►
Description
Planning Commission/HRA Commission Concurrent Meeting
Items 1-3 Planning Commission Meeting
Items 4-7 Concurrent Meeting of Planning Commission/HRA Commission
A
A
Good
evening
and
welcome
to
the
october
28
2021
planning
commission
meeting,
the
planning
commission
advises
the
city
council
on
development
standards,
development
proposals,
long-range
planning
and
transportation
issues.
Some
of
the
items
the
planning
commission
has
final
decision
authority
and
others
the
planning
or
the
city
council
will
make.
The
final
decision
planning
commission
is
made
up
of
seven
volunteer
members
from
the
community
appointed
for
up
to
three
years
at
a
time
for
a
maximum
of
six
years.
A
C
A
D
E
A
All
right,
thank
you,
mr
marker
guard.
With
that
we'll
move
on
to
item
number
one,
which
was
the
southtown
redevelopment
proposal
and
commission
members,
we
did
receive
a
request
from
the
applicant
to
continue
that
item
until
the
november
18th
planning
commission
meeting.
So
at
this
point
I
would
entertain
a
motion.
Commissioner,
roman,
mr.
A
All
right,
commission
members,
we
have
a
motion.
Is
there
a
second?
Thank
you
all
right,
commissioner
corman.
Thank
you
all
right
planning,
commission
members.
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
in
front
of
us
to
continue
pl
202118
to
the
november
18th
planning
commission
meeting
any
further
discussion
on
that
item.
Not
seeing
any
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye.
D
A
F
Thank
you,
chair
solberg,
good
evening,
members
of
the
planning
commission.
I
have
a
type
3
preliminary
and
final
plot
for
you
this
evening.
It's
a
one
to
two
residential
lot
split.
The
property
is
located
at
4301
overlooked,
drive
it's
just
to
the
west
of
france
avenue
down
on
overlook
down
just
north
of
coleman
lake,
the
minnesota
river.
F
These
lots
far
exceed
the
minimum
lot
area
requirements
in
our
r1
single
family
zoning
district.
So
no
issue
there,
all
the
structure
setbacks
to
the
existing
home.
That
would
be
retained.
On
the
eastern
lot,
all
the
structure
setbacks
meet
code,
the
there's
no
current
plan
for
disturbance
or
a
new
single
family
dwelling.
At
this
time.
This
is
being
done
by
the
current
owner
to
sell
the
western
lot
to
a
different
party
at
a
future
date.
F
The
only
issue
I'll
bring
up
here
is
that
there
is
a
currently
a
non-conforming
setback
to
the
retaining
wall
at
the
southwest
corner
of
the
house.
As
you
can
see
in
kind
of
the
central
portion
of
the
slide,
so
they
will
have
to
adjust
that
interior
lot
line
just
slightly
in
order
to
meet
that
setback
requirement.
F
This
is
the
final
plat
document,
pretty
straightforward,
they're,
providing
the
necessary
and
minimum
required
drainage
and
utility
easements
again
just
splitting
it
into
two
sites,
just
touch
on
a
couple
things.
Our
code
does
require
sidewalks
for
new
residential
subdivisions,
although
it
does
give
the
council
the
authority
to
waive
that
requirement
when
it
doesn't
connect
to
an
existing
public
sidewalk,
which
is
the
case
here.
Staff
is
supportive
of
this
approach
in
in
this
case
of
that
approach.
In
this
case,
rather
the
applicant
be
required
to
pay
a
park
dedication
fee
for
another
residential
unit.
F
The
site
is
subject
to
tree
preservation,
ordinance,
which
requires
it's
it's
valid
for
a
two
year
period
following
a
recording
of
the
plot,
so
they
have
to
track
any
tree.
Removal
during
that
time
would
need
to
be
consulted
with
the
the
city
forester.
F
Both
properties
and
the
existing
property
are
also
subject
to
the
bluff
protection
overlay.
Zoning
district,
which
includes
some
additional
restrictions
and
protections
for
tree
removal,
grading
other
activity
below
a
certain
contour
kind
of
just
south
of
the
house,
and
there
is
the
possibility
that
some
of
the
utility
service
lines
that
would
serve
a
future
home
on
the
western
lot
could
cross
each
other's
properties
a
little
bit.
F
If
that's
the
case,
that'll
be
addressed
at
the
time
of
future
home
construction,
but
the
property
would
be
well
advised
to
enter
into
a
private
utility
agreement
just
to
give
both
houses
the
right
to
maintain
those
systems,
and
we
did
receive
one
email
prior
to
publication
of
the
packet.
It
was
supportive
of
the
application.
The
second
email
we
received
earlier
this
week
did
note
concern
about
tree
removal.
F
A
B
F
D
Yeah,
mr
chair,
commissioner,
roman,
we
don't
have
anything
okay,
we're
currently
working
on
the
2022
work
plan.
So
that's
something
the
planning
commission
is
interested
in.
You
could
definitely
bring
it
up.
No.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
mr
johnson.
The
park
dedication
fee.
Do
we
differentiate
between
commercial
tenants
versus
private
homeowners?
Is
there
are
we
being
overly
burdensome
on
a
private
homeowner
versus
a
commercial
entity.
F
Yeah
chairman,
commissioner
cookdown,
there
is
a
different
rate,
so
they
pay
a
different
fee.
If
you're
doing
a
commercial
development
you'd
likely
be
paying
a
higher
rate
than
a
single
family
dwelling.
Although
multi-family,
if
you're
doing
a
lot
of
units,
then
you'll
be
paying
a
much
higher
fee.
So
it's
hard
to
do
an
equivalency,
but
a
residential
unit
is
paying
a
higher
rate
per
unit
than
a
commercial
use,
because
that
generates
more
park.
F
Use
than
a
commercial
land
use
does,
but
a
single
family
home
the
and
the
the
assessing
division
is
the
one
who
collects
that
fee
and
tracks
it.
But
it's
it's
approximately
fifty
six
hundred
dollars
per
dwelling
unit
for
a
one
park
for
one
park
fee
for
a
house.
A
G
Mr,
could
you
bring
up
the
overview
of
the
map
with
the
property,
so
one
of
the
questions
I
have.
C
G
Thank
you.
One
of
the
questions
I
have
is
you
know
with
the
division
of
these
to
or
this
property
into
two
thinking
about.
You
know
the
width
and
the
setback
requirements
of
of
both
properties,
with
the
property
being
so
narrow,
whether
it
be
any
concerns
about
building
another
home
on
the
property,
either
from
what
we're
seeing
here,
east
to
west
or
even
north,
to
south.
F
Yeah
chair
commissioner
goldsmith
there
it'll
they'll
certainly
will
be
an
adequate
building
pad
I
mean
over
90.
Feet
is
wider
than
a
lot
of
the
lots
in
bloomington,
so
they
certainly
will
have
an
adequate
building
pad
they'll
just
have
to
meet
those
setback,
requirements.
A
All
right
any
further
comments
or
questions
for
staff
on
this
item.
All
right,
not
seeing
any.
Thank
you,
mr
johnson.
Mr
sunny,
would
you
like
to
speak
to
the
item
at
all
before
we
open
the
public
hearing?
A
Okay.
Thank
you
all
right
at
this
point,
we'll
open
the
public
hearing
on
this
item
and
mr
mark
regard.
Do
we
have
anybody
online
that
would
like
to
speak
to
this
item.
D
E
A
All
right,
commission
members,
seeing
nobody
in
the
facility
here
tonight
nor
online
to
entertain
a
motion
to
close
public
hearing
go
ahead.
Commissioner,.
A
All
right,
commissioner,
albrecht
has
motioned
to
close
public
hearing.
Is
there
a
second?
Second
all
right,
commissioner
goldsmith
we've
got
a
second
all
right.
Commission
members,
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
in
front
of
us
close
the
public
hearing.
Is
there
any
further
discussion
on
that?
Not
seeing
any
all
those
in
favor,
say:
aye
aye
all
right
motion
carries
public
hearing
is
now
closed
on
this
item,
discussion
planning,
commission
members,
I'll
just
throw
in
my
two
cents.
I
I
walk
by
this.
Quite
often
it's
pretty
close
to
my
house.
A
G
A
All
right,
thank
you,
commissioner
goltzman
all
right.
Commission
members,
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
in
front
of
us
to
recommend
approval
of
a
preliminary
and
final
plot
of
rossini
edition.
Splitting
one
single
family
residential
lot
located
at
4301
overlooked,
drive
into
two
lots
subject
to
the
conditions
and
code
requirements
attached
to
the
staff
report.
Is
there
any
further
discussion
on
this
item
not
seeing
any
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye
hi.
A
Any
opposed
motion
carries
that
moves
forward
to
city
council
november
8th
on
the
consent
agenda.
Moving
on
to
item
number
three,
which
is
code
amendment
for
high
density
motor
vehicle
sales,
mr
johnson.
F
F
It's
really
fast
for
you,
oh
yeah,
item
three
is
a
privately
initiated
city
code
amendment
submitted
by
united
properties.
They
seek
to
create
a
new
use
designation
and
make
it
a
permitted
use
in
two
of
our
commercial
zoning
districts.
F
The
privately
initiated
city
code
amendment
would
create
the
use,
motor
vehicle
sales,
high
density
and
it
would
designate
this
use
as
a
permitted
use
in
c1
and
c3,
which
is
two
of
our
freeway-oriented
commercial
zoning
districts.
United
properties
is
seeking
to
create
a
high-density
motor
vehicle
sales
facility
somewhere
in
bloomington.
F
There
was
some
conflicting
information
in
the
staff
report
which
referenced
a
prior
version
of
the
applicants,
requested
city
ordinance
as
it
pertains
specifically
to
repair,
but
the
correct
version
is
here
on
the
screen
before
you
and
was
correct
in
the
ordinance
within
the
packet,
but
it
says
the
sale
brokering,
I
believe
it's
resale
hold
on,
or
lease
of
new
or
used
motor
vehicles
in
a
multi-level,
fully
enclosed
structure
on
the
site,
with
a
flurry
ratio
of
0.6
or
higher,
where
vehicles
for
sale,
resale
or
lease
are
stored
and
displayed
within
a
completely
enclosed
building
on
the
premises
of
the
business,
except
for
30,
more
motor
vehicles
that
may
be
stored
or
displayed
outdoors.
F
The
use
may
also
include
minor
vehicle
repair,
limited
to
25
percent
of
total
floor
area.
No
more
than
three
overhead
service
doors
may
be
visible
from
a
public
street
with
no
more
than
two
overhead
service
doors
within
50
feet
of
each
other.
All
component
uses
require
parking
in
accordance
with
the
city
code,
section
pertaining
to
off-street
parking.
So
I
just
want
to
highlight
a
couple
things
here.
One
is
that
it
has
to
be
a
multi-level,
fully
enclosed
structure.
That's
a
critical
feature
of
this
use.
F
Although
I
want
to
highlight
that
it
is
limited
to
minor
vehicle
repair,
so
repair
in
our
code
is
broken
up
into
what
types
of
repair
activities
you
do.
Major
repair
includes
large
or
more
intense
engine
work
as
well
as
auto
body.
Repair
minor
repair
includes
the
majority
of
other
activities.
The
auto
body
and
the
major
engine
repair
would
not
be
allowed
within
this
facility
and
then
there's
also
some
restrictions
about
the
aspect
of
the
repair,
specifically
to
the
amount
of
floor
area
and
the
amount
of
overhead
service
doors.
F
One
second
here:
okay,
so
our
city
code
currently
has
five
types
of
motor
vehicle
repair.
They're
listed
there
on
the
screen,
the
the
type
that
is
most
similar
to
what
is
being
proposed
here
before
you
this
evening.
A
sixth
type
is
the
motor
vehicle
sales,
enclosed
use.
At
that
time,
that
was
created
in
2006
when
the
city
was
getting
a
lot
of
motor
vehicle
sales
facilities
in
the
the
city
and
the
city.
Glenn
actually
worked
on
that
ordinance.
F
I
believe
so
he
could
give
you
even
more
detail
than
I
can,
but
the
idea
within
closed
motor
vehicle
sales
is
that
we
could
incentivize
by
allowing
it
in
more
districts.
You
could
incentivize
more
of
these
facilities
to
be
fully
enclosed,
as
opposed
to
the
lots
of
auto
inventory
on
surface
parking,
not
many
of
the
none
of
those
uses,
I
believe,
have
come
to
fruition,
but
that
was
the
idea
behind
it.
F
So
this
new
use
is
most
similar
to
enclosed
the
trade-off
to
allowing
these
30
motor
vehicles
to
be
stored
outside
is
that
you
get
them
you're
guaranteed
to
get
a
multi-storey
facility
with
a
minimum,
far
of
0.6.
F
F
This
just
shows
the
use
table,
as
shown
in
the
ordinance.
So
again
it
would
make
this
use
permitted
in
the
c1
and
c3
zoning
districts,
freeway
office
and
service
and
freeway
commercial
center
respectively.
This
is
where
those
sites
that
are
currently
have
that
zoning
designation
are
located.
There's
11
sites,
they're
loca,
all
located
along
494,
currently
in
between
normandale
and
around
lindale
avenue,
an
american
bounded
by
american
boulevard
too.
F
F
So
certainly
that
makes
sense
for
high
density,
auto
sales,
and
then
they
also
both
seek
to
avoid
underutilization
of
land.
Those
are
both
in
the
purpose
and
intent
statements,
and
I
have
those
available
if
anyone
wants
to
review
them.
So
from
staff
perspective,
this
use
works.
It
makes
sense
in
c1
and
c3
c1
is
actually
the
zoning
district
that
is
really
intended
for
motor
vehicle
sales
facilities
and
then
c3
is
intended
as
a
high
intensity
retail
type
district
near
the
freeway.
F
Here,
you
can
see
that
particular
code
section
listed
by
reference
on
the
right
there.
So
our
our
performance
stands
for
motor
vehicle
sales
facilities.
They
include
restrictions
on
noise,
repair
and
service
activities,
vehicle
test
driving
vehicle
storage
and
display
and
vehicle
loading
unloading.
So
the
intention
of
these
standards
is
really
to
kind
of
wrestle
with
or
address
some
of
the
nuisance
characteristics
that
can
arise
in
these
types
of
facilities.
F
A
J
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Just
for
clarification
can
any
of
the
restrictions
listed
in
the
definition
be
varied.
If
I'm
a
new
applicant
or
a
new
user
coming
into
a
site
that
just
finds
a
building,
that's
less
than
0.6,
if
they
are
for
building,
can
I
come
in
and
say
I
want
to
go
into
this
site,
possibly
I'm
not
requesting
rezoning,
because
the
site
is
already
correctly
zoned
for
the
use.
But
if
I'm
not
meeting
the
restrictions
listed
in
the
definition,
can
those
be
varied
or
is
that
just
a
walk
away
deal.
F
Yeah
chair,
commissioner
abby,
that's
an
excellent
question
and
my
I'll
see
if
glenn
agrees
with
my
interpretation,
but
I
would
say
that
you
cannot,
because
it
is
definitional
to
the
use.
It's
not
a
performance
standard
like
many
of
our
other
standards
in
chapter
21,
where
they
require
by
district.
This
is
in
the
definition
of
the
use,
so
my
interpretation
would
be
is
that
you
cannot
request
flexibility
to
those
baseline
standards
that
are
inherent
to
the
use
itself.
Would
you
agree.
D
A
All
right,
commissioner,
goldsman.
G
Yeah
thanks,
mr
chair.
My
question
actually
is
around
the
overhead
service
doors
and
when
I
see
the
the
section
above
it
says
they
would,
service
bays
would
have
to
be
fully
screened
from
view
of
any
public
see
any
public
street.
However,
in
this
newly
added
verbiage,
we
talk
about
how
the
service
doors
may
be
visible
from
a
public
street.
So
can
you
talk
a
little
bit
about
how
the
these
two
uses
differ
and
why
screening
was
required
in
one
and
not
both.
F
Yeah
chair
commissioner
goldsman,
so
that
the
the
first
version
that
you
were
reading
was
the
initial
application
that
the
applicant
made
and
they
since
revised
and
amended
their
application
to
strike
that
language.
That
was
the
language
that
mirrored
that
of
the
definition
of
enclosed
of
the
enclosed
motor
vehicle
sales
facility
and
so
upon
further
consult
consultation
with
their
end
user,
who
they're
working
with
to
create
this
development
that
the
the
restriction
of
sick
service
bays
was
not
workable
to
the
end
user.
F
So,
in
terms
of
what
is
being
what
was
revised
and
what
is
being
proposed
to
you
this
evening,
so
you
don't
need
to
fully
screen
a
service
door,
but
you
are
limited
to
three
facing
a
public
street.
You
could
have
no
more
than
that
and
then,
furthermore,
the
restriction
that
having
to
do
with
and
the
chair-
and
I
were
just
brought
this
up
just
very
briefly
before
the
meeting,
but
the
the
restriction
on
no
more
than
two
being
grouped
together.
F
What
that's
intended
to
do
is
not
have
a
typical
or
you
see,
an
automotive
repair
use
where
they
have
six
or
eight
or
you
see
all
those
service
doors
lined
up
and
that
takes
on
a
very
industrial
or
kind
of
that
characteristic
of
appearance.
