►
From YouTube: January 6, 2022 Bloomington Planning Commission Meeting and Concurrent Meeting with the HRA.
Description
January 6, 2022 Bloomington Minnesota Planning Commission Meeting and Concurrent Meeting with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority.
Click the time stamps below to move to agenda item of choice.
0:00 Start
4:54 ITEM 1 PL2021-251
(public hearing) United Properties LLC (applicant)
Bloomington H R A (owner)
7851 Normandale Boulevard
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to reguide 7851 Normandale Boulevard from Community Commercial to Regional Commercial; Rezone from CS-1 (Community service) to C-3(PD) (Freeway Commercial Center)(Planned Development); and Preliminary and Final Development Plans for a four-story high density motor vehicle sales facility
1:25:40 ITEM 2 City of Bloomington
(study item) Discuss Single and Two-Family Dwelling Standards
2:59:46 ITEM 3 City of Bloomington
(study item) Discuss Multi-Family Parking Standards
3:28:45 ITEM 4 City of Bloomington
(study item) Consider approval of draft 10/14/2021, 12/02/21 and 12/16/21 Planning Commission meeting synopses
3:32:05 ITEM 5 City of Bloomington
(study item) Planning Commission Policy and Issues Update
A
Good
evening
and
welcome
to
the
january
6
2022
bloomington
planning
commission
meeting,
the
planning
commission
advises
the
city
council
on
development
proposals,
development
standards,
long-range
planning
and
transportation
issues.
Some
of
the
items
the
planning
commission
has
final
decision
authority
and
others.
The
city
council
will
make
that
decision.
The
planning
commission
is
made
up
of
seven
volunteers
that
are
put
in
by
the
city
council
for
up
to
three
years.
A
I
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
everybody.
So
before
we
begin
tonight
because
again,
we
are
in
a
virtual
world
again
with
kovid
seeming
to
gain
popularity
in
our
ranks.
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
ask
mr
mark
agard
if
he
would
go
through
how
the
public
can
participate
with
us
tonight
here
in
the
chambers.
B
A
C
C
Okay,
great
the
chair,
introduced
the
item.
It
is
a
high
density
motor
vehicle
sales
facility
and
the
subject
address
is
7851
normandale
boulevard,
united
properties
is
the
applicant
and
there's
multiple
components:
there's
a
comprehensive
plan
amendment
regarding
the
site
from
community
commercial,
the
regional
commercial,
a
rezoning
request
from
cs1
to
c3pd
preliminary
and
final
development
plans
for
the
four-story,
180
000
square
foot
facility
and
a
plat.
Just
a
note
here
for
the
planning
commission
members
there's
no
action
needed
on
the
plat.
C
C
Here's
the
subject
property
it's
located
in
the
northeast
quadrant
of
the
interchange
of
interstate
highway,
494
and
state
highway
100.
So
it's
a
fairly
visible
site
fairly
prominent
site.
It
formerly
was
the
days
in
hotel
and
we'll
get
to
that
background
here
in
a
minute,
but
you
can
see
the
hotel
use
on
there
that,
since
been
been
demolished
surrounding
uses
for
the
most
part,
our
office
kind
of
a
collection
of
office
and
industrial
uses
in
this
area.
There's
some
hotel
and
other
retail
oriented
uses
more
to
the
east
towards
france.
C
C
C
The
application
includes
a
request
to
re-guide
the
site
from
the
community
commercial
to
the
regional
commercial
designation.
The
reason
for
that
is
that
motor
vehicle
sales
is
not
allowed
in
community
commercial.
You
need
to
have
the
regional
commercial
designation
to
allow
a
use
of
that
scale,
and
so
it
does
require
the
reguiding
just
to
know.
We've
sent
out
the
required
notices
to
adjacent
jurisdictions.
C
C
So
staff
is
supportive
of
that
of
the
comprehensive
plan
conference
plan
amendment
in
that
regard,
in
addition
to
the
the
kind
of
designation
and
we'll
talk
about
this
with
the
rezoning
too,
but
there's
not
explicit
findings
that
planning
commissioner
council
have
to
make
with
respect
to
these
types
of
actions.
It's
more
discretionary,
but
there's
always
a
consideration
as
to
public
benefit
specific
to
this
development.
C
C
The
discussion
about
the
rezoning
is
similar
in
nature,
so
I'll
move
to
that.
The
the
district
that
they're
requesting
to
rezone
the
existing
site,
the
the
designation,
is
cs1.
They
want
to
move
it
to
c3
with
the
planned
development
overlay
and
that
relates
to
the
preliminary
final
development
plans
that
they
have
submitted.
C
But
if
you
recall,
when
the
privately
initiated
city
code
amendment
came
through,
there
was
two
districts
that
designated
this
use
as
a
permitted
use
and
one
of
those
districts
was
the
c3
freeway
commercial
center
district.
So
some
of
the
criteria
that
you
would
look
at
with
the
rezoning
is
certainly
consistency
with
the
comp
plan.
While
the
site
is
rezoned
or
as
regarded
rather
to
the
regional
commercial
would
be
consistent
with
the
comp
plan.
You
would
look
at
what
is
the
kind
of
the
differences
between
the
existing
district
and
the
proposed
district.
C
The
cs1
district
is
one
of
our
older
commercial
zoning
districts.
I
think
it
was
created
in
the
80s
and
a
side
benefit
would
be
we're
trying
to
keep
moving
a
lot
of
our
parcels
to
some
of
our
more
modern,
more
recently
created
zoning
districts
that
have
more
modern
performance
standards,
so
that
is
a
side
benefit,
but
in
this
case
the
cs1
district
does
not
have
a
minimum
floor
area
ratio
or
a
modern
commercial,
especially
freeway
commercial
districts,
do
have
minimum
fars
associated
with
them.
So
that
is
a
benefit.
C
So
that
is
a
benefit
and
then,
in
addition
to
that,
you
get
into
a
public
benefits
analysis
which
is
same
or
similar
to
what
I
discussed
with
the
comprehensive
plan
amendment.
So
staff
is
also
supportive
of
the
rezoning
request
as
well
getting
into
the
definition
of
this
use.
If
you
recall,
when
the
definition
was
created,
there
was
some
key
standards
within
the
definition
that
made
this
type
of
use
eligible
for
this
category,
one
of
which
that
it
be
a
multi-level,
fully
enclosed
structure
that
would
have
a
minimum
far
of
0.6.
C
That
would
have
a
maximum
amount
of
vehicles
stored
up
outdoors
for
display
vehicles,
if
you
will
excuse
me
and
that
there
be
a
proportional
limitation
on
the
amount
of
vehicle
repair
as
far
as
the
overall
floor
area
of
the
building
and
that
a
limitation
on
the
number
of
overhead
doors
that
are
related
to
the
service
activities
in
the
building.
So
this
development
meets
all
of
that
criteria.
C
The
only
thing
that
is
just
a
bit
fuzzy
right
now
is
the
amount
of
outdoor
display,
and
the
reason
for
that
is
that
the
applicant
has
not
yet
submitted
their
a
a
parking
designation
plan
showing
where
they
want
to
have
their
display
vehicles,
because
that's
something
still
under
consideration
by
the
applicant.
It's
not
hard
and
set
in
stone,
yet
where
they
want
those
display
vehicles
to
be
located.
So
that's
something
that's
that
they're
still
working
towards,
so
they
meet
all
the
criteria,
the
definition
so
getting
to
the
site
plan.
C
So
access
is
not
proposed
to
change.
If
you
look
at
the
northwest
corner
of
the
site,
that's
the
main
driveway
to
the
property
there
to
normandale
boulevard,
and
then
you
would
head
north
as
the
the
direction
towards
the
freeway
you're,
proposing
the
structure,
mainly
in
the
central
or
central
eastern
portion
of
the
site,
with
circulation.
All
around
the
building
surface
parking
in
the
west
of
the
building,
which
is
the
the
front
elevation
of
the
building.
C
A
couple
things
I
would
note
is
that
there
are
some
existing
shared
access,
easements
to
properties
that
go
to
the
north
and
we'll
talk
about
them,
as
it
relates
to
some
correspondence
that
we
received
related
to
this
development.
These
are
existing
conditions
that
the
design
before
you
this
evening
just
sought
to
honor
the
the
existing
condition.
C
Just
a
couple
notes
here:
as
far
as
sidewalks
go,
they
are
providing
a
sidewalk
connection
out
to
the
driveway
to
the
front
entrance.
That
is
a
positive
thing
for
the
development,
but
currently
there
are
no
public
sidewalks
in
this
area,
so
they
are
seeking
a
deferral
of
constructing
public
sidewalks.
The
city
code
does
allow
for
this
type
of
request
for
non-residential
uses
when
there
is
no
public
network
to
connect
to
and
given
some
of
the
kind
of
the
site
characteristics.
C
There
is
a
wetland
along
the
southern
portion
of
the
site
and
kind
of
that
large
right-of-way
around
the
curve.
The
construction
of
a
public
sidewalk
along
that
portion
of
normdale
boulevard
is
a
bit
challenging,
so
staff
is
supportive
of
the
deferral
at
this
point.
The
typical
steps
to
take
way
supporting
that
would
be
having
them
enter
into
a
petition
and
waiver
agreement
just
to
state
that
they
would
pay
for
its
construction
at
a
later
date.
C
I
believe
so
just
a
couple
points
about
that.
One
other
thing
they
are
showing
is
a
or
they
are
requesting.
Rather
is
pd
flexibility
on
the
setback
of
this
northwestern
stormwater
pond.
It's
an
open
basin,
as
opposed
to
kind
of
an
underground
chamber
and
the
city
has
front
landscape
yard
requirements
that
necessitate
a
20-foot
setback.
Rain
gardens
are
allowed
in
that
area,
but
not
full-blown
open
ponds.
C
They
still
would
have
the
right
to
request
flexibility
staff's
position
on
it
is
we
just
want
to
work
with
them
to
see
if
a
code
complying
alternative
is
feasible
before
going
down
that
path?
If
you
will
so
just
a
note
about
that,
all
the
structure
setbacks
are
compliant.
I
did
not
mention
that,
but,
given
that
this
building
is
in
the
middle
of
the
site,
that's
probably
fairly
obvious,
but
we'll
continue
on
here.
C
The
structure
is,
as
I
said,
it's
four
stories
in
height
and
it
is
a
little
over
68
feet
in
height.
I
believe
there
is
no
limitation
on
structure
height
at
this
property,
and
that
applies
to
construction
cranes
as
well.
In
terms
of
the
floor
plan.
I'll
share
the
first
floor
plant
the
first
floor
here
I
just
color
coded
it
just
for
ease
of
view
here
and
the
the
image
is
flipped
to
the
left,
so
north
is
actually
to
the
left
on
this
image.
C
I
apologize
for
that,
but
it
fits
better
on
the
slide
just
in
terms
of
where
the
areas
are
in
the
first
floor,
there's
a
showroom
and
lounge
and
kind
of
the
front
portion
of
it.
Some
of
the
office
uses
are
towards
the
front
as
well.
The
main
central
portion
of
the
first
floor
is
the
repair
activities
and
that
does
have
to
be
minor
repair
per
the
definition
of
this
use.
C
There
is
some
part
storage
area
and
then,
on
the
north
side
of
the
building,
there
is
a
detail
and
wash
area
where
I
believe
the
dealer
cleans
vehicles
to
present
them
upon
new
purchase
or
following
service.
I
don't
believe
it's
a
full-blown
car
wash,
but
more
of
just
a
detailing
area
where
they
prepare
vehicles
for
delivery
getting
to
the
second
through
the
fourth
floor.
These
are
the
vehicle
storage
areas,
so
this
is
for
automobile
inventory
storage
and
there
are
areas
on
the
along
the
glass
areas
of
the
building.
C
You
will
see
vehicles
displayed
getting
to
the
parking
of
the
property
they
have
sufficient
after
off-street
parking
in
the
surface
parking
areas
to
meet
our
parking
requirements,
something
that
the
staff
will
be
monitoring
with
parking
is
again
that
that
limitation
on
30
outdoor
display
vehicles
and
so
similar
to
other
motor
vehicle
sales
uses
the
facilities
that
we've
done.
What
we
desire
to
see
is
a
plan
showing
ultimately
where
those
display
vehicles
are
so
that
the
city
continued
to
ensure
compliance
with
that
30
vehicle
limitation.
C
So
that
is
a
condition
of
approval
landscape
plan,
a
good
distribution
of
material
around
the
site.
They
are
showing
a
code
compliant
amount
of
landscaping.
I
believe
they're
missing
a
couple
parking
island
trees.
So
that's
just
in
terms
of
just
locating
the
material
that
they
have
and
then
they
would
need
to
bump
up
their
western
elevation
foundation,
plantings
level
to
meet
the
city's
supplemental
landscaping
policy.
C
So
that
was
reflected
in
the
the
staff
report
and
then
just
a
note
that
any
landscape
material
there's
not
a
ton
of
it,
but
any
material,
that's
in
close
proximity
or
within
that
xxl
power
line,
easement
does
need
to
meet
excel's
approval
in
terms
of
the
type
of
material
excel.
Typically
does
not
want
to
see
over-story
trees
that
can
conflict
with
their
overhead
power
equipment.
C
So
just
a
couple
notes
there,
here's
the
plat
again
this
is
just
for
reference.
We
will
be
recommending
the
all
the
typical
conditions
of
approval
that
are
associated
with
a
plat.
You
know
parkland
dedication,
easements
all
those
types
of
things,
but
being
a
type
one
platt
again,
it's
a
meets
and
bounds
property
just
going
to
a
platted
lot
with
no
change
in
lot
configuration
or
boundaries.
C
I
just
wanted
to
show
you
this
for
reference.
It
does
need
to
be
planted
because
in
order
to
be
issued
a
building
permit,
you
do
have
to
be
a
plant.
A
lot
in
bloomington
you'll
reflect
you'll.
Remember
this
from
our
review
of
the
walls
or
toyota
development.
The
motor
vehicle
sales
facilities
do
have
operational
performance
standards
that
they
have
to
follow.
That's
no
different
for
these
high
density
facilities
and
those
standards
do
include
noise,
vehicle
repair
activities,
storage
and
display
test
driving
locations
and
loading
and
unloading,
basically
hours
of
when
they
can
do
those
activities.
C
C
The
the
facility
signage
does
have
to
comply
with
our
sign.
Ordinance
and
rooftop
equipment
does
need
to
be
screened
getting
to
the
public
correspondence.
In
this
case,
as
I
noted
before,
we
have
notified
adjacent
jurisdictions.
They
do
have
some
time
yet
to
respond
to
that,
but
we
have
not
gotten
any
concerns.
All
no
comments,
basically
on
the
adjacent
jurisdiction.
Mndot
did
provide
a
comment
letter
within
the
letter.
It
was
more
just
some
clarifications
pertaining
to
their
future
projects.
