Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

WELCOME TO THIS AUGUST 20th MEETING OF THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADVISES THE CITY COUNCIL ON DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, LONG RANGE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION ISSUES. SOME ITEMS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ARE STUDY ITEMS WHERE WE WILL NOT TAKE FORMAL ACTION. OTHER ITEMS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ARE PUBLIC HEARINGS WHERE WE WILL DURING WHICH WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND WE DO ENCOURAGE THAT. You can do so here at City Hall by joining us in the Commission Chambers or remotely by following the instructions displayed on your screen. Some items the Planning Commission has final decision-making authority, while on other items the City Council makes a final decision and the Planning Commission acts in an advisory capacity. The planning commission is made up of seven volunteer residents of the city of Bloomington appointed by city council. Each commissioner serves a three-year term with a two-term limit. We have five commissioners present this evening, so we do have a quorum. Our first order of business is the Pledge of Allegiance. All rise.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

We will begin this evening with item number 1.1, which is a public hearing concerning a conditional use permit for cannabis cultivation and manufacturing at 9130 Grand Avenue South. I'll turn it over to planning manager Johnson for an update.

Yeah, thank you, Acting Chair Isay. Just recently, staff received formal correspondence from the applicant requesting that they withdraw their application for Item 1.1. So that results in kind of a stop to this item. There's no formal action that you have to take on Item 1.1. For those members of the public who might have been here to testify on Item 1.1 on this item, there will be no public hearing because the formal development application is withdrawn. So there's no formal action needed. The formal correspondence should be there at your table for your awareness, and the case effectively is closed. So just a heads up about that.

Thank you. Moving right along, we have item number 1.2, which is also a public hearing concerning a rezoning final site and building plans, type 3 preliminary and final plat for nine detached townhome lots and one outlot located at 9025 and 9033 James Avenue South. And I believe we have Ms. Liz O'Day with the staff report.

Yes, thank you chair and commissioners. Item 1.2 in the agenda this evening is for three zoning entitlements for two properties located at 9025 and 9033 James Avenue. So the subject properties are just south of 90th Street on James Avenue, very close to City Hall here. Surrounding land uses are mostly single family homes, a place of assembly to the east, and some industrial sites to the south. So the applicant is requesting a rezoning from R1 to R3, final site and building plans to construct nine detached townhomes and associated improvements. then a type 3 preliminary and final plat to replant two single-family residential lots into nine detached townhome lots and one out lot and So the subject properties are guided as medium density residential in the comprehensive plan and the subject properties have been guided MDR in multiple comprehensive plan cycles going back as far as 1981. This designation allows up to 15 units an acre but the proposed density is nine units an acre. So the two single-family lots are currently zoned R1 single-family residential. The applicant is choosing to rezone to R3 which is consistent with the land use guidance. In order to facilitate construction of this development, the existing home that's still standing would be demolished. So staff reviews the purpose and intent of the zoning district and compares it to the existing zoning. So the R3 zoning district allows up to 12 units an acre. It's consistent with the existing land use guidance. R3 is compatible with nearby low density residential and detached townhomes are similar in design to single family dwellings. These properties are in close proximity to a major collector road, which is 90th Street and Interstate 35W. It has a nearby park, Logan Play Lot close by, and this site also abuts a place of assembly and close to industrial area. So when evaluating rezoning applications there are no specific state statute findings for rezoning request however we evaluate on the basis of consistency with the comprehensive plan and whether it provides a public benefit. So goals and strategies from the 2040 comprehensive plan notes provides a range of housing options as well as identifies new locations and opportunities for housing. And then the city recently adopted missing middle ordinance and detached townhomes are a missing middle type. So getting into site specifically, here are a couple photos taken earlier today. 9025 James Avenue, the house was demoed a couple years ago. And then the home on 9033 James Avenue is still standing. So getting into the site plan, a couple components. There would be one curb cut off of James Avenue. Nine detached townhome units would be provided, five of which would be on the north side and four on the south side with a private driveway going down the middle and a circular driveway with two guest spaces on the south side of that circular turnaround. each unit would have a tuck under two stall garage with private driveways and the applicant is also proposing an above ground and below ground storm water improvements. In terms of traffic, 85 trips a day would be generated with this project. When you take away the trips from the single family homes, this would be a net increase of 66 trips a day. The James Avenue roadway has sufficient capacity to handle these additional trips. And just to note that there are no parking restrictions on James Avenue. SO GETTING INTO THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS BECAUSE THE APPLICANT IS NOT PURSUING ANY VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION AND JUST DEVELOPING THE LOTS FOR SALE. THE FLOOR PLANS AND ELEVATION DRAWINGS ARE CONCEPTUAL AT THIS POINT. SO WHAT HE IS SHOWING IS A 20 FOOT TALL DWELLING, ONE STORY square footage would be 750 square feet with one bedroom and the building materials would consist of stone veneer and lap siding so the building design could theoretically change between the review of the development application and the permit phase so long as the overall plans are code complying Getting into parking and sidewalks, code requires two stalls per unit, and what they're proposing is a two-stall garage, which is compliant. Two guest parking spaces must be provided, circled in yellow, just south of the circular turnaround. And then a six-foot-wide public sidewalk is required along James Avenue. Now getting into the landscaping plan, code requires 18 trees and 54 shrubs. As you can see on the plan, they're evenly dispersed around the property. And just to note that tree preservation is not required with this application. Just to note that existing vegetation include ash and elms, which are kind of a scrappy material. So any kind of removal of trees would be compliant with our code. AND THEN LASTLY GETTING INTO THE PLAT WHICH SHOWS THE INDIVIDUAL LOTS AS WELL AS THE OUT LOT FOR THE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY JUST TO NOTE THAT ALL LIKE SIDEWALKS AND PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS, UTILITIES, STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS MUST BE COMPLETED OR INSTALLED WITH THE PLAT APPROVAL AND PERMIT ISSUANCE. AND WITH THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL JUST TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT DID NOT RECEIVE ANY WRITTEN CORRESPONDENTS WITH THIS APPLICATION, BUT DID RECEIVE A NUMBER OF PHONE CALLS WITH THIS APPLICATION. SO, YEAH, WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, AND I HAVE THE MOTIONS BEFORE YOU.

THANK YOU, MS. O'DAY. WE WILL START WITH QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

Thank you, Chair. Ms. O'Day, can you talk about, it's unclear, is the driveway going to be private? Is there going to be a homeowners association? Kind of all those things related to that aspect. Sure.

Chair, Commissioner Linnaeus, it would be a homeowners association and the driveway would be a private driveway.

Thank you. A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION, THANK YOU. SO RECOGNIZING THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT PLANNING TO BUILD THE HOUSES THEMSELVES, BUT SELL THE LOT, HOW DOES THE HOA WORK IF, FOR EXAMPLE, ONLY ONE HOUSE GETS BUILT?

CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LENNE, I'LL DEFER TO PLANNING MANAGER JOHNSON ON THAT QUESTION.

Chair, Commissioner Linnaeus, so thanks for the question. An HOA, even with only one owner, would be responsible for maintaining that infrastructure. So the city wouldn't be on the hook for the driveway or the stormwater management or the private utilities that are extended, those things. So I grant it would be difficult to maintain that infrastructure if only one owner was responsible for it, but the city would not be on the hook for that. Yeah.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Coleman.

On a similar vein, is there anything within the application that says that, like, it has to be an HOA? Could they say, like, oh, we changed our mind, we want to do it, like, we want to build nine homes and then rent them out? Is that permitted within the city code, or is that part of the application that we're considering today? Because it's interesting that there's not... we don't know for sure what the buildings would look like. And if there's, you know, kind of a, some reshuffling around there, I'm curious about what the process would be for that.

