►
Description
Bloomington Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting
A
Good
evening
and
welcome
to
the
february
11th
bloomington
planning
commission
meeting
planning
commission
advises
the
city
council
on
development
standards,
development
proposals,
long-range
planning
and
transportation
issues,
some
items.
The
planning
commission
has
final
decision
authority
for
and
others
the
city
council
will
make.
The
decision
planning
commission
is
made
up
of
seven
volunteers
that
are
appointed
by
the
city
council
and
served
for
up
to
three
years.
At
a
time
tonight
we
have
four
items
scheduled
on
our
agenda,
but
before
we
begin
we'll
stand
and
say
the
pledge
of
allegiance.
A
Pledge
allegiance
to
the
flag
of
the
united
states
of
america
and
to
the
republic
for
which
it
stands,
one
nation,
under
god,
indivisible
with
liberty
and
justice
for
all
all
right
tonight.
Before
we
begin,
mr
marker
guard
we'll
review
the
the
protocol
as
our
standard
under
covet
19
and
social
distancing.
Mr
marker
guard.
B
Yes,
mr
chairman
planning
commissioners
tonight
is
our
20th,
a
remote
planning
commission
meeting
due
to
the
pandemic.
We
just
have
two
people
here
in
the
chambers,
all
the
other
commissioners
staff
applicants
and
the
public
will
be
testifying
remotely,
but
we
definitely
can
still
accept
a
public
comment.
B
A
All
right,
thank
you,
mr
marker
guard.
So
again
before
we
start
tonight
I'll
just
review
the
process
for
the
planning
commission.
A
Normally
what
we
would
do
is
have
the
planning
staff
review
the
application
and
then,
after
they
complete
their
review,
account
or
commissioners
have
an
opportunity
to
ask
staff
questions
and
then
we
would
move
to
the
applicant
if
there's
any
further
discussion
and
then
open
to
public
hearing.
A
That
being
said,
our
first
item
tonight
is
a
conditional
use
permit
that
was
scheduled
for
dairy
queen
at
9304,
lindale
avenue
and
the
applicant
on
that.
One
has
requested
a
continuance
until
the
march
11th
planning
commission
for
all
actions
associated
with
that
item.
So
we
will
move
forward
to
item
number
two,
which
is
a
comprehensive
plan
amendment.
I
believe,
item
number
two,
mr
palermo,
you
have
a
staff
report
for
us.
A
A
C
D
A
E
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
can
everyone
hear
me.
E
Okay,
sorry,
the
mute
button
disappears
when
you
go
all
right
so
tonight
we're
here
for
a
comprehensive
plan
text
amendment.
This
is
a
privately
initiated,
comprehensive
plan
amendment
addressing
some
standards
for
our
medium
density,
residential
guide
plan,
designation.
E
So,
to
give
you
a
little
context
of
how
this
began,
the
applicant
purchased
the
property
at
422
for
423,
west
old,
shakopee
road,
there's
an
existing
single
family
home,
and
they
were
intending
to
subdivide
it
and
put
a
second
single
family
home
on
there.
It's
zoned
r1,
so
for
low
density
residential.
E
So
the
issue
that
that
came
to
be
was
because
medium
density,
residential
guidance
requires
five
units,
an
acre
or
more
so
a
certain
our
r1
zoning
district
wouldn't
fit
within
our
guide
plan.
Designation
of
medium
density.
E
And
I
apologize
if
you
hear
some
noises
in
the
background,
I
I
have
a
two-year-old
and
a
four-year-old.
So
hopefully
that's
not
bleeding
through.
So
give
you
a
little
context:
here's
the
applicant's
property
it
is
on
old,
shakopee
road,
but
it
is
a
through
lot.
The
the
intent
was
to
subdivide
it
and
have
a
lot
on
108th
street
and
continue
to
have
the
house
that
faces
on
old
shakopee
road.
E
The
area
like
I
said,
is
zone
r1,
so
it
is
zoned
for
a
single
family
home
with
guided
medium
density
residential.
You
can
see.
We
had
some
high
density
residential
here
to
the
the
east,
and
then
we
have
108th
place,
which
was
recently
constructed,
also
meets
our
high
density
residential
and,
like
I
said
that,
was
part
of
the
hra
land
baking
and
helping
with
that
development.
E
E
So
the
proposed
amendment
that
the
applicant
was
proposing-
we
tweaked
it
a
little
bit
so
it
says
this
would
be
added
on
to
our
our
description
of
what
medium
density
is
and
would
say,
in
locations
where
an
existing
or
new
newly
created
lot
is
along.
E
In
this
case,
we
said
we're
changing
it
to
local
street,
because
that
is
in
keeping
with
other
language
throughout
the
comp
plan
in
our
zoning
code
rather
than
neighborhood
street,
so
where
a
newly
created
lot
is
along
a
local
street
and
has
single
family
drawing
on
both
sides
of
the
lot.
A
single
family
home
is,
in
this
case
we're
we're
proposing
to
change
a
tool
allowed
at
below
five
units
per
acre,
so
really
getting
at
what
the
the
issue
is.
E
Staff
is
in
support
of
this
because
of
those
narrow
parameters.
E
It
really
is
tailored
to
kind
of
keep
that
neighborhood
character
in
place
so
being
along
the
local
street,
we're
not
in
conflict
with
what
the
medium
density
language
says
about
trying
to
concentrate
medium
and
high
density
multi-family
along
arterial
collectors,
we're
saying
if
it's
a
longer
local
street,
which
is
where
our
single-family
homes
are.
It
is
in
keeping
with
neighborhood
character
and
then
that
having
single
family
homes
on
both
sides
really
is
ensuring
that
neighborhood
character,
so
we're
not
still
is
not
out
of
place,
and
then
this
is
a
unique
situation.
E
We
looked
for
other
situations
that
this
would
be
applicable
to
and
none
stood
out.
There
wasn't
a
similar
situation
that
we
could
readily
assign
not
to
say
that
it
doesn't
exist,
but
again
those
lots
would
be
in
that
keeping
with
that
neighborhood
character
and
the
situation
might
arise
in
the
future
somehow,
but
all
in
all
it
doesn't
dilute
the
medium
density,
residential
intent
much
if
at
all
the
it
doesn't
eliminate
that
ability
to
do
that
medium
density
in
the
future.
E
E
With
that
I'll,
take
any
questions
and
have
a
motion
on
the
screen,
but
I'll
ask
questions.
I
believe
the
applicant
is
on
the
phone
as
well.
If
you
have
any
questions
for
her
all
right,
thank
you.
A
All
right
all
the
good
technical
issues
here
tonight,
mr
playermilk,
just
the
question
I
have
is
the
language
that
you
presented
in
in
the
yep
right
there
for
the
proposed
amendment.
That's
all
new
language
that's
being
proposed.
Is
that
correct.
E
That's
correct
that
would
be.
In
addition,
it
would
just
be
a
another
paragraph
in
that
section,
so
the
medium
density
has
a
little
description
in
the
comp
plan,
and
this
would
just
be
a
secondary
paragraph
after
that.
A
Okay-
and
I
know
we-
we
talk
about
this
in
various
applications,
what's
the
level
of
discretion
that
the
planning
commission
has
with
this
with
this
item,
is
it
a
high
level
or
a
lower
level.
E
In
this
case,
so
what
do
you
mean
by
discretion?
Will
you
be
reviewing
the
the.
A
I
I
think
mr
plummer
or
mr
marker
mark
regard
really.
The
question
is
just
how
much
is
guided
by
current
standards
and
how
much
can
does
the
planning
commission
really
have
the
ability
to
determine
what's
appropriate
or
not.
B
A
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Mr
palermo,
can
you
do
you
know
the
approximate
size
of
the
lot
as
it
exists
in
a
square
feet.
E
A
Thanks
any
additional
questions,
commissioner
roman.
A
Okay,
all
right,
commissioner,
abdi.
G
Thank
you,
mr
chair
question,
and
I
it's
been
a
while,
since
I
read
the
reports,
I'm
just
quickly
reviewing
it.