C
So,
as
I
mentioned
before,
there
are
some
access
easements
that
that
are,
and
not
only
access
but
utility
as
well
kind
of
in
this
area
and
a
concern
of
the
owner
of
525241
is
that
that
access
easement
continue
with
this
new
development.
It's
my
understanding
that
they
have
been
working
with
united
united
properties
has
reached
out
to
them
and
is
working
with
them
and
united
properties.
Again,
let
them
speak
for
themselves,
but
is
working
to
extinguish
the
access
aspect
of
the
easement
and
the
city
has
no
concern
or
is
not.
C
C
The
city
doesn't
need
to
maintain
the
ability
to
maintain
that
infrastructure
and
the
the
dealership
also
has
to
maintain
that
infrastructure
and
that
the
owner
is
to
the
north
is
cognizant
of
that
and
their
follow-up
email,
stating
that
they
would
not
object,
is
cognizant
of
the
fact
that
the
utility
easement
does
need
to
continue
they're
just
concerned
about
vehicles
driving
back
and
forth
across
their
property.
So
I
think
that
issue
is
on
its
way
to
being
resolved,
but
certainly
those
owners
can
speak
to
the
their
thoughts
on
it
as
well.
C
A
All
right,
thank
you,
mr
johnson,
for
the
staff
report
just
go
ahead
and
open
it
up
here
to
commission
members
first
to
see
if
they
have
any
questions
for
mr
johnson,
and
I
would
like
to
note
that
commissioner
roman
did
join
us
at
the
very
beginning
of
the
presentation.
So
we
have
six
members
here
tonight
so
and
and
glenn
I
can't
yeah,
you
moved
the
window,
so
I'm
not
sure
if
anybody,
commissioner
cookedon.
D
C
You
know
why
that
is
yeah.
Thank
you
for
that
question
chair,
commissioner
cookton.
Thank
you
for
that
question
because
I
I
failed
to
include
that
as
part
of
the
pd
flexibility
request.
So
thank
you
for
that
reminder.
They
are
requesting
a
modest
increase
in
floor
area
which
would
exceed
1.0
floor
air
ratio.
It's
it
literally
equates
to
5
000
square
feet
of
floor
area
in
order
to
just
have
a
uniform
building
footprint
for
the
full
four
stories.
But
I
don't
know
why
there's
a
maxim.
C
D
Well,
that's
your
chair.
I
think
that's
the
first
time
mr
mark
regard
has
been
stumped
so
I'll,
wear
that
as
a
badge
of
honor,
no,
no
need
to
get
back
to
me,
but
I
am
curious.
I
I'm
not
huge
on
restricting
development.
You
know.
Maybe
this
maybe
united
properties
wanted
five
stories
and
we
we
didn't,
allow
it.
So
we
should
always
be
looking
at
these
things
critically.
A
A
Well,
can
you
explain
a
little
bit
about
and
I,
as
I
was
reading
through
the
staff
report,
it
I
think
it
was
mndot's
letter
mentioned
something
about
the
weir
structure
or
something
for
that
wetland
which
leads
me
to
believe
that
that
is
in
part,
a
storage
stormwater
pond
and
how
that
fits
in
and
then
really
kind
of
this.
The
next
piece
of
the
code:
compliance
regarding
the
10
foot
front
yard
for
the
facility
on
this
map.
A
A
C
So
if
you
see
this
dashed
line
I'll
kind
of
draw
annotate
where
that's
running
yep,
that's
the
easement
line
and
that's
a
10-foot
setback
from
the
property
line.
Okay-
and
you
can
see
that
the
edge
of
the
pond
encroaches
it
just
barely
into
that
easement
area.
So
the
plan
actually
shows
it
at
an
eight
foot
setback
and
in
their
written
materials
they
they
recognize
or
acknowledge
that
they
have
to
meet
a
10,
because
engineering
won't
allow
them
to
encroach
into
the
drainage
and
utility
easements.
So
just
a
note
about
that
is.
C
And
that
has
to
do
with
historically
how
the
city,
what
we
allow
and
don't
allow
in
landscape
yards.
For
example,
we
allow
sidewalks
to
be
in
landscape
yards.
We
allow
rain
gardens,
but
we
don't
allow
full-blown
storm
water
ponds
and
the
reason
for
that
being
is
that
if
they
were
right
up
against
a
sidewalk,
it
could
present
as
like
a
safety.
A
C
Hazard,
if
you
know,
if
someone
were
to
bike
or
to
trip
into
one
of
those
facilities,
you
know
it's
just
a
possible
issue.
So
that's
why
the
city
hasn't
historically
allowed
that
now
this
area,
there's
less
so
there's
less
possibility
your
likelihood
of
some
pedestrians
or
some
people
walking
right
next
to
it.
So
that
might
provide
some
justification
to
look
at
it.
But
it's
ba
it's!
It's
kind
of
the
standard
operating
procedure
on
staff's
part
to
look
to
code
complying
alternatives,
so
that
would
involve
a
20-foot
setback.
C
So
what
that
would
mean
is
kind
of
carving
the
edge
of
that
pond
back
another
10
feet
and
the
the
trade-off.
If
you
will
and
again
this
is
still
being
investigated
by
united's
design
team.
Tom
lincoln
is
the
engineer
of
record
with
kimley
horn,
but
they're
looking
at
you
know
possibly
expanding
the
pond
in
this
area
that
I'm
annotating
to
kind
of
make
up
that
difference.
C
So
it's
kind
of
a
puzzle
right
now
and
they're
trying
to
see
if
they
can
get
a
code
complying
stormwater
pond
to
fit
into
that
puzzle.
If
they
can
great,
if
they
can't,
then
I
think
that
they
would
have
on
the
basis
of
all
those
factors,
would
probably
have
a
reasonable
argument
to
support
flexibility.
A
C
Yeah,
thank
you
chair.
If,
if
it
was
not
resolved
before
council,
it
would
have
to
be,
but
because
this
is
a
reguiding
and
rezoning
application.
There's
there's
going
to
be
a
month
of
time
in
between
the
planning,
commission,
action
and
the
city
council
action.
So
I'm
very
confident
in
between
your
recommendation
and
the
council
recommendation
our
action
rather
that
we're
gonna
we're
gonna,
get
that
design
work
done
and
figure
out
what
is
needed
to
happen
so
right
now.
C
The
approval,
as
it's
laid
out
to
you
tonight,
would
require
the
20-foot
setback
it
would
just
be
like
it
would
just
be
saying
meat
code.
Basically,
that's
what's
reflected
in
the
landscaping
condition
in
your
packet,
but
if
they're
unable
to
accommodate
that
with
all
the
moving
pieces
that
are
happening
there,
staff
would
go
back
to
the
drawing
board
with
them
and
potentially
pivot.
If
it's,
if
it's
unreasonable.
A
Thank
you,
mr
johnson.
The
second
question
I
have
is
also
on
that
minimum
landscape
yard
and
in
the
staff
report
again
you
say
the
rear,
proposed
or
rear
side
or
north
is
at
zero
feet
and
is
and
is
five
and
so
again
in
the
conditions.
We
would
recommend
that
it's
five,
but
how
would
they
adjust
that
then.
C
So
without
any
flexibility
code
allows
the
side
and
rear
landscape
yards
to
go
down
to
zero.
If
there's
an
access
easement.
If
there's
a
shared
access,
these
minutes
allowed
to
waive
the
interior
setback
or
landscape
yard.
If
you
will
so
what
they're
contemplating
is
they
have
a
code,
complying
landscape
yard
in
this
area,
they're
contemplating
considering
maybe
getting
rid
of
that
at
that
shared
access.
Easement
here
here
is
still
a
zero
foot
setback.
So
my
assumption
is
that
they
will
have
to
continue
this.
C
This
portion,
and
here
will
have
to
be
remain
as
a
shared
access
is
my
guess,
then,
on
the
east
side,
they
have
a
shared
access
easement
with
the
bill,
mac
property,
and
that
will
continue.
It
might
be
revised.
But
it's
going
to
continue
as
part
of
this
development.
They
don't
have
enough
room
to
to
forgo
that,
so
they
don't
need
one
on
the
east.
They
don't
need
one
up
in
the
top
northwest
corner,
assuming
they
continue
that
and
they
are
showing
a
five
foot
yard
along
the
majority
of
the
north
line.
A
C
C
Yeah,
absolutely,
I
would
say
we
actually
did
get
a
no
comment
from
edina,
so
we
did
get
no
comment
from
edina,
but
the
the
uses
that
they're
contemplating
developing
up
there.
It's
been
a
multi-phase
process.
I
think
glenn
even
knows
a
little
more
about
it
than
I
do,
but
they
are,
they
do
have
some
residential
uses
and
that
development
to
the
north,
so
north
of
viking
drive
as
well
as
I
think,
some
hotel
and
other
commercial
uses.
So
I
think
it
is
a
mixed
use.
Multi-Phase
development.
C
A
C
Sure
cherokee,
mr
goldsmith
again
sorry
for
interrupting
you
there
before
here's
the
main
entrance
of
the
building
so
I'll.
First
I'll
just
start
with
their
site.
They're
proposing
to
meet
code
and
again
code
requires
connection
to
the
public
right
away
to
the
main
entrance
of
a
building
via
sidewalk.
So
they
would
be
providing
their
sidewalk
connection
in
this
yellow,
annotated
line
that
I'm
drawing.
C
If
you
can
see
that,
and
so
it
basically
dumps
the
sidewalk
out
right
at
the
northwestern
drive
there.
So
they
would
be
fulfilling
that
code
requirement
by
completing
that,
and
what
I
was
mentioning
before
is
that
this
area
along,
if
you
can
see
where
my
mouse
is
along
normandale
boulevard,
is
going
to
be
challenging
to
install
the
sidewalk
along
that
area.
On
the
basis
of
that
wetland
and
and
just
kind
of.
C
Issues
with
right
away,
say
in
constructability
through
there,
I'm
sure
brian
hansen
could
add
more
in
that
respect,
but
basically
there
is
sidewalk
along
portions
of
west
78th
once
you
get
east
of
computer
avenue,
and
there
is,
I
believe,
I'd
have
to
look
in
again
at
viking
drive.
I
forget
if
there
are
sidewalks
on
viking,
but
where
we
anticipate
more
sidewalk
to
be
valuable
to
this
property
is
connecting
it
to
the
north.
C
E
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
mr
johnson,
back
on
the
topic
of
the
wetland.
So
because
it's
considered
a
wetland,
am
I
correct
in
understanding
that
if
we
don't
grant
flexibility
from
20
to
10,
one
of
the
possible
solutions
is
not
to
do
underground
because
of
its
classification
as
a
wetland.
Is
that
true?
Or
is
that
not
true.
C
The
the
thank
you
chair,
commissioner,
roman
good,
to
see
you
happy
new
year.
The
the
the
reason
that
the
wetland
plays
a
factor
is
that
it's
its
designation
as
a
wetland
chair
solberg,
mentioned
that
it's
really
used
as
a
storm
water
pond,
but
once
it's
designated
as
a
wetland,
it
has
different
rules
than
a
storm
water
pond.
C
So
they
have
to
meet
minimum
buffering
requirements
and
that's
in
order
to
help
keep
the
the
body
clean
and
protect
it,
but
so
they
have
to
meet
a
minimum,
20
foot
buffer
requirement
and
an
average
of
40..
So
where
that
affects
the
new
proposed
stormwater
management
pond
is
that
they
can
only
expand
its
southern
in
the
more
southern
directions
so
far
before
they're
kind
of
bumping
into
their
minimum
and
average
buffer
requirements.
C
F
C
F
A
D
Yeah
good
evening,
church
solberg,
commissioners,
thank
you
nick.
This
is
tom,
strong
with
united
properties.
We
have
our
team
on
the
on
the
call,
including
tom
lincoln,
with
kimberly
horn,
our
civil
engineer,
as
well
as
evan
jacobson,
with
tushy,
montgomery
architecting
and
keith
ulstead,
our
senior
vp,
on
the
call.
I
want
to
thank
staff
nick
great,
thank
you
for
the
report
here.
We
we
just.
I
always
wanted
to
comment
here
to
answer
any
questions.
We're
just
really
excited
and
hopeful
to
get
something
going
on
the
site.
D
A
Thank
you,
mr
strom,
and
maybe
to
continue
on
this
wetland
and
storm
water
issue,
mr
strum,
if,
if
the
project
and
just
to
continue,
I
think
on
commissioner
roman's
line
of
questioning
if
it
if
the
storm
water
management
pond
is,
cannot
meet
those
setbacks.
I
guess
part
of
the
question
is:
are
you?
Are
you
able
to
go
to
alternate
methods
and
part
of
what
I'm
asking
here
is
understanding?
A
Are
we
creating
another
obstacle
to
providing
non-motorized
alternatives
in
a
corridor
that,
as
I
understand
in
edina,
is
going
to
have
a
bunch
of
housing
to
the
north
and
who
knows
what
the
rest
of
this
will
be?
But
if
we
place
obstacles
in
the
way
now
means
that
bicyclists
and
pedestrians
wouldn't
be
able
to
use
this
in
the
future,
so
kind
of
a
long-winded
question,
but
just
trying
to
get
gauge.
Maybe
your
engineering
team,
some
thoughts
from
them.
D
Sure
I'll,
thank
you,
chair
I'll.
Do
my
best
tom
lincoln
feel
free
to
jump
in
here.
I
think,
as
nick
has
mentioned,
we
you
know
we're
exploring
the
different
trade-offs
that
if
we
don't
get
flexibility
from
the
city,
then
we
have
to
go:
seek
flexibility
from
excel
due
to
the
setbacks
from
their
tower
and
as
well
as
is
as
the
watershed
and
working
within
the
wetlands.
So
long
answer
to
your
question
is,
I
think,
there's
probably
a
solution.
It
may
be
below
grade
storage.
D
A
B
D
D
Yep
again,
thanks,
though-
and
I
just
want
to
say
mr
chair
and
the
members
of
the
commission-
we
have
appreciated
how
your
staff
has
worked
through
issues
with
us.
We
still
have.
We
acknowledge.
We
still
have
some
some
issues
to
overcome
here.
They
they
seem
minor
in
the
scope
of
things
but
they're
they
they
do
exist
and
you've
zeroed
in
on
most
of
them.
D
With
your
questions
as
far
as
the
sidewalk
and
the
the
wetland
setback,
etcetera
which
we're
still
grinding
through,
but
I
just
wanted
to
it's
been
a
kind
of
a
doing.
This
stuff
remotely
has
not
been
as
rewarding
as
developments,
but
it's
they've
helped
us
grind
through
some
tough
problems,
and
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
voice
that
appreciation
two
other
things
I
wanted
to
touch
on
quickly.
D
D
We've
met
for
coffee
and
it's
always
worked
well
and
basically
the
same
thing
happened
here:
they
they
were
worried
that
we
were
going
to
be
funneling
traffic
through
their
property
on
an
easement
that
didn't
didn't,
require
you
know,
cost
sharing
and
the
maintenance,
the
road
and
everything
so
they
had.