Sure. Chair, Commissioner Coleman, so I certainly invite the applicant to speak to that because obviously they have some design intent and how they think this is going to unfold. So I do welcome their voice in that question when the time is appropriate. But just to be clear about what the city policies are, yes, any dwelling in the city of Bloomington can be rented. You just have to get a rental license after it's constructed. Whether or not there has to be an HOA or not, there actually recently was some state legislation around whether or not cities can require HOAs. So it's starting to move in a direction where cities can no longer require HOAs. You could theoretically develop these lots in a way to have a shared maintenance agreement amongst all nine, recorded against all nine. PROPERTIES WHICH WOULD LEGALLY OBLIGATE THEM TO CARE FOR SOME OF THOSE THINGS THAT ARE IN THE PLANNED OUT LOT. SO THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS TO DO IT. IT'S JUST THAT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS HAS BEEN THE MOST COMMON WAY PARTICULARLY FOR THESE TYPES OF SUBDIVISIONS.

COMMISSIONER SUMMERS.

THANK YOU CHAIR. My question, just for clarification. So if the Planning Commission approves all three, the building plans would not come back to the Planning Commission unless those needed some sort of difference in regards to our city code. So we are... approving this, knowing that it could change, but it would stay within the bounds of the Bloomington City Code.

Chair, Commissioner Summers, that's correct. So what you're approving with the final site and building plan application is theoretically the buildable footprint. So like the setbacks and making sure that's all compliant with code. And then yeah, the design, as long as it complies with city code, you wouldn't see it come before planning commission unless they were asking for a deviation or a variance or the like. CAN I ADD TO THAT, TOO?

YEAH, GO AHEAD. THANK YOU, CHAIR YUSAIN. COMMISSIONER SUMMERS, IF I COULD JUST ADD TO THAT A LITTLE BIT IS THAT IT'S VERY TYPICAL FOR, LIKE I SAY, A ONE TO TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OR SPLIT THAT WE DON'T HAVE HOME PLANS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT APPLICATION JUST FOR A BASIC PLAT. THE REASON WHY SOME PLANS ARE REQUIRED THAT ARE CONCEPTUAL, AND INVITE THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK TO THAT IF THEY'D LIKE, IS THAT THEY'RE ALSO SEEKING FINAL SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL. SO HAVING SOME FORM OF BUILDING PLANS IS A REQUIREMENT OF THAT PARTICULAR ZONING APPLICATION OR ENTITLEMENT. JUST TO KIND OF CLEAR THAT UP.

SORRY TO GET IN THE WEEDS. COMMISSIONER WHITE.

Thank you, Chair, and I may be taking us a little further into the weeds. I have a couple of different questions. You know, one is, can you talk a little bit, looking at the map, it looks like there would be single-family homes on the north side and the south side of this development, and then there's the street with single-family homes on the other side, and then the church behind, or, yeah. So it's essentially... IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BLOCK, RIGHT? IS THAT CORRECT? I WANT TO MAKE SURE I WAS LOOKING AT THE MAP CORRECTLY.

YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

And so I'm curious about, you know, I know we're not approving building plans tonight, but can you remind me, please, what is the code for like the height or size that could be on one of these lots? I see, you know, this is a great drawing of a tuck under garage and the one story, but I'm just, I want to make sure I understand perfectly. what the potential maximum height or size of a home built on one of these lots could be.

Chair, Commissioner White, the height is up to 50 feet in this area. And the size is dependent on the bedrooms. So 750 square feet for a one bedroom. I'm blanking on kind of the two bedroom and three bedroom sizes, but it's dependent on the number of bedrooms for each unit.

Thank you. And then just out of curiosity, maybe this was in the plans and I just didn't see it, but is there like any kind of proposed fencing or anything around the property, you know, like between the property and the single family homes and the property and the church? I believe it's a parking lot that's behind it.

Chair and Commissioner, it's not identified on the site plan. I would invite the applicant when it's his time to speak to address if that's in the plans or not.

Okay, thank you and just one one more question. Thank you chair for your indulgence the traffic study So that's traffic study is essentially saying that if that this was the two single-family homes that were there originally They would estimate that those two family homes would be generating like 31 trips a day Or am I misunderstanding that 85 to 66 net increase? I just want to make sure I understand that traffic studies are not my specialty So I appreciate it

CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER, SO THE DIFFERENCE IS 85 DOWN TO 66, SO THAT'S 19 TRIPS. IT'S OKAY. BUT I INVITE JULIE LONG, CITY ENGINEER, TO ELABORATE IF SHE WISHES.

OKAY. IT'S PROBABLY JUST A MATH AROUND MY PART. OKAY.

Chair, Commissioner White, we use a trip generation manual, and the average for a single-family home is nine trips. And so that's why you're seeing something close to 18, 19 in the math. I think it's nine. I don't remember the exact number. So it's kind of like if you have a... If you think about yourself, if you leave and come to work or leave to go to work, that's one trip. If you come home, that's two trips. If you run any errands or have a partner or a roommate or anyone, you can see how we can get up to nine fairly quickly. And that's an average. And so it's not every home. These are smaller homes with one bedrooms. So they might be on the lower end. So does that answer your question? I got distracted. Okay.

Any other questions? Go ahead, Commissioner Coleman.

On the topic of height, if I remember correctly from the last time we had a similar discussion that the 50-foot height limit is... You could build a single-family home right now if you didn't rezone, you didn't replat. If they wanted to replace that home that was demolished a few years ago, they could build 50 feet, but that would be very difficult to do because it has to be two stories or...

Yeah, Acting Chair Issei, Commissioner Coleman know under the R1 zoning district, they could build a home up to 40 feet in height. And so the change in the zoning is what in effect enables the height limit to increase from 40 up to 50. I would also note that there are some height limitations for the portion of the structure according to how close it is to the sidelines. So the closer a structure is to the sidelines, it's a little bit more limited in height. As you gradually step back away from those sidelines, the height increases. And then for single-family homes in the R1 in Bloomington, the 40 is the max-max if you're meeting those kind of step-back requirements.

Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Summers?

Thank you, Chair. In the packet of information, it seemed like there were a lot of comments or more comments from staff than normal about stormwater management. And my understanding is there would be, outside of the actions we're taking today, more steps that anyone who was building on this property would have to do in regards to stormwater management, like turn in plans and get permits. Is that correct? Or can you talk me through what happens with that?

CHAIR, COMMISSIONER SUMMERS, I WILL DEFER TO JULIE LONG TO ESTABLISH THE PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. THIS IS IN THE NINE MILE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT AND THEY REQUIRE THEIR OWN PERMIT. I WILL LET JULIE LONG SPEAK TO THE REST.

Yeah, there are a lot more comments regarding to the stormwater system than you normally see, but it is code compliant, but there are a lot of details that haven't been fleshed out, and so that's why you're seeing those comments. I lost my train of thought. I apologize. Can you repeat your question?

I think in regards to stormwater management, seeing those comments staff always have comments in the packet that's part of our process and for me it just flagged that there were more stormwater comments than normal and my understanding is that that is a part of the process post what is happening right now thank you they are showing us some of that but that will be fleshed out in more of the architectural piece of this work

Yes, this step that the developer's at is an entitlement step, but they still have to get approval for their actual building permits, and I have to sign off as the city engineer that all of the stormwater works. And the current plan as submitted would not meet that requirement, which is why you're seeing a bunch of comments. But my understanding is that they understand what they need to do to develop fully compliant plans that we can approve, but they are not currently at that stage.

