City Council - workshop

The names that I have in the list that I have them in, if you could raise your hand when I call your name. Deb Harper. Oh, we're all for one. Deb Harper. How about John Hickman? There's John. Dana Sembolnik. There's Dana. Very good. Chris Wickland. Hi, Chris. Mark Hanson. There's Mark. Sally Ness. There's Sally. Kevin Johnson. And Amber Mathwig. All right, so what we'll do, we're just going to start working our way through. And if I'll call, if I see additional people show up, we'll just try and fill people in as much as we can. So we're going to start. We don't have Deb Harper here, correct? So we're going to start with John Hickman. John, come on up. And you can sign in when you're done, John. John, why don't you sign in when you're done? We'll try and keep it as tight as we can here. Good evening and welcome.

Good evening. My name is John Hickman. I live on the creek about halfway between Gas for Less and Moyer Park.

John, you got to get right into that microphone. Hello. There you go. Right into that microphone. Okay.

live on the creek about halfway between the gas for less and moyer park i'm here to talk about the nine mile creek project and to request action by the council luckily for all concerned i thought the time limit was three minutes so here we go before the referendum was voted on i asked a city staff person what the 20 million dollars would be spent on the response essentially was we don't know several residents told me they got the same answer only after the referendum passed did it become known that the city wanted a bike path that brought about a period of serious distrust but then came the plan to re-meander the creek upstream from the historic mill area the written plan was clear and the city conducted an open house and a guided tour trust was reestablished which brings us to the plan to transform some heavily wooded upland areas into oak savannas this plan was not presented at open houses there was no guided tour it's mentioned in the environmental assessment worksheet but not in enough detail for reviewers to make an informed comment Over time, different city maps have demarcated different areas. Detailed information was recently provided in an RFP, but that document is not easily accessible to residents and provides no opportunity for feedback. The result is a return to distrust. There is a way to restore trust again. The city needs to expand on the same approach that it used for the middle area. In the middle area, there was really no alternative. Once the city explained it to residents, we could see that the work proposed needed to be done. For the uplands project, there are any number of alternatives, for example, transform the area into an oak Savannah. or eradicate just the buckthorn and leave the rest of the woodlands as is. What's the best plan? We truly do not know. We do know one thing. This decision is not one that should be made by city staff alone. Citizen input is essential when what's being proposed is a radical change to the crown jewel in the city's park system. I request that the council initiate a two-part process that will restore trust and restore the woodlands. First, city staff should conduct a guided tour and soon after a public meeting. Allow plenty of time for Q&A. Second, establish a task force consisting of staff, residents, and outside experts. Something like six meetings over two months should enable the group to develop recommendations. The result will be a plan that is good for the woodlands and trusted by our residents. Thank you.

Thank you, John. Council, any questions for John? I appreciate your coming in. We have a general rule. I appreciate your supporting what John has to say, but we have a general rule of no clapping. Because if we allow clapping, then we have to allow booing. And I'm not gonna allow booing in a meeting. So we're not gonna do that. And I appreciate it and I understand you support him, but we're gonna stick to those rules if we can. Thank you so very much.

Thank you, John. Dana.

Good evening and welcome. And as I said, if you could get right into the microphone so everybody in back can hear you.