You
know
nightmares
of
us
sending
a
lot
of
cars
over
their
pavement
that
they
were
responsible
for
fixing.
We
don't
need
that
access.
D
We
do
need
it,
as
staff
played
out
probably
to
run
some
utilities,
so
the
easement
itself
will
have
to
stay
in
place,
but
we
have
agreed
with
them
in
several
calls
and
and
a
couple
meetings
to
to
wave
our.
You
know
to
basically
modify
the
easements
so
that
we
no
longer
have
access
ingress
of
egress
rights
over
their
property
and
just
have
that
for
utilities
so
and
they
they
in
the
as
it
is
their
email
to
nick
pointed
out.
D
D
I
think
that
I
think,
that's
all
what
just
one
other
clarification.
I
know
nick
mentioned
the
the
40
jobs
like
in
total,
the
the
the
user
or
tenant
on
the
site
anticipates
about
60,
total
jobs
and
40
was
kind
of
net
of
what
we
were
at
the
existing
hotel,
I'd
probably
say
before
covid
as
any
hotel
can
attest
during
covet
right.
We
were
probably
down
to
a
bare
bones
group,
but
in
total
I
think
they're,
anticipating
about
60
employees
on
the
site.
A
All
right,
thank
you,
mr
shum
yeah.
I
think
that's
that's
helpful
as
well
to
understand,
because
I
was
I
was
going
to
ask
a
question
at
one
point
of
that's
a
very
big
facility
and
40
jobs
and
maybe
doesn't
seem
like
as
many
as
it
could
handle.
So
thank
you
for
that
all
right,
mr
strom,
mr
alston.
Mr
lincoln
anything
else
you'd
like
to
add.
H
I
Right
so
kevin
swanson,
just
a
citizen
of
bloomington
chair
commissioners
staff
pleasure
to
be
in
front
of
you
today.
I
just
had
a
couple
comments
on
this.
I
don't
live
too
far
from
this
area
and
was
really
enthused
when
I
heard
that
this
was
going
to
be
a
medical
office
building,
I
thought
that
would
be
a
tremendous
use
for
this
space
and
since
then
I'd
heard
that
this
was
going
to
be
turned
into
a
high-density
car
dealership.
I
Now
I
can
think
of
about
a
dozen
other
places
in
minnesota
that
are
probably
more
scenic
than
this
interchange.
But
as
far
as
interchanges
go
to
me,
this
is
pretty
representative
of
the
metro
area
and
has
a
long
history
of
of
kind
of
being
in
you
know
back
when
it
was
lilac
drive
and
the
whole
thing.
So
I
guess
in
that
same
article,
there's
a
city
spokesperson
that
said
that
this
interchange
has
always
been
underappreciated,
and
I
thought
that
was
interesting.
I
And-
and
I'm
not
quite
sure
why,
but
to
me-
they're
very
similar
to
a
storage
facility-
aesthetically,
maybe
a
little
more
pleasing,
40
jobs,
60
jobs
to
me-
is
pretty
small
number
of
jobs
for
180
000
square
foot
facility.
It
is
more
than
a
storage
facility,
but
you're
storing
cars
versus
people's
stuff.
It's
not
much
different.
I
I
know
it
seems
like
I'll
do
a
pun
here.
The
gears
have
sort
of
been
set
in
motion
back
on
11
29
at
the
city
council
meeting.
So
I'm
not
sure
if
any
of
this
will
make
a
difference,
but
in
my
opinion,
there's
no
precedence
for
auto
dealerships
within
this
interchange.
It
was
a
hotel
before
I
get.
Hotels
are
complicated
these
days,
but
a
business
office
business
setting
to
me
would
make
much
more
sense,
and-
and
I
guess
you
know-
this
interchange
has
been
underappreciated
for
quite
some
time.
I
It
seems
like
we're
still
settling
for
less
than
it
could
be,
and
I'm
tired
of
seeing
our
ghost
our
most
visible
corridor
along
484
be
used
as
a
billboard
with
low
low
job
creation
and
I'm
not
sure
what
else
can
be
done
about
it.
But
in
my
opinion
I
would
like
and
encourage
staff
to
maybe
bring
this
up
at
a
study
session
as
far
as
what
is
the
relationship
between
car
dealerships
and
storage
facilities.
So.
A
B
H
B
B
A
All
right
with
and
I'll,
let
you
close
the
box
and
everything
there
so
with
that
commission
members
seeing
that
there's
no
others
in
the
chambers
or
online.
That
would
like
to
speak
to
this
item
and
entertain
a
motion
to
close
the
public
hearing.
Commissioner
roman,
all
right,
we
have
a
motion
to
close
public
hearing.
A
Is
there
a
second
commissioner
albrecht
all
right,
commissioner
members,
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
close,
the
public
hearing
any
further
discussion
on
that
item,
not
seeing
any
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye
by
roll
call.
Commissioner
goldsman
aye,
commissioner
roman
aye,
commissioner
albrecht
aye,
commissioner
robdy.
A
F
C
G
F
I'm
thinking
about
the
comments
that
were
raised
from
the
public.
You
know
these
higher
density
facilities,
I
think,
are
probably
better
in
many
ways
versus
some
of
our
older
car
dealerships
with
large
amounts
of
surface
parking,
and
so
does
this
fit
more
in
the
direction
we're
heading
in
the
city.
Probably
you
know
everyone
at
the
car
and
we
heard
as
we've
had
discussions
over
the
years
as
we've
updated
our
zoning.
You
know
car
dealership.
F
Ships
are
the
thing
that
everyone
wants
to
have
access
to,
but
nobody
really
wants
right
in
in
their
prime
location.
So
it's
a
push
pull.
I
think
that
this
type
of
of
of
structure,
where
we
are
you,
know
having
it
in
a
fairly
dense
location
versus
you
know.
It's
not
it's
not
a
car
dealership,
but
if
you
look
to
the
to
the
right
on
this
image
on
the
map,
where
there's
another
officer,
I.t
or
technology,
building
with
a
bunch
of
parking,
that's
your
alternative.
F
You
know
which
one
takes
up
less
land
and
which
one
leaves
more
opportunities
for
other
redevelopment.
So
from
those
perspectives,
I'm
supportive
of
it.
You
know
I
members
of
this
body
who've
been
on
this
with
me
for
a
long
time,
know
that
I'm
very,
very
supportive
of
our
transition
transition
to
alternative
fuel
for
vehicles,
so
anything
that
expands
access
to
that
for
people
having
bought
three
myself
and
none
of
them
will
be
bought
in
bloomington.
F
I
think
it's
it's
a
good
thing,
and
you
know
in
theory
in
20
years
time
this
may
become
not
a
thing
anymore,
but
in
theory
this
is
you
know,
a
pretty
visible
place
to
say
that
you
know
in
bloomington
is:
is
one
of
them
probably
flagship
places?
For
again
we
don't
know
who
this
is,
but
I
think
we
all
may
be
able
to
infer
who
it
is.
This
appears
to
be
the
flagship
location
for
minnesota,
and
you
know
bloomington
is
on
board
with
that.
F
So
my
only
observation
is
I'm
okay
with
the
10
foot
on
the
storm
water
pond.
But
I
guess
I
would
say,
if
they're
not
able
to
if
they're,
not
able
to
treat
it
all
above
ground,
then
I
would
not
be
if,
if
some
of
it
has
to
be
full
grown,
then
I
would
say
you
know:
stick
with
the
20..
If
you
know
if
it
can
be
done
and
re-thought
within
the
10-foot
setback,
that
we
require,
I'm
okay
with
the
10-foot.
F
A
J
J
But
there
is
a
struggle
between
policies
that
we
adopt
that
in
this
case,
we
are
adjusting
to
allow
for
this
development
to
happen,
whilst
also
working
with
the
market
or
private
development,
because
we
cannot
turn
away
this
private
developer
and
say
you
know
what
we
are
not
going
to
allow
you
to
do
this.
I
mean
we
could
do
that
technically
by
denying
their
resulting
applications
and
all
these
other
applications,
but
are
we
also
you
know
we?
The
city
does
want
to
see
private
development
happen,
tax
bases,
you
know,
generate
tax
at
the
sites.
J
J
A
K
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Excuse
me.
I
just
want
to
echo
commissioner
roman's
comments
regarding
the
stormwater
management
layout.
I
too
would
agree
that
if
this
setback,
if
the
new
new
configuration
doesn't
work
and
they're
forced
to
go
underground,
I
would
be
fine
with
the
way
that
it's
laid
out
here,
particularly
because
there
is
no
sidewalk
there.
I
think
the
concern
around
safety
that
mr
johnson
mentioned
you
know
biking
tripping
walking
into
the
storm.
K
The
other
comment
that
I
have
is
just
regarding
the
location-
and
I
think
a
few
people
have
mentioned
this,
which
is
you
know
in
my
professional
my
day,
job.
We
are
looking
at
new
office
locations
and
actually
looked
in
this
kind
of
this
area
and
actually
decided
that
it
was
too
far
away
from
the
highway.
We
wanted
more
direct
access
for
someone
to
come
off
the
highway
and
get
to
the
facility,
so
I
do
believe,
though,
it's
not
a
extremely
convenient
location,
meaning
you
come
off
the
highway
and
you
get
right
there.
E
Thanks,
mr
chair,
I
appreciate
the
staff's
presentation,
I've
written
down
a
few
comments
and
questions
along
the
way
so
bear
with
me.
While
I
get
through
them.
So
one
of
the
things
that
came
to
mind
is
you
know
we
had
a
lot
of
conversations
in
november
about
this
new
high
density
vehicle
and
I
remember
we
talked
about
the
existing
sites
that
could
potentially
have
this
high
density
and
we
were
very
concerned
about
it
being
in
the
wrong
place.
E
So,
first
of
all,
I
I
think
the
location
of
this
makes
sense
very
prominent
and
way
better
than
any
of
the
existing.
I
think
the
c3
zoning
properties
in
that
are
currently
in
in
the
city,
so
that
was
my
number
one
comment
moving
on
to
the
second
and
I
I
appreciated
that
we
looked
at
where
their
sidewalk
is
located
and
how
it
connects
to
the
existing
78th
street.
One
of
my
comments.
E
There,
though,
is
it
zigzags
and
thinking
about
winter
time
and
just
accessibility,
although
it
is
connected,
it
didn't
seem
very
straightforward
for
for
walking,
and
so
that's
just
one
thing
that
I
thought
about
is:
if
that
could
be,
you
know
that
zigzag
could
be
reduced
to
the
city.
Street
would
be
ideal,
obviously
that
water,
pond
and
and
drainage
is
going
to
be
a
concern,
but
the
zigzag
just
seemed
to
be
a
lot,
especially
in
this
time
of
year
with
its
winter.
E
One
question
that
I
should
have
raised
earlier
is
around
charging
and
knowing
that,
if
this
is
the
flagship
site
for
this
vehicle
manufacturer
would
there
be?
You
know
obviously,
sales
of
the
of
the
vehicles,
but
then
also
thinking
about
charging
of
those
vehicles
that
would
create
additional
traffic
into
the
location
in
and
out
and
at
all
hours
of
the
day.
E
The
last
question
or
comment
that
I
had
was
really
around
the
location
and
at
first
I
was
you
know,
saw
the
proposal
and
I
was
disappointed
that
it
wasn't
housing
I
feel
like
we
could.
You
know
we
obviously
have
a
a
deficit
of
housing,
that's
needed
for
our
residents
and
and
I
was
disappointed
that
it
wasn't
housing.
E
However,
when
I
thought
about
the
location
of
the
site
in
the
intersection
of
two
large
highways
that
you
know,
I
thought
well,
maybe
this
isn't
the
right
place
for
housing
and
I
was
happy
to
hear
that
there
is
housing
on
the
other
side
of
viking
avenue
and
the
edina
side
of
of
the
street.
So
you
know
in
all
I
think
I
just
had
some
comments
and
a
couple
of
questions.
Some
feedback,
but
overall
we'll
be
supporting
the
application.
A
D
Sure,
thank
you,
chair,
commissioners.
Let
me
see
here
the
being
careful
not
to
say
things
understand
this.
The
site
will
have
some
standard
charging
stations.
Obviously,
and
you
know
I
I'm
not
in
entirely
sure
if
they
will
be
public
or
not,
I
doubt
it
will
be,
but
if,
if
the
occult
the
big
chargers
are
installed,
it
would
probably
just
be
a
couple
of
them,
and
you
know
I
don't
think,
would
negatively
impact
any
of
the
traffic.
A
D
D
Right
and
it
you
know
that
there's
the
standard
calls
that
kind
of
the
the
charges
that
you
would
see.
You
know
around
the
city
at
different
locations
and
then
there's
the
the
larger
faster
charging
stations
that
may
or
may
not
be
installed
by
the
tenant.
I
mean,
if,
if
they
are,
I'm
not
sure
that
it
would
be
public
but
and
if
it
is
a
destination,
it
probably
be
only
be
a
couple
of
them
and
probably
wouldn't
significantly
impact
the
traffic
volume
to
the
site.
A
F
Just
going
a
little
further
so
again,
the
type
of
charging,
I
think,
that's
a
question-
is
level
three
charging
which
is
direct,
current
480
volts,
if
a
short
term,
but
perhaps
higher
frequency
of
vehicles.
If
there
were
to
be
some
of
the
level
three
charging
installed,
I
think
the
question
may
be
where
and
there's
one
thing.
Commissioner
golson
raised
the
question
about
potentially
about
more
traffic
at
all
hours
of
the
day,
because
you
know
if
it's
a
even
if
it's
limited
to
the
vehicles
sold
and
manufactured
by
this
manufacturer.
F
D
Sure,
thank
you,
commissioner.
I
don't
know
if
evan
is
on,
or
maybe
tom
lincoln
knows,
I'm
gonna.
I
don't
remember
where,
on
the
plan
and
on
my
screen
I
can't
really
see.
We've
got
some
charging
on
the
east
side
of
the
building.
There's
three
it
looks
like,
but
I
don't
remember
where
the
where
all
the
charging
stations
were.
A
All
right,
thank
you.
Thank
you
for
that
information.
That's
I
think
helpful
to
understand
that
this
really
doesn't
look
like
to
be
a
public
charging
facility
as
much
as
it
is
just
providing
charging
opportunity
for
people
and
potential
customers.
So
thank
you
for
that
information,
and
with
that,
commissioner,
roman,
you
have
another
question.
F
I
do
thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
this
is
mark
for
staff
based
on
this.
Okay,
again
supportive
of
the
idea
of
expanding
this
kind
of
infrastructure-
and
I
know
a
few
years
ago,
we
adopted
standards
on
charging
infrastructure
if
this
specific
vendor
were
to
want
to
put
in
some
of
that
level,
three
charging
would
that
be
able
to
be
done
just
with
a
simple
electrical
permit,
or
would
that
require
any
further
review.
Given
this
that
that
level,
three
type
of
charging.