Any other questions for staff? Seeing none, thank you, Ms. O'Day. This is an opportunity for the applicant to speak if they wish to. Please step forward and state your case.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS STEVE FERLONG. I'M THE APPLICANT. THANK YOU, PLANNER O'DAY, FOR THE THOROUGH PRESENTATION. I HAVE A FEW ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS THAT YOU PRESENTED AND THEN A FEW COMMENTS. SO, THIS IS SOMEWHAT OF A NEW PROPOSAL IN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON. WE HAVEN'T REALLY HAD A SUBDIVISION LIKE THIS WHERE WE'RE JUST CREATING LOTS TYPICALLY. building a twin home or we're building something. And in this case, we want to present opportunities for future homeowners to build their own home. And the benefit to doing that is that we can make it more affordable that way because we take out profit margins. We take out carrying costs. We take out builder risk and we provide flexibility for the future homeowners to build what they want instead of building spec housing. So a few questions. Commissioner Coleman converting to rentals. The goal here is home ownership. So it would be ideal to not have these. made into rental properties. And I believe that market economics are going to prevent that. It's fairly challenging to build new single-family rental homes and have the math work out. But there isn't anything that would prevent a purchaser to build a rental property here. BUT HAVING RENTAL PROPERTIES IN THE CITY MYSELF, I THINK THAT'S A REALLY DIFFICULT PROPOSITION TO ACQUIRE A LOT, BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND RENT IT AND HAVE THAT BE ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE. SO I THINK THAT'S UNLIKELY. uh commissioner summers of course building plans need a permit and so whatever the future homeowner wants to do they have to go through building and inspections with their fully drafted plans and be code compliant to be able to create their home so there are restrictions and requirements In addition to that, within the HOA documents, we can create any rules that we want. But, of course, the more rules we create, the less marketable the lots become. So there's a balance with that. Commissioner White, what would be built here? Wow, the details. CODE REQUIRES WITH A ONE BEDROOM UNIT THAT THE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE IS 750 SQUARE FEET. SO THAT WOULD FIT ON THESE PROPOSED LOTS ON SEVERAL OF THEM THAT ONLY ALLOW FOR A 40-FOOT FRONT AND A 30-FOOT DEPTH. SO THERE'S A 1200 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING PAD HERE. SO IF YOU HAVE A 400 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE, A 20 BY 20 GARAGE, THAT'S ONLY AN 800 SQUARE FOOT MAIN LEVEL. And what I think, Bloomington needs more of is single-level living. And I would anticipate that many of these could be utilized for that, and so that's a very modest home. I don't see any world where we build a 50-foot tall structure on any of these lots. I don't think that makes any sense. I don't think the market would decide that they want to do that, and I don't think anybody would buy one of these to build... that massive of a structure. However, if you did a full basement and a second story, you could have 3,200 total finished square feet here as well. So they wouldn't have to be modest. We would leave that choice up to the purchaser and what they want to create. COMMISSIONER, LET'S SEE, LENE, YOU HAD A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT IF ONLY ONE HOME GETS BUILT? THE DEVELOPER, MYSELF, IS GOING TO MAINTAIN CONTROL OF THE HOA UNTIL WHATEVER NUMBER IT IS OF THESE ARE SOLD AND SOMETHING IS BEING BUILT THERE. SO ULTIMATELY, I WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING SURE THAT THE DRIVE IS MAINTAINED AND THE SITE IS MAINTAINED. until we turn over control of that hoa to the the end homeowners um i think i think that i think all the questions i'm happy to answer any questions i've met some of the neighbors i'm glad that you're all here this evening i know change is a difficult thing My offer is I'm going to be around to answer questions, happy to do that, happy to have conversations. I'd like this to be as collaborative as possible. I'm a 25-year resident of Bloomington myself, and I'd like to see good things for our city, and I know that we need housing badly, and we need to find creative ways to do it, and this is in the spirit of city code. The Missing Middle Housing Ordinance was created for a project like this, And our playbook is essentially the comp plan. And so we're looking at that and trying to find ways to create more housing here and homeownership opportunities. We've created a lot of rentals. We need homeownership too. And this is one way of doing that. So thank you very much. Happy to answer any questions.

Great. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Go ahead, Commissioner White.

Thank you, Chair. I think there was just one question that I had that was left unanswered. Thank you so much for going through point by point, which is just around fencing, if you had any thoughts or idea of what the plan for fencing between you and your lots and the neighbors would be.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER WHITE. I WOULD EXPECT THAT OUR NEIGHBORS HERE WOULD LIKE TO SEE FENCING, AND SO THAT WOULD BE UP TO EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT PURCHASER. SO THESE ARE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. THIS IS NOT A TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT, AND IT'S UP TO EACH INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER AND WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO. SO I'M NOT GOING TO CREATE ANY RESTRICTIONS WITHIN THE HOA THAT SAYS THEY HAVE TO BUILD A FENCE IN THE BACK. but certainly willing to collaborate with the adjacent landowners and what they would like to see and have conversation around that.

Any further questions? All right. Thank you. You're welcome. All righty, so this is a public hearing, which I will now open. Just a refresher, this is a public comment period, not a question and answer period, and I want to just set that expectation. We do welcome you to ask any questions as you testify. However, just know that we are not going to answer them right away. To make it more efficient, if you do want to ask any questions, you can direct them at me. The chair and our planning commission is making a note of those. After we close the public hearing, we will then choose to follow up on those questions or seek additional information. We are also able to call up the applicant again as well. So it's not that we didn't hear your question, but again, we may not answer until the public hearing has closed. Being that we do have a room full of folks here, we're going to institute the shot clock this evening over there, which is, yeah, up on the wall. It doesn't zap you though, right? NO, NO. THREE MINUTES. SO FOLKS WILL HAVE UP TO THREE MINUTES TO TESTIFY ON THIS ITEM. WE KINDLY ASK THAT YOU MONITOR THAT AND BE RESPECTFUL OF THE CLOCK THIS EVENING. AND YOU GUYS WILL ALSO BE ABLE TO HAVE A SECOND THREE MINUTES IF NEEDED. Again, all comments and questions can be directed at me, the chair, and as a matter of procedure, we also kindly ask that public testimony does not reference any members of the public. We may have some disagreement in the room this evening, which is absolutely okay, but we ask that you don't reference the party speaker or anything of that nature. So that just keeps a more gentle attitude here in the commission chambers, which we do appreciate. Lastly, there is a sign-up sheet at the dais. After you're done testifying, if you could ensure that you sign in FOR THE MINUTES, THAT WOULD ALSO BE MUCH APPRECIATED. AND, YEAH, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN, AND I INVITE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY TO STEP FORWARD. AND SIGN IN.

WELL, SO I'VE BEEN IN THIS COMMUNITY FOR 35 YEARS. STATE YOUR NAME. I'M JUST CURIOUS.

SO IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME, SORRY, EXCUSE ME, GUYS. IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME IN THE BEGINNING.

I guess this is towards the planners. Is this gonna sit like an empty lot like it is on 86th and Penn where houses were torn down and it's just a dirt lot? Is that gonna happen with this two houses? Is that they're just gonna get torn down and it'll be an empty lot until someone decides to build?

So we are taking notes and we'll address that as needed.