The
restriction
pertaining
to
the
number
of
doors
being
grouped
together
is
seeks
to
kind
of
eliminate
that
possibility.
So
screening
is
not
required,
but
you're
limited
to
three
overhead
doors
that
are
used
for
service
for
the
repair
use.
I
You,
mr
chair,
mr
johnson,
do
we
have
any
buildings
that
are
doing
motor
vehicle
sales
within
the
city
of
bloomington?
That
would
qualify
as
this
high
density
motor
vehicle
sales,
or
is
this
a
brand
new
and
there's
sort
of
nothing
that's
in
this
bucket,
yet.
F
Yeah
chair,
commissioner
albrecht.
We
do
not
currently
well
bmw,
maybe.
F
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
so,
mr
johnson,
if
I'm
understanding
this
correctly
other
than
a
minimum
floor
area
ratio
which
there's
nothing
that
stops
a
standard,
enclosed
property
from
going
to
0.6
correct.
The
only
reason
that
I
it
seems
like
we
would
have
this
other
category
is
to
allow
some
service
doors
to
be
visible.
Is
that
kind
of
the
gist
of
it?.
F
F
It's
not
an
you're
not
allowed
to
have
any
motor
vehicles
displayed
as
part
of
an
enclosed
facility
only
in
a
parking
structure
scenario
it
talks
about,
and
that's
only.
F
A
Okay,
other
commission
members
yeah.
I
think
there
was
some
confusion
on
my
part
too,
about
the
six
bays
versus
then
the
the
this
new
definition,
and
so
just
to
make
sure,
mr
johnson,
so
I'm
wondering
if
you
can
give
maybe
just
a
little
more
background
or
mr
mark
regard
about
the
motor
vehicle
sales
enclosed,
because
that
one
that
particular
ordinance
required
them
to
be
fully
screened.
A
F
D
Want
me
to
address
that,
or
do
you
wanna
I
can
address
mr
chair,
so
that
definition,
I'm
gonna,
guess
dates
back
probably
five
to
ten
years
and
was
added
and
then
later
modified
them
all
of
america
actually
did
a
privately
initiated
code
amendment
to
further
modify
it.
Originally,
it
was
exclusively
everything
would
be
indoors
and-
and
there
would
be
no
service
associated
with
that,
so
it
would
be
very
similar
to
typical
retail
use.
In
that
respect.
D
You
don't
have
outside
storage
of
inventory
and
then
that
there
was
no
auto
repair
a
couple
years
back
the
mall
applied
for
and
received
approval
to
amend
that
category
to
allow
some
display
outside
of
a
structure
but
within
a
parking
ramp
and
to
allow
limited
service,
but
it
was
limited
to
six
bays.
D
They
had
a
potential
user
at
the
time
it
didn't
pan
out,
but
it
was
amended
in
that
respect
and
that
particular
definition
did
not
meet
the
criteria.
This
new
applicant
and
user
is
looking
for,
so
they
are
applying
to
rather
than
further
amend
that
definition,
which
we
had
some
concerns
about,
they're
applying
for
a
brand
new
definition.
D
A
Thank
you,
mr
markurt.
I
appreciate
that
a
brief
history
lesson
on
where
we
came
from
on
this
commission
members,
commissioner
roman.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
mr
johnson.
One
other
observation
I
had
is
you
know,
as
in
your
map
that
showed
the
areas
of
the
city
that
would
meet
the
zoning.
I
think
it's
you
know.
Many
of
those
spaces
are
already
auto
uses.
B
The
one
that
stands
out
to
me,
though,
is
the
south
town
center
and
how
would
a
permitted
use
at
that
area
a
line
or
not
a
line
with
either
our
comp
plan
vision
for
that
area
or
other
areas
that
we
have
reviewed,
because
that
that
would
be
a
glaring,
not
not
something
you'd
want
to
be
a
permitted
use
there
versus
a
conditional
use.
F
Chair,
commissioner,
roman,
I'm
glad
you
bring
up
the
comp
plan
chair,
commissioner,
roman
sorry,
for
that,
I'm
glad
you
bring
up
the
comp
plan
just
a
point
for
the
note
of
the
public
and
for
your
consideration
this
evening
to
be
eligible
for
motor
vehicle
sales
facility.
You
have
to
have
the
future
land
use
designation
of
regional
commercial,
which
has
you
know,
fairly
limited
application
throughout
the
city.
I
can't
remember
if
south
town
does
have
that
designation.
Okay,
what
I?
F
What
I
could
say
is
that,
certainly
as
it
pertains
to
the
bus,
rapid
transit,
that's
happening
on
the
east
end
of
that
development,
I
believe
the
eastern
portion
of
that
development
is
currently
zone.
C5.
Is
that
correct,
glenn.
F
So
I
don't
think
you're
wrong
to
raise
that
concern
and
I
would
agree
with
you
that
that
has
the
potential
not
to
be.
You
know
the
the
best
use
for
that
portion
of
or
that
particular
location,
but
yeah
you
need,
you
need
both
regional
commercial
and
you
need
either
c1
or
c3
potential
zoning.
F
B
So,
thank
you
as
a
so
as
a
permitted
use
other
than
being
inconsistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan,
but
as
a
permitted
use
could
that
be
placed
there.
A
D
A
A
And
if
you
can,
maybe
mr
johnson
are
the
other
sites,
how
many
of
the
other
sites
are
c3
that
are
because
it
we
just
saw
it
as
one
color
one
uniform
coating.
F
Yeah
no
problem,
I'm
gonna,
try
and
filter
it
chair.
If
you,
if
I
may,
with
on
the
fly,
I
counted
them
the
collection
grouping.
Forgive
me,
I
don't
have
the
breakdown
of
it.
F
F
A
D
Good
evening,
mr
chair
members
of
the
commission,
appreciate
your
time
tonight.
Thank
you,
nick
for
your
review
tonight
and
continued
guidance
with
staff.
E
A
All
right,
thank
you,
mr
strom,
commissioner
members.
Any
questions
for
mr
strom.
A
Not
seeing
any
mr
strom
appreciate
you
being
available
for
questions
tonight,
thank
you
all
right
at
this
time,
we'll
go
ahead
and
open
the
public
hearing
on
this
item.
A
A
A
All
right,
commissioner
members,
we
have
a
motion,
close
public
hearing.
Is
there
a
second?
Second
all
right?
Thank
you
all
right,
commission
members.
We
now
have
a
motion
in
a
second
to
close
the
public
hearing
any
further
discussion
on
that
item.
All
right,
all
those
in
favor
closing
the
public
hearing
say
aye
aye.
All
those
opposed
all
right
motion
carries
public
hearing
is
now
closed.
Commission
members,
discussion.
A
I'll
start,
I'm
a
little
worried
here
on
this
particular
privately
initiated
code
amendment.
When
we
talk
about
c3,
specifically
south
town,
we've
we've
put
a
lot
of
effort
into
south
town,
very
specifically
for
a
walkable
community
type
environment,
and
I
I'm
sorry,
but
no
matter
how
dense
the
development
for
this
type
of
use-
I
I
don't
believe
it
it
fits,
and
what
we're
understanding
here
tonight
is
that
that
would
be
a
permitted
use.
A
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
That's
that's
you
know
my
notes
on
my
docket
when
I
was
reviewing
and
that's
where
I
drew
a
big
yellow
circle
and
it
it's
again.
This
is
not
not
a
reflection
on
any
specific
developer
previous
or
in
the
future,
but
we
when
we
met
last
week,
two
weeks
ago
we
met
two
weeks
ago.
B
We
had
a
situation
where
we
had
a
application
that
met
the
standard
as
far
as
what
they
could
do
with
a
piece
of
land
based
on
zoning
and
based
on
other
code
issues,
and
we
had
you
know
we
found
it
inconsistent
with
our
comp
plan
for
that
area,
but
what
I'm
hearing
from
the
staff
is
that
that
would
not
necessarily
apply
and
this
because
it's
a
permitted
use,
so
maybe
the
answer
is
c3
is
wrong.
Maybe
the
answer
is
conditional,
but
you
know
one
of
them.
B
I
also
look
here,
and
certainly
we
haven't
gone
into
all
of
our
motor
vehicle
sales
uses
because
again
we
all
like
access
to
motor
vehicle
sales
they're
they
bring
people
to
the
community
they're
necessary.
I
I'm
not
at
all
opposed
to
motor
vehicle
sales.
The
question
is
where,
and
if
I
look
at
even
the
line
above
with
motor
vehicle
sales-
enclosed,
that's
a
permitted
use
there
as
well.
So
again,
maybe
our
issue
is
is
that
specific
area
is
should
be
zoned
differently?
B
I
don't
know-
and
I
know
that
we
just
continued
an
item,
so
I
don't
want
to
do
anything.
That's
going
to
mock
up
or
be
inconsistent
for
someone
who's
working
on
a
project,
but
it's
the
situation.
E
Thanks
mr
chair
question,
for
mr
johnson,
I'm
trying
to
think
how
I
want
to
phrase
this.
E
Let
me
start
with
this
is
south
town
included
in
the
pan-american
development
district?
E
Yes,
it
is
okay,
and
so
if
this
came
before
us
as
a
real
application
at
southtown
and
to
be
clear,
I
don't
know
if
that's
what
they're
doing.
But
if,
if
that
were
the
case,
would
we
have
to
make
a
required
finding
in
that?
The
proposed
use
is
in
conformance
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
E
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
if
that,
if
that
is
the
case,
then
maybe
I
misunderstood
my
question
earlier,
because
the
question
what
I
heard
may
not
have
been
what
was
intended.
What
I
heard
was
that
that
would
be
allowed
in
permitted
carte
blanche
if
you
will
versus
what
commissioner
cook
had
asked,
which
is
similar
to
our
previous
thing.
That
gives
me
a
little
bit
more
comfort
than
perhaps
what
I
understood
earlier.
So,
if
there's
anything
to
be
clarified,
I'm.
A
Yeah,
I
think
we
need
some
clarification
on
that,
because
I
heard
the
same
thing
as
commissioner
roman,
so
just
for
the
record,
if
there
were
something
that
came
in
to
any
one
of
these
seat
well,
specifically
and
america
would
what
were
the
findings
that
would
be
required.
D
Sure,
mr
chair,
commissioner,
roman
one
important
consideration
is
with
a
permitted
use.
If
you
have
a
building
that
exists
today
and
another
use
is
coming
into
that
building,
that's
permitted,
there's
no
review
before
the
planning,
commission
or
council.
It's
just
allowed.
You
know
tenants
change
all
the
time
within.
D
F
Yeah
and
I
sheriff
I-
may
I'm
trying
to
locate
the
required
findings
for
final
site
and
building
plans.
You'll
see
this
language
also
reflected
in
for
preliminary
and
final
development
plans
as
well.
So
thank
you,
commissioner
cookdown,
for
raising
that
important
point.
I
must
have
a
case
of
pandemic
brain
or
I
don't
know
what's
going
on,
but
the
comp
plan
is
obviously
more
in
comprehensive
and
encompassing
than
just
its
future
land
use
designation,
which
is
the
regional
commercial.
F
A
All
right,
thank
you,
mr
johnson
and
you're
allowed
yep
yeah
you're
allowed
all
right.
Commissioner
goldsman.
G
Thanks,
mr
chair,
my
question
is
really
around
how
the
city
arrived
at
the
permitted
versus
conditional
use
within
these
districts.
And
is
it
merely
because
it's
permitted
at
a
less
density
revision.
Today
and-
and
this
would
be
more
dense
and
we
just
kind
of
took
the
permitted
and
moved
on.
Or
did
we
think
about
conditional
and
using
that
as
our
litmus
test
to
make
sure
that
we're
getting
what
we
envision
the
city
development
to
be.
F
I
think
the
previous
approach
to
zoning
kind
of
an
earlier
era
was
to
make
a
lot
of
uses
conditional
and
then
they
would
put
whatever
conditions
they
wanted
to
put
on
it
at
the
approval
and
it
became
much
more
discretionary
or
you
know,
kind
of
a
moving
target
a
little
bit
depending
on
the
type
of
development
who
the
user
was,
etc,
etc.
F
F
I
don't
know
about
prior
to
the
06
and
1999
code
revisions,
but
my
guess
is
that
motor
vehicle
sales
used
to
be
a
conditional
use
would
be
my
guess,
glenn
to
your
recollection,
that's
correct.
They
did
used
to
be,
and
so
now
that
you've
and
and
this
this
is
an
assortment
of
different
uses-
you'll
see
in
our
code,
restaurants
used
to
be
a
conditional
use,
and
then
we
developed
restaurant
standards.
F
G
For
the
clarification,
the
reminder
about
restaurants-
I
remember
going
through
that,
so
it
helps
me
frame
the
the
application.
F
J
Thank
you,
mr
johnson,
mr
chair
and
mr
johnson.
Just
for
clarification
to
what
you
brought
up
earlier
in
addressing
mr
cookton's
question
about
the
comprehensive
plan
in
the
language.
You
brought
up
a
zoning
language
if
the
language
as
is,
is
adopted
today
with
the
c3
permitted
and
a
new
developer,
a
new
applicant
were
to
go
in
into
that
region
that
we
were
just
talking
about
right
now
and
a
permit
is
being
reviewed
by
staff.
J
You
would
make
sure
that
the
standards
that
were
mentioned
that
you
brought
up
earlier
are
being
met
and
there's
no
conflict,
provided
that
we
just
talked
about
right
now
that
what
we
know
so
far
of
that
area
of
the
adapted
line
use
plans
would
not
be
consistent
with
you
know,
requiring
us
seeing
more
walkability,
and
you
know
all
that
and
more
transit
friendliness
and
some
of
the
things
that
would
be
brought
by
what
was
just
mentioned
by
commissioner
roman.
J
To
me,
that's
already
in
conflict
just
by
the
how
the
use
operates
or
the
what
the
characteristics
the
use
brings
and
the
characteristics
we
want
to
see
of
the
built
environment
and
the
uses
in
the
area.
Would
not
already
just
cancel
each
other
out
and
therefore
not
be
approved
at
a
at
a
permanent
level,
and
if
that's
the
case
then
couldn't
we
just
recommend
a
instead
of
a
permitted
c3
be
a
conditional
c3
or
I'm
trying
to
just
visualize.
J
It
just
would
not
work
for
that
area,
but
technically
you
can
leave
it
as
is
right
now,
because
any
applicant
can
come
in
and
request
a
rezoning
for
a
different
site
that
does
not
have
additional
restrictions
in
the
area
where
compliant
does
not
have
you
know
things
that
are
spelled
out
like
the
pen
area
plan.
I
guess
I'm
I'm
comfortable
with,
as
is
proposes
what
I'm
trying
to
get
at,
considering
that
any
applicant
can
come
in
and
want
to
rezone
to
different
parts
of
the
city
to
additional
c3.
J
I
don't
know
what
I'm
trying
to
get
at
here,
but
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
what
your
process
would
be
for
administrative
review,
because
we're
not
going
to
see
the
applications
based
on
what
you
just
said
right
now,
so
by
leaving
it
as
permitted
I'm
trying
to
connect
the
dots,
I'm
sorry,
I
lost
my
channel.
J
F
Yeah
chair
commissioner
abdi-
I
don't
want
to
say
never,
but
just
the
nuts
and
bolts
of
how
you
would
construct
one
of
these
facilities.
I
don't
think
it
would
be
renovating
an
existing
building.
That's
just
you
know,
I'd
be
curious.
What
glenn
thinks
about
that
or
if
we
had
some
of
our
engineers
here,
but
just
structurally
what
it
would
what
you
would
need
to
have
a
multi-level
motor
vehicle
sales
facility?
I
don't
think
you're
retrofitting
a
building
to
do
that
from
scratch.
F
Maybe
commissioner
cooktown,
as
a
structural
engineer,
can
weigh
in
on
that,
but
what
I'm?
What
I'm
getting
at
is
that
the
likelihood
of
there
being
only
an
administrative
review
for
this
type
of
use
is
very
low
in
my
professional
opinion,
so
I
think
whatever's
coming
to
you
is
going
to
be
coming
to
you
in
the
form
of
not
only
potentially
rezoning
re-guiding,
possibly
but
say
it
wasn't.
The
case
say
they
found
an
existing
site
that
met
those
two
criteria.
F
Then
you
would
be
having
to
meet
the
final
site
and
building
or
final
development
plans
of
being
consistent
with
the
comp
plan,
which
includes
our
district
plans
like
the
pen
american
district
plan.
So
I
think
that
gets
to
one
aspect,
your
question.
Just
by
way
of
process
you
know,
united
properties
has
submitted
a
zoning
text.
Amendment
they've
submitted
an
application.
F
Our
legal
division
is
not
super
excited
about
changing
an
application
if
you
are
not
supportive
of
the
application,
unless
you
know
certainly
there's
friendly
amendments
or
that's
certainly
an
old
way
of
doing
business,
but
if
you're
not
supportive
of
what's
being
before
you
this
evening,
I
would
not
recommend
approval
and
note
the
reasons
why
it
would
be
up
to
the
applicant
to
work
with
staff
at
that
point,
to
try
and
figure
out
an
alternative
path
that
meets
their
end
goals.