C
C
This
is,
has
its
own
unique
flavor
to
that,
but
basically
what
our
regulations
state
is
that
if
you
have
proprietary
charging
stations
that
only
only
fuel
certain
types
of
vehicles,
then
it
can
exceed
five
percent
of
your
required
parking
and
in
this
case
the
required
parking
is
89
spaces.
So
I
think
technically
per
ordinance.
Only
five
percent
of
1889
could
be
the
proprietary
chargers,
except
for
excess
parking.
C
Now,
if
it's
parking
that
is
not
required
by
code,
my
thought
is
that
those
spaces
typically
could
be
utilized
for
additional
proprietary
above
the
five
percent
and
then
the
only
other
consideration
it
would
be
just
an
electrical
permit.
You're
correct
on
that.
I
have
reviewed
those
in
the
past.
It
doesn't
require
any
much
formal
planning
and
zoning
action
other
than
the
review
of
a
permit.
C
The
only
other
thing
I
was
going
to
mention
is
that
if
they
are,
if
there
are
chargers
in
excess
of
five
percent
of
the
required
parking
supply,
they
can't
be
restricted
stalls.
In
other
words,
it
can't
be
ev
charging
only
someone
who's
just
driving
a
typical
combustion
automobile.
If
it's
above
that,
five
percent
does
have
the
right
to
park
there.
F
Mainly,
my
issue
is
not
about
doing
it
it's
about
when
it
does
come
up
about.
You
know,
impact
and
primarily
the
area
where
we
would
be
concerned.
I
think
with
the
impact
would
be
along
the
north
of
the
site,
and
I
think
you
know
sure
I
think,
has
good
judgment
on
that,
and
you
probably
heard
our
thoughts.
C
A
I
guess
looking
for
anything
there,
but
at
this
point
you
know,
I
think
this
application
I'll
give
my
maybe
my
two
cents
here
this
is,
you
know,
I
think
the
size
of
a
facility
like
this
and
and
really
auto
dealerships
in
general
are
a
destination
people,
don't
just
randomly
typically
randomly
drive
into
any
kind
of
auto
sales
dealership
just
because
they
drive
by
and
decide
they're
going
to
buy
one
and
so
having
this
in
a
location
that
may
be
not
as
convenient
as
I
think.
Commissioner.
A
Albrecht
talked
about
quarter
mile
from
the
interchange
to
the
north
and
well
further
than
that
on
494.,
but
I
think
one
of
the
other
things
that
stands
out
to
me,
and
I
think
it
was
something
former
commissioner
swanson
mentioned,
and
you
know,
is
it
a
auto
storage
versus
a
storage?
And
I
think
to
me
the
differentiator
here
is:
this
is
an
indicator
of
the
support
that
bloomington
has.
A
A
A
What
I
would
like
to
see
is
that
we
do
we
put
a
step
forward
to
say:
infrastructure
is
one
thing,
but
we
also
need
to
plan
for
that
infrastructure
for
the
future
and
ensure
that
sidewalks,
when
they
can
be
built,
are
built
waiting
because
the
rest
of
the
network
isn't
there
just
creates
more
and
more
of
a
problem,
because
I
can
imagine
the
parcel
to
the
north
of
this
saying.
Well,
they
didn't
build
to
the
south.
So
why
should
we
build
when
we
redevelop
and
we
could
we
could?
A
I
could
see
as
an
entity
that
we
start
to
follow
fall
into
that
logic,
so
I
I
still
would
like
to
see
it.
I
see
it
is
still
a
condition
that
they
build
that
sidewalk,
I'm
I'm
okay
with
the
as
long
as
it's
held
and
they
provide
that
surety
for
it,
but
I
really
would
prefer
that
it's
built
when
this
facility
is
built.
It's
just
another
piece
that
goes
towards
that
sustainability.
D
D
You
know,
I
appreciate
mr
swanson
his
comments
and
that
he
maybe
I
could
put
it
a
different
way
saying
he
has
high
standards
for
what
type
of
development
he
wants
to
see
in
the
city
and
if
you
follow
along
the
planet
commission
closely,
you
know
I
I
share
that
as
well,
and
I
have
high
standards
for
what
we
what
we
see
with
new
development
in
our
city.
I
I
think
maybe
a
caveat
to
that
is,
I
think,
I'm
more
sensitive
to
certain
types
of
development.
D
B
E
D
The
areas
I
have
on
my
list
that
I
need
to
be
sensitive
to
you
know
pan-american,
some
of
the
stuff
we're
doing
on
lindale.
I
think
there's
increased
sensitivity
there.
I
am
sensitive
to
what
happens
here.
I'm
happy
to
see
it's
multi-story.
I
think
that's
the
right
thing
to
do.
I
think
this
is
a
reasonable
use
for
this.
A
four-story
auto
dealership,
I
think,
is
moving
in
the
right
direction
and
as
opposed
to
our
older
stock
of
dealerships
we
have
in
the
city,
and
so
with
all
of
that,
I
can
support
this
application
today.
A
A
All
right,
thank
you,
commissioner
goldsmith
commissioners.
We
have
a
motion
in
front
of
us
to
recommend
approval.
Is
there
a
second
commissioner
albrecht
all
right,
commission
members,
we
have
a
motion,
and
a
second
in
front
of
us
to
recommend
approval
of
comprehensive
plan,
amendment
to
reguid
7851,
normandale
boulevard
from
community
commercial
to
regional
commercial.
A
A
A
A
D
A
E
A
D
Mr
chair,
in
case
pl
2021-251,
having
been
able
to
make
the
required
findings,
I
moved
to
recommend
approval
of
preliminary
and
final
development
plans
for
a
four-story
high-density
motor
vehicle
sales
facility
located
at
7851,
normandale
boulevard,
subject
to
the
conditions
and
coda
requirements
attached
to
the
staff
report.
All
right.
Thank.
E
A
All
right,
commission
members,
we
have
a
motion
in
front
of
us
to
make
the
required
findings
to
move
the
approval
to
to
recommend
approval
of
the
preliminary
and
final
development
plans
for
a
four-story
high-density
motor
vehicle
sales
facility
located
at
7851
normandale
boulevard,
subject
to
the
conditions
and
code
requirements
attached
to
the
staff
report.
Any
further
discussion,
not
seeing
any
all
those
in
favor,
say
aye
by
roll
call.
Commissioner
goldsman.
E
L
Thank
you
I
am
going
to.
I
would
like
to
call
to
order
the
january
6
meeting
of
the
bloomington
hra
and
I'm
going
to
begin
the
meeting
tonight
by
administering
the
oath
of
office
to
our
two
new
commissioners,
commissioner,
vikki
hokim
and
commissioner
nathan
coulter
nathan.
Are
you
still
there?
I
know
you
had
to
leave
at
7
30..
I
I
victoria
houkim
do
solemnly
swear
that
I
will
support
the
constitution
of
the
united
states
and
of
the
state
of
minnesota
and
faithfully
discharge
the
duties
of
the
office
of
the
housing
and
redevelopment
authority
in
and
for
the
city
of
bloomington,
in
the
county
of
huntington
in
state
of
minnesota.
To
the
best
of
my
judgment
and
ability.
L
G
L
And
commissioner
lewis,
chair
lewis,
I
am
here
that
does
represent
a
quorum,
so
I
will
now
actually
at
this
point,
I'm
going
to
turn
over
the
meeting
to
the
planning
staff
and
during
the
meeting
once
I've
turned
it
over
you'll.
Be
able
to
ask
questions
directly
of
staff
without
having
to
go
through
me.
First
we're
going
to
make
it
a
little
more
informal
so
that
you
can
get
as
much
information
as
you
need.
So
I
will
now
turn
over
the
meeting
to
the
planning
staff.
Thank
you,
mr.
H
H
Is
everybody
seen
it
all
right,
like
chair
lewis,
had
mentioned
as
we
get
to
the
discussion?
If
you
want
to
use
the
raise
your
hand
feature,
I
can
call
on
you
and
that
might
simplify
things
a
little
bit
it's
you
know
it's
a
little
bit
easier
to
have
these
discussions
in
person
where
it's
you
know
virtual,
it's
a
little
bit
more
tough,
but
I'll.
Look
at
the
raise
the
hand
feature
but,
like
I
said
this
is
part
two
of
our
single
family
and
two
family
development
standards.
H
As
we
recap,
some
of
our
background
and
goals
with
this
update
we're
looking
at
our
development
standards
with
ways
that
we
can
encourage
more
housing
options,
increase
affordability
if
we
can,
through
those
standards,
address
racial
equity
and
encourage
healthy
and
sustainable
communities.
These
kind
of
these
goals
align
with
our
council
strategies,
strategic
priorities
and
just
a
recap
of
that
first
meeting,
we
talked
a
lot
about
affordability
and
what
the
our
standards
can
and
can
address.
H
You
know
we
can
chip
away
a
little
bit
at
land
costs
with
the
with
our
lot
size
and
maybe
with
our
building
design
standards
with
some
of
those
built-in
costs,
but
there's
other
things
that
influence
costs,
that
we
can't
necessarily
address
like
the
cost
of
mortgage
or
closing
costs,
that's
just
outside
of
the
zoning
code
and
development
standards
and
why
there
is
an
affordability
issue.
That's
out
there
is
because
we
just
were
under
producing
units,
especially
after
2008.
H
You
know
crash
now
we're
trying
in
this
catch-up
period
where
we
need
to
create
more
of
all
our
unit
types
and
as
we
are
aware,
we
have
equity
issues.
Our
ownership
gap
is
35
for
our
bipod
community
or
black
indigenous
people
of
color
compared
to
75,
for
our
are
white
non-hispanic.
So
that's
a
huge
disparity
part
of
it
is
just
accessing
some
of
these
homes,
and
some
of
it
is
that
affordability
aspect.
H
So
I
won't
go.
You
know
in
the
interest
of
time.
I
won't
get
into
details
of
our
health
and
environment,
but
these
are
factors
that
we
talked
about
in
our
internal
staff
group.
Just
the
healthy
aspects
of
living
in
a
single
family
home,
there's
a
better
air
quality.
You
know
you
don't
have
that
congestion,
that's
creating
air
quality
issues
in
the
super
dense
city
and
you
can
really
look
at
social
determinants
of
health.
H
H
There
are
kind
of
these
system-wide
things
like
our
stormwater
requirement,
impervious
surface
and
then
there's
site-specific
things
and
it's
difficult
for
us
to
require
some
of
these
site-specific
things,
because
the
building
code
kind
of
sets
what
our
energy
standards
can
be
and
we're
kind
of
subject
to
that
building
code.
So
really,
when
we
started
to
get
into
the
discussion
on
health
and
environment,
a
lot
of
what
we
talked
about
in
that
first
meeting
were
really
kind
of
the
best
best
issues
to
address
some
environment.
H
So
with
that,
I'm
just
going
to
jump
in
because
it's
already
a
little
bit
later,
so
the
big
thing
that
we
talked
about
last
time
and
the
big
thing
that
really
I
want
to
hone
in
on
today
is
minimum
lot
size
and
tied
to
that
is
our
our
median
lock
with
requirement
I'll
kind
of
go
through
our
standard
and
some
of
the
options
and
what
I
like-
and
I
don't
think
through
the
webex
feature.
I
can
do
a
polling
not
giving
me
that
option.
I
don't
think
so,
that's
it.
H
So
I
won't
be
able
to
do
a
poll,
but
what
I
think
I'll
have
people
do
when
we
get
toward
the
end
of
the
section
I'll.
Have
you
I'll
just
call
out
the
option?
Have
you
raised
your
hand
to
kind
of
do
an
informal
vote
on?
Is
this
an
option
that
you
think
we
should
move
forward?
But
what
the
hope
is
here
at
the
end
of
this
is
to
kind
of
have
some
direction
on.
H
Just
you
know
specific
ordinance,
recommendations
and
I'll
be
bringing
this
to
the
city
council
at
the
end
of
the
month
and
can't
gather
their
input
kind
of
finalize.
What
we'll
do
for
a
public
hearing
final
ordinance
amendment
so
for
this
first
item,
the
minimum
lot
width
and
meat
are
minimum
lot
size
and
median
lot
width.
These
two
are
kind
of
intrinsically
tied
together,
because
our
lot
depth
doesn't
change
right.
Our
block
face
is
the
block
face
that
it
is
so
if
we're
reducing
our
minimum
lot,
our
minimum
lot
size.
H
It's
really
that
width
that
is
going
to
achieve
that
difference
in
lot
size
and
so
right
now
we
have
for
properties
a
median
site
width
as
80
of
the
median.
The
property
is
located
500
feet
so
assuming
a
location
where
you
have
similar
like
lots
in
size,
you'll
have
to
purchase
four
lots
to
eke
out
a
fifth
lot
just
due
to
the
median
lock
with
because
you're
looking
at
eighty
percent.
So
really.
That
is
something
that
we
need
to
would
need
to
address
for
this,
to
have
any
kind
of
meaningful
change.
H
H
This
would
mean
that
many
of
our
100
foot
by
lots.
We
have
quite
a
few
hundred
and
120
foot
wide
lots.
They're
kind
of
double
lots,
not
quite
double
lots,
but
you
know
larger
lots
that
could
be
easily
split,
are
more
likely
to
develop.
You
know
the
more
lots
you
have
to
purchase
the
harder
it's
another
obstacle
to
develop.
You're
dealing
with
more
people,
it's
hard
to
manage,
so
redevelopment
potential
kind
of
loses,
the
more
properties
you
have
to
acquire.
H
H
So
that
is
something
to
consider
when
we
look
at
what
that
actually
means
with
a
1040
rambler
two-car
garage
in
a
driveway
at
a
30-foot
setback,
you're
pretty
much
maxed
out
on
your
impervious
surface,
wouldn't
allow
you
those
extra
things
like
a
shed,
maybe
in
the
backyard
or
a
patio.
Those
are
things
that
also
count
toward
that
impervious
surface
or
expansion
outwards.
You
would
have
to
expand
upward,
and
so
those
are,
you
know,
design
impacts
to
what
could
happen
with
going
to
this
level
and,
furthermore,
it
require
this
requires
a
comprehensive
plan
amendment.
H
H
Option
two:
a
few
blocks
away
in
richfield.
This
is
our
second
option.
If
we
go
to
60
foot
wide
lot,
a
little
bit
bigger
about
7
800
square
feet,
some
of
our
lots
are
120
feet
wide.
We
don't
have
a
good
number
on
how
many
are
a
hundred
first
120
feet
wide.
We
don't
have
that
lot
width.
We
don't
just
have
to
have
that
data.
We
have
plot
size,
but
not
a
lot
width,
so
I
can't
give
you
exact
number.
H
So
it
you
know,
I'm
just
throwing
that
number
out
there
that
sixty
percent
of
our
lots
still
would
not
be
able
to
be
easily
slicked,
and
probably
a
small
percentage
of
that
would
be
so
looking
at
a
60-foot
lot
about.
30
of
our
lots
are
at
that
about
16
000
square
feet
or
larger
still,
fairly
compact
design
for
that
walkability
aspect
that
we're
looking
for
it's
still
better
than
our
current
standard
of
11
000
square
feet.