My name is Brian Hanson and I live on James 2. And my question to you is a few years back when you replaced our road, you shortened our street the width by 10 feet. So if you park a car on each side of the street, only one car can get through. So when you start putting all these construction vehicles at the end of the block, how are we getting it out of our properties? And then here's the other thing he's saying about the property. How long is it going to take to build these houses? And what if they build three at a time? You know what that's going to do to our neighborhood, all the construction crews that are going to be there? I mean, you're asking the neighborhood to go through a lot. You know, if you're just doing two single homes, I think it would be a lot easier. So, and then another thing, even though they have a garage and two parking spots, what if there's more people? What if somebody has a party? Then all the cars are down the street and everything. But I know it's going to be that way with construction workers when they come in, because they already had that. So, but that's what I have to say.

Thank you. If you could ensure to sign in. Thank you. Thank you.

Sorry, I'm slow. Slow and steady wins the race, right? Hello there. I'm Kathy Jones, and I have the pleasure of living at 9015 James Avenue, which I am the one property to the north of this proposed development, and I have a lot of concerns. I left Minneapolis because I didn't want to reach out my window and shake my neighbor's hand, and that's what I'm afraid I'm coming up against with a small city going into the property next to me. The other concern I have is I notice we only have two guest parking spots if you put nine homes in that space. I got friends in Apple Valley, they have two spots per building. Two is not gonna be enough if you've got nine homes. And most of them are gonna have a friend or someone or a child or a grandchild come and visit. So again, to reiterate what Brian said, the parking on James Avenue, they already narrowed it. When you start lining up and down the street with people that live there, because there's no more room to park in this small city, and that is what it's going to be like having nine buildings in that one space. So I'm not against having a neighbor, but I don't know that that little land needs that much into it. And then the other thing I wanted to say is, I like my little community, you know. That James Avenue feeds into a small area between Penn and James. There's just a few blocks, not a lot of traffic goes that way, and I think what we're going to do by increasing all that traffic is going to be really sad for our quiet little neighborhood. So I think that's all I have to say for now. I'll be respectful and say thank you very much, Commission, all of you, for being here for us, and please consider what we have to put up with. Okay, thank you.

Oh, I gotta sign the thing.

No one reminded me. You remind all the other people, but you don't remind me.

Hi, my name is Luanne, and I live on 9141 Newton, and I've been living there for 48 years. My concern is the traffic. I live on 92nd Street, and it's a straight shot, so coming off of Penn, they're going to have to take 91st and a half Street. They come down, and they go down 92nd. It's the T, so all roads come into that. They go all the way down to James, and then they go over. So it's going to really create a lot more traffic in that area. Plus people speed all the time down there. Cause it's a straight shot. So they're just zooming down and there's a lot of people from James that come out that way. So I think it's going to create a lot. And the problem is there's a lot of kids that ride bikes there and they come out right into that street. And there it's a big open opportunity for accidents for kids. I have a group home next to me that moved in next to me. They have like seven or eight cars coming and going all the time. And there's a place down from me as well that is another group home. And it's renting. They're renting from people. So I have real concern for renters keeping their places up. And I think in our neighborhood, it's a lot more rentals happening. And our community has all said our homes there just seem to be going downhill from there. So I'm really concerned. And then the traffic going out on James, it's two lanes one way, two lanes the other, and 35. It's constantly stopped, backed up. at traffic, at rush hour traffic, trying to get on 35. So trying to get out there, it gets really hairy trying to get out there. So what they're going to do is come down, you know, 92nd and go out 91st and a half. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Scott Thiers and I live at 1601 West 90th Street and my backyard butts up to the property and let's see, I've lived in Bloomington in that house for 47 years and I have a beautiful backyard looking right at the trees and now I'll be looking at the back of five homes. I'M VERY CONCERNED. I LOVE MY BACKYARD. EVERY DAY NOW SINCE THIS HAS HAPPENED I JUST DREAD WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. I WAS BORN AND RAISED IN BLOOMINGTON. I LIVED HERE ALL EXCEPT FOR FIVE YEARS. and Kathy, she's gonna have a wall of houses that could be up to 50 foot tall, you said, and there's gonna be 10 foot between those houses. It's gonna be like, it's just gonna be bad. And now when Steve said that, the homeowners are going to be responsible for fencing, that seems like a cluster, could be a mixed mesh of every, a fence here, no fence there. That doesn't seem right. And what's going to happen with snow removal? I can't believe, I mean, the Sikh temple, when they have their place, their driveway plot out, they have piles of snow. I can't believe, and I have a lot of snow around my place, but I have places to put it. There's no places to put snow how they've got this design. And like everyone else said, two parking spots, that doesn't sound right. I never imagined I'd have homes to look at in my backyard. That's why I bought the place so many years ago. I think the city council is gonna be ashamed of themselves when they realize what they voted in within the last year. I think it's really bad.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. We're going to have anybody that didn't speak yet go, and then once that's done, you can go back. Anybody else?

Anyone else coming up to talk? Because they won't let him go second until we're done going first. Sorry. Chatty Cathy's the nickname. Never stops.

I'm sorry.

Hi, my name is Jan Miller.

That bends down, Jan. Just bend it a little. There you go.

I live right across the street from the possible development, right across from Cathy. And we agree... about the traffic. I really don't think that study represents what's going to happen to the street and the whole area. And many of these people that you've heard have lived in the area for a long time and I think they deserve to be respected for staying and being in this area and keeping their homes in this area. You know, there's only like 18 HOMES ALONG THE STREET. AND THEY WANT TO PUT IN NINE HOMES. THAT'S LIKE INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF HOMES. AND THAT'S ON ONLY ONE ACRE OF LAND. THERE'S 18 HOMES ON THE WHOLE BLOCK FROM 90TH TO 92ND. AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO CHANGE. I THINK THE DEMOGRAPHIC OF THE is going to be changed by adding that many homes. If they could maybe compromise and maybe four homes at most, it would be really nice to have just two homes there, regular homes that fit the demographics of the area, but otherwise if they could reduce the number of homes and make them into buildings that actually FIT THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE AREA. I GUESS THAT'S IT.

THANK YOU.

I WASN'T GOING TO SAY ANYTHING. FIRST OF ALL, 9125 LOGAN And I sure didn't plan on saying anything, but after listening to everybody, I've been in the neighborhood for 64 years. I'm 64 years old. The reason is a lot of these people, my wife is the block captain. We work with the city a lot. We have a great neighborhood. We've always had a great neighborhood. We want to keep it as a great neighborhood. And I think if you're going to put nine spots in two lots and you're going to do this right there in Bloomington, what's going to prevent me or anybody else from going to parts of Bloomington? And I can get you a couple lots, okay? And making money and going for the nine spots or whatever we're going to do. I just don't think it's setting the right precedence, to be honest with you. The only ways out of there, because I lived there when Logan Avenue went through. I went there when James went through the factories. Those have been blocked off. The only way out is James, Morgan, and 91st and a half, okay? In and out. So when you talk about numbers, if you put nine more in and it's nine trips per single family dwelling, nine more is another 81. It's not another 18, okay? It's a bigger difference than 66 to 85, okay? And it's a neighborhood that people, it is nice because there's not a lot of traffic and to change everything and bring in the traffic or that kind of facility, I just don't think it fits correctly. Bloomington is so stringent on the rules as far as even building a shed. I cannot believe you would really put a house, you have a house and then you'd put nine houses in between and then a house and a house and you got factories and you got a church. I just, it doesn't really coincide with Bloomington. That's just my thought. And as far as the, everybody that's here, I think the yards are very important. As you can see, Logan Playlot is a great spot. that you can go down to. That's where we have our neighborhood nights out, and that's where you see the kids and everything, but yet, I mean, people want their backyards. People want the quietness. People want the city. I mean, they're still pretty close to the freeway, but overall, I think that it's not a good way to set the precedence for the city of Bloomington. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Hey, guys. I'm kind of improv-ing this. I didn't really come with a speech. So, hi, I'm Troy Jackson. I live kind of right on the corner of James Avenue, that brown house. My partner and I moved in there about a year and a half ago, so we're kind of the babies of the neighborhood still. So basically my whole thing, I have a very sheer indifference towards the whole building of it. What I do want to have, or what I want to express is my importance, is what my neighbors think. I think we should take their opinions, the ones who live right across the street from this development, bordering this development, I think we should take that more into consideration. So I just kind of wanted to improv that whole thing there. But the main reason I actually want to come up is my more concern about that corner. Like I said, I live on the corner, and I see people taking that, going like Mach 7 all the time. They're taking it fast. And I'm just out there trying to, if you see, I have a lot of pollinator plants out there. So I'm out there a lot admiring the butterflies, and I just see them zoom right past me. And that's kind of my concern, just the upkeep in that, or the uptake in that traffic. So that's really my thing. Thanks.