F
F
G
F
We're
getting
I'm
getting
too
far
into
the
weeds
right
now,
but
hopefully
hopefully
that
answers
your
question
to
the
degree
that
what
you
were
kind
of
looking
for.
A
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
guess
I
would
circle
back
having
originally
had
a
strong
opinion
and
still
having
a
strong
opinion,
but
understanding
more
about
this,
whether
it
was
an
administrative
approval
which,
to
your
point,
I
I
think
I
agree
it's
unlikely
or
it
came
to
a
planning
commission,
the
the
fact
that
the
finding
of
consistency
with
the
comprehensive
plan
of
district
plans
that
solves
this
for
me,
because
I
think
in
this
case,
clearly
it
doesn't
anyway.
You
know
the
story
of
the
the
restaurant,
with
the
double
drive-thru
lane.
B
E
Thanks
mr
chair
and
I
want
to
go
back
just
a
little
bit
more
to
that
required
finding
of
consistent
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
We
are
talking
about
two
different
development
districts
here,
so
this
application
we
referenced
from
a
couple
weeks
ago
was
the
lindell
avenue
retrofit
plan,
which
was
very
clear
in
its
language,
about
walkability
vehicles
close
to
the
street
interior
parking
street
activation.
All
those
things
I'm
a
little
shorter
in
the
tooth,
and
I'm
not
familiar
with
the
exact
language
of
the
pan
american
district
plan,
and
maybe
I
can
lean
on
mr
johnson.
E
F
Absolutely
yes
unequivocally
it
is.
I
mean
the
the
cherry
commissioner
cooked
in
the
the
development
that
that
district
promotes
is
the
development
that
has
occurred
in
that
district
since
it's
a
inception
with
genesee
and
fresh
time,
and
the
apartments
and
minimal
site
setbacks,
pedestrian
scale,
roadways
and
type
development.
So,
yes,
unequivocally.
E
Well
with
that,
then
I
can
support
this
application.
I
think
we've
got
enough
because
it's
always
about
how
much
leverage
do
we
have
right.
Do
we
have
enough
teeth
when
this
comes
before
us,
and
I
think
we
do
have
the
the
proper
teeth
in
this
and
we
we
can
support
this
because
there's
it's
not
just
south
town
right,
there's
other
places,
and
so
you
know
we
don't
know
where
they
want.
To
put
this,
I
don't
know
where
they
want
to
put
this,
and
so
I'm
I'm
open
to
it.
E
A
All
right,
thank
you,
commissioner
cook,
commissioner
goldsman.
G
Thanks,
mr
chair,
I
think
when
I
think
about
this
language
I
mean
it's
more
density.
We've
talked
about,
we
want
density
and
density,
is
kind
of
the
focus
and
making
more
walkable.
So
part
of
this
is
really
you
know,
we're
improving
the
density
of
our
current
situation.
So
I
like
that
aspect
of
this.
The
sticking
point
for
me
is
the
c3
district,
and
so
part
of
me
wants
to
approve
this
for
c1
and
c1.
G
Only
and
I
don't
know
if
that's
a
possibility
but
taking
c3
out
as
because
of
the
concerns
that
we
have
and
just
focusing
on
c1
opens
up
more
to
more
density
in
the
c1
districts,
where
most
likely
there
are.
You
know
quite
a
few
different
properties
in
that
area.
I
think
there's
only
three
in
the
c3,
so
part
of
me
wants
to
say
we
prove
we
move
forward,
but
only
for
c1
is
that
a
possibility.
A
Well,
just
maybe
chime
in
I
know
the
staff
was
talking
here
and
just
to
take
from
mr
johnson.
If
you
know
either
we
agree
or
don't
agree,
I
think
otherwise.
Maybe
at
this
point
we
could.
We
could
ask
the
applicant
their
thoughts
on
c3c1.
A
That's
another
option
that
we
could
start
to
to
move
down,
but
I
think
in
this
case
you
know
we
we
do
have
a
request
in
front
of
us.
We
can
ask
the
applicant
if
the
applicant
is
pretty
strong
in
their
feelings,
then
I
think
we
really
only
have
the
two
choices
in
front
of
us.
F
Want
me
to
speak
to
that,
go
ahead,
sure
yeah,
chair
soldberg,
so
one
of
the
considerations
and
again
I'm
trying
to
keep
us
out
of
like
the
the
weeds
and
the
staff
discussions
and
how
we
evaluate
all
this
stuff.
But
you
guys
are
a
nitty-gritty
group.
So,
let's
get
into
it
part
of
the
wisdom
of
allowing
it
in
multiple
zoning
districts.
F
F
You
now
have
the
ability
to
construct
a
typical
class
1
motor
vehicle
sales
facility
there.
So
one
thing
I
would
ask
you
to
consider
is
that
by
allowing
it
in
multiple
districts,
you
have
the
opportunity
say
on
a
site
where
a
class
one
motor
vehicle
sales
facility
would
not
be
an
appropriate
use.
You
have
another
menu
of
a
zoning
district
to
choose
from
which
ultimately
should
that
project
never
move
forward.
You're
not
re-zoning
it
to
a
district
that
now
they
can
construct
a
typical
motor
vehicle
sales
use.
F
A
A
I
think
I
I
struggle
a
little
bit
with
this
only
because
I
think
more
or
less
as
we
talk
about
american
boulevard
and
we've
had
these
discussions
over
the
past
years
about
big
storage
facilities
yeah,
I
recognize
494
as
a
major
draw,
but
if
we
are
serious
about
kind
of
making
494
a
viable
transit
facility,
you
don't
put
big
lots
with
not
very
much
use
for
your
average
ordinary
user,
but
for
somebody
that's
there
for
a
car.
That's
it!
You
don't
ride
a
bus
to
go,
get
a
car.
A
Normally,
I
don't
think
but
mr
johnson's
wisdom
is.
It
makes
sense
in
this,
but
I
I
I
just
don't
know
I
don't
I'm
not
sure
that
enclosed
or
high
density
is
appropriate
in
c3
at
all
and
it's
hard
for
me
to
say:
let's
add
another
thing
to
c3
when
I
don't
agree
with
the
first
thing:
that's
in
c3.
A
A
That
was
one
of
my
initial
concerns
but,
as
I
mentioned
at
the
outset,
as
we
talk
about
developing
density
and
and
users
for
future
transit,
I'm
not
sure
that
this
matches
that
that
goal
so
I'll
leave.
That,
with
my
comments,
I
think
at
this
point
I
would
still
have
to
vote
no
on
this.
But
commission
members,
if
there's
additional
thoughts.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
actually
have
a
question
so
mr
johnson,
was
there
any
discussion
about
changing
the
motor
vehicle
sales
enclosed
to
allow
for
this
more
high
density
use
there
rather
than
creating
a
whole
new
zoning
definition.
F
Yeah
chair,
commissioner
albrecht.
We
did.
We
did
look
at
that.
The
problem
with
that
approach
or
the
flaw
fatal
flaw
of
that
to
staff's
perspective
is
that
enclosed
is
allowed
in
a
lot
more
zoning
districts.
Then
we
feel
this
use
should
be
narrowly
allowed
within,
and
so
I
mean
I
can
look
up
the
list
if,
if
you
like,
but
it's
allowed
in
a
lot
more
districts
than
than
we
think
appropriate
and
if
you
get
back-
and
you
know,
I've
provided
my
analysis
and
I
don't
want
to
push
too
hard.
F
But
if
you're
thinking
about
the
11
sites
that
this
would
become
applicable
to
three
of
them
are
c3
the
remainder
rc1
all
of
the
sites
that
rc1
are
existing
motor
vehicle
sales
uses
you're,
certainly
right
to
look
to
the
future
that
that
could
change
in
the
future.
But
as
of
right
now
we're
getting
calls
and
contacts
about
trying
to
establish
that
use
elsewhere
in
the
city
which
we
are
giving
a
stiff
arm
to
for
lack
of
a
better
term.
So
those
sites
are
valuable
as
their
existing
use.
F
If
that
makes
sense
and
they
are
located
along
american
boulevard,
could
they
redevelop
at
some
point
in
the
future?
Certainly,
but
I
don't
see
that
happening
in
the
near
term
in
the
long
term,
potentially
so.
Well,
then,
what
you're
really
talking
about
is
three
sites.
You're
talking
about
home
furniture
rei,
two
very
high
end,
just
reinvested
or
reconstructed
or
recently
in
the
modern
era
constructed
retail
uses
and
then
south
town,
which
is
subject
to
the
pan
american
district
plan,
as
commissioner
cookton
talked
about.
So
that's
my
perspective
on
it.
F
I
don't
think
commissioner
solberg's
wrong
either,
though
about
you
know
what
metro
transit
and
what
the
city's
future
vision
for
american
may
or
may
not
be.
I
don't
think
that's
wrong
that
presses
either,
but
I
just
want
to
provide
that
background
of
what
we're
talking
about
we're
talking
about
11
sites
with
the
potential
for
future
discretion
on
rezoning
re-guiding.
F
A
F
I
I
I
probably
have
a
problem
with
that
part,
but
I
that
that
is
to
say
that
I
guess
I
would
be
in
support
of
moving
forward
with
this,
given
that
specifically
at
penn
american,
but
also
at
some
other
three
c3
sites
that
it
would
not
be
in
keeping
with
the
comprehensive
plan
and
but
then
again
I
go
back
to
well,
then
why
are
we
doing
it
in
the
first
place?
I
So
I
I'm
talking
myself
out
of
it.
Obviously
I
yeah
that's
all
I'll
say
for
now.
A
I
think
this
is
one
it's
interesting
right.
There's
there's
benefits,
there's
pros
and
cons
on
this
particular
one.
I
guess
you
just
have
to
figure
out
which,
which
one
you're
valuing
more
or
what
you
think
the
implications
are
going
to
be
later
on
down
the
road.
So
other
commissioners,
with
thoughts.
A
Otherwise,
if
there's
no
additional
thoughts
or
questions
certainly
entertain
emotion,.
A
Or
is
there
more
information
that
you
desire
to
be
able
to
make
the
dis
the
decision?
And
then
I
suppose
we
could
ask
staff
what
the
timeline
is
on
this
particular
application
and
when
a
city
decision
has
to
be
made.
F
Yeah
church
soulbreak,
the
the
deadline,
has
already
been
extended
to
the
120
day
out
to
january
7th.
So
that's
your
action
deadline
of
when
the
city
council
would
have
to
take
action
on
this
application.
As
always,
I
you
know
welcome
the
applicant's
perspective
on
that
if
you're
willing,
but
that's
that's.
Our
agency
action
deadline
is
january,
7th,
okay
and
current,
unless
otherwise
extended
by
the
applicant.
A
F
A
Would
that
be
a
would
that,
if
just
for
instance
again,
if
we
continued
it
to
a
date,
certain
I'm
assuming
just
depending
upon
how
long
we
would
need
would
depend
upon
the
next
city
council
public
hearing
date,
then
right
I
mean
if,
if
we
continued
for
two
weeks
to
if
we
needed
more
information,
I'm
just
trying
to
go
through
the
options
for
commission
members.
F
Yeah
church
solberg,
I
believe,
glenn's
looking
at
the
meetings,
but
I
I
would
guess
that
you
would
have
enough
time
to
do
that.
I
believe
you
know
there's,
I
believe,
there's
a
second
city
council
meeting
prior
to
the
holidays,
but
let's
pull
that
up.
I
guess
sure.
A
F
I
I
would
chair,
commissioner
roman.
I
would
say
that
the
applicants
sought
our
feedback
and
presented
those
districts
and
we
were
supportive
of
those
districts.
Okay,.
B
B
Sure-
and
I
don't
know
point
of
order,
would
it
be
appropriate
to
ask
the
applicant
if
c1
only
would
be
detrimental
to
their
process
or
their
plans.
D
Mr
chair,
you
can
ask
the
applicant.
I
would
say
that
the
focus
of
our
conversations
has
been
on
c3
and
remember
that
it
would
not
necessarily
need
to
be
a
site.
That's
currently
zoned
c3.
It
could
be
a
site.
That's
rezoned,.
A
D
To
c3
the
c1
was
added
at
staff
requests
just
because,
since
you
know,
standard
motor
vehicle
sales
is
allowed,
we
thought
it
would
also
be
appropriate
to
allow
this
use
sure.
But
yeah.
Definitely
you
can
ask
the
applicant
okay.
B
No,
I
I'm
okay,
I'm
giving
what
you've
said,
and
you
know
I
it's
the
we
had
that
we
had
this
conversation.
I
think
when
something
similar
when
the
acura
subaru
project
came
and
they
had
purchased
the
vacant
body
shop
and
now
it
is
surface
parking
along
american
boulevard
for
automobiles
and
so
again
the
idea
I
get
the
idea
of
being
careful
about
what
we
say
is
permitted,
but
I
think
of
anything
that
we
would
want
to
put
along
this
corridor
when
you
think
about
density,
it's
probably
better
than
than
the
class
one.
L
B
The
bus
to
work,
so
you
know,
bus
out
of
the
car
dealer,
isn't
always
in
incompatible
but
good
point.
I
I
I'm
pretty
comfortable
with
this.
At
this
point,
I
think,
given
how
few
I
mean
again,
nothing
is
certain,
but
I'm
just
armchair
quarterbacking.
This
south
town
would
require
a
pretty
very
specific.
For
me.
B
It
would
require
a
very
specific
spot
of
that
parcel
in
order
to
be
compliant
home
just
built
a
year
ago,
right
and
rei
near,
as
I
can
tell,
is
probably
not
a
candidate
for
demolition,
so
it
seems
like
anything
that
would
be
c3
would
be
new
c3.
A
Okay
good
point
and
with
any
rezoning,
we
have
additional
authority
on
our
side
to
to
recommend
approval
or
denial.
So.
F
E
A
Okay,
commissioner
abdi,
I
can
move
forward
all
right
if
there's
no
further
discussion
by
commission
members
go
ahead.
Commissioner,
abdi.
A
All
right,
thank
you,
commissioner.
Robdy
all
right.
Commission
members,
we
have
a
motion
in
front
of
us
to
recommend
approval.
Is
there
a
second
second
commissioner
corman
all
right,
commissioner
members,
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
in
front
of
us,
to
recommend
that
the
city
council
adopt
an
ordinance
establishing
and
defining
motor
vehicle
sales,
high
density
as
a
new
use,
designation
and
making
it
a
permitted
use
in
the
c1
and
c3
zoning
districts,
thereby
amending
chapters
19
and
21
of
the
city
code.
A
Is
there
any
further
discussion
on
this
item
not
seeing
any
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye,
all
those
opposed
same
sign.
I
motion
passes
that
will
move
forward
to
the
november
29th
city
council
meeting
as
a
public
hearing
all
right,
all
right.
Commission
members
at
this
point,
I'm
going
to
ask
for
a
motion
for
recess
so
that
we
can
set
up
and
join
our
partners
from
the
hra
for
the
next
two
items
in
front
of
us.
So
can
I
have
a
motion
please.
A
All
right,
we
have
a
motion
for
recess.
Is
there
a
second?
Second
all
right?
We
have
a
second
all
those
in
paper
say
I
will
recess
until
I'll.
Just
make
this
clear,
7,
15.,
all
right
recess
until
7
15.,
all
those
in
favor,
say
aye.
K
I
A
All
right,
thank
you
now
also
just
make
sure
folks
at
home
know
that
we
are
reconvening
the
october
28
2021
planning
commission
meeting
for
those
that
just
witnessed
our
first
recess.
I
think
in
six
years
that
I'm
aware
of
so
with
that
chair
lewis,
do
you
have
anything
else.
A
Okay,
otherwise
we'll
go
ahead
and
call
mr
palermo
to
present
the
item.
Number
four
for
us
on
the
planning:
commission,
single
family,
two
family
dwelling
standards.
D
C
All
right
so
today
we're
here
to
talk
about
single
and
two
family
home
performance
standards,
and
I
also
included
here
accessory
dwelling
wounds,
we'll
squeeze
in
the
middle
sean.
James
will
present
that
item.
C
So
some
of
the
background
for
why
we're
doing
this
project
while
it's
on
our
2021
and
it
will
continue
in
the
2022
work
plan,
we're
looking
to
encourage
more
housing
options
within
the
city,
where
community
of
choice
provide
those
choices.
C
C
I
just
wanted
to
start
out
with
this
quote
here.
It
kind
of
jumped
out
at
me,
and
I
think,
it's
kind
of
important
to
frame
our
discussion
this.
I
think
I
got
this
from
the
new
york
times,
but
we
are
in
a
weird
time,
demographically,
said
thomas
jimenez,
a
sociologist
at
stanford,
there's
more
choice
about
our
individual
identities
and
how
we
present
them
than
there
ever
has
been.
We
presume
far
less
about
who
somebody
is
based
on
the
boxes
they
check
compared
to
previous
periods.
C
So
part
of
that
is
looking
at
just
how
we
shift
in
the
past
40
50
years,
our
current,
the
our
current
code
really
kind
of
dates
back
to
the
70s.