So
it's
more
financially
viable.
H
H
But
one
advantage
of
this
over
our
current
code
is
that
would
bring
a
lot
of
lots
into
conformance.
We
have
about
50
percent
of
our
lots
that
are
under
11
000
square
feet,
they're
still
above
this
87.50,
so
this
is
actually
in
bloomington.
These
are
lots
that
are
all
70
feet
wide,
so
we
have
some
local
examples
of
that
that
are
developed
in
this
style.
So
this
is
where
our
staff
felt
comfortable
that
we
you
know
this
would
be
a
good
option
on
the
conservative
side
of
things.
H
If
that's
where
we're
thinking,
we
want
to
go,
but
obviously
less
development
potential.
If
you
have
a
you
know,
like
I
said
or
80
foot
is
our
kind
of
standard
lot
and
those
are
kind
of
our
older
lots,
so
like
more
likely
to
redevelop
if
those
houses,
age
and
maybe
aren't
as
maintained-
or
you
know,
by
virtue
of
being
70
60
70
years
old
rates
for
more
potential
for
redevelopment
than
a
house
that
was
built
in
the
80s
to
do
a
50
foot
wide
lot.
H
Similarly,
with
the
60
foot
wide
lot,
if
you
find
happen
to
find
one
goals,
kind
of
slightly
larger
lots
that
are
100
next
to
an
80
foot
lot,
you
might
be
able
to
get
three
lots
out
of
two.
So
there's
more
development
potential
than
say
a
70-foot
clockwork
which
would
require
you
know,
210
feet
width,
which
would
likely
be
more
lots
to
acquire
to
do
that.
H
L
L
L
D
Okay,
okay,
I
I
will
just
move
on
with
it,
then
just
so
so
we
have
it
here
for
the
record.
I
nathan
coulter,
do
solemnly
swear
that
I
will
support
the
constitution
of
the
united
states
and
the
state
of
minnesota
and
faithfully
discharge,
the
duties
of
the
office
of
the
housing
and
redevelopment
authority
in
and
for
the
city
of
bloomington
in
the
county
of
hennepin
and
state
of
minnesota.
The
best
of
my
judgment
and
ability.
L
H
F
Thank
you,
mr
player.
I
don't
have
a
strong
opinion
on
any
of
these.
I
was
you
know
doing
some
quick,
google
earth
measuring.
You
know
having
owned
two
different
houses
in
minneapolis,
and
you
know
the
one
was
a
smaller
house.
I
think
it
was
800
square
feet.
One
was
a
larger
house,
probably
2
400
square
feet,
but
both
sat
on
a
40
foot
wide
lot.
So
you
know
50
and
60.
I
think
compared
to
that
is
not
not
terrible.
F
We
do
have
a
lot
of
a
lot-
it's
probably
a,
maybe
not
the
right
term,
but
we
have
a
fair
number
of
lots
in
the
city
that
are
irregularly
shaped,
given
our
either
our
natural
features
or
the
design
of
cul-de-sacs
and
whatnot.
And
what
would
we
look
to?
I
mean
we'd
have
the
square
foot
measurement
that
in
that
case,
for
those
I
mean,
there's,
probably
not
as
many
opportunities
for
redevelopment
given
in
those
irregularly
shaped
lots.
H
Yeah,
so
christian
roman,
we
we
look
at
the
building
setback
and
do
they
meet
the
minimum
lot
with
at
the
building
setback
or
wherever
they
meet
that
step
or
minimum
lot
width
that
becomes
your
your
minimum
setback.
So
that's
how
we
kind
of
treat
those
odd
shaped,
lots
the
wear
returns.
We
get
some
that
are
kind
of
three-sided
that
are
unique.
That
way,
but
usually
we're
able
to
kind
of
figure
out
where
that
median
lot
width
or
that
lot
width
should
be
applied.
F
Okay,
so
yeah,
I
guess
for
the
sake
of
our
discussion,
you
know
not
opposed
to
a
smaller
width.
You
know,
I
think,
if,
if
60
feels
like
it
can
support
a
significant
amount
of
expansion
to
support
expanding
affordability,
I'm
okay
with
that,
I
don't
necessarily
need
to
go
to
50.
I
hear
that
you
know
50
makes
it
easier
for
100
to
be
divided
up,
but
60
also
makes
it
easier
for
100
to
be
added.
F
You
almost
only
get
3
out
of
two
instead
of
four
out
of
two,
but
I
don't
know
what
others
thoughts
are
in
that,
but
I
also
recognize
that
moving
too
fast
too
far
on.
This
can
also
cause
us
to
not
accomplish
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish,
because
the
push
back
on
going
too
far
could
also
be
counterproductive.
G
I
would
support
50
or
60.
I
think
we
want
to
maximize
the
opportunity
with
whatever
other
regulations
we
have
to
to
make
sure
these
work
out.
Well,
but
I
I
am
curious,
it
was
mentioned
and
I
had
the
same
thought
typical.
Minneapolis
lots
are
40
feet
wide
and
I'm
just
curious
if
you
looked
at
40
feet
now,
I
understand
there's
a
big
difference
in
that
most
of
minneapolis
has
alleys
and
I
think
that
can
make
a
difference
as
to
whether
or
not
those
lots
are
usable.
G
H
H
A
lot
of
the
richfields
that
were
examples
that
were
smaller
did
have
those
alleys
so
that
that's
part
of
the
consideration
when
you
start
to
shrink
that
and
you
still
have
a
garage
or
a
driveway
space,
and
then
you
know
we
have
10
feet
for
our
drive
for
our
living
space
and
another
five
feet
for
our
garage
on
the
side.
Setback.
That's
15
feet
out
of
your
40s,
so
you're
down
to
25
feet
per
your
house,
and
then
it
gets
real.
H
You
know
it's
starting
to
get
tight
without
that
back
access
for
a
garage,
so
I
think
that's
where
we
kind
of
saw
the
stopping
spot
at
50
and
knowing
that
you
could
still
meet
your
impervious
so
that
that's
part
of
it
too,
is
the
impervious
surface.
We
was
going
to
bring
this
up
later,
but
we
can
talk
about
it
now
we're
talking
with
our
engineering
divisions.
H
H
But
we
do
have
language
in
our
two
family
home,
where
you
can
go
up
to
45
coverage
with
those
other
mitigation
approved
from
our
engineering
and
they're
willing
to
kind
of
utilize
that
as
well
for
our
single
family
but
yeah.
Once
you
get
down
to
those
smaller
lot
sizes,
it
is
more
difficult
and
we
recognize
that
you
know
we
with
that
two
family.
There
is
some
opportunity
to
get
some
of
those
smaller
lot
sizes
that
get
closer
to
that
number,
but
yeah
the
40
feet,
I
think,
was
just
a
little
too
far.
G
G
J
A
Mr
palermo,
this
is
chair
solberg,
I
don't
know
if
you
can
hear
me
this
time.
Yep.
I
can
hear
you
okay,
all
right.
I
tried
earlier
and
for
some
reason
my
microphone
didn't
work
first
time
ever
right.
You
know
so
maybe
as
far
as
these
options
and
just
thinking
about
a
little
bit
trying
to
think
of
how
these
properties
might
come
to
redevelop
and
I'm
you
know,
as
you
get
to
some
of
the
maybe
the
70
foot
thinking
about
our
most
of
our.
Maybe
our
standard
lots.
A
If
you
want,
if
you
want
to
say
such
a
thing
and
you're,
and
we're
trying
to
redevelop
and
to
get
additional
housing
or
provide
additional
housing,
it
seems
to
me
that
at
the
at
the
higher
level,
you're
running
the
risk
of
two
or
three
or
four
lots
have
to
be
purchased,
which
then-
and
I
think
commissioner
coltier
can
talk
to
at
the
city
council
on
monday,
there
was
a
real.
I
think,
discussion
about
risk
of
corporate
type
entities
buying
up
these
lots
and
that's
I
don't
think
something
that
the
city
is
necessarily
desiring.
A
Yet,
on
the
other
hand,
much
to
what
I
think
was
already
said
is
maybe
50
foot
runs
the
risk
of
of
pushing
the
limits
too
far,
and
so
maybe
for
that
reason
I
could
see
a
60
foot
seems
to
be
a
nice
middle
ground
and
if
we're
getting
into
those
120
foot
lots
you
know
that
makes
it
available.
But
I
think,
as
I
think
about
that,
that
how
would
there
be
any
availability
flexibility,
flexibility
to
a
lot?
A
H
Yeah
and
that's
that's
a
good
point
too,
you
know
there's
always
the
opportunity
to
come
back
and
tweak
it
again.
If
you
know
we
make
this
change
and
nothing
happens,
and
maybe
that
it
shows
up
on
a
work
plan
again
in
a
couple
of
years
that
we
notice
we
haven't
seen,
you
know
that
that's
a
lot
of
what
we
do
is
kind
of
those
incremental.
But,
commissioner
coulter,
I
see
your
hand
raised.
D
Thank
you
yeah.
I
guess
you
know
I
I
would
say
you
know
for
my
for
myself
personally,
I
wouldn't
necessarily
have
a
problem
with
a
50-foot
lot
with.
I
think
it
it
does
make
a
lot
of
sense.
Given
you
know,
as
is
noted,
the
the
number
of
lots
that
we
have
that
are
100
feet
wide.
I
think
for
me
that,
frankly,
the
the
biggest
concern
I
mean,
I
think
you
know
chair
silver,
mentioned
the
the
continued
corporate
buy-ups
of
homes
and
so
on
and
and
that,
obviously
that
is
a
concern
I
think.
D
For
me,
the
biggest
issue
is
this
impervious
surface
standard
because,
as
you
know,
I
mean
in
a
50-foot
wide
lot,
you
get
a
house
a
garage
and
a
driveway,
and
that's
it,
no
patio.
No,
no
nothing
else,
and-
and
that's
you
know,
I
mean
in
a
50-foot
wide
lot.
You
know,
yeah
is
this
probably
a
starter
home
and
and
that
kind
of
thing
sure,
but
I
you
know
that
that
still
to
me
it's
just
a
bit
a
bit
tight
there
and-
and
you
know,
given
the
need
not
to
completely
overhaul
our
city's
infrastructure.
D
D
You
know
if
it's
you
know
if
it's
a
couple
with
no
kids,
for
example,
but
you
know
I
I
can
tell
you
from
personal
experience
that
once
you
know
once
it's
not
just
the
two
of
you
in
the
house,
it
gets
pretty
tight.
So
those
are
those
are
my
thoughts
and
I'm
actually
gonna
have
to
jump
off
right
now.
I'm
so
sorry,
I'm
kind
of
coming
and
going
from
this
meeting,
but
it
was
good
to
see
you
all
and
I'm
looking
forward
to
working
with
you.
D
H
Not
to
the
general
public,
no
I've
spoken
with
a
couple
of
developers
to
get
their
input,
but
yeah.
I
want
to
get
your
input
and
we'll
start
to
do
that,
especially
you
know,
as
we
enter
a
study
session
with
the
council
as
well
right,
I
didn't
want
to
spook
people
without
having
some
more
firm
discussions
with
you
on
where
the
planning,
commission
and
hra
were
really
kind
of
heading
in
you
know,
I
want
some
feedback
on
something
that
might
actually
have
some
legs.
D
I
appreciate
the
it's
a
bit
of
a
chicken
in
the
egg
problem,
but
I
did
want
to
just
ask
if
there
was
you
know
some
things
that
are
going
to
possibly
have
some
fairly
significant
changes
in
our
city.
I'm
thinking
specifically
like
the
lindell
avenue
retrofit
plan.
The
public
was
very
involved
in
actually
crafting
that
language
that
eventually
went
forward
for
approval
for
that
plan.
D
H
Yeah,
that
is,
that
is
the
plan
to
do
that,
but
we
will
likely
have
a
let's
talk.
Bloomington
page,
I
don't
know
if
you're
familiar
with
that,
but
that's
one
of
our
our
outreach
mechanisms,
I
think
from
crafting
the
oren's
perspective
early
on.
I
think
I
kind
of
stayed
away
from
that
approach,
one
because
it's
kind
of
hard
to
do
outreach
right
now
and
two.
You
know
we're
looking
at
development
that
may
or
may
not
occur.
You
know
this
is
very
still
speculative,
even
with
a
60-foot
lot
or
50-foot
lot.
H
The
amount
of
development
we're
gonna
get
is
probably
not
a
huge
amount
and
to
go
to
the
general
public
to
say.
Well
what
would
you
like?
You
know
it's
hard
to
kind
of
conceptualize,
but
what
will
likely
you
know?
Some
approaches
are
to
do
kind
of
like
a
visual
survey.
That
shows
what
a
50
foot
lot
is
for
60
foot
or
70
foot
and
get
people's
thought.
And
oh,
this
is
too
dense
or
not
enough,
but
yeah.
H
You
know
it
is
kind
of
the
next
steps
moving
forward
after
this
meeting
to
come
up
with
that
more
engagement
plan
and
still
trying
to
figure
out
the
best
way
to
do
that.
But
you
know
as
a
homeowner
there's
the
one
aspect:
you
don't
want
your
neighborhood
to
change.
So
I
understand
that.
But
you
know
people
also
are
selling
their
lot
and
you
know
there's
that
aspect
too,
that
it
is
your
neighbor
who
is
making
that
choice
to
move
or
sell
and
to
who
they
decide.
J
Thank
you.
I
apologize.
My
camera
is
off
because
I
have
a
situation
in
the
background
that
I
didn't
want
to
be
public.
I
don't
know
if
I'm
off
base
here,
I
know
the
options
are
in
terms
of
that
we're
discussing
are
the
the
lot
with
I'm
guessing.
I
shared
this
at
the
last
time
we
talked
about
this
app.
This
discussion.
We
had
last
time
in
in
meeting
in-person
meeting.
J
Excuse
me,
I
don't
know
why,
and
I
don't
want
to
set
a
paranoia
frenzy
here,
but
I
I
live
in
the
west
east
side
of
bloomington
toward
180th
in
america,
82nd
in
american
boulevard
area
and
the
social
economic
I
see
in
the
city
of
minneapolis
is
vastly
different
and
it's
very
apparent
in
the
lots
types
of
homes.
Obviously
anywhere
you
go
in
the
metro
area.
You
know
the
in
the
lakes
area
where
a
lot
of
new
development
happens.
You
see
a
lot
more
investment
going
into
those
sites.
J
So
I
guess
what
I'm
trying
to
get
at.
Is
these
types?
Should
this
go
forward
and
should
this
get
adopted?
What
I
imagine
happening-
or
I
pretty
much
see
happening,
is
you
know
these
types
of
lots
will
start
popping
up
in
areas
that
are
slightly
slower,
lower
in
socioeconomic
communities,
and
then
you
see
significantly
tighter
lots
compared
to
our
other
parts.
You
know
the
further
down
you
go
to
west
of
american
boulevard.
So
how
do
you
then
control
for
this?
I
know
we
cannot
stop.