Sorry. Up here comes somebody.

Hello, I am Donna Streiffel. I've lived on 92nd Street for 52 years. And I am very weary of the traffic that will be coming by my house. It's on the long stretch there, right at Morgan, on the south side. And I do not believe that all these people living in these homes are just gonna go out to James to 90th. We're gonna have them go in to Penn Avenue and that comes by my place. That is just too much for this little neighborhood. So I'm very concerned. I don't think we need this. So really take a good look at that. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Okay, coming up? Then I'll wait. It's good for my legs to stand and sit and stand and sit. Ask my MS doctor to.

I'm Bill Rodenbeck from 9140 Logan. You know, I understand the need for more single family dwellings and stuff like that. I get that people want their houses. Yes, I'm against too many rentals. My question, or I guess my statement, I really agree with Jim Rozek as far as you guys are very, very stringent on rentals. how many buildings can be on a single lot. I mean, I can only, I have a greenhouse and one storage shed, and that's the ultimate limit. You guys would come after me if I put anything up there. And the setbacks are all important. The fences, the fences can only be so high. You guys are super stringent on this stuff. and all of a sudden, it seems like you're gonna be okay with just stacking house after house after house, like nine lot, I mean, nine houses in one little area. That's way more than my shed and my greenhouse. I don't understand.

Okay, standing up again. I just have a couple things. I'm Kathy Jones again. Chatty Kathy's the nickname. I just, I'm not understanding the difference between R1 and RS3. So would the nine homes on the one acre be acceptable if we remain RS1? Because my concern is when you switch it to RS3, that then expands the level and the height and all the differences in the homes that are going to go in there. And I know Mr. Furlong has a great plan in his head, but sometimes the best laid plans don't work. I've lived that for 45 years. The best laid plans don't always work. So I'm concerned that by changing it to RS3 could have a more diverse effect on the neighborhood. I don't understand the full difference between R1 and RS3, but I'm concerned about that as well. And to Donna's point, I'm three houses off of 90th. I come and go from my neighborhood over on Penn. I drive down to 92nd and go over because I can't get out on James and 90th. There's so much traffic there from 2 o'clock until 6 o'clock every night. It's terrible. You can't get out. So just have to add that.

Should I put times two by my name? That's my second round.

Thank you for listening, by the way.

Joel Jensen again so I like other people have said you know how strict as far as sheds and everything else goes I don't understand how you have houses across from each other and this little five block square area where you have community homes or I'm not exactly what you would call them, but there's like five to six people living in these houses across the street from each other and some type of community home. I don't know what goes on there, but there's five to six cars parked there at any time of the day. I mean, this is like a small area to have, you know, to be designated group homes. I'm sure the planners understand what I'm talking about. You know that area. What specific type of housing is that to be so grouped together?

Thank you. So for Kathy Jones, when she'll be in her house and she looks off to her left, she's gonna, out the front door, she's gonna have a whole house in front of her to the street. I hope you guys understand that. So normally when you look out your city lot, you can look down the street that way, you can look down the street the other way. So Kathy and then the people on the other side. What? Yeah, Nadine. They'll be looking, she'll be looking to the other side and they'll have a house I mean, because they can be, what, 20 feet off the street? So that's why I think, you know, we all think it's way too many homes, but I don't see anybody in favor of it here. Thank you. Thank you.

I hate to get up one more time, but can I get up one more time? It'll be quick. Your turn.

Another thing I thought of is with the group home next to me, I had 724. There's lots of cars coming and going, seven staff in there coming and going. They consistently park in front of my house, not in front of their business. So I've called the police, tried to work with them. It's public parking. So with public parking, they can park anywhere. Same thing with these town homes. These people that live on that street, it's public parking. They can park anywhere. And a lot of people, they don't care, right? I mean, the people, I've tried to work with them, and they just don't care. And I think it's very unfair, or it's something to be thinking of as... when we're thinking of where are these people going to park is because there's nothing the residents can do. So I'm very concerned about the parking in the neighborhood because of what I've had to deal with. And also I just feel like for 48 years, where is my rights as a citizen and as a Bloomington resident, where are my rights for my home that I bought in The community that I want, that now is going to be changed, well, maybe, would be changed into townhomes. It's a resident. I agree. You know, two-plex or whatever, I'm for that. But nine is just, I just think as Bloomington citizens, I hope you'll consider our rights as well as when we bought the home. Thank you.

I'd just like to add.

Oh, it's limited to two, sorry.

Oh, 9033 has people living in it. It's a property that's well taken care of today, so it's not like it's an empty lot yet, just so you know. And they're good neighbors.

My name is Lisa Jensen, and I've lived there probably 32 to 33 years. This is going to be really close to where I live. We did lose 10 feet of our road on James Avenue. We did. The traffic is intense and the ways in and out of the neighborhood are limited. And I just hope you guys take that into consideration because nine more houses is going to impact that. When I come down my street, I have to occasionally pull over to let someone else go the other way. So take that into account, please. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm not a very good speaker, but I had to come in support of all these people. I don't live there. I have friends there. I happen to believe everything every one of these people are saying. Our community is changing. Bloomington is changing. We're looking for another place I would like to get out of Bloomington because of what the changes are that are happening. You talk about looking to put in some townhomes. That needs a big area, and that's what we're looking for. There's nothing. There are town homes in Bloomington. There doesn't seem to be any patio homes, which is kind of what the older generation is looking for. But this place that you're talking about sounds like it's going to be a mishmash of whatever person wants to come in and what builder they want to choose and what they want to do with that lot. And then there's people that live in that area that can't even have a simple shed to store something that isn't there permanently, but they have to take it down. And then I've seen other places in the area where there's so much stuff in the yard, and that's okay. So I feel sorry for these people. I really, really do. It happened in a neighborhood in Bloomington that I lived 30 years ago. I've been here for about 50. I grew up on a farm, thank goodness. But I came to the city because this is what I wanted. But they wanted to build a duplex in our neighborhood. And of course, one side of it would be rental. The whole neighborhood, whole neighborhood, names, we went around everywhere. It was done. We didn't have a chance, didn't have a choice, didn't have a voice. And that's what's happening in Bloomington. Like they said on Penn Avenue, that's all dug up. Nothing's there. How are you going to control this area? Are you going to tell them how much money they have to spend on that house, where one house could be $400, one could be $600, one could be $200? I doubt that in Bloomington. But you're having people... give up their homes they've had for 50 years, and you're putting a little group of homes in the middle of a neighborhood. I've been looking for townhomes and patio homes. I'm done with Bloomington. I'm looking elsewhere, but at least that way it's controlled. There's many of them. They all have to look basically the same. If you pay for the maintenance, the HOA, You know, an area like that is what these things are made for, not to be put in little areas. And at the end of where I live, they're going to knock down a school, and they're going to put in a bunch of houses, and they're ruining probably a playground there for kids. I'm just very, very, very disappointed in Bloomington. Sorry to say, but thank you for listening. Thank you. Thank you.