My
question
is
with
a
larger
comp
plan
and
since
the
40
for
2020
was
adopted,
are
there
any
plans
to
rezone
the
entire
city
or
are
this
or
is
this
just
a
a
quick
fix
for
the
need
that
currently
exists
right
now,
or
can
you
maybe
explain
a
little
bit
about
the
the
potential
rezoning
that
the
city
will
be
undertaking
and
what
this
means
for
that
area?
G
E
Right,
mr
chair,
commissioner,
abdi
so
this
we
wouldn't
be
rezoning
the
property,
so
this
would
essentially
it
would
be
saying
that
the
zoning
is
in
conformance,
so
we
have
a
lot
of
flexibility
in
how
our
zoning
districts
fit
within
our
land,
use
guidelines
or
land
use
designations,
and
in
this
case
the
zoning
is
in
conflict,
and
this
would
say
in
certain
situations
the
zoning
wouldn't
be
in
conflict,
so
we
wouldn't
be
rezoning,
so
there
would
so
there
might
be
other
areas
in
the
city
where
there
are
medium
density
that
are,
there
are
other
areas
that
are
medium
density,
that
have
r1
zoning
and
they
might
have
the
same
unique
situation,
but
we
couldn't
readily
find
that
you
know
it's
hard
to
do
that
analysis
to
find,
but
it
wouldn't
necessarily
be
rezoning
any
properties.
E
A
Absolutely
go
ahead,
commissioner.
Abdi.
G
I
apologize-
I
didn't
read
this
closely,
but
I
did
when
I
read
it.
It
was
not
about
when
my
question
when
I
was
thinking
it
was
really
less
about
the
rezoning,
but
it
was
more
about
the
comp
line
attached
to
the
zoning,
because
a
multi-family
district
from
my
view
encourages
multi-family
uses,
so
my
concern
would
have
been
if
the
site
surrounding
this
area
ends
up
being
redeveloped
for
a
multi-family,
you
know.
Are
we
going
to
have
mismatched
of
uses
in
the
area?
Should
we
preserving
affordable,
not
necessarily
affordable?
G
Should
we
be
preserving
multi-family
uses
for
multi-family
uses
instead
of
encouraging
more
single
family
in
a
multi-family
district?
So
I'm
just
a
little
bit
conflicted
about
what
that
means.
For
availability
of
that
and
the
consistency
of
having
uses
be
be
multi-family
in
a
multi-family
district,
even
though
multi-family
is
a
single
family
is
allowed
in
this
in
this
district.
My
only
concern
is
because
the
district
is
intended
for
multi-family.
G
Are
we
encouraging
more
single
families
to
be
allowed
to
continue
to
develop,
even
though
it
is
allowed?
So
maybe
that's
just
a
potential
larger
conversation,
but
thank
you
for
the
congratulations.
E
Bill,
mr
chair,
commissioner,
no
I
understand
what
you're
saying
in
this
case
you
know
by
creating
that
new
lot.
It
doesn't
necessarily
prohibit,
I
mean,
let's
say
they're,
all
single
family
hot
lots,
so
there
would
be
some
compiling
that
would
have
to
happen
regardless
and
whether
they
get
all
the
lots
or
a
few
of
those
lots.
That
possibilities
still
exist
is
especially
among
old
shakopee
roads,
which
is
where
we
kind
of
want
to
focus
it
on
that
arterial
collect
collector
roadway
rather
than
facing
on
108th
street
less
so.
E
But
you
know,
even
though
you
put
a
new
signal
family
home
on
there,
it
still
might
be
worth
it
for
a
developer
to
purchase
that
and
compile
it
and
redevelopment.
It's
it's
hard
to
do
that,
which
is
part
of
why
this
area
is
kind
of
sat
like
this,
but
that
potential
does
exist
and
this
while
it
might
limit
it
slightly,
if
someone
was
really
wanting
to
do
that,
it
wouldn't
necessarily
prohibit
them
from
doing
that.
C
Thanks,
mr
chair,
actually
one
of
the
questions
I
have
is
really
around
setting
precedence.
I've
learned
from
commissioner
roman
that
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
set
precedence.
So
one
of
the
questions
that
I
have
for
you,
mr
palermo,
is
you
mentioned
that
you
were
reviewing
other
properties
within
the
city
and,
and
you
didn't
find
any
other
situations
that
this
would
come
up,
that
there
was
this
kind
of
a
unique
situation.
Can
you
elaborate
on
you
know?
C
Are
there
other
properties
or
other
lots
within
the
city
that
could
potentially
fall
within
the
same
character
just
to
understanding
understand
what
this
the
precedence
that
we're
setting
for
this
change
could
be.
E
Yeah,
mr
chair,
commissioner,
goldsmith
we
looking
at
medium
density,
but
so
this
would
only
be
applicable
to
medium
density,
residentially,
guided
land
and
looking
through
that
we
don't
have
a
situation
where
we
have
say
a
large
enough
lot
to
subdivide
so
that
that's
the
difficulty
there
and
then
lots
that
are
medium
density
and
then
also
on
a
local
road.
As
such,
you
know
we
tend
to
have
those
medium
density
on
our
local
collector
roads,
thinking
that
they're
more
suitable
for
multi-family.
E
This
is
kind
of
a
unique
situation,
with
the
way
that
old,
shakopee
kind
of
runs
through
on
an
angle
and
local
streets
like
that
that
it
it
creates
this
unique
situation.
I
was
saying
kind
of
prefacing
that
that
you
know
it.
E
But
I
I
don't
see
we
we
couldn't
readily
find
that
there
could
be
another
situation
where
you
know
hypothetically
in
the
future.
There's
a
house:
that's
in
you
know
that
is
guided
medium
density,
that
becomes
blighted,
gets
torn
down
and
then
has
a
that.
Maybe
is
quite
a
large
lot
in
that
22
000
square
feet.
You
know
we
have
single-family
homes
that
are
on
larger
lots
like
that.
That
could
potentially
then
be
subdivided
in
that
situation
or,
if
maybe
it
doesn't
need
to
be
subdivided,
but
it
is
medium
density.
E
It's
been
over
a
year.
It's
no
longer
considered,
in
conformance
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
This
situation
would
allow
them
to
put
the
single
family
home
back
there.
The
likelihood
of
these
cases
are
fairly.
You
know,
rare
and
probably
may
may
not
even
happen
again,
but
that
that
potential
does
exist.
So
we
want
to
make
you
aware
that
when
we
do
this,
we
apply
it.
It
is
citywide
to
all
medium
density
residential.
A
All
right,
thank
you,
commissioner,
goldsmith
any
further
questions.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
to
have
one
other
question
and
whoever
from
the
staff
may
know
this
after
the
108th
place,
development
does
the
hra.
I
don't
think
so,
but
do
they
want
any
additional
parcels
in
this
super
block
at
all
anymore?.
E
Mr
chair
fisher
roman,
I
don't
believe
that
they
do
and
I
think
they've
kind
of
they
were
for
a
while
concentrated
in
this
area.
They
worked
on
108th
place
and
they
helped
especially
on
the
corners
around
france
and
old
shakopee,
but
at
this
time
they
don't
they
stopped
land
banking
and
they
don't
own
any
land,
and
I
don't
think,
there's
any
immediate
plans
in
the
future
for
land
baking,
although
it
could
always
change
right.
Thank
you.
A
B
Yes,
mr
chair,
I
will
unmute
the
applicant
now.
A
Good
evening
jill,
do
you
have
any
further
comments
for
planning
commission
tonight.
C
Well,
I
just
my
intentions
when
I
purchased
the
property
was
to
split
it
immediately,
and
that
was
my
my
one
intent
and
I'm
remodeling
the
house
on
old
shakby
and
then
the
intent
was
to
split
it
and
sell
the
lot
separately
for
someone
to
build
on.
We
actually
have
an
interested
builder
to
purchase
it
and
build
a
single
family
residence.
We
just
didn't
know
that
this
was
a
multi-family.
A
A
Not
seeing
any
thank
you,
ms
fairchild,
for
your
information
tonight.