We
had
this
discussion.
J
J
J
Sometimes
it's
the
market-
that's
driving
this,
but
if
we
do
allow
this,
then
how
do
we
then
control
for
and
ensure
that
we're
not
intentionally
driving
this
type
of
thing
into
an
area
that
is
susceptible
easier,
easy
to
buy
out
than
it
would
be
in
near
normandale
lake,
for
example,
in
those
homes
and
in
that
area?
So
I
don't
know
I
have
a
fear-
and
I
do
believe
something
like
this
will
happen,
I'm
a
planner
so
and
I'm
a
resident
of
the
bloomington
area.
J
So
I
see
this
kind
of
thing
as
a
policy
which
I
encourage.
I
want
it
to
happen.
I
want
to
see
more
families
living
in
bloomington,
but
we
are
also
settings
setting
something
up
that
could
trigger
an
imbalance
in
a
you
know.
Nobody
personally,
my
family
didn't
buy
in
minneapolis
we
bought
in
bloomington
because
of
the
large
lot
the
attractiveness
of
it
privacy
that
we
could
get.
So
I
guess
without
mumbling
too
much.
I
guess
what
I'm
trying
to
get
at
is
that.
How
do
we
step
in?
J
How
do
we
ensure
policy?
You
know
what
kind
of
policy
would
we
establish
or
what
control
would
the
city
have
to
ensure
that
you're
not
going
to
see
significantly
tiny
lots
on
the
east
side
of
bloomington
than
you
would
anywhere
else
in
the
city
of
minneapolis,
for
example?
So
that's
my
major
concern.
I
don't
want
to
freak
out
the
public
that
might
be
watching
this
right
now,
but
I
would
be
very
much
interested
in
what
that
would
look
like.
Thank
you.
H
Yeah-
and
I
think
you
kind
of
hit
you're
correct
and
saying
that
you
know
that
the
east
side
is
where
we'll
see
the
development
you
know,
just
by
virtue
of
when
development
occurred
in
the
80s
toward
the
west,
you
know
and
we
have
50s
60s
more
east.
You
know
we
moved
east
to
west.
You
know
the
age
of
the
housing
stock,
like
you
said
the
size
of
the
housing
stock.
The
you
know,
maintenance
obviously
plays
a
factor
on
a
60
year
old,
home
versus
a
20
year
old
home.
H
H
I
Thank
you.
I
actually
was
gonna
go
with
what
you
know.
Commissioner
abdi
had
just
said:
someone
on
the
east
side,
I'm
curious
too,
on
double
lots.
You
know
you
mentioned
that
and
touched
on
that.
I
know
there's,
I
believe,
there's
a
lot
more
of
those,
probably
on
the
east
side
as
well.
So
again,
I
just
I
really
want
to
second
that
and
that
concern
of
what
that's
going
to
do
to
the
east
side
and
really,
you
know,
drive
the
fact
that
we
need
to
be.
I
You
know
I
like
that,
step
back
approach
and
I
think
we
need
to
start.
You
know
maybe
at
that
70
feet
and
you
know
see
where
that
goes
just
because
I
do
want
to
protect
our
neighbors,
and
I
want
to
protect
the
east
side
as
the
vulnerable
side
of
the
city
and
not
make
them
feel
like
they're.
You
know
we're
just
pushing
all
this
development
that
way
we
already
have
a
lot
of
development
projects
being
on
the
hra.
I
E
What's
to
you
know
if
this,
if
the
property
size
is
too
large,
what
might
happen
is
instead
of
redevelopment
in
smaller,
more
starter
homes
or
what
is
similar
to
what
is
in
the
area
is
what
you'd
start
seeing
what's
happening
in
minneapolis,
which
is
much
larger
homes
that
really
dwarf
or
don't
meet
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
one
of
the
things
I'm
thinking
about.
Is
I
actually
like
the
60
feet
with
property?
E
I
think
it
helps
keep
the
character
of
the
neighborhood,
especially
as
we
were
talking
about
the
east
side,
but
then
again
it
doesn't
really
allow
for
those
super
large
houses
that
just
don't
bit
and
so
have
by
having
a
smaller
lot
sizes.
She
might
have
a
little
bit
better
fit
with
the
existing
stock
of
housing,
even
though
it
is
a
new
development.
So
I
I
could
go
either
way,
but
I
was
just
thinking
about
it
from
a
different
perspective,
just
just
to
see
what
others
would
think
about
that.
H
A
I
wonder
if
this
is
we
think
about
this,
and
this
is
maybe
a
question
for
hra
is
really
about.
Is
this
an
opportunity
where
hra
can
help
it's
a
provision
for
the
city
under
the
opportunity,
housing
ordinance
or
for
city
developed
properties
to
increase
that
standard,
rather
than
just
being
general
private
development?
I
I
don't
know
if
that
helps
anything,
but
it
it.
A
F
C
F
Mentioned
in
our
planning
commission
before
is
you
know,
we
do
have
smaller
lots,
especially
on
the
east
side,
that
I've
worried
a
little
bit
about
people
buying
up
and
consolidating
lots
for
bigger
homes,
and
so
it
again
I'm
not
necessarily
looking
to
have
an
answer
here,
but
we
should
part
of
this
conversation
also
talk
about
maximum
lot
size,
because
you
know
again,
if
I
can
buy
up
a
less
expensive
home,
I
buy
two
of
them.
I
consolidate
them
and
replat
them.
You
know
if.
E
F
A
J
Thank
you,
I
imagine,
should
we
get
a
and
a
medium
jumping
the
gun
in
too
far
ahead
in
the
process,
but
should
we
get
an
application
in
the
future?
Should
this
go
forward
and
somebody
is
requesting
a
lot
split
to
create
two
separate
lots,
but
one
of
the
lots
current.
You
know
and
we've
had
this
example
a
couple
months
ago.
Maybe
when
somebody
had
an
existing
house
on
a
lot,
they
subdivided
their
lot
to
create
a
new
lot
for
a
new
house.
J
What
if
setback,
is
not
being
met,
and
maybe
this
is
just
a
policy
direction
that
we
can
set
aside
so
that
whatever
lots
a
lot?
Excuse
me
a
lot
with
in
this
case,
if
they're
not
meeting
the
setbacks
either
for
the
existing
house
or
for
the
new
house
that
gets
to
be
developed
if
they
do
meet
the
lot
with,
but
the
situation
or
the
placement
of
the
new
house
or
the
existing
house
does
not
meet
the
setback
requirement
for
that
district,
then
the
application
should
not
be
approved
for
a
lot
split.
J
I
think
if,
if
we
and
I
don't
know,
there's
obviously
going
to
be
analysis
for
practical
difficulties
for
each
variance,
which
is
why
I'm
saying
I
may
be
getting
ahead
of
myself
in
the
ahead
of
the
vision
here.
Maybe,
but
just
thinking
ahead
in
terms
of
like
how
do
you
then
foresee
potential
splits
that
would
seek
more
variances
to
allow
for
substandards
in
terms
of
the
replacement
of
the
house
which
are
too
close
to
each
other
or
not?
J
D
G
Listening
to
this,
I'm
wondering
whether
the
larger
issue
to
ask
ourselves
is
whether
we're
looking
to
encourage
such
redevelopment
to
create
more
housing
stock,
so
a
current
encourage
and
facilitate,
or
whether
we're
looking
merely
to
accommodate
when
it
comes
along
or
when
we're
comfortable
with
it
or
whether
we're
looking
to
restrict
this
to
perhaps
too
much
of
a
term
but
but
prevent
undesirable,
as
some
might
feel
redevelopment.
That
is,
that
is
more
dense
and
going
into
some
of
these
discussions
we've
had
in
the
past
I've
I
felt
like
we
are
looking
for
ways.
G
It
seems
to
me
with
that
we're
looking
for
ways
to
accommodate
greater
density
now,
not
without
you
know,
limiting
quality
of
life
and
all
those
things,
but
how
we
can
get
creative
in
accommodating
these,
and
I
think
some
of
those
means
we
some
of
that
means.
We
have
to
look
beyond
the
current
restrictions
we
have
and
accommodate
it
where
it
makes
sense.
So
that's
just
a
question
I
have
in
listening
to
this
and
thinking
about
my
own
perception,
which
you
know
right
now.
G
So
if
I,
if
I'm
not
mistaken
and
correct
me,
if
I'm
wrong,
I
think
the
the
typical
lot
size
in
bloomington
is
still
80
feet.
Frontage,
and
that
means
that
if
somebody
purchases,
two
lots,
two
substandard
lots
that
we
could
get
350
50
foot.
You
know
wide
lots
in
there
that
could
be
designed
appropriately.
So
it
doesn't
seem
like
we're
cramming
three
homes
on
there.
So
I
and,
alternatively,
if
somebody
picked
up
four
80-foot
lots
and
again
by
making
an
assumption
that
the
typical
lots
are
80
feet.
G
You
could
do
three
if
we
had
the
restrictions
or
four
if
we
had
the
restriction
of
of
60
feet.
So
I
think
we
also
need
to
think
about
this
as
broader
redevelopment
acquisition
of
homes
and
then
how
we
can
be
creative
in
in
accommodating
two
three
or
four
homes,
where
it's
appropriate,
because
we're
we're-
hopefully
not
just
thinking
about
your
standard
home,
slapped
on
the
lot
in
the
same
way
as
every
other
home
is
so,
I
think,
that's
an
important
consideration
as.
H
Well
with
that,
I
think
it's
kind
of
a
good
sense
of
where
people
were.
I
think
I
kind
of
got
an
informal
count
of
I
think
most
people
were
comfortable
with
the
60s.
Some
want
to
go
to
that
50,
some,
maybe
more
in
the
70s.
So
I
think
this
is
good
information
that
I
can
bring
to
the
council
and
we'll
get
their
input
too.
I
think
they'll
have
some
ideas,
so
I'll
move
on
to
our
corner
lot
minimum-
and
this
is
one
two
where
you'll
notice
our
minimum
lot.
H
Size
is
11
000
square
feet,
and
then
we
have
this
corner
lot
provision
and
this
is
really
to
accommodate-
and
I
think
it
was
kind
of
hard
to
read
in
this
understand
the
staff
report,
what
I
was
trying
to
do
so
I
have
this
visual
here
where
you
know,
essentially
with
the
corner
lot.
You
have
two
front
yards
right,
so
you
have
a
30
foot
setback
on
the
one
street
and
a
30
foot
setback
on
the
other
and
using
that
30
feet.
You
know
you
get
that
extra
four
thousand
square
feet.
It's
really.
H
You
know
for
130
foot
wide
lot.
Here.
That's
39
100
square
feet
and
I
think
we
just
rounded
to
4
000
for
simplicity
to
say
so.
If
we're
looking
at
ways
to
accommodate
a
little
bit
more
here
or
there,
there
is
that
option
to
recognize
that
really
every
house
has
that
five
foot
setback
for
their
garage.
H
H
H
H
F
D
Mr
palermo,
for
me
just
wanted
to
I,
I
have
a
hard
time
making
any
recommendations
on
these
items
because
I've
never
I've,
never
owned
a
home
in
a
single
family.
Neighborhood
and
I've
never
lived
in
a
single
family
neighborhood
in
bloomington,
and
so
I'm
sort
of
withholding
my
opinions
on
these
things.
Until
I
hear
more
public
outreach,
and
so
I
don't
want
my
lack
of
a
hand
in
the
previous
thing
to
that
doesn't
mean
I'm
against
it.
D
H
H
It's
a
zero
lot
line
so
just
applying
taking
away
that
side
yard
out
of
the
equation,
and
I
could
see
about
2
600
square
feet,
so
that
would
be
your
reduction
for
or
addition
anyway,
you
get
what
I'm
saying
with
this
example,
so
that
that's
what
a
two
family
home
is
so
taking
that
lot,
reduce
it
and
then
double
it
gets
your
two
family
home.
So
that's
what
we're
recommending
does
anyone
have
issues
with
that
approach?.
A
A
D
H
And
then
this
one,
the
two
family
home
approval
process.
I
think
we
were
mostly
on
board
with
bringing
this
back
from
right
now
at
the
planned
development
that
you
would
seek
if
you're
within
500
feet
of
another
two
family
dwelling
on
the
block
flight
block
face.
We
were
you
know
that
adds
time,
it's
it's
a
it's
technically
a
rezoning,
so
it
has
two
public
hearings
going
to
planning,
commission
and
going
to
city
council
for
that
planned
development
overlay.
H
E
Yeah,
mr
palermo,
I
think
one
of
the
comments
that
I
have
is
I
I
would
be
at
least
for
the
beginning.
I
would
be
more
inclined
to
go
with
option
one.
Just
the
reason
is,
I
think
it's
important
for
us
to
hear
from
other
residents
in
the
neighborhood
and
in
having
it
go
through.
The
planning
commission
gives
residents
notification
as
well
as
a
voice,
because
it
will
be
impacting
them
and
in
their
neighborhood
and
where
they
live
and
congregate.
So
I
I
like
option
one
just
for
that.
F
Thank
you.
It's
essentially,
I
actually
would
have
the
opposite
approach
to
commissioner
goldsman,
for
probably
the
the
same
reason
that
she
does.
I
think
this
is
the
type
of
a
two-family
home
is,
in
my
opinion,
is
very
different
than
a
multi-family,
and
but
I
do
think
there
is
a
strong
tendency.
Given
we
had
a
discussion.
F
I
know
in
the
information
of
that
long
about
notice,
notice,
distances
right
and
I
you
know
there
I
think,
there's
a
potential
for
a
strong,
not
in
my
backyard
content
contingency
to
come
out
on
these
things.
So
I
think
to
commissioner
cookton's
point
that
he's
been
making
is
public
engagement
on
on
what
actually
our
standard
be
and
then
once
we've
had
that
public
engagement
on
what
the
standards
should
be,
then
I'm
more
in
favor
of
option
two.
If
we've
done
our
due
diligence
on
getting
the
public
on
board.
D
F
We
will
have
hearings
and
we
know
how
those
are
which
again,
it's
great
to
get
the
public's
input,
but
I
think
it
then
it
becomes
it's
one
thing
if
I
come
and
speak
out
against
a
nameless,
auto
dealer
in
my
neighborhood,
it's
another
thing.
If
I
come
and
speak
out
against
someone
who
may
be
my
neighbor
for
30
years,
and
that
goes
through
anyways,
that
just
creates
a
whole
different
kind
of
a
situation.
A
Mr
palermo,
this
is
chairs
over
again
and
I
I
tend
to
agree
more
with
commissioner
roman
on
this
one
as
well.
I
think
one
of
the
things
I
think
about,
and
of
course
I
think
public
engagement
will
be
a
good
part
of
this,
but
if
we
put
a,
how
should
I
say
this
if
we
put
two
family
homes
in
a
ca
in
a
scenario
where
you
really
are
attracting
this
or
asking
for
neighbors
permission,
it
starts
to
put
kind
of
that
higher
density
discussion
for
the
city.