If you could state your name for the record, please.

My name's Carlene Leder.

Thank you. Is there anyone?

A little passion in this room, just a little.

And I don't even live there. I'm sorry.

I was just going to add one more thing. I guess when you're looking at neighborhoods and you're looking at, and maybe I'm a little slighted that way because I bought my parents' house. but there certainly hasn't been much turnover in our neighborhood, and there's a reason why. People have stayed there, and they've stayed there because it's quiet, because it's nice, and I hate to see it change, and at the same time, if you look at the families that are there, many generations that I even went to Lincoln High School with, there's five or six of us that bought our parents' house And it's because of the neighborhood. A lot of them have single car garages. One bathroom. But we stayed in Bloomington. So I just wanted to say that's why that neighborhood has been so steady, Eddie. So thank you for your time.

Is there anyone else who would like to testify? On the side. I would, I would.

I just have one more thing.

Are there any rules about the R1 versus the R3 or different categories of zoning going back and forth like that in one neighborhood on one street or anything? It just would seem like if you're going to have zoning arrangements, it would be by neighborhood, not just back and forth lot to lot. Because otherwise, I mean, what I'm seeing is, I don't know, maybe Jim alluded to it also, but then anyone else could open up, sell their home. It does set precedent. Now, you could have Zone 1 or R1, R3, R4, who knows what. how would the city stop that once they've made that allowance in one case? Thanks. Thank you.

Again, I do want to also make a clarifying thing for my message as well. Like I said before, I kind of have a sheer indifference towards it. My household is pretty laid back. You could park your car upside down on our side of the street and we wouldn't care as long as it's not in the yard or in the middle of the street. But I also do want to emphasize that We should take at least like my voice in this matter and transfer to the people who do live directly adjacent or across the street from this facility or potential building complex. I think their opinion should matter a little bit more than I guess mine in that sense, just because I don't live directly across from them. So at least that's what I want to say about it. Thanks. Thank you.

Is there anyone online?

All participants online are staff.

So last call, if there's anybody who would like to testify in chambers. All right, seeing none, I will look for a motion to close the public hearing.

I move to close the public hearing.

Second.

All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion passes 5-0. We will now move into discussion. GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER LENÉE.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. I'M WONDERING IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF OR THE PLANNING STAFF COULD TALK A LITTLE BIT AND REMIND ALL OF US THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING REGULATIONS AND KIND OF GETTING TO THAT LAST QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED ON R1 VERSUS R3 BEING IN THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD AND ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER.

Yeah, so Chair Issei, Commissioner Lanais, thank you for the question. So the comprehensive plan is effectively the city's policy document that is trying to establish what the pattern will be in the future. It's a plan that looks out 20 years. Every comprehensive plan that a city develops creates a future land use map. And so what the future land use map is trying to guide is if the property were to change use, if it were to redevelop in the future, what would that use be in the future? So in this particular case, This whole neighborhood is guided medium density residential. On the future land use map, there's a whole variety of reasons why a city would designate an area such as this one as medium versus low density versus industrial, commercial, other uses. Those reasons typically have to do with access to higher volume roadways to handle traffic or proximity to parks, proximity to transit, proximity to commercial or employment. There's a wide variety of reasons why these decisions are made in terms of where to guide land. So that's the first piece. The way that it interplays with the zoning district is the zoning district are the rules that are on the ground now. and the zoning does not always match what the future land use designation is for a site some cities choose to proactively rezone property when they update their comprehensive plan some cities choose not to and instead uh... do so as the property redevelops so that's what the case is here in this instance is that the the property owner is act actively seeking to rezone the property in a way that's in alignment with the future land use plan OF THE CITY. SO, AS PLANNER O'DAY MENTIONED, THIS AREA HAS BEEN GUIDED MEDIUM DENSITY SINCE 1981. IT'S BEEN THAT EVERY CYCLE IN BETWEEN NOW AND THEN. TO THE GENTLEMAN'S QUESTION AROUND HOW R3 INTERPLAYS WITH R1, SO EVERY ZONING DISTRICT THAT A CITY CREATES HAS DIFFERENT RULES, DIFFERENT SETBACKS, DIFFERENT INTENSITIES, DIFFERENT LAND USES THAT ARE ALLOWED. they're very much intended to think about land use compatibility, right? And so R1 is the primary single family residential zoning district that we have in Bloomington. R3 was specifically designed to allow a little bit higher density and a little bit more variety of the land uses, but in a way that is compatible with other lower density residential land uses. Some folks might be familiar with the concept of spot zoning. Spot zoning is when you are designating a zoning district that is not compatible and kind of on an island by itself adjacent to other uses. So the classic understanding of that would be say that they were trying to zone in the middle of an R1 or low density residential area and industrial zoning district to do an industrial use. That would be more a situation of what's more commonly understood of spot zoning. But in terms of the Bloomington Zoning Code, R3 was specifically designed or intended to be a tool to create more variety of these housing types in a way that is compatible with lower density residential development. It is a newer zoning district. Previously, when the city developed a lot of townhomes in the 60s, 70s, 80s, they did so through the tool of planned developments. So you see a lot of sites in Bloomington that are R1PD. Those are planned developments, and effectively, they were site-by-site approvals that were granted by the city council during that time without changing the base zoning district. So I don't know if I struck the right depth there, but I probably went a little bit into the weeds.

Thank you. That answers my question.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? WE DID HAVE QUITE A FEW QUESTIONS THAT PUBLIC HAD. SO GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER COLEMAN.

In the staff report, it says that these detached townhomes are penciled in for having a two-car garage plus two parking spots in front of the garage plus the two shared parking spots for guests that wouldn't fit on the two-car spots in front of the garage. But we don't have specific plans since the... The code only technically requires a one-car garage plus one spot on the driveway. Hypothetically, if they changed that in the building plan stage, could that happen? Because that's what the code requires.

Chair, Commissioner Coleman, that's correct. So they could theoretically do a one-stall garage with a one-stall driveway leading up to that garage.

GO AHEAD.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. IF WE COULD, AND THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR JULIE, TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS SO THAT WE CAN GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING UP HERE OF WHEN THE ROAD WAS NARROWED AND THEN HOW THAT COMPARES TO OTHER STREETS IN BLOOMINGTON OF THE SAME TRAFFIC VOLUME.

Chair, Commissioner Linnaeus. In 2018, as part of the pavement management program, we worked on James Avenue and we reconstructed it to a 32-foot width, which is the city standard, which changed from the previous city standard of 36 feet wide in 2003. So for about 20 years, we've been building 32 foot wide, but previous to that, the standard was 36 foot wide. The 32 foot wide street allows parking on both sides. You would do as one of the testifiers stated, if there's parking, you do have to like pause and let someone go through. That's intentional. We're trying to get the traffic speeds in our neighborhoods to be a little lower, so we feel a few seconds of delay is not unreasonable.

Any further questions? Commissioner White.