A
All
right
now,
at
this
point,
we'll
open
up
public
hearing
mr
marker
guard.
Is
there
anybody
from
the
public
that
would
like
to
speak
to
this.
B
Yes,
mr
chairman,
nobody
has
pre-registered
to
speak,
but
let's
check
in
with
mr
pease,
mr
pease.
Has
anybody
called
in
on
this
item.
A
A
Hearing
all
right,
we
have
a
motion
to
close
public
hearing.
Is
there
a
second
commissioner,
roman?
Second,
all
right,
seeing
that
we
have
a
motion
before
us
closed
public
hearing
with
a
second
any
further
discussion,
not
seeing
any
all
those
in
favor
of
closing
public
hearing
say
I
by
roll
call,
commissioner
goldsman
hi,
commissioner
corman
hi,
commissioner
roman
aye,
commissioner
albrecht
aye.
A
C
A
This
one
me
a
little
bit
from
the
standpoint
that
we
have
guided
the
land
use
around
this,
and
there
has
been
quite
a
a
lot
of
work
in
the
vicinity
to
reach
that,
and
I
think
several
of
us
were
here
when
the
last
residential
development
went
through
and
understand
that
that
was
challenging
in
its
own
right.
A
On
the
other
hand,
I
if
I'm
hearing
staff
correct,
there's,
there's
not
really
maybe
a
lot
of
parcels
or
maybe
a
lot
of
change
that
could
take
place
by
allowing
this
particular
plan
amendment
I'm
very
much
on
the
fence.
At
this
point,
I
would
be
interested
to
hear
what
other
commission
members
think
at.
C
C
A
Yeah,
no,
that's
a
good
question,
I
think,
to
define
maybe
what
that
means
between
what
was
the
language
between
additional
single-family
homes,
mr
marker
guard
or
mr
palermo,
if
you
can
maybe
get
to
that
in
a
little
bit
I'll.
We'll
give
you
some
time
to
to
look
at
that.
Commissioner,
roman,
you
have
a
question.
A
C
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
that
was
my
only
thought,
was
what,
if
the
street
is
parallel
versus
on
either
streets
on
either
side.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
too
am
struggling
with
this
one.
F
I,
the
biggest
thing
I
have
a
hard
time
with,
is
modifying
a
comprehensive
plan
to
to
deal
with
one
specific
property
or
one
specific
project.
I
think
comprehensive
plans
are
meant
to
be
big
and
broad,
and-
and
I
think
we
open
ourselves
up
to
challenges
when
we
start
turning
the
dials
a
little
bit
here
and
there
to
accommodate
one
thing
in
a
document.
That's
meant
to
be
city-wide,
so
that's
my
biggest
thing.
Do
I
have
a
problem
with
the
idea
of
splitting
this
lot
in
half?
F
No
do
I
you
know
you
look
at
the
map
of
what's
around
there.
Does
it
fit
with
what's
there
now?
Yes,
was
this
prior
area
recently,
no,
it's
been
guided
this
way
for
decades.
Could
the
applicant
tear
down
the
house
and
build
a
very
large
house
if
they
wanted?
Yes,
it's
okay,
it's
zoned
that
way
for
residential.
F
Did
the
guiding
happen
after
the
our
property
purchase
property?
No,
I
understand
that
they
were
not
aware
of
that,
but
that
doesn't
we've
had
people
request,
variances
for
awnings
or
porches,
or
things
and
or
things
that
were
measured
improperly
40
years
ago
that
we
have
not
granted
and
so
that
that
for
me,
doesn't
quite
reach
there.
So
I
guess
what
I
have
a
bigger
question
is
ultimately,
is
you
know,
is
this
area
still
appropriately
guided
and
a
bigger
question?
Is
you
know?
Maybe
it
is?
Maybe
it
isn't,
but
I'm
really.
F
I
too
I'm
wrestling
with
this.
He
said
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
the
idea
of
this
lot
being
split
given
what's
around
it,
but
I
struggle
more
with
the
idea
of
what
we're
doing
on
a
bigger
scale,
with
the
plan.
C
Thanks
mr
chair,
one
of
the
things
that
I
looked
at
when
I
read
through
the
packet
was
the
properties
that
are
around
it
and,
and
I
I'm
kind
of
on
the
fence
as
well,
but
it
looks
like
this
is
the
only
lot
that
has
not
been
subdivided.
C
So
when
you
look
at
all
of
the
other
properties
around
it,
there
are
two
lots,
and
so
it
just
seemed
like
this
was
a
really.
You
know
unique
situation,
because
it
is
one
large
lot
versus
the
two.
And
if
I
look
at
the
others,
you
know
they
are
subdivided
into
two
lots
from
old
shakopee
to
108th.
C
D
Thank
cookton,
mr
chair,
as
I
reviewed
this
application,
I
just
like
my
other
commissioners-
was
a
bit
torn
and
it's
it's
hard
to
make
well
there's
a
lot
of
different
factors
here,
and
I
think
the
thing
that
holds
me
back
is
sort
of
commissioner
rowland's
point
about
what
you
know
not
not
necessarily
setting
a
precedent
at
this
particular
at
this
particular
location,
but
it's
more
of
a
precedent
of
how
we're
modifying
and
how
we
are,
how
we're
treating
the
comprehensive
plan.
D
But,
as
I
was
reviewing
the
application,
a
few
things
made
me
comfortable
with
leaning
towards
supporting
this
application
for
one.
I
appreciate
staff
taking
the
effort
to
look
at
where
else
this
could
be
applicable
if
if
this
has
a
large
ripple
effect
or
not
and
we're
hearing
that
we
believe
it
it
does
not,
and
so
that
makes
me
feel
more
comfortable
that
we're
not
setting
a
precedent
for
other
lots
in
our
city.
D
So
I
like
that,
and
then
I
I
looked
at
you-
know
the
surrounding
uses
and
and
looking
at
it
on
all,
I
believe
you
know
essentially
five
surrounding
properties,
two
on
the
west,
two
on
the
east,
one
to
the
south,
they're
all
single
family
homes.
And
so
when
you
talk
about
fit
it's
certain.
A
single
family
home
certainly
is
a
good
fit
for
today's
usage,
and
so
that
too,
makes
me
feel
more
comfortable
about
it.
D
I
think
this
application
makes
sense.
I
think
it
fits
with
the
city.
I
don't
think
we're
getting
in
anybody's
way
and
I
think
that's
our
opportunity
as
a
local
government,
to
take
a
look
at
this
as
its
own
application
and
see
that
it
makes
sense
and
and
not
let
a
large
document
which
I
don't,
I'm
not
negating
the
importance
of
our
comprehensive
plan
by
any
means.
It's
it's
valid
and
important.
D
What
my
point
is
is
that
we
have
an
opportunity,
as
the
seven
of
us,
to
take
a
look
at
this
as
an
individual
application
and
see
that
it
makes
sense
and
not
turn
it
away
because
of
a
large
document.
That's
guiding
our
entire
city
and
we
have
an
opportunity
to
say
this.
Particular
application
makes
sense.
It's
not
negatively
affecting
or
setting
a
precedence
that
we're
not
going
to
like
elsewhere,
and
we
can
allow
development
that
to
me
makes
sense,
and
so
I
could
still
be
convinced.
Otherwise,
I
feel
fairly
comfortable
supporting
this
application.
All.
A
Right,
thank
you.
Quick
done
appreciate
your
comments.
As
we
look
through
this
and
I'm,
I
myself
am
reminded
to
look
back
in
the
staff
report
to
think
about
a
couple
of
things.
Staff
had
evaluated
again
that
city-wide
land
guided
medium
density.
A
One
of
the
comments
made
is
that
without
the
proposed
change,
the
reconstruction
would
be
inconsistent
with
comp
plan
for
medium
density,
where
essentially,
if
there
was
a
home
that
was
demolished
or
blighted
within
the
city
and
nothing
was
reconstructed
within
a
year,
it
would
it
would
allow
that
to
take
place
so
that
it
it
could
meet
the
the
comp
plan
so
trying
to
put
this
in
perspective
with
quite
honestly,
a
lot
of
unemployment
economy
where
it
is
and
what
that
means
for
our
city
as
a
whole.