A
In
my
mind,
it
starts
to
say
well
see
this
is
special
and
it's
not
usual
business,
where
I
think
we
really
want
to
move
it
towards
one.
You
know
one
home
goes
in.
Nobody
says
anything
if
somebody
puts
a
two-family
home
in
and
the
lot's
a
little
bit
bigger
and
it's
you
know
it's
mom
and
dad
or
mom
and
mom
or
dad
and
dad
and
a
kid
or
two
and
what's
the
difference.
A
A
I
mean
I
have
a
hard
time
with
that,
not
not
seeing
why
that
wouldn't
be
just
an
administrative,
of
course,
public
engagement
on
the
process.
That
would
be
good
to
know,
but
I
think
that
has
to
be
part
of
the
consideration.
In
my
mind,
is
just
how
are
we
trying
to
convey
the
use
of
two-family
homes
in
our
neighborhoods
yeah.
H
Any
last
thoughts,
otherwise
we
could
possibly
do
like
you
know,
leaning,
one
way
or
another,
recognizing
that
you
know
this
would
be
a
good
one
to
really
solicit
public
engagement
in
the
other
last
thoughts.
Otherwise
we
can
do
a
hand
raise
for
option
one
if
you're
leaning
towards
option
one
raise
your
hand.
H
Now
this
gets
to
kind
of
a
media
item
the
the
cluster
development,
so
minneapolis
has
done
quite
a
actually
quite
a
bit
of
work
on
this.
They
they
adopted
an
ordinance
in
2018
that
I
thought
was
pretty
useful,
at
least
as
a
starting
point
that
we
can
out
there
for
bloomington,
because
obviously
minneapolis
tends
to
like
we
said
they
have
40-foot
lots.
H
Density
is
a
much
different.
Much
different
tolerance
than
bloomington
might
have
for
something
of
this
nature,
but
what
cluster
development-
and
someone
explained
to
me,
really
well,
that
you
know
think
of
our
manufactured
home
parks
just
on
a
smaller
scale.
Our
manufactured
home
park
requires
a
five
acre
site,
but
imagine
maybe
a
one
acre
site
or
a
half
acre
site,
and
what
that
difference
would
be.
You
know,
with
a
smaller
building
a
housing
unit.
That's
on
there.
H
H
H
But
we
would
require
buildings
to
meet
that
front
setback,
no
reason
why
we
wouldn't
continue
to
do
that,
but
maybe
a
little
less
on
the
rear
setback.
We
have
a
you
know:
30
foot,
rear
setback,
but
and
then
limitation
on
drawing
units
minneapolis
has
they
can't
have
two
more
than
two
dwelling
units
in
a
structure
which
I
thought
works,
I'm
not
sure
that
we
would
even
get
more
than
just
one
going
unit
infrastructure.
H
Minimum
building
occupancy
requirements
is
subject
to
building
code.
We
would
just
follow
the
building
code
on
what
that
occupancy
requirement.
Is
we
don't
need
to
get
into
that?
There
would
be
a
management
plan,
like
I
said,
there's
usually
a
common
owner
for
these
that
manage
manager
for
this,
and
they
would
have
things
like
sleepiness
emergency
exits,
all
sorts
of
different
things,
crime,
prevention
strategies
with
environmental
design,
so
design
the
property
that
would
encourage
crime
prevention
and
then
having
storage.
D
H
D
H
It
is
there
are,
there
are
some
advantages
to
doing
developing
like
this
versus
a
typical
apartment,
and
that's
really
where
we
would
talk
about.
What
is
that
acceptable
number
of
units
that
we
would
allow?
You
know,
typically
with
an
apartment
we
we,
we
might
not
allow
that
level
of
density
so
that
that
is
part
of
the
discussion.
I
think
that
that's
important
does
that
make
sense.
We
would.
D
So
I
guess,
without
getting
too
deep
into
the
merits
of
cluster
development
or
not
or
whatever,
I'm
having
a
little
hard
time
computing,
the
difference
between
apartments
and
clusters,
housing,
and
maybe
that
means
we
should
allow
apartments
in
r1,
or
maybe
that
means
we
shouldn't
allow
clusters
in
r1.
I
don't
really
know
where
I'm
at
I.
I
don't
mean
to
open
up
a
whole
new
can
of
worms
here,
and
I
think
I
should
just
let
you
continue.
H
L
H
That
is
a
lot
that
is
a
lot
of
these
models
are
usually
homeless
veterans
that
are,
you
know,
transitioning
into
that
more
stable
housing.
You
know,
as
we
said,
with
those
health
factors,
you
know
stable.
Housing
is
an
important
part
of
establishing
a
healthy
lifestyle.
Those
social
determinants
of
health
and
part
of
that
you
know
differences
apart,
you
can
see
here
in
this
image.
You
know
you
have
a
little
front
area
for
a
garden,
something
the
ownership
of
that
you
don't
necessarily
always
have
with
an
apartment.
L
H
Thank
you,
yeah,
and
so
that's
the
benefit.
You
know
it's
helping
populations
have
that
stable
housing
access
those
benefits.
It
is
more
affordable,
housing
options.
For
you
know,
meeting
different
needs
for
different
people.
You
know
it's
a
high
utilization
of
land,
but
there
are
it's
not
without
other
impact.
There
are
more
people
living
there
higher
traffic.
H
H
A
A
A
I
think
a
big
part
of
it
depends
upon
well
and
it
again
go
back
to
our
standard
80
by
whatever
130
how
many
units
would
be
allowed.
What
sort
of
amenities
are
around?
Is
it
around
high
density,
high
traffic
transit,
or
is
it
in
the
middle
of
you
know
single-family
homes
in
the
middle
of
the
city,
with
no
amenities
around?
A
I
think
you
get
different
thoughts
on
on
how
that
could
work
so,
but
I
think
just
initially
to
think
about
it
and
allowing
at
least
the
idea
to
continue
to
be
developed
whether
it
moves
forward
or
not.
I
I
don't
know
why
you
would
require
a
larger
lot.
It
would
be
more
about
maybe
the
number
of
units
you
would
require
on
any
given
property
size
whatever.
So
thank
you.
H
I
Thank
you.
I
agree
with
the
I
with
what
chair
had
said
there
about
the
lot
size
like.
I
don't
see
why
that
would
matter.
It
would
be
more
that,
with
that
conditional
use
permit
of
how
many
we
would
allow
on
a
specific
lot
size,
as
I
said
in
our
last
meeting,
I'm
a
big
supporter
of
this
just
because
it's
it's
progressive
and
multi
in
in
and
affects
multi-generations.
I
This
is
I've
seen
this
used
in
other
states
and
other
counties
and
and
things
like
that
and
and
seeing
how
multi-generations
go
to
these
these
clusters
together,
and
so
you
have
a
younger
generation
with
an
older
generation.
You
have
homeless
mixed
with.
You
know
the
working
class
and
I
just
think
it's
it.
It
integrates
community
and
it's
exactly
what
I
think
bloomington
is
is
talking
about
inclusiveness
and
all
that.
I
I
think
that
that's
really
part
of
our
you
know
fundamentals,
and
I
just
I
would
really
like
this-
and
I
said
this
at
the
last
thing.
This
really
excites
me
that
you
guys
went
here
and
went
to
this,
because
I
think
this
is
really
forward
thinking
and
I
think
it's
something
we
really
need
to
look
at
going
forward,
but
I
think
lot
size
wise.
I
don't
think
that
again
with
that
conditional
use
permit,
I
think
that
it
just
depends
on
how
many
are
on
a
lot,
but
so
thank
you
for
this
hard
work
on
this.
H
H
H
H
And
then
this
is
another
one
to
you
know
looking
at
parking
some
of
these,
they
don't
have
any
parking.
I
think
minneapolis
doesn't
require
any
parking
well,
they
require
bike
parking,
but
no
vehicle
parking.
So
I
I
don't
think
bloomington
as
we've
discussed
and
this
kind
of
will
lead
into
our
discussion
too,
but
it's
still
fairly
card
dependent,
but
we
do
have
other
parking
standards
that
are
different
than
our
single
family,
so
for
manufactured
home
park
required
two
spaces
per
unit
cronkite
living.
We
only
require
one
space
per
bedroom.
A
I
think
this
one
again
chair
solberg
here
again
really
depends
upon
how
close
you
are
to
transit
or
other
options,
and
not
that
everybody
uses
transit
that
might
live
in
this
facility.
They,
you
know,
if
they're
working
somewhere
on
the
other
side
of
the
city,
that's
not
accessible,
that
they,
they
may
need
the
car.
A
We
got
an
awful
lot
of
space
on
our
city,
streets
and,
and
I
get
we
have
an
occasional
snow
emergency,
but
maybe
that's.
We
can
allow
something
parking
on
one
side
one
day
or
you
know
we
can
make
other
things
available
to
make
this
so
that
we're
not
requiring
parking
spaces
in
front
of
these
facilities
that
might
very
well
sit
empty
or
I
can
imagine,
as
a
conditional
use,
comes
forward
and
you're
again
in
a
maybe
a
residential
neighborhood.
H
So
that
leads
into
our
these
were
kind
of
items
that
we,
I
didn't,
have
quite
a
strong
of
direction
in,
but
we
kind
of
talked
about
at
the
last
meeting,
but
hopefully
to
get
a
little
more
firm
on
a
recommendation.
So
we
talked
about
the
two-car
garage
requirement
and
minimum
parking
requirement.
You
know
for
a
single
family
and
two
family
required
four
spaces
per
unit,
two
of
which
fully
enclosed
and
carports
are
not
considered
fully
enclosed.
H
This
kind
of
relates
back
to
impervious
surface.
You
know
we
talked
about
this
a
little
bit
earlier
with
the
smaller
lot
size.
What
does
that
mean?
If
you
have
two
parking
spots,
you
add
another
200
square
feet
per
second
stall
in
your
garage,
another
300
square
feet
for
a
driveway
you're,
adding
impervious
surface.
You
know
500
square
feet
right
there
and
as
we're,
these
two
are
kind
of
converging.
H
H
So
really
I
mean
we've
talked
about
before
you
know
the
advantages
of
having
some
storage.
You
know
people
don't
always
park
in
their
garage.
So
having
that
outside
space
parking
spot
is
helpful.
Sometimes
they
just
utilize
their
garage
for
storage.
If
we
don't
have
that
storage,
sometimes
it
spills
out
into
you
know
outside
exterior,
and
you
know,
then
it
becomes
an
enforcement
issue,
for
you
know,
people
storing
stuff.
So
really
we
kind
of
saw
a
couple
options
here
to
kind
of
move
forward.
One
is
no
change.
H
H
Maybe
reduce
that
requirement,
but
have
a
requirement
that
you
have
space
for
expansion,
so
maybe
you're
not
building
it
up
front.
But
you
have
that
ability
to
add
on
later
when
you
need
it,
or
maybe
it's
kind
of
some
middle
ground
where
you
have
a
one
and
a
half
car
garage
so
recognizing
that
people
still
need
storage
space
and
it
kind
of
at
least
provides
that
extra
storage
space
in
the
garage.
H
H
H
A
I
Thanks
for
someone
in
bloomington
that
has
a
one
car
garage
and
one
car
garage
is
just
fine.
I
don't
think
that
you
have
to
have
a
two
car.
I
agree.
It
does
also
increase
the
price,
so
it
does
kind
of
hit
that
affordability
point
too.
So
I'm
fine
with
just
a
one
car.
We
have
a
driveway
that
can
you
know,
surprise
for
the
rest
of
it.
So.
G
Thank
you.
I
I
lived
in
my
home
for
20
some
years
with
a
one
car
garage
and
it
is
very
workable.
Ultimately,
I
change
that,
but
I
think
it's
very
workable.
It
provides
for
one
space
for
a
vehicle.
We
would
often
figure
out
who
had
to
go
to
work
on
the
evening
of
the
first.
The
morning
after
a
snowstorm.
H
Okay,
I
think
this
might
be.
My
last
item
is
prevailing
setback
and
I
don't
think
we
didn't
get
to
this
in
the
last
meeting.
This
was
kind
of
in
that
operational
efficiency
section.
This
is
something
that
we
require
homes
that
are
next
to
existing
homes
that
were
built
betw
before
1974
october,
7th
1974
that
you
you.
We
have
this
prevailing
setback.
Essentially
you
have
to
meet
the
average
of
the
two
abutting
homes
here
allowed
a
five
foot.
H
Leeway
that
you
can
get
a
little
bit
closer,
but
you
know
it's
it's
something
we
have
to
calculate
it's
not
too
hard
to
calculate,
but
it
is
another
step
and
often
requires
a
survey
to
confirm
the
neighbors.
Sometimes
if
you
are
looking
there
is
some
kind
of
this
is
kind
of
the
example
just
trying
to
find
one
in
the
existing.
But
you
know
it's
finding
a
needle
in
a
haystack
with
their
thirty
thousand
single
family
lot.
H
So
essentially
here's
your
existing
home,
here's
another
one
that
just
happens
to
be
set
back
further
and
here's
another
one.
The
same
block
face
well,
this
one
would
have
to
be
kind
of
in
the
middle,
and
essentially
you
get
a
smaller
backyard,
because
this
person's
house
happened
to
be
back
further.
H
The
other
would
be
to
extend
that
out.
So
part
of
the
issue
is
that
we
just
do
the
budding
lots.
Well,
if
the
rest
of
those
blocks
on
that
face
are
also
at
30
feet,
then
if
you
took
that
average
out
over
you
know
100
feet,
then
it's
not
an
issue.
You
really
are
keeping
with
that
neighborhood
character
and
it's
not
uncommon
to
do
that.
I've
worked
for
cities
that
do
that.
That
would
take
the
rest
of
the
houses
on
the
block
and
come
up
with
the
block
average.
H
So
that
would
be
one
way
to
prevent
that
issue
where
you
have
that
one-off
house,
that
just
happened
to
be
set
back
further
or
the
third
option
would
be
just
utilize.
One
standard
30
feet
kind
of
our
standard.
If
you
don't
hit
that
1974
threshold,
it's
you
know
simple,
it's
clear!
It's
30
feet!
Potentially
you
can
change
that
if
we
need
to,
but
I
think
30
feet
is
kind
of
where
we've
set
on
or
option
four
would
be
not
to
change
it.
H
H
H
H
G
A
H
H
H
H
Multi-Family
parking,
so
this
one
I'll
kind
of
go
a
little
more
quickly,
probably
a
little
less
discussion
on
some
of
these,
but
so
hopefully,
it'll
be
a
little
more
straightforward.
But
you
know
we
were
reviewing
our
multi-family
parking
standard
kind
of
a
couple
of
different
goals
with
that
review
is
once
just
simplify.
What
that
standard
is
make
it
easy
and
easy
to
calculate.
You
know
right
size,
our
approach,
understanding
that
most
of
our
projects
have
some
sort
of
flexibility
or
reduction
in
minimum
parking,
but
and
also
continue
to
provide
flexibility.
H
You
know
we
want
to
simplify
it,
but
we
also
want
to
understand
that
different
circumstances
have
different
needs.