We
had
a
really
big
boom
in
the
50s
and
60s
and
then
the
70s
kind
of
slowed
a
little
bit
and
that's
where
our
standards
really
we've
kind
of
done,
incremental
changes
rather
than
big
changes
in
the
last
40
or
so
years,
and
in
that
time
we
were
99
white
in
the
70s.
C
Now
we're
68
percent
white
non-hispanic
household
size
was
3.7
people
now
we're
close
to
2.3
and,
as
we
noticed,
we're
now
kind
of
flatlining
on
that
household
size
and
maybe
a
slight
uptick.
What
we
found
in
the
2020
census
is
we're
both
getting
for
recent
years,
we're
growing
both
older
and
younger.
We
have
under
18
population
growing
a
little
bit
and
our
older
population,
of
course
growing.
C
So
what
are
some
issues
that
will
attempt
to
counteract
first
issue?
Is
land
scarcity
there's
very
little
land
in
the
city
to
develop
a
comprehensive
plan?
I
think
identified.
275
acres
we've
had
some
of
that
already
developed
since
the
comp
plans
have
been
in
place
so
you're
looking
at
redevelop,
options
for
redevelopment
and
our
current
standards
sometimes
make
it
more
difficult
or
present
barriers,
and
just
to
give
you
an
idea
of
where
our
vacant
land
is
it's
not
in
single
family,
home,
just
area
zone
for
single
single
family,
home
districts.
C
So
when
we
think
about
affordability,
why
do
we
have
part
of
why
we
have
this
affordability
problem?
Besides,
land
scarcity,
obviously
is
part
of
it.
We
just
haven't
had
enough
home
production
in
general
from
2008.
You
can
see
this
chart
here.
Our
home
production
starts
going
down
and
down
and
bottoms
around
to
2010,
and
this
is
our
household
growth
annually.
So
on
the
whole
household
growth
is
declining
slightly,
but
we're
still
getting
30
or
20
000
new
households
in
the
region
per
year.
C
So
this
is
the
metro
region,
so
we
were
underperforming
so
we're
already
at
a
deficit.
We
need
to
catch
up
to
create
more
homes.
We
need
to
actually
create
more
than
what's
in
demand,
because
we
need
to
make
up
for
that
loss
production,
so
we're
here
we're
still
not
caught
up
yet
so.
Finding
ways
to
create
just
more
housing
in
general
is
important.
C
Other
aspects
of
affordability
are
kind
of
hard
costs.
You
look
at
the
cost
of
land,
smaller
lots.
Obviously
the
more
lots
you
have:
the
land
prices
change,
building,
design
the
materials
you
use
the
size
of
buildings,
the
how
much
pavement
you
need
all
those
are
kind
of
hard
costs
that
built
into
the
home.
Those
are
things
that
we
can
have
a
little
more
influence
on
in
the
zoning
code.
There's
other
costs
such
as
mortgages
or
closing
costs
that
we
just
you
know
we
don't
affect
with
the
zoning
code,
but
those
also
impact
affordability.
C
C
I
think
it's
important
that
these
topics
are
all
interrelated.
We
might
find
opportunity
for
more
efficiency,
but
will
create
more
issues
with
affordability
or
you
know
if
we
find
more
health,
sustainable
building
design
that
might
increase
cost
right.
So
I
kind
of
think
of
it
as
a
balloon.
You
press
in
one
area,
but
you
might
bulge
out
in
another
area.
So
that's
something
you
know,
there's
a
balance
to
this
as
we
discuss
so
a
little
primer
on
single
family.
C
It's
predominantly
in
our
r1
zoning
district.
We
have
two
other
zoning
districts
are
our
a1
rs1.
C
I
very
rarely
deal
with
them,
they're,
pretty
rare
within
the
city.
It's
predominantly
our
r1
zoning
district.
Those
are
predominantly
guided
low
density.
In
some
instances
it
is
medium
density,
but
it's
mostly
guided
low
density
in
our
comprehensive
plan,
which
means
it
has
a
maximum
of
five
units
per
acre.
C
Most
of
the
codes
are
in
our
chapter.
21
in
our
general
standards,
we
kind
of
break
our
standards
down
and,
as
we
talked
in
our
previous
discussion
on
the
item,
we
have
performance
standards,
but
for
single
family
homes
we
don't
have
a
whole
lot
of
performance
standards,
it's
just
related
to
pools
and
sports
courts,
whereas
two
family
homes
we
do
get
into
some
more
details
and
those
performance
standards
really
can
differentiate
at
the
two
family
home.
You
can
see
here.
C
Our
minimum
lot
size
for
a
single
family
home
is
eleven
thousand
square
feet,
whereas
the
two
family
is
fifteen
thousand
square
feet
and
you
can
see
fifteen
thousand
for
a
single
family
on
a
corner
and
eighteen
thousand
for
a
two
family
on
the
corner.
C
C
So,
as
we
get
into
the
discussion
topics
a
little
bit
more
detail,
I
want
to
have
three
kind
of
guiding
questions
that
will
kind
of
help
our
discussion
today.
The
first
will
be:
should
staff
move
forward
with
this
item,
this
topic,
a
simple
yes
or
no,
is
what
we're
looking
for.
Should
we
spend
more
time
to
kind
of
get
more
detailed,
cold
recommendation?
C
Is
it
a
high
medium
or
low
priority,
as
we
recognize
that
this
could
be
a
very
big
update
or
depending
you
know,
if
we
need
to
prioritize
staff
time
and
then
any
initial
feedback
you
might
have
on
the
different
potential
changes,
so
to
give
you
a
little
context
on
the
first
topic,
which
is
affordability
just
want
to
show
you
where
we've
changed
over
time,
our
median
home
value
kind
of
dips
kind
of
similar
after
2008,
and
then
it
starts
to
rebound
a
little
bit
and
keeps
increasing
from
about
2014
on
its
increase.
C
So
our
median
home
value
is
close
to
330
000.,
and
this
chart
here
on
the
right
shows
just
the
age
of
our
housing
stock.
When
we're
thinking
redevelopment
or
additions
or
modernization
of
homes,
you
can
see
nearly
50
percent
of
our
homes
were
built
before
1960.,
another
25
in
the
1960s,
so
the
significant
are
over
50
years
old.
C
This
kind
of
just
shows
in
a
chart
a
little
bit
easier
to
see
that
trend
of
median
home
value
over
time
and
then
we're
part
of
a
greater
market
right.
So
how
do
we
compare
to
other
cities
in
the
region?
You
look
at
our
median
home
value,
and
these
are
a
little
bit
dated
now
and
they're
from
the
american
community
survey,
which
is
a
little
bit
different
than
other
resources,
but
we're
tend
to
be
in
that
middle
range.
C
C
Look
at
our
price
for
square
footage
that
really
shows
you
your
values,
because
you
have
different
size,
housing,
so
we're
right
in
that
middle,
about
169
dollars
per
square
feet,
which
is
about
the
average
of
these
17
comparison,
cities
and
similar
with
our
per
sales.
It's
a
little
bit
lower
about
300
000
versus
about
340
for
the
average
for
the
cities.
C
So
these
are
kind
of
staff
had
convened,
interrupt
our
departmental
group
to
kind
of
discuss
ways
to
address
these
topics.
C
We
did
some
facilitated
discussion
and
these
are
kind
of
the
items
that
shuffled
to
the
top
in
the
code
that
we
can
potentially
address
some
of
these
issues
with
so
I'll
kind
of
go
through
these
topic
areas.
What
the
current
standard
is
and
that's
where
I'll
look
for
your
input
on,
is
this
something
to
continue
to
pursue
and
get
more
detailed
recommendation
for
you.
Is
it
a
high,
medium
or
low
priority,
and
any
first
initial
reactions
this
first
item,
minimum
mod
size
is
probably
the
big
kahuna
that
we
were
really
looking
at
it's.
C
C
C
C
So
what
does
that
actually?
Look
like
it's
hard
to
say
these
numbers
and
it's
another
to
kind
of
so
I'm
trying
to
give
you
a
visual
representation
of
what
a
10
000
square
foot
lot
might
actually
be,
which
is
pretty
similar
to
our
11
000
square
foot.
Lot.
In
fact,
this
is
in
bloomington
one
of
our
neighborhoods.
C
C
C
C
C
And
then
we
do
have
instances
of
mobile
home
park.
This
is
closer,
almost
a
high
density
designation
for
us
at
10
units
per
acre.
This
is
a
five
acre
site
which,
for
mobile
home,
is
the
minimum,
but
I
just
want
to
throw
it
in
the
context
of
what
we're
thinking
of
detached
housing.
This
is
what
currently
is
permitted
in
our
code.
C
And
then
this
just
explains
that
the
more
density
you
have,
the
smaller
lots.
You
have,
the
more
affordability
you
can
bake
in,
because
you're
spreading
that
cost
over
more
units
on
the
same
amount
of
land.
So
brookings
has
done
a
lot
of
research
and
showing
that
what
they
call
gentle
density.
So
not
an
overwhelmingly.
C
So
some
pros
and
cons
of
our
standards-
it,
I
purposely-
did
not
call
them
pro
or
con.
I
just
listed
them,
so
you
can
decide
if
they're
pros
or
cons,
but
you
know
it
does
that
larger
lot
size
does
ensure
that
our
standards
can
be
achieved.
You
know
we
have
parking
requirements,
setback
requirements
impervious
surface
all
that
can
be
achieved
within
11
000
square
foot.
Lot.
If
you
get
smaller,
you
might
end
up
having
unintended
consequences
about.
C
Like
I
mentioned
a
couple
times,
17
of
our
existing
lots
are
under
the
eleven
thousand
square
feet
only
about
two
percent
are
below
nine
thousand
square
feet.
So
that
gives
you
kind
of
an
idea.
We
don't
have
a
lot
of
really
tiny
lots
that
are
non-conforming.
It's
it's
pretty
close,
but
when
we're
thinking
redevelopment
there's,
I
think
that
number
is
there's.
C
That
number
is
wrong.
It's
not
72
percent
of
lots
are
larger
than
20..
I
believe
it
was
12
percent
of
wants.
I
have
it
somewhere,
but
when
we're
thinking,
if
I
have
one
lot,
it's
easier
to
split
than
trying
to
get
two
or
three
lots
and
time
combined
and
you
know
multiple
owners.
So
when
we're
looking
at
22,
it's
two,
seven
percent
of
our
lots
are
over
22
000.
C
So
some
of
the
approaches
are
reduce
the
lot
size,
maybe
there's
flexibility
that
could
be
achieved
with
an
overlay
district
and
potentially
we
might
need
a
comp
plan
amendment
if
we're
thinking
a
higher
density.
C
G
M
Thank
you,
john
olsen
hra.
M
I
think,
given
the
the
history
that
you
gave
of
going
back
to
the
70s
and
what's
happened
since
really
begs
the
question
that
we
need
to
be
looking
at
the
situations
that
are
impacted
because
of
those
changes
and-
and
so
my
general
thought
is
to
answer
that
question-
is
that
I
think
yes,
we
need
to
dig
into
this
more
and
appreciate
the
work.
That's
already
gone
into
this,
it's
pretty
comprehensive
already.
K
E
Mr
palermo,
you
mentioned
7.2
of
lots,
are
greater
than
22
000
square
feet.
Can
you
give
me
a
couple
more
like?
What's
the
percent
over
20
000
square
feet.
E
E
I
also
have
to
tear
down
my
house
and
build
two
new
ones
and
then,
if
you're
going
to
build
new
houses,
they're
probably
going
to
be
pretty
nice
ones
and
so
you're
losing
the
affordability
piece
again,
and
so
I
you
know
on
paper.
I
certainly
appreciate
the
intent
of
what
we're
trying
to
do
here
and
I
agree
in
in
select
cases.
E
C
C
You
know
we're
getting
a
tighter,
tighter
housing
market
correct
and,
as
we
just
increase
in
supply
in
general,
we
see
movement,
so
we
might
have
a
new
house,
that's
not
affordable,
but
someone's
moving
out
of
or
looking
to
move
into
that
new
house
from
a
more
affordable
house.
So
there
there
is
a
dynamic
there,
it's
not
a
straight
line
and
that
that
is
the
difficulty
with
this.
It's
not
a
single
option.
That's
going
to
make
an
impact,
but
having
that
flexibility
for
developers
to
have
that
option
would
provide
some
aspects.
M
A
good
point,
I
think
what
I'd
like
suggested
staff
do
is
look
at
the
age
of
buildings.
I
mean
the
way
the
city
developed
is
mainly
initially
in
the
in
the
eastern
part
of
the
city,
and
so
it
might
be
that
there
are.
M
We
could
do
some
kind
of
inventory
of
buildings
that
are.
M
Expensive
to
maintain
not
efficient
in
terms
of
insulation
and
things
like
that
and
just
getting
old
and
and
so
it
might
be
that
that
your
point
is
well
taken.
I
think,
as
a
general
generalization.
D
J
Thank
you
I
swat
of
the
planning
commission.
I
guess
I
had
like
multiple
thoughts
going,
but
one
thing
I'm
in
support
of
actually
looking
into
this
because
neighboring
cities,
a
lot
of
folks,
are
wanting
to
move
out
into
the
suburb
areas,
but
there
is
less
space
for
them
to
move
into,
unlike
minneapolis,
for
example,
where
I
have
a
little
bit
more
expertise,
you
know
they
have
smaller
lots.
You
see
more
density.
J
J
I
don't
want
to
say
poor
areas
of
bloomington,
but
if
we
have
super
large
lots
in
bloomington
that
are
like
in
the
bush
lake
area
or
normandale
lake
area,
those
are
not
going
to
be
affected,
their
lots
are
likely
not
going
to
be
recommended
for
splits.
J
So
I
guess
what
I
I'm
definitely
for
it.
I
want
to
see
more
families
moving
into
bloomington.
I
want
to
see
more
housing
options
for
folks
if
I
have
a
larger
lot,
if
I'm
able
to
split
it
and
keep
my
single
family
house
and
get
a
variance
and
reduce
the
setback
because
of
where
the
new
line
will
be.
I.
J
J
Small
lots
and
you
know
what
does
that
look
like
for.
M
B
Good
point,
commissioner:
roman,
thank
you,
paige,
roman,
the
planning
commission.
Yes,
I'm
in
support
of
staff
spending
time
on
this,
I
would
put
it
in
the
medium
category
from
a
priority,
at
least
from
the
things
that
I'm
aware
of
that
we've
been
talking
about
the
thoughts
that
I
have
on
this
about.
You
know
whether
you
look
at
the
reducing
the
lot
size,
which
I
think
is
fine
to
reduce
them.
B
You
go
where
the
older
stock
is
someone's
swooping
up,
two
of
them,
consolidating
them
tear
down
and
build
a
big
house,
and
so
how
do
we?
As
we
look
at
lot
size?
We
it?
How
about
reducing,
but
do
we
also
have
a
a
maximum
and-
and
I
know
we
had-
we
talked
about
the
80
thing
earlier
today
with
the
the
split
we
were
discussing.
So
I
also
look
at
what
are
we
going
to
do
or
what
can
we
do
to
disincentivize?
Some
of
that
which
then
leads
to
less
of
the
affordable,
older
stock?
B
M
Commissioner,
roman
you've
just
put
me
back
a
few
years
to
a
magazine
that
I
actually,
I
think
I
asked
a
lot
of
lps
to
see
if
you
could
find
it
and
it
it
showed
what
I
think
the
term
it
was
tiny
homes,
at
least
that
concept
and
where
to
go
with
your
point,
if,
if
a
developer
or
if
we
as
a
city,
may
be
involved
with
hra
involvement,
we're
to
find
that
there
are
three
homes
contiguous
that
maybe
that
they
could
be
torn
down
because
they've
they've
served
well
and
and
and
and
then
these
these
homes
and
and
when
we
get
into
the
asses
accessory
buildings.
M
I
think
there
was
a
common
about
900
square
feet
or
something
like
that
and
and
in
terms
of
the
size
of
area,
that
some
people
want,
including
retirees,
for
example,
the
development
down
in
pin
american
the
mo
the
newest
one.
I
think
there's
50
units
that
are
in
the
range
of
about
nine
five
f.
M
I
don't
know
seven
eight
nine
hundred
square
feet,
so
the
picture
that
just
was
burnished
in
my
head-
and
I
can't
produce
it
for
you
is-
is
that
there
were
homes
that
that
had
a
commons
area
and
a
picket
fence
kind
of
a
thing,
and
so
people
could
have
little
gardens
and
that
kind
of
stuff
if
they
wanted
to
and
have
some
social
interaction
and
I'm
not
sure
where
they
they
did
cars.
M
You
know
they
might
have
been
under
the
house
or
something,
but
I
didn't
see
that
in
the
picture
but
and
and
just
another,
a
quick
satellite
on
that.
M
My
my
reading
of
of
the
stuff
that
you
gave
us,
which
is
great,
doesn't
include.
It
appears
to
me
taking
a
stand
on
where
we're
gonna
be
in
terms
of
of
trend
transit
in
the
in
the
future.