A
I
I
still
don't
know
that
this
gets
me
one
side
or
the
other
on
this
particular
issue,
but
just
trying
to
think
of
that
larger
broad
scale
issue
rather
than
thinking,
because,
certainly
I
don't
think
anybody
argues
that
a
single-family
home
in
in
the
neighborhood
makes
sense,
but
I
think
it's
about
the
larger
plan
that
the
city
has.
G
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I,
like
commissioner
roman
said
I
personally
do
not
have
I
mean
I
do
see
the
consistency
like
commissioner
cookton
also
mentioned
the
uses
that
are
surrounding
it.
I
guess
what
I'm
looking
for
is.
G
Maybe
it's
not
clicking
for
me
about
the
larger
context
of
what
this
would
mean,
and
I
know
this
would
only
resolve
for
this
one
property
and
we
don't
know
what
else
would
be
coming
for
it.
What
it
would
mean
for
other
possible
lots
that
would
be
coming
to
request.
I'm
not
clear,
I'm
sorry,
I
guess
the
question
I
maybe
we
can
ask,
I
can
ask
for
clarification,
is
does
this.
I
know
the
ordinance
does
not
talk
about
whether
the
lots,
the
new
lots,
would
meet
minimum
lot
sizes.
G
I
know
that
I
see
an
8,
700
square
foot
and
1100
square
foot.
Would
this
possibly
create
any
non-conforming
lot
sizes
for
other
existing
structures,
or
would
this
come
back
to
us
for
a
different
if
a
permanent
required
for
a
new
construction?
A
Commissioner
abdi,
I
think,
and
I'll
I'll
look
over
to
mr
marker
guard,
as
I
begin
to
answer
this,
but
I
think
because
the
size
is
32
000
square
feet
for
that
current
lot,
but
as
long
as
they
kept
it
above
that
r1
minimum
lot
size
of
11
000,
then
I
don't
know
what
would
we?
What
would
actions
before
any
planning
commission?
Would
there
be
any
mr
mark.
A
Commission-
and
mr
marker
are
just
thinking
about
this-
a
little
bit
if,
if
I'm
understanding
commissioner
abdi
a
little
bit,
part
of
the
question
is,
I
guess:
that's
now
come
that
I'm
thinking
is
a
medium
density
or
a
landowner
that
is
somehow
now
developed
or
purchased
four
or
five
lots
in
this
area.
It's
at
medium
density
and
proposes
a
medium
density,
five
units
per
acre
development.
A
One
of
the
findings
is,
it
has
to
be
in
compliance
with
the
comprehensive
plan,
correct,
and
so
they
would
be
would
not
have
to
overcome.
That
is
my
understanding,
but
a
s
if
okay
trying
to
think
about
this
a
little
bit
if
this
were
guided
as
low
density
and
they
came
in
with
a
medium
density,
it
would
not
be
in
compliance
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
Is
that
also
correct
or.
B
Mr
chairman,
in
this
case,
we
have
zoning
and
guiding
that
are
a
little
bit
out
of
sync
in
terms
of
the
guiding
would
tend
to
take
it
towards
the
town,
homes
or
something
similar,
whereas
the
zoning
is
more
single-family
in
nature.
B
So
if
a
developer
were
to
come
forward,
let's
say
combine:
several
of
these
lots
want
to
do
a
town
home
proposal.
They
would
likely
request
rezoning,
say
to
the
r3
district,
which
would
then
match
up
with
a
guide
plan
designation.
B
A
Yeah,
I
guess
the
second
part
of
that
mr
mark
guard
was
a
thought
of
where
it
would
not
be.
A
development
would
not
be.
A
A
My
understanding
is,
then
we're
looking
for
that,
where
that's
supportive
of
the
comprehensive
plan
when
we
do
those-
and
it
is
that
or
am
I
correct-
or
am
I
just
off
on
a
tangent
here.
B
Yeah,
mr
chairman
yeah.
Well,
I'm
not
sure
I
fully
understand
the
question,
but
there
are
some
limiting
criteria
with
this
change
that
would
lower
the
scope
and
maybe
mr
palermo,
if
you
kind
of
scroll
back
to
that
slide,
specifically,
it
has
to
be
on
a
local
street
and
there
has
to
be
single
family
dwellings
on
both
sides
of
the
lot.
A
No
yeah,
I
understand
that
I
was
thinking
more
on
a
broader
scale
of
just
developments
that
come
before
us
without
thinking
about
this
just
trying
to
get
the
context
correct
for
for
for
myself
as
much
as
anybody
else,
but
would
this,
I
guess
a
question
thinking
about
this
as
well,
because
it
was
brought
up
by
commissioner
albrecht
is.
Is
there
an
answer
to
that.
B
Yes,
mr
chairman,
commissioner,
albrecht
just
to
repeat
the
question
I
believe
it
was:
would
the
property
at
4304
johnson
be
able
to
take
advantage
of
this
amendment
and
subdivide
and
we've
looked
at
this
really
quickly
here,
there's
a
couple
barriers.
One
is
the
depth
of
the
lot,
and
not
only
is
the
depth
already
fairly
shallow
in
terms
of
lot
depth,
but
additional
right-of-way
is
needed
on
johnson
avenue
so
that
that's
one
barrier
the
other
barrier
is
there
are
a
couple
of
structures
right
in
the
middle
of
the
lot.
B
So,
depending
on
on
how
somebody
wanted
to
subdivide
it,
it
may
require
removal
of
the
structures.
So
it
could
be
that,
especially
with
removal
of
the
structures
that
it
that
it
may
meet
the
minimum
lot
sizes,
but
it
may
result
in
lots
that
are
substandard
or
are
not
practically
developable
due
to
a
lot
depth.
Although
to
answer
that
in
detail,
we'd
need
to
just
spend
more
time.
Looking.
A
At
it,
then,
for
me
I
guess
the
bigger
question
mr
mark
guard
would
be
this
a
corner
lot
to
use
an
example
that
was
large
and
it
had
the
setbacks
and
everything
this
the
residents
single
family
homes
on
both
the
local
street
and
maybe
an
arterial
that
would
meet
the
intent
of
the
the
change.
B
Yes,
mr
chair,
you
bring
up
another
point
that
this
would
not
qualify
because
there
are
not
single-family
homes
on
on
both
sides.
So
somehow
you
would
need
to
perhaps
remove
the
garage
and
create
a
lot
to
the
north
in
this
particular
case.
But
johnson
in
this
location
is
a
local
street,
so
that
qualifies
all.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
No,
it
has
not,
and
I
and
I
I
really
resonate
with
this-
is
where
I'm
I'm
trying
to
thread
this.
Needle
as
I
resonate
with
the
part
that
commissioner
cooked
and
talked
about
about,
you
know
not
letting
our
our
big
city,
visionary
kind
of
plan,
get
in
the
you
know
the
nuance
of
that
get
in
the
way
of
common
sense.
F
If
you
will
or
of
his
words
or
my
words-
and
I
just
you
know,
an
area
is
guided
which,
in
my
mind,
is
less
restrictive
than
an
area
zone,
and
so
what
I
just
what
I'm
wrestling
in
my
head
here
is
so
you've
got,
and
I
worry
again
I
don't
worry
much
about
this
property
and
this
this
specific
issue,
as
I
worry
about
the
longer
term,
and
so
this
property
is
already
zoned
r1
and
so
just
to
cut
it
in
half
and
create
two
r1
lots.
F
It's
not
changing
the
use
of
the
property.
You
know,
if
you
think
of
a.
I
guess
I
think,
of
a
guiding
more
as
a
what
we
should
do
versus
a
zoning,
which
is
what
we
will
do
or
what
we
say
is
okay
to
do,
and
so
I
it's
just.
Maybe
staff
can
shine
a
little
more
light
on,
but
I
I
still
wrestle
with
the
idea
that
the
guiding
fully
restricts
us
in
this
which
versus
telling
us
this
is
what
we
probably
should.
