
at
this
meeting
tonight,
but
I
guess
the
general
question
I
had
to
begin
with.
I
have
several,
but
I
can
wait
for
my
colleagues
to
ask
others
at
the
time.
H
If
you
can
remind
me,
if
you're
intentional,
in
trying
to
resolve
housing
inequalities
or
housing
equity
in
general,
why
not
opening?
Why
not
open
up?
Why
limit
us
to
11
000
for
single
fat
lot
area
and
not
opening
it
up
to
the
entire
city?
Why
limit
to
those
specific
numbers
that
are
in
the
study
packet
and
not
the
entire
city,
I
think
sorry,
I'll
just
stop
there.
For
now.
K
So
there
is
potential,
maybe
to
go
down
to
that
50
feet,
but
60
feet
was
kind
of
what
we
settled
on
because
of
impervious
surface
in
other
communities
like
Richfield
and
Minneapolis.
They
have
kind
of
rear
loaded
with
alleys,
and
so
they
don't
have
long
driveways
that
are
adding
to
the
impervious
surface
where
it's
in
Bloomington
I
believe
we
have
two
alleys
in
Bloomington.
Maybe
three,
you
know
we're
not
gonna
completely
We're,
not
gonna,
get
there.
It's
just
the
way
our
street
design
is
laid
out.
We're
kind
of.
H
If
I
may
cheer,
thank
you
so
I
guess
my
original
question
when
this
came
before
us.
My
concern
was
that
majority
of
these
smaller,
smaller
lat
areas
are
not
in
the
west
Bloomington
area.
I
know
that
green
map
was
kind
of
I,
don't
know
if
to
me
it
was
a
little
bit
misleading,
but
it
showed
like
almost
the
entire
city
and
I
can't
remember.
H
K
Chair
commissioner,
Abdi
I
do
have
another
map
that
kind
of
gets
it
when
you're
getting
at
the
the
starting
point
with
lot
area
is,
and
I
was
a
little
bit
struck
when
I
started
to
do
this.
Larger
lots
are
everywhere
throughout
the
city
and
that's
part
of
the
equation
is
that
ability
to
easily
subdivide,
because
you
have
one
property
owner
to
subdivide,
but
the
flip
side
of
that
is
also
the
value
of
that
lot.
K
So,
if
I'm
looking
to
redevelop
a
parcel,
I
have
to
purchase
a
more
expensive
lot,
be
able
being
able
to
subdivide
it
which,
by
virtue
just
that's
your
lot
value
right
of
your
their
new
minimum
price
for
a
lot
so
West
Bloomington,
you
can
see
here
it's
green
and
there's
not
a
lot
of
yellow
because
the
values
are
much
higher.
Here.
You
do
get
Pockets
where
there
are
larger
lots
and
the
values
are
lower,
so
they're
more
subject
to
that
Redevelopment.
K
That
being
said,
it's
still
not
an
easy
process
to
do
because
most
of
these
you
know
the
most
cost
effective
way
would
be.
If
you
had
a
house,
that's
way
off
to
one
side,
I
can
buy
it,
subdivide
it
and
then
I
have
a
clean
lot
to
build
on,
and
in
most
these
situations
you
don't
have
that.
So,
even
if
your
house
is
valued
at
250,
000
I
need
to
purchase
that
if
that
house
is
not
over
to
one
side,
that
I
can
cleanly
subdivide.
It.
K
I
then
have
to
demolish
that
house
for
another
20
or
30
000
and
now
I
have
a
hundred
and
forty
hundred
thirty
five
thousand
dollar
lot,
which
is
fairly
High
when
you
then
have
to
add
your
construction
costs
on
that
for
new
construction.
So
that's
where
there
are
site
factors
that
are
a
little
bit
harder
to
control
for,
but
just
knowing
that
in
West
Bloomington
most
of
those
houses
are
newer
and
the
values
are
higher.
K
K
How
do
we
encourage
more
of
those
in
you
know,
development
I
think
the
reality
is
we're
not
going
to
get
a
lot
because
in
totality
to
begin
with,
because
we
are
built
out
and
because
of
those
site
constraints
and-
and
you
know
that
250
000
home
is
also
just
an
affordable
home
that
someone
might
want
to
live
in
as
well
so
developer.
You
know,
there's
there
are
those
other
Market
pressures
as
well
that
this
map
doesn't
quite
take
into
account.