M
Are
we
gonna
be
moving
more
toward
transit
development,
oriented
development,
or
are
we
going
to
be
getting
more
to
cars
that
you
call
for
and
they
come
and
pick
you
up
and
bring
you
to
church
or
their
dental
appointment?
Or
something
like
that,
so
I
think
staff
would
would
be
wise
to
at
least
take
a
look
at
that
I
mean.
C
M
C
And
that
that
is
something
we'll
kind
of
talk
touch
upon
a
little
bit
later
in
the
presentation,
cluster
housing,
cluster
developing
and
there's
a
couple.
That's
a
broad
definition.
There's
lots
of
different
ways
to
do
cluster
development
and
kind
of
what
you're
alluding
to
we'll
talk
a
little
bit
more
toward
the
end.
Any
last
comments
on
this.
G
Commissioner,
vikki
hukim
with
the
hra
commission,
I
would
like
staff
to
look
into
this.
I'm
actually,
where
I
live,
is
a
product
of
a
split
property.
Already
east
side
was
split,
multiple
areas
on
the
east
side
were
split,
so
our
neighbors
were
there
first
and
our
house
is
a
split
lot.
G
The
one
thing
that
I
would
really
like
you
to
to,
I
guess
make
sure
of
is
making
sure
that
when
you
do
do
split
lots
that,
like
they're
equally
split
and
the
fact
that,
like
garage
sizes,
are
different,
we
are
not
allowed
a
do
a
two-car
garage.
We
only
have
a
single
car
garage
so
just
that
equity
in
that
too,
making
sure
it's
equitable
across
the
board,
so
I'm
supportive
of
it.
I
think
it
would
help
with
the
affordable
piece
of
it,
because
obviously
our
house
was
very
affordable,
so
just
yeah.
C
G
Yeah
nelly
corbin
flying
commission.
I
also
agree
with
the
looking
into
those
approaches.
G
Looking
further,
you
know
doing
more
research
into
that
and
providing
more
information
of
what
the
different
possibilities
could
be,
but
beyond
the
affordability
part,
it
would
be
interesting
to
know
also
to
kind
of
compare
between
among
cities
that
have
already
had
this
experience,
so
that
had
certain
square
feet
versus
what
we
have
in
bloomington,
what
we
could
possibly
have
in
bloomington
and
the
impact
that
this
had
had
in
the
other
cities
in
terms
of,
for
example,
living
conditions,
families,
schools,
you
know
what
makes
what
will
make
it
different
beyond
the
affordability
part,
it's
what
I
would
be
interested
in
knowing
more.
A
I'll
just
chime
in
here
john
solbrook,
chair
planning,
commission,
and
I
think
a
lot
of
good
points
here
but
and
certainly
lot
size
is,
is
one
of
the
pieces
that
we
need
to
look
at,
and
I
agree,
there's
probably
minimal
opportunity
here
with
lot
size,
but
it
much
like
commissioner
roman
mentioned
looking
at
those
again
looking
at
minimums,
but
we
got
to
look
at
the
maximum
and
what
does
that
unintentional
consequence?
A
Thinking
about
the
some
of
the
other
elements
that
I
know
we're
going
to
go
through
here,
I
think,
are
really
the
keys
that
start
to
push
that
to
make
pieces
affordable
for
people.
The
lots
in
my
mind,
or
one
thing
the
density
is
another
obviously,
but
I
think
you
talked
a
little
bit
about
clusters
and
thinking
about
not
only
that,
but
then
just
thinking
about
that
larger
zoning
or
the
overlay,
where
it
might
be
appropriate
in
various
locations
to
allow
some
additional.
A
Additional
housing
stock,
different
types
that
maybe
normally
wouldn't
be
approved
in
bloomington,
so.
C
C
Yep
got
it
okay,
another
thing
that
bubbled
up
so
two
family
homes,
just
kind
of
naturally
have
a
lower
density
or
higher
density.
Obviously,
with
at
about
7
500
square
feet
per
home,
then
it
it's
a
way
to
get
that
affordability
a
little
bit
more,
but
we
do
have
this
additional
standard
of
a
50-foot
setback
as
opposed
to
our
single-family
homes
that
have
a
30-foot
setback,
this
one's
a
little
more
straightforward.
The
approaches
are,
reduce
the
setback
or
keep
it
as
it
is.
C
C
The
other
aspect
is
it
pushes
it
further
back,
it's
a
bigger
mass.
You
can
see
this
home
right
here.
It's
it's
a
double
it's
two
homes
together,
that's
less
imposing
on
the
street
if
it's
further
back,
maybe
this
is
more
of
a
head
nod
and
should
is
this
something
people
are
interested
in
reducing
yeah?
Okay,
yes,
and
then
we
were
alluded
to
this
before.
C
I
think
commissioner
goldsmith
you
were
talking
about
this
500
foot
so
currently,
if
you're
within
500
feet-
and
we
we've
tweaked
this
since
I've
been
here
to
be
on
the
same
street
on
the
same
block
face,
I
believe,
we've
said
rather
than
as
the
crow
flies,
but
we
considered
it
a
grouping
and
kind
of
where
this
came
from.
H
D
D
C
And
this
is
a
picture
from
I
forget
the
road,
but
it's
kind
of
by
international
village
there's
a
whole
street
of
duplexes
and
they're
all
different
they're,
all
different
duplexes,
and
you
just
kind
of
keep
driving
and
realize.
Oh
there's
a
lot
right
here.
A
So
johnson
will
work
planning,
commission
again
and
it
this
is
one
that
strikes
me
as
if
we're
looking
for
affordability,
we're
looking
for
density,
but
why?
Why
are
we
restricting
two
family
homes
to
say
that
they're
they're
more
imposing
on
a
neighborhood
they're,
not
any
more
imposing
than
some
of
the
stuff
on
overlook
that
I
see
so
when
we
think
about
that
in
kind
of
these
other
locations,
any
one
of
those
lots
could
be
built
on
right
now
by
somebody
that
had
too
much
imagination
and
be
much
more
imposing
on
the
neighborhood.
A
So
I
I
think
this
is
one
of
those
things
that
it's
more
about
development
standards
that
might
go
with
it
rather
than
separation
right.
B
Right
and
I
would
building
on
not
trying
to
get
ahead
of
where
I
know
you're
getting
to
eventually,
but
whether
it's
we
talked
about
again,
can
you
you,
don't
necessarily
always
build
up
to
a
second
story,
because
we
have
another
standard
that
says
you
have
to
have
two
garage
stalls
for
every
dwelling
I
mean
four
garage
stalls
is
a
mass.
F
B
Right
there
right
now,
if
you
only
had
to
have
two
parking
stall
or
two
ground,
or
maybe
you
didn't-
have
to
have
any
garage
dolls,
but
you
had
to
have
at
least
two
stalls
that
were
off
the
street.
Whatever
that
may
be,
I
mean
you
could
build
a
two-story
home
there
with
two
parking,
two
garage
stalls
and
enough
street
and
still
pull
it
forward.
You
could
do
lots
of
creative
things
with
a
smaller
lot.
C
Another
one
where
I'm
seeing
lots
of
head
nodding
that
we
can
probably
yeah
and
then
the
minimum
home
size
we
currently
for
our
single
family
homes,
have
10
40
square
feet
as
the
the
minimum
and
we
often
say
the
1040
rambler
for
our
two
family.
We
we
decrease
that
a
little
bit
to
960
and
as
sean
we'll
get
into
that
corresponds
with
our
adus
have
a
maximum
of
960.
C
So
it
kind
of
that
gradation.
That's
why
we're
talking
about
this
together,
because
it's
kind
of
that's
all
related
right,
the
the
scale
or
the
spectrum
of
housing.
This
is
another
one
where
you
know
it
bakes
in
a
cost
right.
If
you
have
to
have
this
minimum
size,
you
that
you
have
a
minimum
cost
associated
with
that,
but
at
the
same
time
it
prevents
it
creates
a
certain
standard
for
bloomington.
B
Again,
I
think
it's
something
that
is
1970
versus
where
we're
in
again
also
in
that
time,
typically,
people
were
not
utilizing
lower
levels
like
they
are
now,
so
you
know
our
minimum
size
is
typically
considered
above
grade.
So
what
I
care,
if
someone
brought
in
a
project
for
a
maybe
it
was
a
1040
and
it
was
400
below
ground
and
650
above
ground,
so
be
it.
B
B
A
The
so
john
silver
planning
commission
again
and
it
this
is
one
where
I
struggle
a
little
bit
about
it,
because
if
you
talk
about
opportunity,
housing
and
somebody
that
doesn't
have
a
house-
and
you
know
I
think
city
minneapolis
is
doing
it
tiny
homes
in
various
locations,
you
know
if
we
were
to
do
and
again
thinking
about
some
various
opportunities
that
could
exist.
A
Maybe
for
somebody
that's
previously
not
been
in
a
home
having
something
as
small
as
for
450
square
feet,
to
be
able
to
move
up.
I
I
don't.
I
don't
know
what's
wrong
with
that
and
again
that
might
be
various
locations
that
we
can
think
about,
but
it
again
increases
opportunity.
G
G
C
M
One
of
the
things
that
the
pictures
in
our
conversation
have
not
talked
about
is
building
up.
You
know
there
can
be
apartments
that
are
upstairs
and
downstairs.
I
lived
in
one
myself
at
one
point,
so
you
know
we.
We've
talked
about
suburban
sprawl
and
that
was
partly
the
lots
being
big
and
sprawling
all
over
the
land.
But
but
anyway,
let's
take
a
look
at
going
up.
J
Just
for
clarification,
this
is
swatter
with
the
planning
commission.
Four
two
family
districts
are
two
family
dwelling
units.
Are
those
also
allowed
in
the
r1.
The
map
that
you
showed
us
also
allowed.
Okay,
yep.
J
I
guess
the
question
I
had
was:
does
bloomington
have
design
guidelines
for
reviewing
new
development?
You
know
you
could
allow
for
character,
but
you
have
guidelines
in
terms
of
like
amount
of
windows
you
know.
Building
building
with
like
minneapolis
does
I'm
sorry.
I
keep
referencing
in
minneapolis
because
that's
where
I
am
professionally
at,
but
they
you
know,
minneapolis
has
a
you
know
minimums
and
maximums
for
lot
sizes.
J
Can
develop
design
guidelines
that
allows
for
certain
heights
in
in
certain
areas
you
know
building
how
much
glass
we
can
have,
how
many
buildings
building
width
there
can
be,
how
close
or
how
back
the
garage
can
be
if
it
needs
to
be
attached
or
not,
and
whether
that
that
square
footage
would
be
added
to
the
building
if
the
garage
is
attached
to
the
house.
So
I
feel
like
a
lot
of
these
can
be
addressed
through
a
design
guideline,
but
obviously
the
minimum
lot
sizes
and
the
rest
can
be
spelled
out
specifically
to.
E
C
Yeah
and
to
some
degree
with
our,
especially
with
our
two
family
homes,
we
do
have
some
more
more
of
those
design
guidelines,
especially,
I
think
there's
a
maximum
size
on
the
garage
that
could
be
in
the
front.
So
the
two
family
home
gets
a
little
more
into
the
detail,
but
the
single
family,
it's
less.
So
it's
more
of
those
general
parameters,
the
setbacks
and
the
but
yeah.
I
think
that
is
something
we
can
explore
too.
A
No,
no,
that
we,
I
think,
there's
that
we
should
have
that
flexibility,
because
I
mean
we
looked
at
it
in
that
medium
density
development
that
was
at
penn,
and
I
liked
the
idea
the
idea
was.
Essentially
it
was
a
garage
with
whatever
it
was
four
or
six
feet
on
the
side,
but
that
was
the
house
going
back
and
I
didn't
see
anybody
complaining
that
well
that
that
wouldn't
look
good
from
the
street
right.
So
I
guess
that's
part
of
what
I'm
saying
is
the
standard
of
we.
A
K
Cheryl
lewis
hra,
I
just
as
far
as
the
approach,
because
here
again
you
were
sort
of
looking
at
the
two
approaches,
I
think
probably
looking
at
reducing
the
size
requirements
rather
than
removing
them
completely.
I
think
that
will
allow
for
the
flexibility
we're
looking
for
and
not
kind
of
opening
it
up
to
anyone.
You
know
you
never
know
what
would
come
forward
if
you
had
no
requirements.
J
C
Right
and
maybe
if
they
want
to
go
lower
than
a
certain
minimum,
there's
an
additional
review
or
something
that
kind
of
okay,
and
then
we
also
discussed
this
briefly,
but
the
minimum
parking
requirements.
So
we
do
require
for
both
two
family
and
single
family
four
spaces
for
dwelling
unit,
two
of
which
must
fully
be
enclosed,
and
this
cannot
be
achieved
with
the
carport.
C
It
has
to
be
an
actual,
enclosed
garage.
There
are,
you
know,
benefits
we've
kind
of
gone
around
it
a
lot
tonight
about.
We
still
are
a
car
dependent
city
to
some
degree
and
having
that
requirement
provides
two
spaces
outside
the
garage
it
negative,
as
it
adds
impervious
surface
with
with
the
two
family.
C
You've
got
a
longer
driveway
that
you
have
to
accommodate,
but
if
there's
a
snow
emergency
you
have
a
spot
to
put
your
cars
and
that
garage
requirement
also
whether
it's
used
for
parking
or
not,
it
could
be
used
for
storage
which,
as
we're
talking
about
the
need
for
more
storage,
when
we're
all
american
right,
we
keep
getting
more
and
more
stuff,
but
some
people
do
utilize.
I
know
I
have
neighbors
that
that's
that's
their
garage
is
their
storage
space
they
just
park
outside
because
that's
what
they
do
so
any
thoughts.
C
So
some
approaches
were
kind
of
reduce
the
two-car
garage
requirement,
remove
the
requirement
or
allow
be
more
flexible
on
what
that
requirement
is
carports,
for
example,
reduce
that
total
off
street
parking
or
remove
that
minimum
requirement.
You
know
we
we
talk
a
lot
about
this
in
the
multi-family
and
we'll
talk
about
that.
Coming
up
too.
That's
another
one
of
my
items,
but
any
initial
thoughts
on
the
four
parking
space
requirements.
C
L
G
L
Mark
gorsuch
hra
I
I
would
encourage
us
to
be
more
flexible
and
perhaps
consider
single
car
garages
as
an
option
and
fewer
parking
spaces.
I'm
at
the
stage
of
my
life,
where
I
am
know
that
in
some
number
of
years
I
will
be
leaving
my
10
92
square
foot,
rambler
and,
and
I've
already
started
to
kind
of
get
a
sense
of
what
kind
of
housing
I
want
to
live
in,
and
so
I've
looked
at
condos.
I've
looked.
G
L
Lot
line
homes
I've
been
through
the
one
one
thing
that
really
stands
out
is
that
there's
some
roll
houses
they're
not
inexpensive
and
they're,
not
in
my
price
range,
but
some
roll
houses
over
at
centennial
lakes,
very
dense
and
very
narrow
streets
and
very
pleasant.
The
way
they're.
L
L
There's
enough
buildings
there
in
terms
of
for
to
make
underground,
affordable
to
finally
build,
and
I
realize
that's
what
30
thousands
of
space
or
something,
but
if
it's
community,
maybe
that
can
work.
So
I
I
would
encourage
us
to
get
even
more
creative
on
on
some
of
these
options
and-
and
my
comment
had
to
do
with
the
fact
I
was
talking
about
looking-
is
you
get
to
a
you
know
a
lot
of
these
developments?
Some
are
very
popular.
There's,
not
an
option.
L
You
might
get
one
space,
you
might
get
two
spaces,
four,
six
we're
requiring
two
two
enclosed
garage
dolls
and
four
additional
spaces,
and
people
are
snapping
up
homes
that
have
one
or
two
spaces
and
and
maybe
some
community
parking.
So
again,
I
think
we
have
to
get
really
creative
about
what
we're
open
to.
J
Just
for
clarification,
does
two-car
garage
mean
like
two
cars
going
in
like
we
typically
see,
or
are
you
talking
about
tandem
like
you
can
be
back-to-back?
Only
one
car
goes
in
and
out.
You
could
certainly
doubt
a
lot
for
more
additional
square
footage
for
possibly
storage
or
like
two
car
two-family.
G
J
With
two
cars
going
in
for
the
winter
and
have
you
know
less
cars
parked
outside
for
all
the
both
units,
but
I
do
agree,
especially
if
we're
considering
from
the
previous
conversation
about
lot
reductions.
If
we
do
allow
for
smaller
lots.
You
know
what
I
think
having
four
car
garage
facing
the
street,
as
you
think,
is
just
the
hideous
thing
to
look
at
from
a
design
guidelines.
J
C
D
Yeah
it
is
allowed
today.
Nobody
does
it
just
from
you
know:
market
desirability,
convenience
standard.
C
We
have
retrofit,
we
see
it
a
lot
when
people
are
constrained
on
their
site.
Already
I
mean
that's.
An
aspect
of
this
discussion
is
as
we
get
more
flexibility.
We
also
allow
flexibility
for
people
on
their
existing
sites
to
do
creative
things
like
that,
but
yeah
the
tandem.