Thank you, Chair. So I'm admittedly less familiar with developments where each individual lot would be purchased and then a home would be built. I'm familiar with that when you're talking about single family, you know, bigger, larger developments. I'm not as familiar with how that works with townhomes. So I wonder if you could just talk a little bit about, answer the questions about what happens if, all nine homes have different builders and are built on different schedules and is that possible it sounds like that would be very possible that you could have one home built by one builder and then two years later a third home built by someone else just sort of being in that constant state of of construction for a little while is that is that a possibility if um under this model

Yeah, Chair, Commissioner White, it could be a possibility. The scale or the pace at which construction happens in a project like this is really according to the market dynamics and the developer's execution of their plan. The type of subdivisions you're talking about, the Lennars of the world, the M&I homes, the very large builders, Obviously, they have a very well-laid-out process by which they have lots of customers that they are feeding through a well-established process, as I said. When you're talking about custom homes and custom builders, typically that process goes a little bit slower, but that's not to say that will be the case here. It really is according to the market dynamics. And this question a little bit veers into the arena of maybe more appropriate for the applicant to speak because they're the ones who ultimately will be responsible. The things that the city is responsible for is that we have rules, for example, around the hours of construction. That's in city code. You can't start construction before 7 a.m. You can't be doing construction activity after 10 p.m. And that's not typically how most builders operate. They don't have staff out there. But those are the hours of construction, just according to the city code in terms of noise, right? That's why they manage it. There are some questions about construction equipment being parked on the street. Typically for development projects, you can't park large machines and things on city streets. You have to have it parked on the site, and I would defer to Planner O'Day to confirm whether or not that was one of the conditions of approval in the staff recommendation. I believe that's the case, as is typically the case, but just to provide that feedback there. Yeah, I do have a couple other staff feedback on some of the questions I heard, if you want me to go through that, but... I'll defer to what you want and what you need.

Yeah, go ahead.

And then we also have the applicant potentially also.

If you have a specific question for them, I think that's appropriate. Okay, go ahead.

Yeah, so thank you, Chair Isay, again. And I invite City Engineer Julie Long to supplement whatever I'm going to share here, but being on planning staff, we're just exposed to a lot of elements of development, and one of those core elements of development is traffic. So I certainly understand the concerns around traffic associated with the project. Sounds like there's some concerns around 90th Street in particular, some of the turning movements out of James with some of the volumes on 90th particularly during the peak hour. Just to give people some context, and this is not in any way to be dismissive, it's just that we deal with very large-scale development sometimes. And so when we see trip generation in the arena or in the area of around a net increase of 60-some trips, that's very low for a lot of the development we see. Recognizing that this is a local road, I do. But when we see that type of trip generation, typically you get peak hour volumes. And what that is is when people are going to work and when they're coming home from work, obviously remote work has changed a lot of the peak hour activity on some of our roads. But typically what that means then is you see six, seven, eight peak hour trips when you have those kinds of volumes. So what can seem like a lot of traffic just in the raw number If you actually disperse that throughout the course of a day, that amount is quite low by comparison for a lot of the development we see. It's not to be dismissive of it, it's just reacting from a technical professional standpoint. And if I said anything wrong, Julie can correct me on that. She's shaking her head, I believe. With respect to parking, a lot of the concerns we get around development have to do with parking. And parking is one of those policies where If you go in any extreme in one direction or other, it can have negative consequences on both sides. So we often talk about Black Friday parking. It's like you don't want cities or places to require shopping malls, for example, to build their parking for Black Friday because that's a whole lot of asphalt that would go underutilized and be bad for stormwater management, be bad for heat. MORE PAVEMENT THAN IS NECESSARY DRIVES MORE HEAT IN AN AREA. SO I DEFINITELY RESPECT CONCERNS AROUND PARKING. WE'VE BEEN WORKING AT TRYING TO SHARPEN WHAT OUR PARKING REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE FOR THESE TYPES OF USES ULTIMATELY THROUGH THAT POLICY WHICH YOU DID SEE WE LANDED ON ONE QUARTER PARKING STALL FOR GUESTS. If a lot of the homes have four parking spaces per unit, that's a pretty good supply for a home like this that should be able to handle most situations. Now, that being said, someone is going to have a party, and that happens at single-family homes all the times as well. And so that overflow parking typically goes on the street. So yeah, I think traffic and parking were the two main ones that I wanted to at least just provide a planning perspective on. Again, I know that some of that information, there's always localized conditions that might provide wrinkles to that, but that's at least just from a high-level planning perspective.

Commissioner White.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. So just a question. Could you go back to the map of the lots real quick? I'm just curious, you know, I'm empathetic in that I also have an odd-sized lot that I live on, but I'm curious, looking at this, how the size of these lots compares to the size of a single family lot nearby i mean i know there's quite a variety in the neighborhood but i'm i think just for my own spatial awareness i'm trying to figure out they they kind of look like double lots to me in a way i know that's a official term and i'm not trying to use it officially but so could you just talk a little bit about how the size of these two lots compares to the average size of the some the lots around them in

Uh, chair commissioner. So these, the subject properties, um, are 300 feet deep.

So that's pretty,

LONG FOR MOST SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR R1 IS 7800 SQUARE FEET. I'M BLINKING ON WHAT THESE INDIVIDUAL LOT SIZES ARE IN TOTAL. BUT WITH THE TWO OF THEM TOGETHER I BELIEVE IT'S RIGHT AROUND AN ACRE. SO 42,000 SQUARE FEET.

Yeah, Chair, I would just, Commissioner White, I would just add, you know, a typical Bloomington lot typically is around a quarter acre in size. It was very common to build an 11,000-ish square foot lot in Bloomington, which is around a quarter acre, pretty typical size. So these lots are significantly, or do have significant depth by Bloomington standards. Now, that being said, Bloomington has a very eclectic and wide diversity amongst its lots all over town, and not just... People always just assume that's on the west side, but it's west, central, east, north, south. There are a lot of unique lots and configurations and sizes all over town. But Planner O'Day's comment, yes, the current minimum lot size for an R1 single-family lot is 60 feet in width for an interior lot and 7,800 square feet in size.

Commissioner Coleman.

And on this map, from what I understand, the area that is guided for medium density is 9045 and 9042 northwards, right? Which is all the spot that has like the Yeah. Oh, it doesn't zoom in very well. But you can kind of see on the 2008. So it's specifically these double-depth lots that were designed as... Yep. That have been planned and reiterated through... comp plan revisions that these are the ones that could be medium density in the future, right? And it's not just like, it's not the whole neighborhood, right? In R3, the comp plan does not say is a recommended zoning district for low density. Although, I mean, it does, there is some language in there that could suggest it, you know, that kind of stuff. But it's specifically like, do you think that... Is it specifically because they were so deep? Is that because it seems like the other one that we talked about recently, that was also like a double depth. And it's really only those two spaces in Bloomington that have this unique little guide plan designation.

Yeah, Chair, you say Commissioner Coleman, so that would be one of the things that the city would think about when contemplating of whether to re-guide a site away from its existing uses. What is the development potential of a site in addition to those other things that I mentioned? Again, access to higher volume roadways, proximity to parks, other amenities that can serve or can help support SLIGHTLY HIGHER DENSITY. AGAIN, NOT BEING HERE DURING THE 1981 COMPRENSIVE PLAN, I CAN'T SPEAK TO ALL OF THE KIND OF FACTORS THAT INFORMED THE CITY'S DECISION AT THAT TIME. WHAT I CAN SAY JUST FROM A GENERAL PLANNING PRACTICE IS THAT YOU WOULD LOOK AT HOW SITES CAN BE ASSEMBLED TO CREATE REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES WHEN YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THESE DECISIONS. AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO TIMELINE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. WHEN THE CITY'S This is getting into the weeds a little bit more, but effectively under the regional guide plan with the Met Council, you have to plan for a certain amount of growth for your community every cycle, right? And so it's how do you deploy different land uses to accommodate that growth? The reason that cities are leaning more into medium density residential land guidance is that that effectively is a housing type that has kind of been left behind IN TERMS OF ITS DEVELOPMENT OVER THE LAST MANY YEARS, EXCEPT FOR DEVELOPING SUBURBS OUT IN THE FURTHER STRETCHES OF THE METRO, EFFECTIVELY. AND THE SECOND REASON BEING IS THAT THOSE HOUSING TYPES CAN PROVIDE MORE VARIETY AND MAINTENANCE-FREE OPTIONS TO EXPAND THE VARIETY OF A COMMUNITY'S HOUSING STOCK. Yeah, I do think that the arrangement of the lots, I think that probably the most significant factor here is the location, just proximity to 35W and 90th Street in this case. But I do think that the lot configuration could have been a factor in terms of its guidance of MDR.