A
B
Thoughts
yeah
chair
Roman,
commissioner
Abdi
just
to
add
on
to
that,
and
maybe
for
people
watching
at
home.
That
might
be
helpful
too
Mr
Palermo.
Can
you
pull
up
the
slide
with
R1
zoning
District
depicted
it's
one
of
our
extra
slides,
so
this
map
shows
the
parcels
that
are
zoned
R1
in
the
city
of
Bloomington.
B
It's
almost
22
000
parcels
and
just
want
to
make
sure
everybody
understands
that
the
proposed
changes
so
reducing
the
minimum
lot
size
from
11
000
to
7
800
and
all
the
other
changes
we
talked
about
would
apply
to
all
of
these
Parcels
that
are
zoned
R1.
So
it
would
open
the
door
to
a
smaller
lot
size
really
throughout
Bloomington.
H
A
On
the
topic
of
since
we're
on
topic
of
a
lot
sizes
you
mentioned
when
you
talked
about
two
family
and
the
the
10
foot
common
wall,
but
you
also
talked
about
that.
It
is
possible
to
do
one
over
and
so
my
question
is:
we
have
a
different
required
lot
width
for
a
two
family,
which
I
presume
assumes
a
side
by
side.
Is
there?
A
Should
we
be
thinking
about
a
60-foot
lot?
Width
would
be
okay
if
the
if
the
two
family
was
was
two-story
versus.
You
know
one
over
the
other
again
trying
to
think
about
how
do
we
open
up
more
options
that
this
different
type
of
massing
that
might
be
more
vertical
instead
of
horizontal
and
I'm
wondering
what
the
staff
talked
about
in
that
area
and
what
thoughts
you
might
have.
K
Chair
Roman,
I
think
what
you'll
find
is.
We
already
have
a
lot
of
lots
that
meet
that
80
foot
wide
lot,
so
it
might
not
be
as
much
of
a
barrier
to
do
that
to
family
on
an
80-foot
wide
lot,
I
get
what
you're
getting
at
but
to
send
in
some
cases.
What
we
find
at
the
counter.
When
someone
comes
in
I'm
looking
to
two
family
is
they
often
might
just
need
an
Adu,
and
that
might
be
more
appropriate
situation
where
you
could
have
an
Adu.
K
A
Encourage
you
to
spend
a
little
bit
of
time
on
that
before
Council,
because
it
accomplishes
a
couple
things
that
we
talked
and
you
mentioned
about
when
we
moved
it
back
from
80
down
to
60.
You
talked
about
how
it
brings
a
lot
of
other
older
Lots
in
compliance.
The
other
thing
I
think
it's
advantageous
is
it
does
help
minimize?
It
makes
it
possible
to
do
perhaps
more
two-family
homes
and
meet
that
35
percent
impervious
by
going
up
instead
of
out.
So
that's
just
a
thought
there,
the
other
one.
A
If
I
could,
while
I'm
on
two
family,
you
talked
about
moving
it
from
a
plan
development
to
a
conditional
use
permit.
Have
there
been
any
initial
conversations
about
what
types
of
things
might
constitute:
findings
in
a
conditional
use
permit,
because
I
think
we
have
perhaps
less
discretion.
I,
don't
remember
how
much,
whether
we
have
more
or
less
discretion
in
the
PD
versus
the
cup.
A
K
Chair
Roman,
we
haven't
had
a
whole
lot
of
discussion,
but
we
kind
of
recognize
that
there's
in
most
of
these
situations,
you
know
if
they're
code
complying
as
with
most
of
our
conditional
use,
permits
you're
going
to
approve
it
right,
and
so
the
idea
of
being
the
conditional
use
permit
still
provides
us
some
discretion.
If
all
of
a
sudden,
we
see
10
on
a
street,
we're
gonna
have
that
second
thought
of
well.
What
is
the
density
we
just
adjusted
here?
K
So
that
might
be
a
consideration
on
other
factors,
but
for
the
most
part
we
anticipate
that
you'll
probably
be
approving
most
of
these
because
they're
code
compliant
and
they're,
probably
not
too
much
clustered
but
I,
think
that
would
be
one
consideration
is
the
density
of
the
greater
neighborhood?
Is
this
they're
a
lot
concentrated
in
one
area
which
is
kind
of
the
point
of
still
having
that
discretion.