We
rarely
see
that
in
newer
retrofit
for
sure.
I
Oh
hi,
aubry
albrecht,
I
am
with
the
planning
commission
and
I
see
this
reduced
total
off
street
parking
requirement
or
remove
the
minimum
offshore
program.
That
really
needs
to
be
part
of
this
discussion.
Primarily,
I
think
because
of
those
multi-generational
families
or
families
with
many
kids.
I
I
know
we're
decreasing
these
overall
size
of
families
in
bloomington,
but
that
doesn't
mean
that
that's
going
to
continue
into
the
future
and
we
people
still
drive
cars
right
now
and
you
know
if
they
have
four
cars
and
we
reduce
it
down
to
two
and
they
have
to
park
on
the
street
overnight
for
multiple
nights.
I
think
that
should
be
allowed.
G
All
right,
this
is
joanna
again,
I
I
would
echo
what
you
commented
on.
I
think
one
of
the
things
we
should
look
at.
We
talked
about
this
balloon
moving
and
there's
a
lot
of
streets
in
bloomington
that
people
can't
park,
and
I
think
we
need
to
be
mindful
of
if
we
remove
these
these
garages,
which
I'm
all
for
that,
it
will
impact
the
need
for
on-street
parking,
which
then,
of
course,
would
probably
impact
snowplow
and
and
street
sweep
and
all
of
the
other
types
of
utilities
that
we
receive.
G
G
So
there's
a
lot
of
things
out
in
the
middle
of
that,
but
I
think
it's
a
good
proposal
to
to
look
at
for
sure.
E
Phil
with
the
planning
commission
yeah,
I
I
think
I
trend
more
towards
a
reduction
than
a
removal.
I
get
concerned
about
removal
because
it's
not
a
market
to
man
thing.
We
see
the
houses
of
minneapolis
go
whether
they
have
a
garage
or
not,
and
what
you
end
up
with,
and
the
thing
I
dislike
the
most
about
urban
minneapolis
is
how
impossible
it
is
to
get
around
the
streets,
and
maybe
our
streets
are
probably
wider
than
theirs
are.
But
it's
just
such
a
pain.
E
I
hate
parking
in
minneapolis,
it's
it's
a
nightmare
and
I
I
I
don't
know
if
I'm
ready.
Well,
I
don't
want
that
feel
in
bloomington,
and
so
I
think
there
needs
to
be
a
if
we
if
we
go
with
a
reduction.
I
think
we
need
to
be
smart
about
it
and
recognize.
Maybe
we
only
need
one
instead
of
two
or
something
to
that
effect,
but
I'm
not
ready
to
get
rid
of
it.
E
L
Commissioner,
thorson
again
I
think-
and
I
would
not
want
you
know
the
minneapolis
situation
either,
but
I
think,
like
speaking
for
my
neighborhood,
everybody
has
a
one
or
two
car
garage,
everybody
parks,
officers,
they're
almost
nobody
parks
on
the
street
and
that
street
is
much
wider
than
minneapolis
streets.
It's
like
a
it's
like
a
state
highway
wind
and
I'm
really
amazed
when
you
see
an
aerial
photo
just
how
much
of
bloomington
is
taken
up
by
our
streets
and
the
width
of
the
street.
So
I'm
not
sure
we'd
have
quite
the
same
issue.
L
If
we're
talking
about
housing
here
and
there
that
we
don't
have
the
requirement
for
the
offstr
or
off-street
parking
garage,
garage
or
not
or
one
or
two
garages
or
not,
because
our
streets
in
most
places
are
so
wide
that
we
could
easily
accommodate
parking
on
both
sides
of
the
street,
not
that
I'd
necessarily
want.
We
could
accommodate
that
and
not
even
approach
what
they
have
in
minneapolis.
I
G
K
D
K
I
I
K
I
Yes,
it's
wide
is
it
necessarily
make
me
feel
pretty
good
as
a
pedestrian,
not
really
I'd
rather
walk
on
the
sidewalk,
so.
B
I
think
we
got
to
think
about
that
good
point
right
and
we've
talked
about
so,
and
the
quest
to
the
question
that
you've
asked
whatever
the
requirement
is
whether
it's
two
and
I
see
we're
talking
about
four
now.
Do
I
care
if
those
two
are
in
a
garage
or
not
not
really
and
anything,
about
the
the
cul-de-sac?
I
live
in
five
homes,
two
of
those
homes,
cars
don't
park
in
the
garage,
so
it
you
know,
one
of
them
has
been,
I
think,
turned
into
a
man
cave
which
great
and
they
enjoy
it.
B
But
that's
not
really.
We
we
require
this
two-car
garage
and
it's
not
being
used
for
that.
So
unless
we're
going
to
enforce
that
people
park
in
the
garage
which
we
are
not
interested
in
again,
1970
whatever,
but
then
to
the
street
thing
right,
our
streets
are
wide.
B
Nobody
will
be
surprised
that
you
know
I've
talked
about
sidewalks,
we
keep
rebuilding
our
streets
the
same
with
we
don't
add
any
sidewalks.
You
know
I
was
telling
a
fellow
commissioner.
I
was
in
edina
a
month
or
so
ago,
and
you
know
fairly
typical
street
had
been
shrunk.
A
sidewalk
was
put
on
one
side.
Parking
was
limited
to
one
side.
Now,
that's
an
area,
that's
seeing
tons
of
tear
downs,
but
so
I
think
about
you
know
is
it.
Is
it
terrible
that
people
might
park
on
a
street?
You
know?
B
No,
certainly
we
don't
want
the
again.
I
owned
a
house
in
two
houses
in
minneapolis,
where
you
weave,
especially
in
the
winter.
It's
it's
it's
a
challenge.
You
know
a
16
year
old
could
learn
to
drive
that
way
sometime,
but
you
know
the
bullet
on
the
bottom,
but
we
prohibit
on
street
parking
during
snow
emergencies.
That's
an
easy
policy
to
fix.
G
This
is
real,
quick,
commissioner,
who
came
hra
is
just
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we're
remembering
our
codes
too,
especially
with
like
storage
of
just
because
we're
talking,
affordable
housing
doesn't
mean
these.
This
family
may
have
a
pop-up
camper,
or
something
like
that.
So
as
soon
as
you
talk
about
that,
you
have
to
talk
about
setbacks
and
all
that
in
certain
areas
in
bloomington
do
not
have
that
option.
K
Cheryl
lewis
hra,
I
think
what
I'm
hearing
and
I'm
just
going
to
stress
it
is
flexibility,
not
removing
things
but
looking
at
reducing
things,
but
I
think
if
the
city
becomes
creative
and
flexible,
then
you're
allowing
you
know.
Each
situation
may
be
a
little
different,
but
we're
open
to
new
things,
and
I
think
that's
really
the
key
flexibility.
C
This
is
an
option.
You
know
this
is
out
there
in
other
communities.
This
is
racine
wisconsin
we're
this
is
a
veterans
village
and
actually
to
the
south.
Here
is
they're
kind
of
their
office
building
for
the
the
organization
that
operates
this,
but
you
can
see-
and
this
is
maybe
too
extreme
for
bloomington,
but
we
wanted
to
demonstrate
that
you
know
the
these.
These
are
an
option.
C
We
can
create
kind
of
that
minimum
standard
and
create
you
know
five
units
that
take
up,
maybe
two
two
lots
or
a
lot
that
kind
of
fit
and
meet
those
minimum
standards.
So
this
is
something
that
you
know
we
are
seeing
and
potentially
might
want
to
look
at.
Creating
the
flexibility
to
allow
this
and
kind
of
kind
of
boils
all
those
issues
down
into
one
right.
M
Would
would
like
to
submit
that
the
picture
that
I
would
like
to
find
again
a
lot
more
visually
attractive
than
these
are
yeah.
C
Are
pretty
tiny?
These
are
probably
closer
to
150
square
feet,
they're
pretty
small,
and
you
can
see
they're
pretty
tightly
in
there
same
with
these
they're
small,
but
you
can
see
that,
but
you
kind
of
get
that
idea.
I
mean
this
is
about
the
size
of
a
lot
in
bloomington.
You've
got
one
two
three,
four,
five,
six,
seven,
eight
nine
ten
so
imagine
two
of
those
put
together
and
you've
got
five
and
then
it's
more
close
to
that
400
square
foot,
which
is
akin
to
the
apartment
discussion
we're
having
right
so.
J
What
a
cluster
development
be
permitted,
I
don't
know
if
they
are
now,
but
would
it
be
permitted
in
the
districts
that
we're
looking
at
right
now
in
r1,
around
single-family
districts
or
if
such
thing
is
permitted,
then
would
it
come
before
a
commission
as
a
condition
of
use,
or
would
it
be
outright
permitted
like
building
a
single-family
house.
C
Yeah,
and
so
it's
currently
not
permitted
for
one
it's
higher
than
our
density
guidelines
under
the
guide
plan,
but
then
it
yeah
it
just
doesn't
meet
that
our
standards.
You
know
the
parking
standard,
the
minimum
size
of
1040,
all
you
know,
but
moving
forward.
You
know
seeing
that
this
is
much
different
than
neighborhood
character
that
we're
talking
about
and
some
of
these
issues.
A
John
solbrook
planning,
commission,
I
think
this.
This
is
another
opportunity
to
look
at
again
locations
that
maybe
something
like
this
is
a
little
bit
more
controlled
through
conditional
use,
rather
than
just
permitted,
but
again
here's
an
opportunity
looking
at
it,
and
you
know
we
just
and
I
go
back
to
the
the
apartments
we
just
approved
over
on
the
east
side
and
there's
a
market
for
small,
affordable
locations,
and
that
doesn't
mean
that
there
I
I
certainly
wouldn't
put
that
is
negative
over
where
we
approved
that
at
all.
So
I
don't
know
why.
B
K
L
G
M
You're
you're
asking
about
generals
and
atari
you're,
asking
for
whether
we
want
you
to
explore
more
and
and
we're
kind
of
doing,
some
of
that
for
you.
Let
me
include.
M
But
one
of
the
things
that
I
would
as
a
generality
several
years
ago,
blue
construction,
I
think,
was
the
name
of
the
company
approached
me
when
I
was
on
city
council,
and
it
was
at
the
time
when
the
when
that
mobile
homes,
what
do
we
call
them.
G
M
It's
like
pre-70s
codes
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff,
and
it
was
over
there
close
to
devonnie's
kind
of
hidden
away
and
they
were
interested
in
coming.
C
M
And
with
the
idea
of
doing
something
like
doing
smaller
units,
and-
and
so
I
think,
if
in
terms
of
you
exploring,
I
think
we
need
to
find
out
also
what
what
people
in
the
industry
are.
You
know.
Blue
construction,
for
example,
probably
is
still
doing
it
and.
M
Have
some
ideas
that
are,
are
you
know
ready
to
go
with
pretty
concrete
stuff
for
you
to
bring
to
us.
L
Mark
thorson
again
hra,
I'm
intrigued
by
the
cluster
home
concept,
myself,
perhaps
not
as
small
as
the
ones
we
saw
there,
but
there.
I
know
people
quite
interested
in
that
kind
of
a
living
situation.
I
can
see
it
working
best
with
some
shared
amenities,
so
maybe
you
have
a
very
small
home,
but
there's
central
laundry
or
maybe
there's
and
I
I
can
actually
envision
it,
because
I
have
some
crazy
friends
who
are
talking
about
it
ourselves.
But
you
know
some
smaller
homes
but
still
freestanding.
L
Yes,
they
all
have
the
normal
things
kitchen
whatever,
but
there
might
also
be
a
community
building
that
has
a
laundry
might
have
a
commercial
kitchen
for
shared
meals.
If
the
you
know
so
I
vision
more
like
a
community
or
cooperative
kind
of
a
thing,
but
I
think
that
again,
if
you
have
shared
amenities
and
perhaps
a
parking
area
and
workout
space,
and
then
you
know
like
a
condo
except
you
have
individual
units,
I
think
actually
there
would
be
a
market
for
it,
but
I
think
we
need
to
be
open
and
prepared.
E
Mr
palermo,
I
think
I
know
the
answer
to
this,
but
I'll
ask:
where
are
we
at
with
community
outreach
on
some
of
these
items?
This
is
the
beginning.
C
F
C
E
E
E
I
think
we
need
to
tread
lightly
here.
I'm
not
saying
I'm
agreeing
with
it
not
agreeing
with
it,
but
I
would
not
want
this
to
be
a
thing
where
we're
sitting
in
this
room.
You
know
how
many
people
are
watching
this
meeting
right
now
at
home
six
I
mean
nobody's
watching
us
and
if
we
spring
this
on
people-
and
they
don't
find
out
about
it
until
the
week
before
the
planning
commission
meeting
when
we've
got
this
canned
and
ready
to
go,
it
could
be
explosive.
E
I
fear
from
a
resident
pushback
where,
if
we're
allowing
permitted
uses
in
a
single
family
zone,
I
I
really
am
concerned
about
resident
pushback
on
that.
If
we
need
to
tread
lightly,
remembering
we
have
other
zones
that
allow
for
high
density
development,
and
I
think,
when
you
buy
a
home
in
a
single
family,
neighborhood
you're,
you're
understanding
that
the
zoning
could
change,
but
you
have
a
general
expectation
of
of
where
you've
moved
into
and
what
it's
going
to
look
like,
and
so
you
know
when
I
move
into
in
our
you
know
like.
E
I
personally
live
in
a
pretty
dense,
devel
neighborhood,
and
so
I
know
what's
going
coming
up
around
me.
If
I
move
to,
you
know
berserk
season
101st,
whatever
I'm,
not
anticipating
something
like
that
coming,
and
so
I
think
we
need
to
be
very
careful
about
because
we're
talking
about
r1
and
we
need
to
really
watch
it
with
community
outreach
extensively
before
we
proceed
too
far
with
this
stuff.
I
Thank
you,
erica
coleman,
hra
administrator.
I
just
want
to
say
in
response
to
your
question,
commissioner,
regarding
community
engagement,
so
this
has
come
forward
not
only
by
developers
by
community
members
by
community
organizations,
and
it
has
been
through
a
lens
of
equity,
racial
equity
affordability
and
addressing
homelessness,
and
so
looking
at
flexibility
and
options.
So
I
will
say
yes,
of
course,
we
would
do
community
engagement
and
would
really
look
into
that
and
really
seek
comment
and
public
feedback.
E
Absolutely-
and
I
think
we
need
to
be
to
your
point
both
and
open
to
both
answers
we
might
hear
from
our
residents.
You
know-
maybe
maybe
a
huge
percentage
want
this,
maybe
huge
percent.
Don't
I
don't
know,
I
don't
do
community
outreach,
so
I
don't
know.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
letting
our
community
know
hearing
them
and
avoiding
potentially
very
explosive
commissioners.
L
L
There
will
be
appropriate
places
where
we
locate
the
various
kinds
of
housing
we're
talking
about,
but
I
think
we
just
need
to
be
open-minded
about
this
and
consider
these
kinds
of
options
we
may
take
them
off
the
table
we
may
for
whatever
reason,
but
I
just
I
think
the
purpose
of
our
being
here
today
is
to
try
to
be
open
to
options.
K
M
M
Find
some
that
are
others,
and
so
it
you
know,
and
the
city
has
you
know
a
business
and
the
city
get
together
kind
of
thing
in
this
room
and
whatnot
and
that
you
know
tends
to
be
kind
of
a
a
select
self-selecting
group.
But
but
I
think
if,
if,
if
you
connect
with
developers
who
do
the
kinds
of
things
that
we're
talking
about
and
then
ask
them
to
do
the
the
sketches?
M
You
know,
and
that
kind
of
thing,
and
if
you
have
a
lot
of
people
parking
on
the
street,
you
know
your
comment
about
walking
the
dog
or
whatever
it
was.
You
know
that
kind
of
thing
all
of
those
are
going
to
impact,
so
I
I
just
I
would
suggest
I
think,
there's
going
to
be
developers
out
there
that
could
get
juiced
up
about
this.
C
Yeah
and
just
you
know
like
I
said,
the
next
steps
is
to
talk
to
developers
and
part
of
that.
You
know
we
didn't
want
to
approach
someone
about
this
and
then
a
week
later
say:
oh
planning,
commission
and
hra
said
they
weren't
interested
at
all.
So
this
was
kind
of
is
this
meeting
and
I'm
getting
some
head
nods
that
something
worth
pursuing
so
that
you
know,
especially
when
we
go
to
the
public.
We
have
more
details
more.
You
know.
This
is
just
what
I
grabbed
from
the
internet.
C
I
I
would
just
I
would
recommend
a
specific
project
and
I
do
not
remember
who
did
it,
but
it
was
a
combination
of
both.
It
was
a
public-private
partnership
in
northeast
minneapolis
and
they
built,
I
think,
it's
five
homes
on
two
lots,
but
the
way
in
which
they
situated
it
on
the
lot.
It
feels
very
single-family
versus
what
this
looks
like
and
I
so
I
think
that
there's
like
a
there's,
a
there's,
a
step
approach
where
we're
not
going
20
town
homes
we're
going
five
single-family
homes
that
are
connected
on
one
single
lot.