A
B
Mr
chairman,
commissioner,
roman
again,
I'm
not
sure
I
exactly
understand
the
question,
but
if
I
think
you're
putting
forward
a
hypothetical
in
asking
the
question,
why
does
the
comprehensive
plan
stop
the
subdivision
from
occurring?
Is
that
correct.
F
Essentially,
when
the
the
zoning
is,
what
controls,
what
can
or
can't
be
built
somewhere-
and
there
are
times
we
proactively
re-zone
things
in
this
case,
this
was
guided
in
a
way,
but
it
was
not
rezoned
that
way,
so
it
was
kind
of
a
good
to
do
versus
a
this
will
do.
B
Mr
chairman,
commissioner,
roman,
so
to
subdivide
the
lot
the
applicant
would
prepare
a
flat
and
submit
that
that
would
come
before
you
and
the
first.
Finding
you
would
need
to
make
is
that
it
is
consistent
with
a
comprehensive
plan
and
if
the
proposal
is
to
subdivide
a
single-family
lot,
that
would
not
be
consistent
with
a
comprehensive
plan
as
it's
currently
written,
and
you
would
not
be
able
to
make
that
finding.
B
F
Yeah,
that's,
like
afraid,
yeah.
I
guess
one
of
the
bigger
thing
is
it
would
so
they're
gonna
be
the
issue
I
talked
about
earlier
about.
You
know
modifying
the
plan
on
the
project
by
project
basis,
but
I
also
wonder
about
if
there's
some
language
that
might
make
sense,
I
don't
want
to
have
it
as
a
have
a
situation
in
the
future,
where
there
is
some
lots
that
are
guided
a
certain
way
and
maybe
there's
property.
That
already
is
medium
density,
something
scraped
from
there.
F
Maybe
you've
got
a
nice
townhouse
project,
that's
between
some
other
single
family
homes
and
someone
wants
to
scrape
it
and
put
up
a
couple.
Two
single
family
homes
instead,
so
you
know
putting
another
house
here,
does
add
some
density,
which
is
a
good
thing
in
this
part
of
town,
and
so
I
wonder
if
any
language
would
be
appropriate
about.
That
does
not
lead
to
a
change
in
zoning.
If
you
will.
B
D
Thanks
mr
chair,
if
this
doesn't
address
commissioner
rome's
question,
but
I
just
had
another
thoughts
of
suppose
when
I'm
reviewing
this
type
of
application
and
I'm
torn
on
it,
sometimes
I
like
to
think
of
it
in
reverse,
as
if
what,
if
this
amendment,
what
if
the
code
was
already
written
this
way,
would
I
be
offended
by
the
way
that
this
code
was
written?
Would
this
feel
off
to
me
what
it
should
be?
If
I
had
read
this
and
it
just
was
that
way
already?
D
If
then,
if
and
if
then,
if
they
enter,
or
you
know
if,
if
then
type
of
thing,
it
seems
like
a
logical,
reasonable
amendment
to
the
code,
and
so
all
you
know,
we
are
at
the
decision
point
right
now,
which
makes
it
difficult
to
wrestle
with
which
I
can
appreciate.
But
I
think,
if
you
look
at
this
in
hindsight
or
if
it
already
were
to
be
that
way,
I'm
not
sure
I
would
be
offended
by
it.
I
think
it
seems
reasonable
to.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner
cook.
I
appreciate
that
again.
You
know,
I
think
more
as
this
discussion
has
come
around
thinking
about
that
and
and
really
to
meet
the
comp
plan,
and
I
think
it
was
something
you
said
earlier.
Commissioner
cookton
is
about
this
larger
guidance
process,
we're
not
looking
when
we
do
that
at
every
single
parcel.
A
Every
impact
we're
looking
at
broad
trends
and
so
thinking
more
about
what
you
said
about.
Is
this
maybe
a
reasonable
solution?
I
think
yeah.
We,
there
was
not
a
thought
at
the
time
that
a
a
a
lot
that
was
big
enough,
might
subdivide
or
have
that
option,
and
that
this
really
creates
a
potential
issue
for
them
and
then
going
back
to
the
staff
report.
It
doesn't
preclude
that
from
becoming
medium
density
in
the
future.
A
I
think
I'm
leaning
towards
support
of
the
application
as
written
along
with
you,
commissioner
cookton.
Thank
you.
C
Yeah,
I
think
this
one's
a
tough
one
thanks,
mr
chair.
One
of
the
things
I
think
about
too
we
talked
about
is
that
with
the
current
lot
being
so
large
subdividing,
it
is
making
it
more
dense
than
it
is
now.
No
does
it
meet
the
medium
density
guidance?
No,
but
it
is
more
dense
than
it
is
now.
It
is
a
good
progression
in
that
direction
and,
like
you
said
before,
it
doesn't
preclude
that
development
from
happening.
C
So
you
know
looking
at
the
neighborhood
that
it's
in
around,
especially
on
108th.
I
think
it
keeps
with
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
and,
as
we
talked
about
development
in
in
the
city,
it's
nice
to
see
someone
is
you
know,
working
on
that
property
to
make
it
better
and
to
provide
more
housing
for
our
residents.
So
I
think
I'm
in
support.
C
I
think
the
proposed
amendment
is
structured
in
a
way
that
it
does
kind
of
focus
in
it
doesn't
open
the
door
too
wide
and,
as
we
talked
about
some
other
properties,
it
really
would
be
a
unique
situation
that
it
would
allow
and
it
would
be
unique.
So
I
think
overall,
I'm
in
support.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
think
what
commissioner
cook
done
said
about
it
being
kind
of
a
logical.
This
makes
sense.
I
think
commissioner
goldsman
also
said
you
know.
The
other
lots
in
this
area
were
clearly
split
or
likely
split
at
one
point
that
all
that
all
makes
a
lot
of
sense
to
me
and
I'm
I
guess
I'm
I'm
in
support
of
it,
but
in
the
back
of
my
mind,
I'm
thinking
that's
now
another
lot.
C
If
a
developer
is
deciding
to
buy
and
wants
to
buy
out
all
of
these
lots,
it's
now
another
lot
that
they
have
to
buy
with
now
a
new
structure
on
it
to
do
medium
density
residential
in
the
future.
Now
should
we
be
making
our
decisions
based
on
something
that
might
happen
in
20
to
50
years?
I
don't
think
so
necessarily,
but
that
it
just
it
it
kind
of
sits.
C
You
know
what
whatever
it
happens
to
be,
but
does
it
does
it
work
with
the
character
that
is
existing
yes,
and
does
it
make
a
lot
of
sense
to
do?
If
I
was
looking
at
this
property
myself,
would
I
consider
it
absolutely.
C
Yeah,
I
I
guess
I
part
of
me-
is
in
total
support
of
it
because
it
does
make
sense
and
it's
an
increase
in
density
and
then
again
part
of
me
is
thinking
we
we
guide
so
that
we're
prepared
to
do
the
things
that
we'd
like
to
do
25
to
50
years
down
the
line
and
yeah
I
I'll
I'll,
stop
there.
But
that's
that's
where
my
thought.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner.
All
good
points
again,
commissioner
roman.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
One
last
thought
I
too,
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
get
to
yes,
because
I
I
I
you
get
on
the
other
side.
I
don't
disagree
with
this
proposal
of
the
specific
parcel
staff
can
advise
on
language
that
we
do
and
don't
use
in
the
comprehensive
plan.
What
I
want
to
get
away
from
is
creating
an
entitlement
here
in
the
in
this,
so
I'm
wondering
is
it?
Would
it
be?
A
Staff,
this
was,
I
think,
yeah
a
single
family
home
is
allowed
at
below
five
units
per
acre.
A
F
B
Yeah,
mr
chair,
commissioner,
roman,
I
guess
what
jumps
to
my
mind
with
that
language
is:
when
would
consideration
occur
and
by
whom?
B
B
I'm
just
trying
to
think
of
a
way
that
that
you
could
maintain
that
discretion.
Even
though
the
approvals
themselves
are
a
low
level
of
discretion.