K
Chair
Roman,
commissioner
cooked
in
we,
we
have
other
provisions
and
I'm
trying
to
see
if
it's
in
your
packet
or
not,
but
essentially
the
way
that
our
accessory
structure
is
laid
out.
It's
laid
out
a
little
differently.
We
we
discuss,
we
discuss
side,
yard,
front
yard
and
rear
yard,
whereas
in
the
structure
placement
here
we
just
we
just
we
don't
have
that
breakdown.
K
So
in
that
accessory
structure
we
say
section:
accessory
structures
are
not
permitted
between
the
house
and
the
street
and
the
side
yard,
and
you
know
thinking
Corner
lots
and
then
between
the
house
and
the
street
in
the
front
yard.
But
we
don't
have
that
in
the
in
the
rear
yard
section
in
that
accessory
structure
section,
so
it
is
already
protected.
It
was.
This
was
just
where
there
was
a
conflict
in
our
code
that
was
occurring.
J
J
Your
justification
for
going
on
low
density
residential
from
0
to
12
was
that
if
you
had
and
correct
me,
if
I
have
a
detail
around
here,
but
a
house
in
Adu,
that's
like
11.1.
Are
we
calculating
this
per
lot
or
is
it
by
neighborhood?
You
know.
So
if
you
have
a
neighborhood
and
it's
at
you
know
some
it'll
call
it
four
units
per
acre
and
one
neighbor
in
your
in
your
neighborhood.
Does
this
you're
certainly
not
going
to
exceed
oh
you're,
not
gonna,
get
to
11
in
that
sense?
K
K
So
we
we
do
apply
it
on
a
per
lot
basis.
The
comp
plan
is
meant
to
look
kind
of
city-wide,
but
then
you
run
into
that
situation
of
what
is
that
distance
that
we're
calculating?
Is
it
a
block?
Is
it
a
neighborhood,
and
you
know
so,
it
is
easier
to
just
apply
it
per
site
per
case,
with
the
understanding
that
we're
Citywide
ldr
is
not
going
to
be
anywhere
close
to
that
12,
but
there
might
be
areas
that
are
a
little
bit
higher
than
other
areas,
so
providing
that
range
is
is
appropriate.
Okay,.
J
One
more:
if
I
may,
the
parking
requirement
for
two
family
homes
just
want
to
make
sure
I'm
clear.
So
for
a
single
family
home,
we
are
going
to
say
one
in
a
garage
and
one
on
a
driveway
and
when
for
duplexes,
is
it
still
one
in
the
garage
or
still
one
in
the
driveways
that
for
each
unit?
So
it's
total
two
in
a
garage
and
two
driveway
yep.
K
A
B
E
Thank
you,
chair,
I
know
that
every
Community
is
it's
Unique,
but
I
always
like
to
compare
as
well
with
other
efforts
that
have
been
made.
And
so,
when
you
talk
about
how
you
carefully
thought
about
other
population,
remember
in
that
one
slide
where
you
have
all
the
different
spots
in
green
and
yeah.
The
concerns
about
gentrification.
So
are
there
any
other
communities
that
you
have
kind
of
Follow
that
are
could
be
similar
to
Bloomington
is
right
now
and
that
have
taken
similar
steps
and
then
how?
K
A
chair,
commissioner
Carmen,
you
know
bloomington's
kind
of
in
the
middle
of
this
process
in
the
middle
of
other
communities
that
are
also
going
through
this
process.
So
not
a
lot
have
kind
of
updated.
You
know,
there's
many
communities
that
kind
of
benefited
from
having
a
range
of
single-family
zoning
that
we
don't
have.
So
there
is
this
difficulty
to
compare
thinking
of
Eden
Prairie.
They
have
three
single-family
zoning
districts,
so
they
can.
They
have
small,
medium,
larger
Lots.
K
You
know
single
family
zoning
beyond
their
just
normal
medium,
and
you
know
so
it's
a
little
bit
difficult
because
we're
trying
to
kind
of
retrofit
our
zoning
code
and
deal
with
a
situation
that
we've
had
for
60
plus
years,
whereas
communities
that
grew
up
after
us
kind
of
more
that
ex-urban
they've
already
have
this
kind
of
built
into
their
code
and
whereas
other
communities
like
Richfield
and
Minneapolis,
they
develop
much
earlier
than
us.