Hi, my name is Dana symbolic and I live on 13th Avenue South and I'm here. Um, concerning the Dora project. It's a 52 apartment building that they're trying to build at the end of 13th Avenue and American Boulevard. And, um. I'm speaking on the behalf of the residents on the street. And, um, I, I just want to be clear that we support affordable housing and. Recognize the importance of creating housing opportunities for people of all income levels. Our concerns are not about future residents or the goal of expanding housing access. Our concern is whether the specific location can realistically support a development of this size without causing serious harm to the surrounding neighborhood. The most urgent issue is parking. Georgetown is already overwhelmed with vehicles. Existing apartment complexes have created significant parking shortages and street parking is already overflowing into residential area. We always have cars parked in front of our houses that don't belong to us and We can park our cars, you know, so, or people that come to visit us. Uh, despite repeated concerns raised by residents, the current parking situation has not been, um, addressed or enforced cars already flood our streets. And in many areas, there is simply no capacity left. Adding another high density apartment building would place an enormous strain on already overburdened neighborhood. It would significantly worsen parking congestion, increase traffic and negatively affect daily life for residents. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CANNOT ABSORB A LARGE INCREASE IN VEHICLES WITHOUT SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES. AND WE STRONGLY URGE THE CITY TO REQUIRE A COMPREHENSIVE PARKING AND TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY BEFORE APPROVING THIS PROJECT. THIS STUDY SHOULD EVALUATE CURRENT PARKING DEMAND, PROJECTED INCREASES, TRAFFIC FLOW, PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND THE IMPACT OF BOTH EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS. Public safety is another major concern. Increased density means more traffic, reduce visibility, more pedestrian risk and potential delays for emergency vehicles. We are also concerned about infrastructure capacity, including drainage and storm water management. Nearby properties have already experienced maintenance and flooding issues. Additional development should not worsen existing infrastructure problems. Residents in this neighborhood have invested heavily in their homes and in building a stable community. We ask the City to carefully consider the long-term effects this development may have on neighborhood character, livability, property values, and overall quality of life. we also believe development should provide meaningful benefits to the broader community as proposed this project offers limited publicly accessible benefits for existing residents we respectfully ask the city to consider whether alternative uses for the site may serve may better serve community needs such as additional parking public parking green space or other amenities that improve quality of life for both residents and transit users there's a bus stop at the end of like right there so a full public parking and traffic impact study. We would like, if the project moves forward, we request the following, a full public parking and traffic impact study, a public safety evaluation, strong parking mitigation measures, enhanced stormwater management and infrastructure planning, long-term property maintenance requirements, meaningful community green space and public amenities. We believe affordable housing and strong neighborhoods can coexist, but only when development is thoughtfully planned, data driven, and responsive to community concerns. We respectfully ask the City to ensure that any decision on this project is based on careful analysis of parking, traffic, public safety, and infrastructure capacity. For the past few weeks, we've been, I mean, I don't know how to enforce it. Nobody is enforcing, but there are semi. Trucks parked at the end of the street, like 5 in 1 day. They don't live there. They also don't live there. They just get picked up and drive away in their trucks, their cars, and semis.

Thank you, Dina. Thanks for your input. And I think as we talked about last time, we are literally at the starting line of this project right now. And a lot of what you just talked about there is part of the whole development process. And those will be considered as we move through this process. But I appreciate your bringing those forward. Thank you. I saw a couple of people come in. I just want to double back to the top of our list. Deb Harper, are you here yet?

No Deb yet. All right. Chris Wickland. Good evening and welcome.

Hello.

Can you hear me okay?

Yes, we can.

All right, I don't need this microphone, but we'll use it. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and City Council members and other people attending this listening session tonight. I'm Chris Wickland, longtime Bloomington resident, and this is my daughter, Midori. I'm here to discuss a very serious health risk to my family, my friends, and my beloved pets. The symptoms of this health risk include crushing migraine headaches, nausea, and serious vomiting. Not even a joke. This is actually happening to my friends and my family. This is while we are outside trying to enjoy our beautiful yard. in Bloomington. This forces us to remain indoors through all of our Minnesota seasons, every single day. Why these symptoms, you wonder? Because the neighbors have been allowed to use a lobotis, I don't know the pronunciation, lobotis, lobatis, high frequency shrieker or screamer, which is used to scare away dogs, my dog, cats, coyotes, deer, and other animals. Do you remember the movie Dumb and Dumber? Anybody? Where Jim Carrey says, do you want to hear the most annoying sound in the world? Goes something like this. Okay, I'll spare you the drama. Sorry. I'll let you hear from Midori in just a minute because she can hear this crazy, annoying sound. This is a terrible and debilitating shriek that is only audible to pets, animals, and very young ears, 20-something, 30-something. My young friends can hear it, and they're miserable from the sound. My daughter and all of her friends can hear it, and they're miserable. Our pets are neurotic from this sound when we are out in our yard. This is all very sad to me as a 35-plus-year Bloomington homeowner. homeowner and i would like action taken very quickly to resolve this shut down the devices and not allow them to be used any longer yes we've talked to the neighbors it has fallen on deaf ears yes we have called the bloomington police many times when we've been out trying to enjoy our yard asking them to ask to be shut down No, nothing can be done because this is at a decibel that cannot be like recorded or heard by the average person. Only the young years and the animals please help us resolve this health risk. Here's my daughter to speak from her perspective since she can hear it.