C
A
Know
and
to
commissioner
thorson's
point:
this
is
a
discussion.
We
haven't
decided
standards,
we
haven't
decided
any
of
those
sorts
of
things.
This
is
interest
trying
to
keep
an
open
mind,
and
you
know,
as
we
talk
about
these
issues
of
affordable
housing
equity,
these
are
pieces
that
all
can
contribute
to
it.
Where
do
they
fit?
We
don't
know
how
do
they
fit?
We
don't
know,
but
we're
interested
in
learning
more.
G
Yeah
and
once
again,
you
know
be,
besides
the
all
the
technical
part
that
comes
with
this,
what
the
impact
that
it
has
in
communities
depending
of
what
you
choose
and
how
it
has
made
that
impact
in
other
communities,
whether
it
is
in
minnesota
outside
of
minnesota.
What
does
it
mean?
You
know
for
the
for
the
community
of
people
that
will
be
living
in
those
specific
homes?
G
Does
it
make
a
positive
impact,
and
why
or
what
are
the
risks?
Also-
and
you
know
all
this
sociological
psychological
perspective
too,
I
think
it's
important
to
know
to
have
that
kind
of
research.
C
So
we
yeah
we
kind
of
talked
about
that,
so
I
will
turn
it
over
to
sean
now.
H
Thank
you,
so
I'm
sean
james,
I'm
another
one
of
the
long-range
planners
here
with
mike
and
we'll
talk
about
edus
a
little
bit
more
in
depth
here
and
share
my
screen.
H
There
we
go
okay,
so
a
little
bit
of
background.
I
guess
first,
you
know
we're
talking
about
flexibility.
That's
the
common
theme,
and
you
know
adus
is
one
more
way
to
introduce
some
flexibility
in
our
single
family
residential
districts,
so
we
actually
allow
adus.
Already
an
ordinance
was
adopted
in
2009
and,
what's
allowed,
is
that
they're
attached
or
internal
to
the
single-family
house?
H
And
since
then
only
two
adus
have
been
approved.
However,
I'm
not
sure
any
have
been
built
actually,
but
two
have
been
approved
and
then
a
couple
years
ago
it
seems
to
come
up
with
cities.
Periodically
a
couple
years
ago
we
introduced
a
new
ordinance
to
create
flexibility
or
remove
some
of
those
standards.
So
one
was
to
allow
lots
that
don't
meet
that
minimum
lot
size
to
still
have
a
an
adu,
so
say
they're
9
000,
instead
of
the
minimum
11
000..
H
Another
staff
proposal
was
to
allow
lots
that
don't
meet
our
minimum
parking
to
have
an
adu.
However,
that
was
not
adopted
with
that.
Ordinance.
Council
was
not
in
favor
of
that
proposal
at
the
time,
and
then
another
adjustment
was
that
was
part
of
the
ordinance
was
to
kind
of
reframe
how
we
talk
about
adu
sizes.
H
In
the
ordinance,
we
only
allow
an
adu
to
be
33
percent
of
the
building
floor
area,
and
so
before
we
were
calculating.
That
is
what
the
80
is
as
part
of
the
33
percent.
Now
we
don't
it
just
created
a
little
bit
extra
square
footage
that
they
could
amount
to.
H
So
backing
up
more
broadly
some
objectives
for
this
project
that
staff
has
identified
kind
of
retaining.
The
same
theme
that
mike
has
has
mentioned
is
we're
certainly
interested
in
creating
more
affordable
housing
opportunities
and
really
just
to
expand
opportunities
for
aging
in
place.
H
You
know,
as
people
want
to
downsize
but
stay
in
their
neighborhoods
or
stay
on
their
property,
as
well
as,
like
life
cycle,
housing
being
able
to
house,
you
know
in-laws
and
other
family
members.
Another
objective
is
to
create.
You
know,
allow
people
to
create
a
rental
space
on
their
property
for
additional
income.
You
know
whether
that's
to
you
know,
income,
to
help
support
an
upkeep
for
that
property
or
just
to
stay
on
the
property,
and
then
another
objective
is
just
to
create
more
housing
units.
H
It's
a
little
bit
more
nuances
about
what's
allowed
today
and
what's
not
so
now
detached
even
if
it's
a
detached
garage,
we
wouldn't
allow
an
adu
then
to
be
on
that
detached
structure.
If
it's
attached
it's
generally
allowed,
there
are
a
set
of
standards
we
can
talk
about
now
if
it's
upper
level,
internal
or
lower
level.
H
One
caveat,
though,
is
you
know
if
it's
a
single
story
house
and
you
want
a
basement
adu
well,
if
they're
both
the
same
floor
area,
then
that
wouldn't
be
allowed
because
ads
got
to
be
smaller.
H
So
there's
that
you
know
above
garage
is
is
a
dashed
line
there,
because
we
have
a
provision
that
the
adu
share
wall
space
with
the
four
season
living
area,
and
so
you
know,
if
you
have
this,
a
lot
of
our
houses
are
connected
to
the
garage,
but
then,
if
you've
got
another
unit
above
the
garage
well,
that
adu
might
not
be
attached
to
the
4c
four
season
living
area.
There's
ways
around
it.
You
know
you
can
create
that
internal
walkway,
but
then
you
might
not
be
able
to
park
two
cars.
H
H
Let's
see
so
what
we're
finding
really
you
know,
we
only
have
the
two
approved,
almost
everyone
that
comes
in
with
the
wants
to
do
an
adu
as
long
as
it's
attached.
They
can
probably
do
what
they're
thinking
of
today
without
having
it
be
an
adu
because
really
as
long
as
what's
proposed,
to
be
an
adu
if
it
shares
an
internal
connection
to
that
main
living
area,
and
it's
just
subject
to
our
single
family
standards.
H
So
no
concerns
kind
of
broadly
congestion.
You
know
whether
that
means
more
people
more
units.
More
you
know,
more
cars
out
on
the
street
impacts
are
really
more
on
those
adjacent
neighbors
and
then
there's
concerns
to
you
know
long-term.
H
If
the
you
know,
adu
becomes
underused
or
you
know,
left
alone,
would
it
be
reused
and
like
office
space
or
some
other
non-residential
use
or
just
left
dilapidated?
H
I
don't
know
if
ads
have
been
around
long
enough
to
get
to
that
point,
but
it's
a
future
concern,
but
we
do
have
a
list
of
standards
here
then,
to
offset
those
concerns
and
I'll
touch
on
some
of
them
here,
but
common
barriers
we
find,
in
speaking
with
other
cities.
A
lot
of
people
want
to
do
like
a
detached
unit
or
when
people
think
ads.
They
usually
think
of
the
unit
above
a
garage
occupants
is
another
barrier,
so
you
know
by
only
allowing
two
people
in
an
adu
today.
H
H
It
hasn't
come
up
as
much
in
bloomington.
We
don't
have
many
adus
to
begin
with,
I
get
the
sense
that
it's
more
common
with
you
know
detached
units
people
wanting
to
rent
out
both
of
the
detached
structures,
but
it
might
be
an
issue
with
attached
that
we
just
haven't
encountered
it
as
often
minimum
parking,
so
that
one
was
brought
up
with
a
couple
years
ago.
H
There's
concern
too,
with
on
street
parking
and
then
really
the
main
barrier
with
adus.
You
know,
even
with
cities
that
are
the
most
flexible
with
them,
is
just
the
cost
of
constructing
them.
It
deters
most
people,
I
think,
speaking
with
arc
one
architect,
he
commented
that
you
know
of
all
their
inquiries
only
about
five
percent
end
up
being
constructed
just
because
they
realize
the
cost
is
too
much
in
the
end.
H
I
do
want
to
touch
on
parking
quick,
so
we
don't
require
any
additional
parking
for
adus,
but
we
require
those
four
spaces,
as
mike
mentioned,
for
a
single
family.
So
we
do
have
quite
a
few
single-family
homes
that
don't
meet
this
requirements
roughly
around
10
percent.
You
can
see
them
dotted
here
in
the
orange.
H
You
know.
A
lot
of
these
houses
were
just
built
before
the
standard
was
in
place
and
they
have
you
know
one
car
garage,
and
so
they
might
have
a
really
big
driveway
can
park
four
cars,
but
that
one
car
garage
doesn't
meet
our
standard
and
so
an
adu
couldn't
go
there.
H
So
cost
you
know
it's
tough
to
talk
about
costs.
If
you,
google,
adu
you'll,
find
a
picture
like
this.
You
know
they're
they're,
the
luxury
units
they're,
all
new,
builds
and
and
frankly,
they're
quite
expensive.
If
you
google,
cost
on
adus,
you
can
probably
find
a
whole
range
of
people
doing
it
for
just
a
few
thousand.
H
It
really
depends
on
you
know:
what's
there
today,
if
it's
just
a
simple
renovation
or
not
and
a
lot
of
cities
like
us,
you
know
we
require
to
be
a
dwelling
unit,
so
we
want
a
kitchen
and
we
want
a
bath,
but
it's
got
to
be
fully
connected
to
utilities,
kind
of
support
itself,
and
so
that
adds
up
especially
utilities
and
really,
if
it's
detached
just
usually
a
greater
cost.
Just
it
means
further
connecting
those
utilities.
H
H
H
I
don't
know
if
one
could
be
made
in
an
into
an
affordable
unit
in
and
of
itself
that
would
be
difficult,
but,
as
mike
mentioned,
they
help
increase
supply.
I
think,
more
importantly,
it's
it's
really
about
flexibility.
So
you
know,
if
you
want
a
house-
and
you
want
to
house
your
in-laws,
you
know
they
can't
afford
to
buy
their
own
house
in
the
area.
Then
this
is
a
an
easy
option
for
them
and
there's
there's
a
variety
of
scenarios
where
people
might
want
in
adu,
and
so
it
are
they
affordable.
H
In
terms
of
you
know,
if
you
look
at
percent
ami
and
if
they
could
offer
affordable
housing-
maybe
maybe
not,
but
sometimes
it
offers
a
more
affordable
housing
than
you
know,
buying
a
whole
other
house,
so
yeah
I
mentioned
sure
they
can
help
expand
agent
place
and
life
cycle
housing
a
lot
of
people.
You
know
if
they're
going
to
house
their
in-laws,
they
still
want
to
have
some
sort
of
detached
space.
You
know
maintain
separate
lifestyles
but
nearby
same
same
issue
with
rental
space.
H
H
Now
it's
come
up
in
the
past
with
these
longer
lots
that
we
have
now
there's
concern
that
someone
might
place
an
edu
way
in
the
back
of
one
of
these
and
have
it
be
closer
to
their
neighbor
neighbors
a
lot
than
their
own
house.
You
know
there's
certainly,
standards.
We
could
look
at
to
prevent
that,
but
no
more
often
than
not
just
the
cost
of
doing
that,
extending
the
utilities
out
that
far
it
would
be
quite
pricey
and
I'm
not
sure
it'd
even
be
feasible.
H
And
then
another
one
that
comes
up
often
is
you
know
if
someone
was
to
put
an
edu
above
a
garage
now,
what
sort
of
height
impact
would
that
have
on
the
neighbor
it?
Might
you
know
this
this
picture?
Is
it's
a
good
demonstration
of
what
that
impact
looks
like?
However,
it's
a
little
misleading
too,
because
we
do
have
height
standards
in
place.
H
You
know
this
is
maybe
a
couple
feet
off
the
property
line,
but
we
would
require
right
now
in
the
code
we
require
any
living
area
to
be
10
feet
off
the
side,
property
lines
and
then
even
at
10
feet
it
can
only
go
24
feet
tall,
so
we
already
limit
height
for
single
family
dwellings.
Today,
now
an
adu
above
a
garage
then
might
not
be
all
that
more
impactful.
H
And
then
the
occupancy
bedroom
limits
to
now
sure
if
you
allow
more
people
in
adu,
there's
more
people
to
you
know
pay
for
it,
so
it
might
make
it
a
little
more
affordable.
H
With
the
expanding
age
in
place
or
life
cycle
housing,
I
think
it's
it's.
If
you
remove
the
occupancy
limit,
it
would
just
introduce
more
flexibility.
So
you
know
if
you
want
to
downsize,
if
you
have
kids
somewhere,
but
you
want
to,
you
know,
hang
on
to
the
option
that
you
could
house
them
for
a
certain
amount
of
time
someday
or
it
just
increases
more
options
to
do
that,
to
make
use
of
your
dwelling
area
and
then
same
with
the
rental
space.
H
So
you
know,
certainly
if
you,
if
you
can
have
more
occupants
more
bedrooms,
you
can
make
more
income
negative
impacts.
You
know
a
lot
of
those
would
be
associated
with
more
people
on
a
lot,
but
at
the
same
time,
in
our
single
family
standards,
we
really
don't
regulate
people
per
lot.
It's
more.
You
know
size
of
bedroom
regulations
according
to
billing
standard
and
on
the
left,
are
the
edu
size
standards
that
we
have
in
place
today.
H
If
we
were
to
remove
occupancy
bedroom
limits
on
the
right,
is
the
property
maintenance
code?
So
this
is
what
we
would
require
for
any
new
builds,
and
you
know
really
looking
at
these
numbers
a
300
square
foot
adu,
which
is
our
minimum
size.
H
You
really
could
only
fit
two
people
in
that
anyway,
but
some
of
the
larger
adus
you
could
fit
a
few
more
in,
given
that
property
maintenance
code.
H
Richfield
allows
detached
adus
if
they're
associated
with
a
garage
I
know
burnsville
was
one
of
the
cities
recently
updated
their
standards,
so
they
used
to
only
allow
detached
if
it
was
on
a
lot
with
a
at
least
an
acre
lot,
one
acre
and
now
they
just
allow
them
regardless
of
size,
and
they
don't
have
a
limit
on
occupancy,
but
they
still
have
the
two-bedroom
limit
and
then
eagan
standards
closely
match
ours.
With
that
regard,.
H
So
mike
mentioned,
you
know
we're
certainly
looking
at
more
ongoing
study
meetings,
but
I
think
that
engagement
is
the
next
step
and
get
the
broader
residence
perspective
on
these,
especially
the
detached
and
the
let's
talk
provides
a
good
avenue
to
do
that
online
anyway.
We'll
have
to
talk
more
about
in
person.
K
H
This
project
moves
on
so
yeah.
I've
focused
mostly
on
you
know,
should
detach
ddus
be
allowed,
should
those
occupancy
limits
be
removed,
and
then
you
know
certain
this
is
early
in
the
project.
Should
we
look
at
any
other
flexibility
or
standards
with
regard
to
adu?
So
with
that,
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
I
I
have
a
question
so
since
burnsville
passed
their
detached
adus
have
they
had
any
projects
that
have
come
up.
J
H
I
H
I'm
not
sure
yet.
I
noticed
that
the
other
day
that
they
recently
changed
their
ordinance,
and
so
I
think
they
changed
it,
because
one
or
two
people
wanted
a
detached
unit,
but
I'm
not
sure
many
have
been
constructed
since.
I
I
asked
because
I
wonder
if
it
really
is
going
to
make
that
big
of
a
difference
if
there's
not
really
an
appetite
for
adus
is
that
this
would
be
a
low
priority.
In
my
my
opinion,
but
that's
that's
my
opinion
on.
I
think
time
should
be
spent
elsewhere.
I
think,
typically,
when
you
see
an
adu,
it's
usually
housing,
you
know
your
in-laws
or
your
kids.
I
You
know
that's,
I
think
we
see
a
lot
of
it.
I
don't
think
that's
necessarily
creating
a
lot
of
affordable
housing
and
I
think
we
should
spend
our
time
elsewhere.
We're
thinking
about
affordability,.
J
I
think
a
question
more
than
a
comment
one.
Would
we
allow
this
with
duplexes
again
my
expertise
going
back
to
minneapolis
and
I
don't
see
as
the
city
comparisons
minneapolis
was
listed.
J
I
worked
on
our
adu
over
there
in
the
outreach,
as
well
with
my
colleague,
who
are
planners,
so
we
did
have
a
lot
of
engagements
over
on
that
part.
Obviously,
minneapolis
is
completely
different
in
character
to
bloomington,
but
when
it
comes
to
density
and
the
growth
in
you
know,
residents
that
we're
expecting
and
affordability
that
we're
trying
to
address.
I
definitely
do
think
we
should
allow
it.
J
I
think,
if
residents
who
possibly
have
the
capacity
on
their
lots
and
financial
capabilities,
if
they're
educated
enough
and
aware
of
this
resource,
I'm
sure
they
would
consider
it
as
a
revenue
for
a
resource
revenue,
but
also
allow
for
more
residents
on
the
lot.
I
do
think
some
good
design
guidelines
should
exist.
I
do
think
a
detached
option
should
exist
and
you
know
the
three
options
were
attached:
detached
and
interior
and
a
lot
of
the
single
family
homes
that
I've
seen
might
not
have
basements
or
if
they
do
have
a
basement.
J
M
J
If
the
owner
lives
on
the
property,
then
the
carer
that
the
property
you
provide
different
care.
If
you
live
on
the
property
in
any
of
the
units,
it's
different,
you
maintain
the
property
better
than
a
a
landlord.