So
they
don't
have
that
problem
because
they
already
have
smaller
Lots
kind
of
built
in.
K
So
this
is
kind
of
an
interesting
animal
that
we're
dealing
with.
You
know
some
communities
are
subject
to
gentrification
just
be
due
to
their
proximity,
you
think
of
Edina.
They
have
a
lot
of
tear
Downs
of
older
homes
and
building
new
homes,
but
they're
not
necessarily
it's
not
necessarily
due
to
them
being
able
to
take
a
lot
and
split
it.
They
they.
It's
just
there's
just
just
that.
Much
demand
that
someone's
willing
to
buy
a
house
tear
it
down
and
redevelop
it.
So
we're
not.
At
that
point
we
haven't
really
seen.
K
We
don't
have
that
tear
down
culture
here,
which
is
kind
of
why
we're
here
we're
trying
to
encourage
more
of
that
infill
development,
but
not
necessarily
a
whole
lot
of
tear
downs.
But
that's
why
I
kind
of
bring
up
that
relief
valve
that
if,
for
some
reason
we
do
see
that
we're
gonna
have
that
we
have
a
lot
of
development
happen
which
we're
not
predicting.
But
if
it
does
happen,
then
maybe
we
do
have
to
adjust
our
lot
size
in
the
future.
K
J
H
K
Chair
commissioner,
cooked
in
I
might
have
to
defer
to
Glenn
on
that.
This
was
that
was
kind
of
a
project.
I
started
working
on
in
tandem
with
this,
but
we
have,
since,
with
my
transition
to
my
new
role,
have
shifted
that
into
a
different
planner
and
who,
which
is
kind
of
baked
into
some
of
the
land
use
changes
here.
We're
anticipating
those
but
yeah.
B
Pretty
much
her
Roman,
commissioner
cookton.
Yes,
we've
had
a
couple
of
study
discussions
recently,
one
with
a
Planning
Commission
and
then
more
recently
with
the
city
council.
We've
received
guidance
that
both
entities
would
like
to
see
that
on
the
2023
work
plan,
so
we
will
be
bringing
that
forward
in
the
context
of
missing
metal
housing
in
general
and
a
study
on
how
we
can
increase
opportunities
for
missing
metal
housing.
So
it's
not
part
of
this
ordinance.
B
B
H
Thank
you
chair.
Just
a
point
of
clarification,
dwelling
units
and
Cottage
helmet,
okay,
I
know
we're
going
to
be
talking
differently
about
cottage
homes,
visually
I'm,
trying
to
like
associate
and
maybe
disassociate
what
does
that
actually
look
like
in
relation
to
a
primary
residence?
Are
we
thinking
of
them?
The
same
like
we've
talked
about
and
adopted
an
ordinance
for
accessory
dwelling
units,
whether
attached,
internal
or
detached
with
this
language
here
about
Cottage,
develop
Cottage
home
development?
H
B
Yeah,
chair
Roman,
commissioner
Abdi
I
kind
of
think
of
it
visually
in
comparison
with
Town
Homes.
If
you
think
of
a
traditional
and
town
home
developments,
you'll
have
several
units
and
they'll
be
attached
at
least
several
of
them
with
one
another,
whereas
in
a
cottage
Home
Development
you'll
have
several
units,
but
they
might
be
detached.
They
may
be
smaller.
They
may
be
quite
a
bit
smaller,
but
they
would
not
necessarily
have
to
be.
It
could
be
similar
to
Villa
Home
Development,
that's
kind
of
like
detached
Townhomes.
K
Chair
commissioner
Abdi,
so
the
minimum
lot
size
for
a
duplex
or
two
family
home
would
be
13
000
square
feet,
so
6500
per
unit
I
believe
blanking.
Now,
on
our
accessory
dwelling
requirement
for
two
family
I,
don't
believe
we
allow
it
so
that
that's
kind
of
if
we
did
then
all
of
a
sudden,
our
density
would
be
kind
of
four
units
on
a
13,
000
square
foot
lot
and
and
then
we're
we
would
have
had
to
adjust
a
little
bit
further
on
the
low
density.
A
G
G
Excellent
good
evening,
carrollman
Commissioners,
my
name
is
Steve
Furlong
I
live
at
8140,
Lee
Road
in
Bloomington
and
I'm
speaking
as
an
experienced
infill
redeveloper
in
the
city
of
Bloomington
I've
done
several
two
family
dwelling
Redevelopment
projects
over
the
last
five
years
and
a
single
family,
infill
Redevelopment
project
and
I
I.