Thank you, mom. Thank you. Mr. Mayor and city council. So, I appreciate you listening today when I walk into my mom's yard, I hear a loud beeping noise, like, shrieking noise from the device and it does give me a migraine and it does make me feel lightheaded and nauseous, especially if I want to spend more than 5 minutes in the yard. My mom is having some friends over in a couple weeks for a bonfire, and I don't feel like I can even go to the bonfire because I can't comfortably sit in her yard with out hearing this loud noise. I can't really spend time with her friends back there due to the frequency of the noise. The device is triggered by motion, so my mom did put up a panel to block it, but sadly the neighbors have now brought in a second device and also installed it facing our yard on the property line. um it's very sad for us and it's sad for our pets and it would be fantastic if action was taken quickly and the device was removed so back to my mom

I'd say in closing, please help us resolve this serious health risk. It is not a joke. It is very serious to my family and my friends and our pets. We request the shrieking devices be shut down and removed immediately and possibly further ordinances be put in place to prevent this from causing further harm to additional residents, friends, family, etc. Questions, anyone?

Well, I'll just, I'll congratulate you because this is a new one. I've not heard this one before. And so very well done. I honestly don't know what to even respond because I've not heard this one before. And I don't know what there is in terms of regulation or how it works. So I'm going to look to staff and figure out how we can figure out a way to get our arms around this. Council Member D'Alessandro, a question?

Sure.

Sure.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for being here. How do you know that these are what these things are? I've never heard of it.

We looked them up online.

Okay, so you can see the devices.

Yes, we can see the device. It was right on my property line. And as soon as I confronted her about it and said, hey, can you turn this off when we're in our yard? She moved it back a few feet. Okay. But you were able to identify it as a particular brand? If you look at Pilates online, it says that they're high frequency for keeping out nuisance coyotes and wolves and dogs and cats, basically. Okay.

And without disclosing your actual address, what part of town are you in?

I'm over on the east side on Portland and 95th. Okay. Thanks. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. And I do have pictures of the device. I didn't know if I could share those with somebody at some point. I'm happy to do that.

Well, I hope you've signed in a way that we can get ahold of you and staff will be reaching out to you. We'll see what we can figure out with this because like I said, this is, I think we're plowing new ground here. So I appreciate you bringing it forward. Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Mark Hanson, are you here?

There he is.

Good evening and welcome.

Good evening. Uh, mayor council members, um, here for the, I live about 4 houses west of there, but, um. I'm not going to give you my feelings. I'm going to talk to you about a couple of items that you may not be aware of. I. I stopped at the city planning department about 3 weeks ago, and they walked through the new subdivision rule where we lowered. Where we lowered the. Subdivision requirements on single are 1 from 11,000 square feet down to 7800 tweet. That was the 1st time I'd heard of it. My background, I'm a licensed or was a licensed land surveyor. I worked in the city for 46 years. I think I know a few things about subdivisions. I. I think we might have got hoodwinked on that one and it really wasn't put out there. It's neither here nor there. This particular subdivision is four houses west of my house. It's not in my backyard, but from a neighbor's standpoint, I think it's wrong. Now, if you take the address, it's off Amston Ridge. I don't know if any of you have your packets or if they'll be at council tonight. The address is off Amston Ridge Drive. The driveway is off in Anderson Ridge drive. It is on a corner lot. So when I was talking to the city, they explained the corner lot rules. Fine and dandy I said, oh, yeah, well, there's not much we can do about this. There is 1 thing that got overlooked though. Underneath this garage. There used to be another garage, the backyard was filled in from the excess off 169 bridge when it was built. So about 15 years ago, that landowner that owned that house at the time, and they may be here this evening, had that backyard filled in. They put an egress window in the back where the garage door used to be and converted that space to living space. Now, we all know a tuck under is a garage underneath the house. What is a garage over a house? What do you call it? A bonus room, but it's still part of the house right when it's accessible from the basement and used as a basement. Okay. Okay, well, it requires a 30 foot setback if it's part of the house. Off what they're calling now is the backyard, which a garage yes, can be in that backyard. But part of the house cannot be in the backyard, which would make the setback for this new lot. 30 feet off the back of the existing house from the address side, looking backwards, which makes the lot. That they want to subdivide too small and unbuildable. I think it would be kind of hard for the city to approve something that violates their own setbacks. So, I'm asking you to have it pulled tabled. Or whatever to take it, I cut it down.