So
our
existing
code,
we
are,
we
do
a
per
bedroom
calculation,
so
for
one
bedroom
units
get
1.8
spaces
per
dwelling
unit.
Two
bedrooms
are
3,
bedroom
has
2.6
spaces
and
I
don't
think
we
have
any
four
bedrooms
in
bloomington
right
now.
I'm
just
getting
cut
off
for
some
reason:
apologize
yeah
it
is,
but
we
also
have
a
party
room
requirement
or
if
I
do
this
will
work.
B
H
H
Furthermore,
if
you're
in
a
designated
transit
area,
that's
what
cta
stands
for,
you
can
access
even
more
reduction,
but
we
have
other
flexibility
measures
that
people
utilize
proof
of
parking,
so
you
don't
actually
have
to
build
it,
but
you
have
to
provide
that
space
if
later
that
demand
warrants
it
shared
parking,
maybe
you're
next
to
an
office
building
or
a
complimentary
use.
You
know
where
people
are
at
home,
usually
typically
in
the
typically
outside
of
a
pandemic
in
the
evening
and
going
to
the
office
during
the
day.
H
Or
you
know
you
share
parking
understanding
that
you
have
different
peak
demands.
Travel
demand
management
plans.
These
are
plans
that
are
kind
of
where
the
managers,
property
managers
do
things
to
encourage
transit,
use
and
other
mitigation,
essentially
to
reduce
that
parking
requirement
could
be
through
transit,
pass
productions
or
other
items
and
then
enhance
leakages
to
mass
transit.
H
H
So
the
first
goal
you
know
simplify
the
code.
It's
not
complicated,
necessarily
to
calculate
with
that
bedroom
count.
It
is
you
know
more
precise.
It's
understanding
that
the
more
bedrooms
you
have,
the
more
likelihood
you
have
people
who
are
driving,
but
it
can
impact
design.
So
it's
not
hard
necessarily
to
calculate,
but
we
know
that
even
up
to
planning
commissioner
city
council,
you
know
we're
talking
about
potential
changes
and
changes
night
unit
mix.
Maybe
they
are
moving.
H
Maybe
they
can
squeeze
a
couple
more
one
bedrooms
or
two
bedrooms,
and
then
that
changes
the
parking
calculations,
so
it
can,
it
can
be
impactful.
We
have
that
happen
where
sometimes
it
changes
last
minute
and
so
doing
a
per
unit
might
be
more
helpful
in
kind
of
in
that
design
work,
it's
pretty
uncommon
in
the
metro,
recent
region.
You
know
it's
not
unique.
You
know
some
cities
do
this.
H
Shakopee
has
a
per
bedroom,
but
our
12
cities
that
I
look
at
usually
proximity
and
similarity
shock
fee
was
the
only
one
that
had
that
most
used
every
other
one
uses
a
per
unit
requirement.
But
what
is
unique
to
bloomington
is
our
party
room
requirement.
Some,
you
know.
The
point
of
the
party
room
requirement
is
understanding
that
it's
utilized
for
kind
of
parties,
and
that
means
outside
guests
coming
and
to
accommodate
those
extra
guests,
some
communities
they
have
required
guest
parking,
but
a
lot
of
times
it's
just
baked
into
what
that
demand
is.
H
H
H
A
H
A
H
Yeah,
go
ahead,
might
just
push
back
that
it's
not
going
to
be
a
huge
difference
between
you
know,
you're
thinking,
I'm
just
trying
to
think
of
a
quick
example.
If
you
have
a
200
unit
building
and
then
right
now
we
have
a
difference
of
0.4
spaces
and
there's
shifting
you
know,
part
of
it
is
just
honing
in
on
that
number,
that's
going
to
be
more
adequate,
I
mean
the
reality
is
most
of
our
projects
are
one
and
two
bedrooms.
So
it's
it's
not
going
to
be
a
huge
shift,
but
there
is
differences.
H
I
think
we
want
to
acknowledge
that
there
is
a
difference
and
you
know
we
don't
get.
We
might
get
more
three-bedroom
units
that
it
could
advantage
them.
You
know
right
now.
We
would
require
more
for
a
three
bedroom
unit
and
and
if
we
get
more
three
bedroom
units,
this
would
be
better.
So
maybe
it
ends
up
being
a
wash
or
you
know
it.
I
would
say
it's
probably
not
a
huge
difference,
but
it
is
there.
H
G
H
D
D
H
H
H
E
H
It's
a
good
question
that
kind
of
leads
into
the
next
section,
which
is
what
that
number
would
be.
So
I
think
that's
that
that's
kind
of
the
the
point
we
need
to
have
that
right.
Number
right
would
we
have
more
deviations
or
what
level
would
those
deviations
be
that
we'd
be
comfortable
with
so
I'll,
just
kind
of
use
that
as
a
good
segue
into
the
next
section,
so
on
average,
what's
been
approved
for
the
last
10
years,
I'm
looking
at
actual
requirement
to
come
up
with
that
per
unit.
H
H
I
have
an
asterisk
here
because
at
1.7
is
for
mixed
use,
so
they
can
get
a
little
bit
lower
and
in
fact,
they're
in
the
process
of
studying
their
requirements
too,
for
lowering
that
so
I
suspect
they'll
probably
get
a
little
bit
lower
than
they
are
today,
and
you
know
most
of
the
difficult
part
with
this
comparison
is
most
of
these
communities
have
similar
similar
flexibility
measures
as
us.
You
know
we
require
this
bedroom
count
but
in
reality
we're
at
1.6
right.
H
H
We
know
that
the
the
garage
space
is
included
and
some
have
provided
what
that
garage
utilization
is
and
really
from
the
the
property
that
is
able
to
do
parking
concept.
We
were
really
closer
to
that
1.5
spaces
per
unit.
Now
we
wouldn't
necessarily
want
to
go
to
that
level.
I'm
recommending
here
1.8
so
part
of
why
we
don't
want
to
go
to
1.45.
H
Is
that
that's
what
I
what
I
saw
now?
We
want
some
a
little
bit
of
that
buffer
room,
one
for
guests
and
understanding
that
that's
a
point
in
time.
I
plan
to
go
out
and
do
some
more
parking
accounts
just
to
confirm
that,
but
talking
with
property
managers
that
seems
to
be
about
what
the
rate
is,
but
you
want
to
people
do
perceive
a
full
lot,
even
if
there
are
spaces
open.
So
if
they
say
about
90
95,
full
people
will
perceive
it
as
100
full
and
won't
be
able
to
find
their
spot.
H
So
you
want
to
build
in
that
extra
kind
of
parking,
just
understanding
that
and
then,
but
again
it
is
our
existing
demand
versus
future
demand,
as
we
think
maybe
bloomington
develops,
more
high
frequency
transit
becomes
more
ride.
Hill
becomes
more
popular
other
factors
that
might
reduce
our
total
parking
demand.
So
taking
that
into
factor
and
understanding
that
we
have
these
flexibility
options
and
the
oho.
So
the
ohl
is
the
big
one
where
these
are
kind
of
more
baked.
H
In
so
understanding
that
we
reduce,
if
we
reduce
our
number,
it
can
influence
how
affordable
housing
projects
that
we
get.
You
know
if
it
is
less
of
a
barrier.
You
might
see
some
more
fee
and
blue
projects
that
they
find
that
you
know
less
expensive
parking
is
a
major
expense,
so
they
don't
need
if
there's
less
parking
requirement,
there's
less
cost
associated
with
that
parking.
They
might
find
that
bmw
option
more
attractive,
and
that
is
a
bigger
policy
discussion.
H
H
Usually
it's
one
space
per
unit,
a
few
don't
st
louis
park
golden
valley,
shock
p,
for
example,
but
you
know
we
do
have
these
flexibility
measures
in
the
opportunity.
Housing
ordinance
to
reduce
that
requirement.
Window
flats
went
a
little
bit
lower
than
that.
So
that
is
another
kind
of
tool
where
you
can
reduce
that
number
if
needed,
but
it
is
really
highly
utilized
talking
to
the
met.
It
is
one
of
these
things
where
you
talk
to
the
management
company
versus
the
developer.
H
The
developer
obviously
would
like
to
not
have
that
covered
parking
requirement,
because
it's
more
costly
to
develop,
but
the
management
company
loved
it,
because
people
really
utilize
the
garage.
It's
great,
you
know
to
have
a
spot
to
put
not
only
your
vehicle.
Most
of
these
spaces
now
have
a
bike
rack
in
there
and
viewing
the
couple
garages
that
I
got
to
go
see
of
the
bike.
Racks
were
filled
up,
so
the
spots
put
your
bike
or
other
couple.
You
know
belongings,
there,
a
little
extra
storage,
so
it's
highly
utilized
in
minnesota
winter.
H
D
D
I
L
D
Much
parking
and
if
you
were
really
nice
and
attentive
and
looked
over
my
shoulder
here,
you'd
see
an
empty
parking
ramp
across
the
street.
That
is
never
full
on
the
top,
because
we've
we've
asked
for
too
much
parking,
and
so
I'm
big
time
in
favor
of
reducing
this,
but
I
also
think
it
helps
accomplish
sustainability
goals.
Tara
solberg
probably
knows
this
as
well
as
I
do
that
cement
is
terrible
for
the
environments.
It's
one
of
the
worst
polluters
of
the
the
construction
industry.
D
The
development
industry
is
very
aware
of
it
and
we're
trying
to
do
the
best
we
can
and
the
best
way
to
not
do
not
pollute
is
to
not
use
it
right.
So
getting
rid
of
some
of
that
parking
is
also
good
to
accomplish
sustainability
goals.
I
do
think
we
need
to
be
careful,
especially
in
particular
locations
where
there
is
no
on
street
parking,
and
so
we
got
to
be
you
know,
and
maybe
it's
I
was
trying
to
think
a
little
bit.
Could
we
be
more
aggressive
in
some
areas
than
the
others?
D
D
You
know
old
shakopee
in
france
and
they
ran
out
of
parking.
I
just
parked
on
the
street
somewhere,
and
so
maybe
it's
the
development
districts
are
a
little
bit
more
cautious
about
being
aggressive
with
the
parking
reduction
but
outside
of
those
development,
districts
you're
a
little
more
aggressive
and
man
they'll
find
a
street
spot.
I
don't
know,
but
those
are
my
thoughts.
A
A
With
these
types
of
facilities,
yeah
and
commissioner
cook
dunn's
right,
we
we
have
a
ton
of
parking
that
goes
unutilized,
but
I
think
we
got
to
look
at
it
strategically
and
and
where
we,
where
we
require
it
and
really,
but
then
the
other
side
of
me
goes
well.
If
the
developers
say
that's
the
number
and
people
move
into
a
facility,
knowing
that's
the
number,
maybe
that's,
okay,
I
don't
know
so
I'll
leave
my
comments
at
that.
H
H
H
We
kind
of
had
that
50
percent
number,
if
you
think
2.0,
was
kind
of
what
we
were
proving
and
50
gets
you
to
one
space
per
unit,
so
kind
of
adjust
those
as
we
kind
of
appropriately,
but
also
thinking
about
our
transit.
You
know
we
just
had
the
orange
line
open
in
december.
The
d-line
is
under
construction.
H
H
I
think
every
at
least
every
hour
weekdays
and
some
weekend
service
and
understanding
that
these
operate
much
more
frequently
and
are
at
six
stations,
so
the
stations
aren't
moving
as
with
the
bus.
Stop.
That
kind
of
this
changes
a
little
bit
here
and
there
and
as
metro
transit,
is
adjusting
their
routes
in
the
near
future.
F
Yeah,
I
think
in
your
pink
spots,
your
station
areas.
Yes,
I
think
I'll
be
a
little
bit
blunt
on
this
metro
transit's
been
a
little
bit
of
an
unreliable
partner
in
the
orange
areas,
so
to
make
permanent
development
concessions
in
an
area
where
we
have
not
been
able
to
rely
on
stable
transit,
I
would
be
comfortable
in
the
pink
areas.
I
would
be
less
comfortable
in
the
orange.
H
That
is
what
I
had
for
tonight.
I
thanks
for
listening
to
me
for
quite
a
while
here,
but
like
this
will
go
to
a
study
session
as
well
with
council
just
to
get
their
they'll
get
probably
a
similar
presentation,
and
once
we
get
their
confirmation,
we'll
kind
of
bring
it
back
for
an
ordinance
shortly
after
that,
like
I
said
I'll,
probably
do
a
couple
more
traffic
counts
just
to
make
sure
that
these
numbers
make
sense,
but
we've
been
talking
with
developer
developers
and
with
property
managers,
and
they
they
they
agree.
A
L
G
K
A
All
right,
so
the
meeting
is
adjourned
for
hra.
Thank
you
all
right
for
planning,
commission.
We
have
two
items
here
left
in
front
of
us
and
that's
the
first
one
being
consider
approval
of
the
draft
planning
commission
synopsis,
and
I
would
just
like
to
note
that
the
motion
in
the
packet
is
for
october
14th
december,
2nd
and
december
16th
planning,
commission
synopsis
and
for
those
that
are
wondering
on
october
14th,
commissioner
corman
and
commissioner
albrecht
were
absent
on
december,
2nd
all
were
in
attendance
and
december
16th.
A
Commissioner
albrecht
was
absent
as
well
with
that
commission
members.
I
would
make
a
motion
to
move
the
draft
planning
commission
meeting
synopsis
of
october
14th
second
and
december
16th
21
2021
is
presented
well,
it
does
want
a
separate
motion
darn
you.
You
got
me
on
that
one,
mr
marker
guard,
so
I
I
will
move
for
the
october
14th
planning
commission
synopsis
as
presented.
A
Is
there
a
second
commissioner
goldsman
hi
all
right,
commission
members,
we
have
a
motion
in
a
second
in
front
of
us
to
approve
the
draft
planning
commission
synopsis
for
the
october
14th
2021
planning
commission,
as
presented
all
any
discussion,
not
seeing
any
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
by
roll
call.
Commissioner
goldsman
aye,
commissioner
roman
aye,
commissioner
albrecht.
L
A
E
A
E
A
F
A
E
A
B
Sure,
mr
chairman,
commissioners,
I
want
to
start
by
introducing
you
to
our
newest
staff
member
kevin
tosky.
He
is
here,
he's
been
with
us
all
evening.
Tonight,
he's
was
hired
on
monday
as
assistant
city
attorney
and
he's
taking
the
spot
most
recently
occupied
by
megan
rogers,
who
you've
worked
with
a
lot
and
you'll
be
working
in
the
future.
B
D
D
A
B
Yeah,
so
looking
forward
to
our
next
two
meetings
january
13th,
one
week
from
tonight,
we
have
three
items
left
on
the
agenda.
However,
one
will
be
requesting
a
continuance
so
effectively
two
items
for
discussion.
One
is
a
new
instructional
center
on
gerard
avenue,
96th
and
gerard,
and
the
other
is
a
new
cultural
campus
at
1701
american
boulevard.