Just
have
a
couple
of
things:
I've
been
working
a
little
bit
through
this
process
with
staff
and
I
want
to
thanks
back
and
Mr,
Palermo
and
and
Mr
Mark
regard
for
all
their
work
on.
G
This
I
see
an
opportunity
here
within
these
changes
to
provide
more
of
that
missing
middle
housing
that
we
are
Desperately
Seeking.
The
two-family
dwelling
project
type
allows
us
to
bring
unsubsidized,
affordable
ownership,
housing
for
the
city
and
making
these
changes
will
make
more
of
those
opportunities
available
and
specifically,
the
two
family
dwelling,
giving
us
the
ability
to
divide
a
lot
on
a
zero
lot
line
and
create
two
new
pids
and
have
two
new
for
sale
units
that
we
that
we
can
create
chairwoman.
G
Can
so
if
we
can
divide
that
that
L
of
land
cost
that's
something
that
we
can
control
as
a
community
and
the
lumber
labor
and
liquidity
and
losses?
That's
something
that's
just
outside
of
Municipal
control,
so
I
I
hear
all
these
changes
and
I
think
this
will
create
some
more
opportunities
to
do
some
more
Redevelopment
and
bring
some
more
of
that
middle
missing
housing.
G
However,
I
do
want
to
point
out
that
the
economics
there's
been
some
conversation,
commissioner
Avi
I.
Thank
you
for
bringing
up
the
quality
point
and
I
just
want
to
make
a
point
that
the
the
current
economics
will
moderate.
Redevelopment
I
do
not
expect
to
see
this
massive
Redevelopment
in
entire
city
blocks
being
torn
down
and
and
and
the
Lots
re-platted
the
economics.
Currently,
the
cost
of
construction
is
not
coming
down,
although
permits
are
but
the
cost
is
is
not.
B
G
There's
there's
a
lot
of
things
that
go
into
building
a
new
house,
so
I
don't
expect
to
see
a
lot
of
this,
but
it
it.
These
changes
will
certainly
give
us
some
more
opportunities
to
do
some
more
of
those
types
of
units
that
are
attainable
for
households
at
the
area,
median
income,
so
I
I
wanted
to
say.
Thank
you.
I
I
too,
disappointed
that
we.
A
A
H
Thank
you
chair
as
a
first
generation
home
buyer
in
my
family,
I
feel
like
we.
You
know
we
most
of
us
would
you
know,
grow
up
in
Minneapolis
and
St
Paul
and
would
you
know
hope
to
buy
something
affordable
with
slightly
larger
size,
and
then
we
chose
Bloomington.
We
have
our
families
grow
and
you
know
I
want
more
families
to
buy
homes,
I
want
more
families
to
move
to
Bloomington,
but
the
me
being
selfish.
H
H
So
if
we
do
allow
those
possibly
to
be
subdivided
by
having
a
developer
coming
and
buying
two
lots,
because
the
socioeconomic
area
of
the
east
Bloomington
is
slightly
more
affordable
than
you
would
find
in
other
parts
of
the
city,
so
my
my
concern
is
then
I
would
be
boxed
in
with
more
more
density.
Obviously,
that
would
allow
for
affordable
home
ownership
for
more
people
to
move
into
Bloomington,
but
I
feel
like
visually
it.
H
Just
it
would
increase
the
disparities
of
home
ownership,
not
necessarily
the
amenities
I
would
say
because
would
have
higher
density
in
one
part
of
the
city,
and
you
know
the
Lakes
area
and
I
have
no
beef
with
anybody
that
lives
in
that
part
of
town.
But
you
know
just
from
experience
and
what
I'm
seeing
right
now
is
just
as
a
selfish
individual.
H
Here
you
know
I'm,
fearful
of
what
that
would
do
to
my
property
and
what
would
do
to
other
properties,
property
owners
who
are
not
present
today
or
have
not
had
an
opportunity
to
voice
their
concerns.
But
I
do
commend
staff
for
the
engagement
that
you
have
done
in
the
various
parts
of
the
city.
I
commend
the
city's
goals
to
try
and
Achieve
these,
but
I'm
just
stuck
on
that.