I. Don't disagree with you and I don't disbelieve you, but I don't know the details in the specifics on that. And so we'd have to look for staff. Uh, I see council member Nelson with a question.

No, I just want to clarify. I appreciate you bringing the information and appreciate your experience on this. Um. It's the existing house.

Do I need to just talk into it more.

Apparently it was me not a surprise to anybody. Um, so thank you for bringing that forward. It's the existing house. You have a concern with correct? Yes, it's now under the garage, which okay, but. How does that apply to the new lot? I mean, the existing house would be, to my knowledge, legally nonconforming if it was nonconforming. And that situation would not change by subdividing that lot. It would still not meet the setback either way. Do you see that differently?

No, I see it completely differently. I see it as 30 feet to a living space or occupied from a living space. That's the backyard they're considering as a backyard. It's now only 9, 10.

So what you're saying is because the backspace of the one on Amsden is a front yard and then the new one will be on Van Ness, is that right? And so you're saying that the backyard of the Amsden will be too close? Is that...

No, I'm well, if you if you hold 30 feet off the house, what I'm claiming is that you've got a garage that is over the top of a living space and you have to be 30 feet off.

So my specific question is, does that change with the splitting of the lot? Yes.

Drastically is only no, but. Is it nonconforming now? I don't know if it is or not. That's the city, the planning commission. I stopped and talked to him Thursday. I don't know what they're going to bring forward tonight. Fair enough to everybody, but I don't, I don't think it's conforming either way.

Okay, so then I don't know that Mike, that's what my question is, is, is the splitting of the lot making it non conforming or not.

If you hold the 30 foot set back off the house, it. It wouldn't be large enough to subdivide that.

Okay.

Um, Sir, I think you might be the gentleman who brought this information to our city staff. I think you mentioned that a moment ago. Our city staff did go out to the property and council. This is the issue I emailed you about last week, but their inspection of the property and I'm just going to read to you from their memo here based on the records described above and all the information received to date city staff has no reason to determine the proposed plat is not compliant with the zoning code at this time. Absent new information contradicting the assessing and building records, city staff still recommends approval of the preliminary and final plat.

Okay, well, then I would say that every. Talk under garage you've got here doesn't comply. I think they need to go back and look at their code and see where is it written that you can have a living space under a garage and still be. 30 feet less than 30 feet from the back property line.

You're again as as as Mr without a picture in front of you, it's difficult to explain.

No, I think it needs to be tabled until it can be addressed where everybody can see the picture.

Okay. I appreciate it. We're over time now. I want to make sure we get another chance. Thanks much. Back up to Deb Harper. Are you here? All right. Deb's not going to be here.

Uh, Sally mess.