F
Maybe
I'm
overthinking
this
I
just
what
I
don't
want
to
have
happen
is
something
that's
already,
medium
density
of
some
kind,
r3
or
higher,
that
we've
created
a
door
for
that
to
become
a
lower
density.
That's
all.
F
Well,
let's
say:
let's
say
again:
let's
say
in
that
same
lot:
there
was
a
four
or
five
home
town
home
and
someone
wanted
to
scrape
it
and
subdivide
it
into
two
lots
and
re-zone
it
to
r1.
Well,
once
they've
scraped
it
because
you
know
we
can
do
that
without
having
a
plan
and
then
now
we've
got
single-family
homes
on
both
sides
and
we've
created
the
ability
to
do
that,
and
maybe
I'm
overthinking
that
maybe
that's
a
hypothetical.
That
would
never
happen.
Mr
mark
regard.
B
F
If
that's
language
that
I
get,
maybe
I'm
the
only
one
on
this
specific
course,
but
I
think
that
would
for
me
that
would
get
to
where
I
want
to
be.
I
just
don't
want
us
to
open
up
areas
where
we're
decreasing
density.
A
Commissioner,
roman,
that's
a
very
good
point.
I
was
thinking
through
my
head
too
in
these
situations
where
maybe
there's
an
older
multi-family
development
and
it
gets
scraped
and
then
trying
to
move
something.
Maybe
the
opposite
way,
and
I'm
not
exactly
sure
if
we
have
to
put
that
at
the
end
of
this.
Because
of.
A
D
Thanks
mr
chair,
just
trying
to
make
sure
I
have
all
the
context
for
the
the
proposed
language
here.
Are
we
at
all
restricting
two
existing
single
family
homes
having
someone
buy
their
neighbors
property
because
they
just
want
a
bigger
lot,
say
they're
on
the
bluff
or
something,
and
they
want
a
nice
big
juicy
lot
for
themselves
that
we
just
restricted
that
or
or
is?
Is
that
not
the
case.
B
A
Okay,
does
that
answer
the
question
for
you,
commissioner,.
D
I
think
so
again
just
trying
to
think
through
this
as
quickly
as
possible.
So
I'm
sure
there
are
other
locations
in
our
city,
however,
that
are
guided
medium
density,
residential
which
are
currently
low
density
residential.
So
in
that
scenario,
have
we
precluded
someone
from
being
able
to
buy
their?
D
B
Mr
chair,
commissioner,
cookton
is
correct,
the
city
code
out
or
not
the
city
code,
but
the
comprehensive
plan
would
already
restrict
that
scenario.
So
if
you
had,
for
example,
in
this
area,
it's
guided
medium
density
residential.
A
B
Mr
chair,
that
would
be
an
interesting
scenario
if
there
was
no
subdivision
and
they
just
purchased
two
lots.
There
would
be
nothing
technically
to
stop
you
from
coming
in
and
getting
a
demolition
permit
on
one
of
the
lots
but
yeah.
You
would
not
be
able
to
combine
the
lots.
A
I
believe
that's
what
I
understood,
but
it
wouldn't
be
decreasing
and,
as
I
understood,
the
languages
proposed
staff
said
that
that
was
one
of
the
benefits
to
a
property
owner
is
if
a
single,
a
single
family
home
in
a
medium
density,
guided
area
was
torn
down
or
blighted
and
torn
down
and
sat
empty
for
a
year.
This
would
allow
them
to
rebuild
a
single
family
home,
so
it
really
would
have
negligible
impact
is
what
I'm
understanding
mr
palermo
is.
That
am
I
correct
in
that.
E
Yep
go
ahead,
yeah
and
I
think
that's
a
good
point
that
if
someone
today
they
could
tear
down,
they
could
purchase
two
lots
and
then
have
that
one
fit
vacant
and
never
have
to
combine
them
because
there's
nothing
to
you
know
trigger
them.
To
do
that.
So
I
think
that's
a
good
point
to
point
out.
A
All
right,
commissioner
abdi
sorry,
I
missed
your
hand
there.
G
That's
all
right,
thank
you,
mr
chair,
so
I
I'm
in
I'm
leading
supporting
the
proposed
text
proposed
amendment
to
the
plan.
The
only
clarification
I
would
have
is
for
the
viewers
at
home
watching
this.
Possibly
what
does
the
net
density
not
decreasing,
actually
mean
in
the
context
of
just
what
we
have
been
discussing
in
a
simple
term?
What
does
that
actually
mean.
A
That's
a
fair
question,
commissioner
abdi
mr
palermo
or
mr
marker
guard
in
plain
language,
what
does
provide
the
net
density?
Does
not
change.
B
D
Mr
chair,
I'm
not
100
sure
this
is
love,
but
may
I
ask
if
staff
is
supportive
of
that
text?
Amendment.
B
A
Thank
you
all
right,
commission
members,
it.
It
feels
like
there's
some
solidarity
around
the
proposed
amendment.
If
that
is
the
case,
I
would
look
for
a
motion.
A
Think
you
actually
have
to
change
that
recommendation
a
little
bit
based
on
the
language
that
I
have
in
the
staff
report.
B
F
Here
it
is
in
case
pl2020
or
pl2021-1.
I
moved
to
recommend
approval
or
comprehensive
plan
text
amendment
as
revised
in
the
packet
and
with
the
additional
language
at
the
end,
provided
that
net
density
does
not
decrease
allowing
single
family
volumes
in
the
medium
density,
residential
designation,
subject
to
performance
standards.
A
Thank
you.
Looking
for
a
second
commissioner,
cookton.
A
Okay,
thank
you
all
right.
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
to
recommend
approval
of
comprehensive
plan
text
amendment
as
revised
in
the
packet
allowing
for
single
family
dwellings
and
medium
density,
residential
designations.
Subject,
performance
standards
with
the
addition
of
the
language
of
provided
it
does
not
provided
density,
does
not
decrease
with
the
text.
A
C
A
Cookton
hi
and
I
for
myself
motion
passes
that
will
move
to
the
march
8th
city
council
meeting
for
approve
for
discussion
and
hopefully
approval.
I
guess
so.
That
concludes
our
regular
items
for
this
evening.
Our
next
item
is
a
study
item
and
for
those
of
the
public
that
means
we
will
not
be
taking
public
comment.
B
Yes,
mr
chair
commissioners,
I'll
bring
up
a
presentation
here.
B
B
Unless
there's
a
majority
vote
to
continue
past
11.,
we
haven't
tested
that
change
yet,
but
it's
basically
in
effect
and
then
the
third
thing
that
you've
had
a
fair
amount
of
discussion
on
but
haven't
made.
The
final
decision
is
on
whether
or
not
to
change
all
study
meetings
to
regular
meetings,
so
we've
fleshed
out
a
few
options
for
you
to
consider.
One
option
is
I'll
call
this
option
one
would
be
to
have
no
change
at
all
to
the
schedule,
so
that
would
be
24
regular
meetings
and
nine
study
meetings.
B
That's
what
the
planning
commission
has
been
doing
the
past
several
years.
Second
option
would
be
to
change
all
of
the
study
meetings
to
regular
meetings,
and
I
see
a
note
from
mr
p's.
It
is
okay
to
stop
the
inter
call.
This
is
a
study
item,
so
yeah
option.
Two
would
be
to
change
all
study
meetings
to
regular
meetings,
so
that
would
result
in
33
meetings
a
year.
B
Then
third
option
would
be
to
change
all
study
meetings
to
regular
meetings,
but
to
kind
of
have
a
limit
on
the
number
of
meetings
per
year,
so
throughout
28
meetings
a
year,
this
number
could
be
whatever
you
wanted
it
to
be,
but
it
would
be
more
reflective
of
what
the
number
of
meetings
you've
had
in
the
past.
B
Given
that
a
lot
of
the
study
meetings,
usually
over
half,
are
canceled
each
year
and
then
the
fourth
option
would
be
all
regular
meetings
but
having
24
meetings
a
year.
So
just
essentially
know
that
you
can
set
that
number
wherever
you
think
it's
appropriate
staff
is
recommending
option
three
for
a
couple
reasons.