H
Even
though
the
R1
district
is
all
over
the
city
that
we're
focusing
on
specific
lot
sizes
and
not
opening
it
up
and
then
have
the
developer
choose
to
go
where
they
want
to
go
to
buy
a
property
and
subdivide.
If
they
want
to
so
I
feel
like
we're
getting
boxed
in
with
specific
lot
sizes,
considering
that
it's
cheaper
to
buy
in
some
parts
of
the
city,
because
it
is
more
economical
but
a
little
bit
of
venting.
But
this
is
very
selfish
on
my
part,
as
a
resident
of
Bloomington
serving
on
this
board.
H
J
Cookton,
thank
you,
Mr
chair.
The
only
thing
that
gave
me
a
little
bit
of
pause
with
this
was
the
the
re-guiding
or
the
re
definition
of
a
low
density
residential
guy
from
zero
to
five
to
zero
to
twelve
five
to
twelve
is
a
very
large
increase.
It's
over
double
I
wish.
There
was
a
way
we
could
calculate
that
over
a
neighborhood,
but
recognizing
that's
almost
impossible.
J
J
That
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
good
practical
things
in
this
I
think
it's
I
believe
the
staff
of
a
report
called
a
gentle
increases
in
density,
which
I
think
is
right
and
it
allows
us
to
see
how
it
works
for
a
couple
years
and
if
nothing's
happening,
then
we
can
be
more
aggressive
or
if
too
much
is
happening.
We
can
scale
it
back,
but
I
think
this
is
a
good
starting
point
and
I'm
in
favor
of
it.
A
I
would
Echo
some
of
the
comments
that
I've
heard
from
both
Commissioners
and
I.
Think
having
worked
on
the
comprehensive
plan
with
commissioner
Korman
and
development
analyst
Palermo,
we
know
that
the
Met
Council
has
categorized
I,
guess
Bloomington
as
Urban
for
2040.,
so
Urban
comes
with
a
different
type
of
character
than
suburban
and
I've
said
it
before
in
this
body.
It
doesn't
mean
that
every
square
inch
of
this
city
is
going
to
become.
A
You
know
high
density
Urban,
but
it
does
mean
that
we
are
going
to
be
more
dense,
and
so
we
are.
We
have
been
very
strategic,
I.
Think,
and
it's
my
time
here
and
some
of
the
thing
we've
worked,
we've
done
on
the
Lindale
area,
Pan,
American,
South
Loop
for
sure,
but
I
think
this
type
of
realignment
of
the
the
lot
sizes.
It
is
a
slight
densification,
but,
to
you
know,
was
commissioner
Corman
or
commissioner
question
Echo.
This
is
a
it's
not
a
drastic
shift.
A
I
think
I
think
it
should
work.
I'm,
really
appreciative
of
all
the
work.
That's
gone
into
this
I
think
it's.
It
is
it's!
It's
a
you
know
we're
we're
taking
a
little
bit
of
a
risk
as
a
city
which
is
what
you'll
hear
about
when
I
talk
about
the
boards
and
commission
meeting
of
the
con
with
the
city's
comprehensive
work,
strategic
plan,
but
I
think
it's
it's
a
reasonable
risk
to
be
taking
so
I'm
supportive.
Commissioner
Goldman.
I
Thanks
chair
I
too,
just
want
to
thank
staff
for
putting
this
together
and
I
I
support
the
majority
of
of
this
and
will
be
supporting
the
Motions
in
front
of
us,
but
I
do
want
to
point
out
two
things
that
really
come
to
my
mind,
and
the
first
thing
is
I
really
appreciate
that
this
brings
into
conformance
all
of
those
lots
that
are
currently
non-conforming,
so
we're
actually
building
in
this
ordinance.
That
is
really
the
real
world
EX
real
world
that
we're
living
in
today,
we
have
I
think
was
it
30?
K
I
There
we
go:
that's
her,
the
30.,
so
17,
now
we're
down
to
one
and
a
half
so
I
like
that.
We're
bringing
in
these
ordinances
to
come
to
really
align
to
the
real
world
examples.
The
other
thing
that
I
really
like
about
it
is
around
our
parking
standards
and
and
really
when
we
think
about
our
our
city
becoming
more
urban.
We've
put
a
lot
of
focus
about
transportation
and
public
transportation.