Would
so
that's
something
that
was
a
very
big
deal
over
in
minneapolis
in
terms
of
conversations,
and
I
don't
think
that
has
been
lifted,
but
we
are
allowing
the
adus
with
duplexes
now
and
obviously
we
got
rid
of
single-family
districts
all
together.
J
But
if
we're
talking
about
allowing
for
densities-
and
we
are
now
considering
densities
and
reducing
single
lots-
I
should
say
a
lot
areas
in
r1
districts.
Then
why
not
also
allow
adus.
I
Thank
you.
I
just
have
a
question
for
commissioner
abdi
in
minneapolis.
I
wanted
to
clarify
and
ask
if
you
had
a
duplex,
if
it
was
zoned,
duplex
zoning
and
the
owner
was
going
to
live
on
site,
then
you
were
eligible
to
make
a
triplex
and
that
unit
counted
as
an
adu
unit
in
minneapolis,
correct.
J
Correct,
but
we
would,
at
the
time
we
were
definitely
staying
away
from
the
term
triflex,
but
it
would
technically
be
a
third
unit,
significantly
smaller,
in
square
footage.
Generally,
you
know
if
it's
a
detached,
for
example,
it
would
be
only
one
bedroom
with
certain
limit
in
terms
of
the
square
footage
of
that
living
space,
but
yeah.
It
would
technically
be
three
units
on
the
lot.
The
owner
lives
in
one
of
the
units
rents
out.
J
But
if
somebody
were
to
propose
something
like
one
of
those
longer
lots
that
you
showed
if
they're
building
something
way
back
in
the
if
you're
tucking
it
way
back,
then
you
can
require
setbacks.
You
know
you
can
require
height
requirements.
You
know
how
many
windows
they
can
have
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff,
but
at
the
same
time
the
big
difference
would
be
that
they
would
be
significantly
smaller
in
size
and
because
we're
not
going
to
be
re.
If
we
are
not
going
to
require
additional
parking,
then
minneapolis
did
not.
M
Yes,
commissioner,
thank
you
hra
john
olson.
I
I
I
to
answer
your
question.
I'd
I'd
like
it
to
be
explored
more.
I
would
go
in
that
direction
and
I'm
thinking
of
two
situations,
one
in
duluth,
I
was
a
youth
director
and
one
of
the
families
that
was
very
involved
in
the
program
had
what
they
called
mother-in-law
room
or
whatever,
and
there
was
somebody
who
came
to
council
several
years
ago-
and
she
was
talking
about
you-
can
hear
it
in
her
voice.
She
wanted
to
have
her
mom.
M
I
think
it
was
her
dad
close
by
where
they
could
could
help
be
be
there
for
each
other,
and
sometimes
it
is
both
ways
taking
care
of
young
kids
or
something
like
that,
and
in
my
own
case
I
I
currently
live
in
a
in
a
co-op.
M
But
I
used
to
live
on
2nd
avenue
and
it
was
a
pretty
large
lot,
but
we
added
on
a
14
by
16
room,
including
the
basement
below
it,
and
that
that's
adequate
for
having
a
small
kitchen
in
the
bathroom
and
that
kind
of
stuff,
and
it
there
was
absolutely
I
mean
it
was
virtually
no
change
in
the
look
of
the
neighborhood
for
that
issue
in
terms
of
selling
these
kinds
of
things
to
that,
so
it
it
seems
to
me
that
maybe
that
there's
a
kind
of
a
case
by
case,
but
I
think
if,
if
we
move
into
this
thoughtfully
and
we
we
have
proposals
and
we
look
at
it-
I
don't
know
how
we
do
this
in
terms
of
standards
and
codes
and
whatnot.
M
But
did
we
have
some
experimenting
by
somebody
comes
forward
with
like
that
woman
and
said
you
know,
and
in
their
particular
case,
adding
on
a
14
by
16
like
I
did,
would
be
a
relatively
inexpensive
thing.
I
think
it
cost
16
000
or
something
like
that
or
no
more
like
35
000
or
something
but
not
the
100
or
200,
and
and
so
I
think
that
it
could
help
a
lot
of
family
situations
and
in
terms
of
renting
out
the
friends
or
something
like
that,
I
mean
that
maybe
gets
a
little
bit
different.
M
But
and
we've
recently
had
younger
people,
who've
gone
to
college
or
you
know,
gone
to
extra
education
and
couldn't
get
a
job,
so
we've
had
multi-generational
with
the
20-somethings
or
whatever
and
and
they're
40-50-something
parents.
So
I
I
think
and
and
maybe
maybe
there's
more
peace
in
the
family.
If
you
end
up
having
a
you
know,
when
you
talk
about
lifestyle
differences,
you
can
shut
the
door
and
insulated
walls
or
whatever.
B
I
would
say
just
to
take
through
the
questions
you
have
here
detached.
I
think
yes,
especially
if
we're
talking
about
potentially
above
garage,
we
have
a
lot
of
chunks
of
the
city
where
the
garages
are
not
attached
and
I
think
the
shared
wall
rule
is
not
really
helpful
limits
on
occupants
removed.
I
think
that's
fine
number
of
bedrooms
wrote
if
you
really
want
to
be
an
adu.
I
think
two
is
probably
plenty
the
question
about
legally
non-conforming
parking
that
goes
back
to
our
conversation
earlier
about
parking.
B
So
if
our,
if
our
standard
goes
from
two
garage
stalls
down
to
perhaps
two
off
street
parking
spaces,
that
of
those
dots,
probably
almost
all
of
them,
suddenly
become
conforming.
So
if
we
solve
our
parking
regulation,
we
solve
the
parking
question
for
that
and
then
the
other
one
was
the.
I
would
also
look
at
the
proportion
question
because
I
guess
again,
especially
for
maybe
a
lower
level
unit.
You
know,
I
think
it's
fine.
J
Would
a
rental
license
be
required?
Obviously,
if
you
are
leasing
it,
but
if
you
have
multi-generational
purposes
should
because
it
would
be
like
a
second
or
a
third
unit,
depending
on
which,
if
it's
single
family
or
duplex,
if
we're
allowing
that
would
we
allow
would
require,
I
should
say,
licenses,
regardless
of
who's,
occupying
that
space.
C
If
you're
related
you-
wouldn't
this
is
kind
of
a
point
we
I
don't
think
we
brought
up
but
a
lot
of
times
when
people
come
to
the
counter
and
are
asking
about
adus
for
their
family
members
and
they
find
out.
Oh,
I
could
just
have
my
family
members
live
with
me.
I
don't
need
to
get
an
adu,
then
they,
you
know
that's
a
lot
of
times,
that's
satisfactory,
so
it's
adding
that
extra
separation
and
only
when
it
becomes,
I
believe,
a
rental.
Then
it
requires
that
rental
license.
G
Thank
you.
I
think
it
is
worth.
I
agree
with
the
detached
being
allowed.
I
think
one
thing
that
I've
noticed
is,
I
think,
we're
going
a
lot
more
multi-generational
and
I
think
culturally
too.
We
have
to
look
at
that.
If
we're
talking
about
equity,
we
have
to
look
at
other
cultures
and
how
they
live
and
they
do
live
multi-generational,
and
I
think
that
by
not
allowing
that
we're
kind
of
disservicing
them
in
our
city.
G
So
if
we
want
to
welcome
all,
I
think
we
really
need
to
look
into
this
a
little
further.
I
definitely
agree
with
detached.
I
think
the
number
of
occupants
can
be
removed.
I
think
the
number
of
bedrooms
is
pretty
pretty.
I
think
it's
okay,
I
think
I
think,
maybe
depending
on
situational.
G
I
think
that
there
might
be
a
way
to
you
know,
work
with
that
and
depending
on
what
the
real
reason
is,
and
then
you
know
just
with
parking
and
things
we've
kind
of
talked
about
that
before,
and
I
think
we
just
need
to
be
flexible
with
that,
and
but
I
do
think
it's
something
that
we
really
need
to
be
open
to,
because
I
see
it
a
lot
more.
I
see
a
lot
more
multi-generational
just
with
where
things
are
going.
A
John
solberg,
from
planning,
commission
and
yeah
again
back
to
your
questions,
detached
adus,
I
think
that's
a
it
should
be
a
an
option.
Folks
can
look
at.
I
I
mean
at
it.
Affordability
I
mean
who
knows,
that's
a
question
from
one
standpoint,
but
I
think
life
cycle
housing
and
having
that
ability
to
build
on
a
space
that
maybe
future
on
homeowners
could
convert
to
something
else.
A
But
my
old
neighbor
would
love
to
live
with
her
daughter,
but
she
really
really
likes
her
independence,
so
she's
96
years
old,
still
living
in
her
house,
but
that
opens
up
a
house
that
was
built
in
the
late
50s
that
hopefully
a
new
family
could
could
afford
to
move
into.
A
So
I
think
that's
good
piece
limit
on
occupants.
I
I
think
that's
self-policing
and
it's
in
its
own
right
number
of
bedrooms.
I
think
in
some
ways,
maybe
that
could
be
proportional
to
the
size
of
house.
I
mean
you
went
through
the
the
numbers,
I
think,
on
our
houses
with
single
car
garages.
We
must
know
the
number
that
have
three
bedroom
homes
as
long
as
it
were
less
or
one-third
less
or
something
flexibility
of
other
adus.
One
of
the
things
thinking
about
you
mentioned
it
was
just
maybe
again,
commissioner
roman,
is
basement
yeah
to
me.
A
That's
a
no-brainer
or
an
upstairs
if
somebody
wants
to
when
it
comes
to
detached.
Maybe
that's
where
some
proportionality
comes
to
it,
and
I
was
just
thinking
about
it
1096
square
feet,
commissioner
thorson
was
that
correct,
1096
square
feet
on.
A
Yeah
so,
and
a
typical
bloomington
two-car
garage
20
by
20,
or
thereabouts,
he's
at
400
square
feet
30
that
33,
just
if
you
wanted
to
make
an
addition
on
the
back
side
or
on
the
top,
it
just
doesn't
make
sense,
does
not
compute
and
then
the
other
thing
that
you
mentioned
mike
was
just
really
about
the
fact
that
I
think
these
dwelling
units
couldn't
be
within
so
many
feet
of
a
property
line,
and
I'm
thinking
about
it,
like
my
old
garage,
was
five
feet
off
the
property
line.
M
Just
talking
about
two
stories:
we
have
a
number
of
them
on
the
east
and
the
town
you
know,
farm
homes
or
whatever,
and
and
I'm
flashing
back
also
to
studies,
there's
a
requirement.
I
think
that
foreshadowing,
and
so
I
think
that
needs
to
be
built
into
this.
If
we
end
up
going
up
some
you
know
and
and
and
not
not
the
mcmansion
kind
of
thing,
I
mean
the
fear
that
happened
with.
That
was,
I
think,
as
much
the
massiveness
of
it
all,
but
but
also
shadowing,
and
things
like
that.
J
And
notice
the
planet
commissioners
are
just
going
in
and
I
think
you
have
a
better
order.
I
apologize
for
that
mr
chair,
something
that
I've
noticed
if
we're
encouraging.
You
know
this
direction
of
housing
and
you
know
housing
opportunities
and
changing
our
code.
I
know
city
programs
is
not
a
part
of
a
conversation.
That's
not
listed
here.
J
You
know.
How
do
you
encourage
creating
something
does
not
necessarily
mean
it
would
happen.
Are
there
programs
that
the
city
is
also
considering,
in
addition
to
the
opportunities
in
land
use,
changes
that
we're
discussing
right
now,
you
know:
what's
on
the
menu,
is
the
council
up
to
you
know
helping
fund
you
know?
Are
there
loans
grants
to
encourage
support
whatever
the
case
may
be?
I
think
that
would
definitely
bring
interest
from
residents
to
look
into
and
say
this
is
an
opportunity.
J
What
else
can
I
do,
or
how
else
can
I
do,
because
it
would
be
useless
if
folks
are
not
able
to
utilize
or
create
these
housing
opportunities
if
they're
not
disappointable
or
doable?
I
should
say.
M
Another
idea
flashed
in
the
urban
land
institute-
and
I
didn't
know
this
till
I
lived
in
bloomington
for
a
long
time-
was
major
in
the
city
planning
what
was
initially
called
and
what's
now
called
south
loop
and
and
the
mall
of
america,
and
so
I
think,
they're
they're
another
resource.
You
obviously
know
about.
M
I
mean
you
interact
with
them,
so
it
might
be
that
that
you
know
engaging
them,
might
give
some
free
support
for
you
doing
what
you
do
in
terms
of
staff
time
and
maybe
also
some
connecting
to
monies.
I
don't
know
I'm
totally
done
now.
K
Commissioner,
commissioner
lewis,
I
just
wanted
to
say-
and
this
is
something
that
I
just
thought
as
we
were
doing
this
discussion-
I
thought
of
the
last
year
going
through
covid
and
how
we
were
so.
K
A
lot
of
us
were
separated
from
our
families,
and
I
just
think
something
like
this
and
looking
at
the
detached
adus
and
that
kind
of
thing
there
may
be
more
interest
out
there.
Now.
I
know
I'm
I'm
closer
to
my
family
now
now
that
we
can
get
together
again
and
people
may
want
to
bring
their
family
closer,
an
older
relative
or
bring
the
kids
home.
I
know
a
lot
of
kids
probably
did
come
home
and
had
to
sleep
in
the
basement
for
a
year.
D
K
H
Okay,
good
so
yeah.
I
think
I
got
clear
direction
with
that.
Thank
you.
You
know
that,
and
I
think
mike
might
have
a
few
more
slots.
C
Yeah,
well
maybe
we're
running
kind
of
low
on
time.
I
think
for
one
my
computer
is
ten
percent
and
it's
already
nine
o'clock,
so
I
mean
I
think
this
if
it's
all
right
with
glenn.
Maybe
we
bring
this
up
at
another
study
session
and
maybe
it's
concurrent
or
maybe
it's
separate,
but
this
is
more
about
the
things
that
staff
it's
operational
efficiency,
so
the
things
that
are
taking
us
a
lot
of
time
and
for
what
reward
are
we
getting?
C
You
know
we
spend
a
lot
of
time
on
prevailing
lot,
less
calculating
things
like
lot
list
or
accessory
buildings
or
set
prevailing
setbacks,
and
how
often
are
they
really
preventing
something
from
happening
so
that
that's
kind
of
what
that
was
going
to
discuss?
But
we
can
discuss
that
in
more
detail
in
another
study
session.
A
That
works,
I
think
you
would
get
a
head
nod
generally
from
the
planning
commission
to
to
be
more
efficient
in
in
those
in
those
manners
not
to
be
more
efficient,
not
that
you're
not,
but
that
we
recognize
that
the
budgets
are
one
thing
and
providing
the
best
value
is
certainly
something
we'd
be
looking
for.
So
all
right,
chair
lewis,
do
you
have
to
conclude
your
meeting
or
well.
K
K
Commissioner,
thorson
has
moved
to
adjourn
the
meeting.
Is
there
a
second.
K
Olson
is
second
by
commissioner
olson,
so
it
has
been
moved
by
commissioner
thorson
seconded
by
commissioner
er
olson
that
we
adjourned
the
meeting
administrator
coleman.
Would
you
do
the
roll
call
vote
aye.
A
A
A
All
right
planning,
commission,
we
have
the
september
23rd
2021
planning
commission
synopsis
in
front
of
us
for
everybody's
information
on
this
one
commissioners
that
were
absent.
That
night
were
commissioner
corman,
commissioner
goldsman
and
commissioner
abdi.
The
rest
of
us
were
in
attendance
and
at
this
point
I
would
take
a
motion
to
approve
the
september.
23Rd
2021
plan
console
moved
all
right.
We
have
a
motion.
Is
there
a
second?
Second
all
right?
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
to
approve
the
september.
A
23Rd
2021
planning
commission
synopsis
any
further
discussion,
not
seeing
any
all
those
in
favor
say
I
I
all
those
abstaining,
say
aye
and
any
against
the
motion
same
sign
all
right
motion
passes.
A
I
know
the
names
were
good.
Moving
on
to
the
next
item,
which
is
really
planning,
commission
policy
and
issue
updates.
Mr
mark.
D
D
Actually
let
me
back
up
november
4th
as
our
next
meeting
and
at
that
meeting
we
have
our
three
transportation
items
we've
talked
about
previously
and
then
we
did
add
an
item
for
adoption
of
your
2022
schedule.
So
if
packet
just
came
out
today,
you'll
have
that
and
then
two
weeks
beyond
that
november,
18th
again
capital
improvement
program,
and
then
you
continued
the
south
town
redevelopment
item
to
that
meeting
as
well.
D
A
All
right,
thank
you,
mr
mark
regard.
Any
questions
for
mr
markgard
or
any
new
items
you'd
like
to
bring
to
the
rest
of
the
planning
commission
or
to
staff's
attention.
A
Not
seeing
any
that
would
conclude
our
last
item
for
this
october,
28
2021
planning,
commission
meeting
and
with
that
we'll
adjourn
our
meeting
tonight.
Thank
you
all.