B
There
might
be
more
chances
to
apply
at
different
dates.
Secondly,
it
would
add
some
flexibility
for
you
and
continuing
items
from
one
meeting
to
the
next.
You'd
have
more
options
in
terms
of
which
meeting
to
continue
to
a
third,
it
would
match
the
number
of
meetings
you've
had
in
the
past,
which
I
believe
is
important
for
attracting
members
to
the
planning
commission
in
the
future.
A
B
B
B
You
know
if
they're,
let's
say
there
were
four
additional
regular
meetings.
It
would
make
sense
to
distribute
them,
so
you
could
imagine
one
in
october,
and
you
know
if
you
went
back
two
months
that
would
be
october
august
june
and
april.
B
I
think
that
would
work
well
for
2021,
given
that
we're
already
you
know
midway
through
february,
so
that
that
would
make
sense
for
2021
and
then
going
forward
2022
and
beyond.
You
may
want
to
distribute
that
a
little
bit
more.
A
All
right,
thank
you,
mr
marker
guard
and
just
thinking
about
this
a
little
bit
more
and
I
I
don't
sorry,
I
don't
know
if
the
other
commissioner's
hands
are
raised
or
not,
but
I
was
thinking
commissioner.
Corman
might
even
have
some
thoughts
about
the
october
dates
because
I
think
there's
generally
conferences,
teacher
conferences
and
that
time
and
family
vacations,
so
I'm
wondering
if
that's
a
good
time
of
year
or
not
to
add
a
additional
meeting.
A
C
Yeah
personally
yeah
it's
I
have
been
able
to
to
kind
of
manage
around
that.
You
know,
but
as
I
talk
to
my
to
my
boss
about
leaving
earlier,
if
needed,
but
yeah,
I
do
remember
there
were
a
couple
times
when
I
just
couldn't
attend,
but
I
you
know
it
does
not
have
that
big
of
an
impact
in
my
life
I
mean
I
can
manage
or
I
can
miss
one.
At
least
I
think
one.
A
C
Okay
out
of
the
full
october,
so
it
doesn't
really
make
a
huge
difference.
It
won't
affect
my
life
tragically.
A
A
And
I'm
just
trying
to
remember
when
mea
is
and
where
that
lands
and
thinking
about
families
and
again
commissioners,
they
can
they
can
if
we
schedule
it
in
october,
and
it's
maybe
we
can
schedule
around
that.
Okay,
all
right,
commissioner,
roman.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
mr
my
regard.
Is
there
any
sort
of
a
rhythm
that
makes
most
sense
for
applicants,
whether
that's
developers
or
individuals
like?
Is
there
a?
Is
there
some
sort
of
a
logical
rhythm?
We
should
be
thinking
of
to
the
calendar.
That
would
be
more
conducive
to
folks
who
want
to
or
need
to
bring
business
before
this
commission.
B
F
Perhaps
yeah
or
is
it
I'm
making
this
up?
Is
it
just
better
to
go
every
other
thursday,
or
is
it
better
to
go
the
first
and
third
thursday
of
the
month,
or
I
mean
we
also
want
to
make
sure
we
overlays
in
a
logical
way
with
the
city
city
council,
but
I
just
the
predictability.
I
think
of
a
schedule
is
probably
easier
for
the
public
to
be
able
to
consume
than
our
current
schedule,
which
has
some.
B
Yeah,
mr
chair
commissioners,
yeah
looking
forward
for
future
years.
You
could
definitely
do
that.
You
know
something
like
every
other
thursday
approach
that
would
yield
26,
of
course,
so
for
holidays.
The
main
time
of
the
year
that
you
could
run
into
problems
is
november.
You
know
thanksgiving
is
always
on
a
thursday.
B
This
year,
veterans
day
was
on
the
thursday,
so
both
holidays.
So
like
november,
we
were
pretty
much.
We
had
to
pick
the
two
dates
that
we
we
did
pick
and
december.
Of
course,
sometimes
christmas
is
on
a
thursday,
so
we'd
have
to
work
around
holidays,
but
we
could
do
something
like
every
other
thursday.
A
So
this
year,
just
to
be
clear,
we're
basically
working
with
the
days
that
were
already
outlined
the
date.
The
the
schedule
is
that
correct,
I
mean
we're
not
gonna,
go
into
june
and
make
it
at
the
24th
instead
of
the
17th.
Is
that
what
I'm
understanding.
B
Yeah,
but
next
year
we
could
yeah.
Mr
chair
commissioners,
I
would
advise
on
the
regular
meetings
not
not
to
change
the
regular
meetings
for
this
year
unless
something
you
know
extreme
came
up
just
because
we
have
developers
that
look
well
out
ahead
and
try
to
plan
out
their
schedules,
so
it
makes
it
difficult
to
make
changes
on
the
regular
meetings.
The
study
meetings.
Nobody
has
made
plans
around
those
are
generally
staff
driven
items.
A
Okay,
all
right,
I
think,
commissioner
goldsman
did
you
have
your
hand
up
at
some
point,
I
thought.
A
C
Just
pleading
thought
thank
you
and
mr
chair,
it
seems
like
and
mr
marching
out,
it
seems
like
you're
always
or
whoever
is
working
in
this
calendar.
C
You
know
you're
always
considering
specific
dates
like
you
make
reference
to
the
mea,
and
I
don't
remember
it
any
at
any
any
of
the
years
that
I've
been
around,
that
it
has
been
an
issue
or
that
it's
we
end
up
going.
It
seems
like
it's,
you
know
how
is
the
regular
and
then
the
study
session
and
then
there's
the
regular,
not
the
following
week
but
the
other
week,
and
it
just
goes
along
with
the
mea
week
as
well.
So
it
works
just
fine
that
october,
so
it
seems
like
it.
B
Mr
chair
commissioner,
corman
you're
correct
that
third
week
in
october,
we've
learned
to
not
touch
that
for
a
planning
commission
meeting,
because
there
are
always
commissioners
that
have
children
and
and
for
sure
the
public.
A
lot
of
the
public
is
traveling
during
that
time.
So
we
just
avoid
that.
Third
third,
thursday,
in
october.
A
I'm
assuming
it's
it's.
I
looked
at
it
this
year.
I
don't
recall
the
bloomington
spring
break
time
frame.
A
Okay,
all
right
any
other
questions,
kind
of
on
schedule,
commission
members
or
I
think,
where
we
left
off
last
time,
is
everybody
had
had
kind
of
put
their
their
comments
in,
of
course,
the
first
meeting
I
was
gone,
the
second
meeting
I
think
commissioner
corman
and
was
the
commissioner
goldsman
we're
gone.
So
we
wanted
to
just
make
sure
everybody
had
their
opportunity
to
speak
to
the
schedule
and
win
the
meetings
or
how
often
the
meetings
might
be
if
they
want
to
change
them.
A
So,
as
staff
has
put
together
options,
one
two:
three:
four:
what
are
people's
thoughts?
Commissioner?
Cookton.
D
Mr
chair,
prior
to
this
point,
I
have
been
partial
to
option
one,
but
I
I
am
supportive
of
option
three
as
as
well,
I
could
live
with
either
of
those
okay.
I
can
live
with
an
option
too,
but
I
certainly
I
I
think,
option
one
and
option
three
make
the
most
sense.
C
Thanks,
mr
chair,
I
think
option
three
is
nice.
I
really
appreciate
that
it
doesn't
cost
additional
funds
as
well
as
it.
It
does
allow
for
a
cadence
that
people
can
plan
to.
So
I
think
option
three
is
the
best
out
of
all
of
them.
A
Thank
you,
other
commission
members.
I
myself
I'm
appreciative
of
option
three
as
well.
I
I
like
the
fact
that
we
had
additional
meetings,
regular
meetings,
my
thought
was
when
we
limited
the
hours
to
11
o'clock
that
we
really
need
to
make
available
other
times
for
the
public
to
be
able
to
get
their
applications
heard
in
a
timely.
F
I
can
support
the
option
three.
If
that's
where
people
are
headed,
you
know
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
option
two
and
that
leads
to
potentially
shorter
meetings.