I
I
think
one
thing
I
would
caution,
because
this
is
a
transition.
It's
not
going
to
happen
overnight
is
we
have
many
streets
that
don't
have
parking
on
the
street,
and
so,
if
we
reduce
the
amount
of
parking
that
is
available
for
a
development,
where
are
they
going
to
park
so
again,
I?
Don't
think
it's
going
to
happen
overnight,
but
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
end
up
with
places
where
they
they
can't
park.
E
Thank
you
thinking
about
where
you
know
just
kind
of
thinking
a
little
bit
of
what
commissioner
update
had
mentioned
about
density
in
a
specific
area
and
the
concerns
around
that
one
of
the
concerns
that
I
would
have
have
to
do
with
schools,
and
so,
while
I
support
this
motion.
I
would
also
continue
to
encourage
the
city
to
continue
those
conversations
with
school
district
when
it
comes
to
school
property.
E
You
know
what
is
that
going
to
mean
in
the
future
so
starting
those
conversations
early,
it's
going
to
be
beneficial
for
both
parties
and
then
one
thing
that
you
said
that
I
really
liked
keeping
a
good
balance.
So
it's
it's
interesting.
You
know
from
the
moment
that
we
started
with
forward
2040
and
then
the
the
plan
they
come,
the
comprehend
the
comprehensive
plan
to
this
moment.
You
know
I
am
support
of
this
because
it
really
opens
up
those
opportunities
that
we've
been
talking
about
for
years
and
looking
for.
A
My
only
other
observation
is
that
it
would
Echo
something
that
commissioner
Abdi
alluded
to
as
I'm.
This
is
I
think
this
is
a.
This
is
a
big
step,
I'm
shocked
that
we
only
had
one
member
of
the
community
who
provided
any
input,
written
or
in
person
or
by
phone.
So
just
an
observation,
but
you
know
we
we
do
our
best
to
publicize
these
things,
so
that
people
have
the
opportunities
to
give
us
feedback,
and
maybe
that's
a
either
a
sign
one
way
or
another.
Commissioner
cookton
to.
J
That
point
Mr
chair
there
is
another
opportunity
for
people
to
speak
correct.
If
they're
watching
us
tonight
correct
I
too,
encourage
them
to
speak
up,
there's
nothing.
We
get
more
comments
about
than
changes
in
single-family
neighborhoods,
and
this
is
their
opportunity
to
speak
and
I,
encourage
them
very
much
to
do
so
and.
A
I
Chair
I'd
like
to
make
a
motion
in
case
pl2022-221,
I,
move
to
recommend
approval
of
the
ordinance
updating
city
code
requirements
for
a
single
family,
residential
and
two
family,
residential
lots
and
dwellings,
thereby
amending
chapters
19,
21
and
22
of
the
city
code
as
attached
to
the
staff
report.
Second,.
A
A
H
A
That
motion
also
passes
that
recommendation
will
also
move
on
to
the
January
9th
city
council
meeting,
where
it
will
be
a
public
hearing.
Thank
you
again
for
all
the
staff's
good
work
on
this
item.
Number
three
is
Planning
Commission
meeting
synopsis
from
November
3rd
and
on
November
3rd
presents
were
myself,
commissioner
goldsman
commissioner
Albrecht
and
commissioner
cookton.
So
I
would
look
for
a
motion
from
one
of
the
four
of
us.
D
D
E
A
A
B
B
H
B
A
All
right
related
to
the
work
plan
item
I
would
like
to
request
that.
As
part
of
that
conversation,
we
maybe
get
an
update
from
our
staff
in
the
engineering
area
to
hear
about
strategic
trans.
Their
strategic
Transportation
plan
was
part
of
this
year's
work
plan
and
I'll
talk
a
little
bit
about
this
after
this
with
the
boards
and
commission
meeting
and
the
Strategic
plan.
A
So
I
would
be
hoping
that
our
engineering
staff
can
give
us
some
insight
into
what
that
might
look
like
in
next
year's
work
plan
and
then
also
is
this
outside
the
work
plan,
but
hoping
for
a
status
update
check
in
on
the
Pan
American,
494
35W
planning
and
where
we're
at
with
that
with
our
colleagues
in
public
works
or
engineering.
That's
an
opportunity
to
improve
The
Pedestrian
bike
realm
in
an
area
that's
going
to
increase
traffic,
and
we
only
get
one
chance
to
do
that
right.