At the June 16th listening session, Mayor states at about the 527 mark, there are three reasons why we can terminate the agreement. And that's what Mr. Walker responded to you in an email on at least one, if not two occasions. Yes, and on both occasions, he did not answer my question. I asked the city manager if the city can opt out. Opting out is not renewing when the term expires. So I asked the city manager if the city can opt out of the agreement. It cannot. Al Jazeera can opt out. The city cannot, and that should not happen. I asked the city to address this, so it does not happen again. Again, the city manager did not answer my question about whether the city can opt out. Instead, the city manager sent information on how the agreement can be terminated. And again, that is not what I asked. Again, Al Jazeera can opt out, and the city should be able to as well. The city should be able to opt out and it can't that should not happen. And the city should address this. So it doesn't happen again. The city's managers sent me how the shared agreement can be terminated. And yes, as the city. As the mayor said, there are 3 reasons. Termination, one, mutual agreement. The parties may at any time terminate this agreement upon mutual agreement of the parties. This mutual agreement does not allow the city to opt out. If the city wanted to discontinue the parking lot for any reason, it cannot. It must continue to plow and light the parking lot according to the agreement. There is no reason Al Jazeera would agree to terminate use of the parking lot because it doesn't have to contribute to its maintenance and it wouldn't need to construct the parking spaces lost. two so that that is not the city really being able to terminate it that is all under al jazari number two by al jazari al jazari may terminate this agreement upon a 60-day written notice to the city again al jazari can opt out the city cannot so one and two aren't the city being able to get out of the agreement It is all relying on Al Jazeera and then the 3rd. Way that can be terminated by the city, the city may terminate this agreement upon the following if Al Jazeera's conditional use permit is amended to no longer require use of the city parking areas. The city may terminate this agreement upon 30 days written notice to Al Jazeera. If the city applicable issuing authority approves a change of the condition to Al Jazarri's conditional use permit in effect at the time of the termination, the city may terminate this agreement upon 30 days written notice to Al Jazarri. The issuing authority's approval of change of condition must be based upon finding that Al Jazarri is in breach of this agreement. So they have to be in breach and then we have to get rid of the requirement of the conditional use permit. Provided, however, the city may not initiate change of condition until 60 days have elapsed after the city provides our written notice of breach and now has not taken action to cure the breach. And as you all know, has been in breach from the day they opened. to sum that up the city can terminate the agreement if it removes the parking requirement determined in the conditional use permit as needed to protect the neighbor from the neighborhood from injury and if al jazari is in breach what they have been against since they opened and the city does not address it again the city should be able to opt out and it can't that should not happen and the city should address this so that it does not happen again To sum this up, the mayor said there are three reasons why we can terminate the agreement. There is only one, and that is if Al Jazar is in breach and the city removes the parking spaces required in the conditional use permit to protect the Smith Park and surrounding area from an injurious use.

Thank you, Sally. We have about a minute. I've got one more name, Kevin Johnson. There he is. You're gonna have to talk auctioneer fast Kevin.

Okay.

Good evening. If you could just identify yourself for the record, get right into that microphone. So everybody can hear you. Yeah.

Kevin Johnson calling about the Olivia expansion. I am the exact neighbor to the expansion. Trying to figure out how this is legal to have living space. less or less than 30 feet from a property line that living space is 7.9 inches from the property line if they're trying to say that they're going to reroute what is now their front door to the other side of the house and say the garage is now in the back but there's living space under there I don't know how this can possibly go through. I mean, you can't just do that anywhere else. I mean, that's there. Like how we just break the rules and allow it. You know, I know you're saying you already read an email that someone looked at it and said, yeah, it's BS. Like someone has to come out there and look. I mean, you're pretty adamant about this and trying to pass this. You clearly said you don't know the laws or rules, but like, can we have like something going on there that people can be like, here it is. It's not making sense. There's a full basement under there, a furnace. You access it from the house. There's a six foot wide egress window with the ladder escape in there. I've been in there. I've shot pucks down there with their kids. It is a livable, usable basement. So that's what I have. It needs to be tabled, held off. It cannot go through or there's a lot of stuff that's going to be pushed through that's not supposed to be.

Thank you appreciate it. I appreciate your get to the point. Appreciate that as well. And, um. I think as Mr Walker said, based on the information that we received, and based on the review that was done by staff, it looks like some all of your concerns. I think staff has said that they can still move forward. This can still move forward. So. But I appreciate you being here. Well, if if that's what has to happen, if that's what has to happen, but. Council, we are at 6.16. We are past our time. I appreciate everybody being here tonight. I would look for a motion to adjourn and head down to our meeting, Council. Motion by Council Member Roberts and second by Council Member D'Alessandro to adjourn. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Opposed? Motion carries 6-0. We are adjourned. Again, thanks all for being here tonight.