F
But
I
think
if
we
do
whatever
route
we
go,
I
think
I
would
just
be
an
advocate
for
staff
as
they
develop
next
year's
calendar
to
have
some
sort
of
a
predictable
again,
if
it's
the
first
and
third
week
and
then
the
month
or
there's
five.
Maybe
that's
when
you
have
your
fourth
one
I
don't
know
make
them
add
up,
but
something
that's
a
little
more
predictable
both
for
the
public
and
for
us.
A
All
right,
thank
you,
commissioner
roman
commissioner
corman.
A
All
right,
all
right,
so
it
looks
like
all
of
us-
are
in
support
of
option
three,
mr
marker
guard,
do
you
need
a
motion
on
that.
B
Mr
chair,
yes,
we
would-
and
I
think
the
motion-
I
don't-
have
it
typed
up,
but
would
be
to
revise
your
2021
schedule
to
and
you'd
have
to
pick
the
dates
here,
but
to
change
the
study
meeting
for
pick
your
four
dates
to
a
regular
meeting
and
to
cancel
the
study
meetings
on
the
other
dates
and
we'd
have
to
fill
in
those
blanks
too.
A
C
I
do
have
thoughts
about
the
dates
and
staying
away
from
summer,
I
think,
would
be
kind
of
nice
only
because
I
think
people
are
taking
more
long,
weekends
and
I'm
sure
a
lot
of
people
are
gonna
need
a
long
vacation
this
summer.
So
I
would
also
I
would
just
if,
because
I
think,
glenn
had
mentioned
doing
august
and
june,
and
I
if
we
could
just
stay
away
from
the
summer,
I
think
that
would
be
just
dandy.
A
Okay,
commissioner,
roman.
F
Thank
you.
I
don't
have
a
strong
opinion
on
specific
dates,
but
I
would
I
would
I
would
lean
toward
keeping
or
moving
study
meetings
to
any
slot
where
we
would
have
two
consecutive
weeks
with
no
meeting
from
a
process
perspective
of
if
something
needs
to
be
continued,
you
know,
I
think,
one
time
the
other
should
we
had
four
weeks
or
so
between
meetings
from
december
17th
till
the
whatever
it
was
in
january.
F
So
so,
if
we're
looking
at
where
to
slot
in
for
more,
I
would
look
at
times
when
you
have
potentially
two
empty
weeks
between
meetings
would
be
my.
A
Okay,
all
right
all
right,
I
I
see
at
least
one
of
those
for
sure
commissioner
corman.
A
Okay,
so
all
right
so
clear
themes
here
are
not
keeping
the
one
at
least
in
july-
maybe
august,
maybe
june,
as
long
as
we
have
consistent
without
gapping
too
much
but
july
is
a
little
there's
two
weeks
between.
A
So
we've
got
to
think
about
that
a
little
bit
if
we
follow
commissioner
roman
commissioner
goldsman.
C
One
thing
that
I
look
at
for
this
is
you
know
we.
We
typically
have
the
national
conferences
this
year
being
unique
with
co-ed.
I
probably
could
say
that
most
of
us
won't
be
traveling,
so
it
opens
up
that
week
of
you
know
the
may
6th
no
looking
at
april
we've
got
april
22nd
and
then
the
next
meeting
is
not
until
may
13th.
So
could
we
squeeze
one
in
for
the
first
week
of
may,
since
the
conference?
A
A
So,
commissioner,
goldsman,
are
you
suggesting,
may
6th
as
a
date.
A
A
Since
that
is
only
a
week
away,.
C
B
Yeah
and
mr
chair,
we
would.
B
Yeah,
we
did
already
cancel
that
study,
meeting,
okay
and
then
the
one
for
march
in
terms
of
making
that
a
regular
meeting-
that's
already
too
close
to
do
anything
good
for
a
developer.
A
As
a
date,
so
that
would
give
us
three:
if
others
follow
that
and
that
so
then
we
would
have
to
find
one
more
with
the
remaining
months.
Commissioner
cookton.
D
A
And
that's
another
gap:
you're
correct
in
the
december
30th.
D
No
doing
commissioner
gold's
gonna
solve
it.
There.
A
Okay
now,
mr
mark
regard,
I
know
there
was
a
mention
of
this
that
you
think
there's
a
lot
of
applications
potentially
coming
in
the
april.
May
time
frame.
D
No,
I
think,
no,
unless
we
added
july
15th,
which
there's
that's
investing
towards,
then
it
seems
like
that.
Fourth,
one
we're
going
to
make
a
concession
somewhere.
A
14Th,
okay,
so
april
15th
may
6th
september
16th
and
october
14th.
C
A
A
Way,
I
I
myself
am
open
to
if
people
are
have
a
very
specific
date
that
they
want
or
don't
want,
I'm
I
have
no
life
right
now.
A
Can
how
about
commissioner
albrecht.
C
E
A
Okay,
I'm
just
trying
to
keep
track
of
this
all
right.
Other
commission
members
is
there
anybody
that
has,
I
guess,
significant
issues
with
adding
april
15th
may
6th
september
16th
and
october
14th
as
our
additional
regular.
A
The
march
18th
goes
away
correct.
You
guys
are
going
to
help
me
out
on
this.
The
june
10th
goes
away
the
july
15th.
A
B
Yes,
mr
chairs,
I
think
the
motion
would
be
to
convert
the
four
that
well,
I
guess
one
is
a
new
meeting,
so.
B
Have
regular
meetings
on
those
four
dates
you
mentioned
and
to
delete
the
meetings
on
the
other
four
dates
you
mentioned:
okay,.
B
F
I
just
move
what
you
said.
I
moved
to
modify
the
2021
planning
commission
calendar
as
follows:
canceling
study
meeting,
removing
study
meetings
from
the
calendar
on
february
18th
march
18th
june
10th
july
15
and
august
12th,
converting
study
meetings
on
april
15th
september,
16th
and
october
14th
to
regular
meetings
of
the
commission
and
adding
an
additional
meeting
on
may
6th
of
the
commission.
A
All
right,
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
in
front
of
us
to
revise
the
2021
schedule
to
change
the
study
to
change
three
study
meetings
april
15th
september
16th
and
october
14th
to
regular
meetings
and
add
a
regular
meeting
on
may
6th
and
to
cancel
meetings
on
march
18th
june
10th
july,
15th
august,
12th
and
I'll
add
the
february
18th
in
for
good
measure.
All
those
in
favor
say
I
by
roll
call,
commissioner
goldsman
hi,
commissioner
corman
aye,
commissioner
roman
aye,
commissioner
albrecht
aye.
A
A
B
Mr
chairman,
we
will
update
the
online
schedule
and
we'll
modify
our
submittal
schedules
to
match
that.
I
think
those
are
the
only
steps.
A
All
right,
thank
you,
so
I
would
assume
that
would
take
place
in
the
next
week
to
10
days.
Yes,
all
right!
Thank
you
all
right.
Commission
members,
we're
on
the
home
stretch
it's
7
42
and
the
council
chambers
haven't
gotten
too
cold.
Yet
item
number
four:
consider
approval
of
draft
planning,
commission
meeting
synopsis
for
january
14th,
commission
members,
solberg,
corpsman,
goldsman,
roman
albrecht,
abdi
and
cooked
on.
Oh
sorry,
commissioner
abdi
was
absent
from
that.
That
meeting
is
there
a
motion
to
approve
the
planning
commission
synopsis?
F
A
All
right,
we
have
a
motion.
Wait,
commissioner,
is
there
a
second
commissioner
albrecht?
Second,
all
right,
we
have
a
motion
to
approve
and
a
second
to
approve
the
planning
commission
synopsis
from
january
14
2021,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
by
roll
call.
C
A
G
B
A
And
I,
for
myself,
motion
passes
right.
Moving
on
to
the
next
item,
consider
approval
of
draft
planning,
commission
synopsis
from
january
21st
planning,
commission
meeting
and
all
members
were
present
except
myself.
C
I
moved
to
approve
the
draft
planning
commission
meeting
some
synopsis
of
january
21st
2021
as
presented.