A
The
other
one
to
think
about.
I
would
be
interested
to
hear
it.
No
don't
have
a
position
on
it
is
in
if
our
transportation
folks
are
talking
about
work
plan.
If
there's
any
thought
about,
we
mentioned
one
time
about
whether
city-wide
speed
limits
were
going
to
be
looked
at
any
time
in
the
next
several
years,
but
something
just
for
them
to.
Let
us
know
if
they're
thinking
about
one
other
item.
A
One
of
our
colleagues
had
asked
me
to
give
an
update.
We
had
a
meeting
this
week
of
the
boards
and
commissions
with
the
mayor
and
the
city
manager.
There
were
18
Folks
at
that
meeting:
combination
of
Commissioners
and
staff
Liaisons
we
heard
about
priorities
for
other
commissions
for
the
next
year.
Some
of
them
are
I,
think
our
commission
is
more
transactional
than
others,
and
so
some
of
them
have
work
plans
that
the
commissions
develop
much
more
Hands-On
and
so
they've
been
thinking
about.
Working
on
that
we
we
give
feedback
with.
A
Ours
is
just
a
different
kind
of
an
angle
on
that.
We
heard
about
the
city's
new
strategic
plan
that
was
developed
using
a
community-based
approach.
Did
we
get
this
for
tonight?
No
worries
I've
been
asked
the
planning
manager
to
share
it's
a
four-page
summary
that
I
thought
was
just
the
right
level
of
detail.
It'll
help
us
as
we
think
about
some
things.
A
You
know
the
things
that
I
thought
that
were
interesting,
that
in
the
plan
it
talks
about
the
mission
of
to
cultivate
an
enduring
and
remote
remarkable
Community,
where
people
want
to
be
and
so
kind
of
the
enduring
and
remarkable
that
sense
of
permanence,
the
uniqueness
of
our
city
and
is
interesting.
One
of
the
things
they
talked
about
is
that
we
don't
measure
ourselves
against
other
cities.
A
With
this
thing,
it's
you
know
this
is
bold.
It's
risk-taking,
one
of
the
things
I
would
like
us
to
think
about
and
I'd
be
interested
to
hear
thoughts.
If
not
necessarily
tonight
we
could
have
thoughts
at
one
point
is
if
there
are
select
commissions
that
we
should
be
inviting
to
some
of
our
meetings
over
the
course
of
the
year,
just
for
an
hour
of
our
meeting,
maybe
to
discuss
our
priorities
and
how
our
work
overlaps,
I.
A
Think
about
you
know
we
did
some
work
with
Housing
and
Redevelopment
on
on
the
issue
of
single
and
two
family
housing.
We
did
some
work,
I,
don't
know
a
year
or
two
ago
with
human
rights
on
just
Deeds.
You
know.
The
single
family
thing
is
a
good
example
of
where
maybe
we
should
have
done
some
work
with
the
sustainability
commission,
and
so
just
thinking
about.
A
J
Mr
chair,
the
the
commission
that
comes
to
mind
for
me:
is
the
port
there's
a
lot
of
overlap
between
what
we
do,
but
it
seems
to
be
this
sort
of
separation.
We
can't
do
Port
stuff
and
they
shouldn't
be
doing
our
stuff,
but
there's
a
lot
of
overlap
that
we
never
see
and
it
would
be
I
think
beneficial
to
have
more.
J
Yeah
Mr
chair,
we
talked
about
next
meeting.
We
have
the
work
plan
update.
The
one
thing
I
would
be
interested
in
seeing
included
in
that
is
an
update
on
the
South
Loop
District
plan
and
whether
that's
in
or
out,
and
why
that
might
be
in
or
out.
That's
something
that's
important
to
me.
Maybe
it's
in
maybe
it's
out
but
I'm,
just
hoping
at
least
it's
discussed.
I
Thanks
chair
I
also
would
like
to
get
an
update
on
the
parks
plan.
I
know
was
it
about.
A
year
ago
we
heard
from
the
parks
division
on
some
of
the
development,
some
of
the
plans
that
they
had
some
of
the
amenities
that
they're
looking
at
putting
in
it'd
be
great
for
us
to
hear
about
what
that
plan
is
going
to
look
like
in
the
coming
months
and
years.
So
just
an
update
from
them
would
be
really
great.