Thank you.

I have an unrelated thing.

Go ahead.

Okay. So... Something that I'm kind of hung up on is the fact that these sites will be sold as an opportunity for custom building. Because... It's a pretty thin slice. Like the road that will be constructed for the development before any of the actual home construction happens is only 22 feet wide. And if you're building all nine at the same time, it's pretty easy just, you know... give your bulldozer over the lot that will be built in, you know, next. But if there's potentially nine different companies doing that, right, like nine different developers building one house, it seems much more likely that you're going to have to do it in series instead of in parallel. I guess maybe that's a question for the developer of how much different that would be than a normal nine-unit detached townhome development if there is one.

and actually that's the exact question or kind of question that I had where what if like hypothetically these nine builders built like in the span of like five ten years apart and how that would be for if there's any like contingency or any plan as the landowner the HOA I think entity how to kind of mitigate any scenarios where, you know, it's construction for the next 10 years for neighbors. So that's a question I have for the applicant.

Are you calling them up? Just be more direct.

Oh, yeah, if there's anybody else. But, yeah, the applicant, if you could please come up and answer some of the questions, and specifically that question as well. Thank you.

Okay, Commissioner Coleman, Commissioner Yussi. In the South Metro, I'm not aware of a single family lot for sale for under $200,000. And our objective here is to reach as low of a price point as possible. Modeling our pro forma, I think we'll be able to achieve a price point under $150,000. And so is that high or low? Is this price is right? Low? Just a lot. So I think what that means is that the end price point, normally a lot is 20% roughly of an end value. And so the end price point of these homes might be 600. But I think you could do that. I think you do it for less, potentially. It depends on what you want to build. My point is that I don't suspect that these lots are going to be available in a year. We might be able to sell all of them right away. And so you could have a situation where there are nine different builders operating in here at one time. And if you've driven through subdivisions that are under construction, so if we go out to Lakeville or Chaska or Prior Lake and you observe the operations there, these builders know what they're doing. They know how to stay out of each other's way. What?

IF THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOT CLOSE, IF THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO SPEAK.

SO I'M GOING TO LEAVE THAT UP TO PROFESSIONAL HOME BUILDERS. THAT'S WHO WOULD BE CONSTRUCTING THESE HOMES MOST LIKELY. SO THEY'RE GOING TO COORDINATE THAT WITH EACH OTHER.

YEAH, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

CHAIR, YOU SAY IF I MAY. THANK YOU AGAIN. SO I JUST FORGOT ONE OF THE THINGS ON MY LIST THAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WAS CRYSTAL CLEAR AND SUPER CLEAR JUST FOR THE PUBLIC WAS THAT THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION, I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING OF THIS USE TYPE IN OUR ZONING CODE BEING CALLED DETACHED TOWN HOMES. But there's been some folks mention the name patio lot or plaza lot. Those, in effect, are the same thing from a zoning perspective. These aren't attached products. So I just wanted to make that super clear, too, is that I felt like that was maybe conflated or confused at one point. So I just wanted to make that statement just that people are clear on kind of what the use type is.

Yeah, the terminology in planning is very verbose, but like I googled patio home and it sounds like it's almost exactly describing what this is, but yeah.

Alrighty, any other thoughts? Go ahead, Commissioner Summers.

I'm going through my notes here and one I have is about snow removal. With this being an HOA, how will this impact snow removal in the neighborhood?

CHAIR, COMMISSIONER SUMMERS, I'LL DEFER TO THE APPLICANT TO DETERMINE HOW SNOW WILL BE MANAGED, BUT CERTAINLY THAT'S WHY WE HAVE GREEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS IS TO ALLOW SPACE FOR SNOW TO BE PILED. SO I COULD THEORETICALLY SEE KIND OF THIS SOUTHEAST CORNER BEING UTILIZED FOR SNOW.

Yeah, and if I may add to that too, Chair, you say Commissioner Summers is just that the streets would have to be plowed by a private contractor. It wouldn't be city crews doing snow removal here. Snow would certainly get probably pushed in some front yards as well, in addition to that area that Liz identified. But we do have lots of sites in Bloomington where in heavy snow volume years, they do have to truck some snow off. So that does occur and is not uncommon, but it would be a private contract. It wouldn't be city. City would not be responsible for plowing of this development. Commissioner White.

Thank you, Chair. Just a follow-up question for that, but there would be no, they wouldn't be allowed to push it out onto the city street. They would have to maintain all of the snow, either truck it off or maintain snow on the property, not push it out into neighbors' yards or into the street or anything like that.

Yeah, Chair, you say Commissioner White, that's correct by policy. It doesn't mean that residents all over city do push snow sometimes. DO PUSH SNOW SOMETIMES INTO THE CITY STREETS, AND WHEN THAT OCCURS, PUBLIC WORKS WORKS WITH THEM, TRIES TO GET IT ADDRESSED, HANDLED SOMETIMES THROUGH PRIVATE CONTRACTORS. SO IT DOES HAPPEN, BUT OUR PUBLIC WORKS TEAM IS VERY ADEPT AT ADDRESSING IT AND DEALING WITH IT. THEY DO SNOW VERY WELL IN BLOOMINGTON.

ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? IF NOT, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER LENET.

THANK YOU. I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY AS WE MOVE INTO DISCUSSION I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND KIND OF WHAT OUR OPTIONS ARE HERE. SO OUR OPTION IS BASICALLY TO SAY WE AGREE THAT THIS SHOULD BE REZONED AND PLATTED AS THESE SEPARATE LOTS. But it is not our responsibility, or I shouldn't say not our responsibility, but what we're voting on is not, is this a good business model? It's whether or not we think these lots should be subdivided and rezoned, correct?

chair commissioner lanae that's correct uh... factors that you used to make a decision on the three entitlements before you as the city's established an existing land use policies and zoning codes uh... you know the financials of a project sometimes the if that developer were seeking a public subsidy for example for the project or a tiff district or something like that those decisions would typically go to the port authority or city council BUT THE PLANNING, THAT'S NOT THE CASE IN THIS PROJECT. BUT YOU'RE CORRECT. THE CRITERIA BY WHICH YOU'RE EVALUATING REQUESTS BEFORE YOU IS THE COMPROMISSIVE PLAN, THE ZONING CODE, OTHER ADAPTED LAND USE POLICIES OF THE CITY.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

I THINK KEVIN'S.

OH, KEVIN TOSKE WANTED TO. YES. GO AHEAD, KEVIN TOSKE, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY.

Thanks, Chair and Commission. So yeah, just to kind of recap, you have three decisions. There's a rezoning, that's a legislative act. So Ms. O'Day went through kind of what you consider there. Consider the comp plan and a few other things. The other two are called quasi-judicial. So you take the factors that are in city code and you have to apply the facts, the development, and what you heard tonight against those factors and make a decision to either recommend or not recommend approval to the city council. So Legislative, there's a little bit more discretion on those decisions. Quasi-judicial, you're limited by the factors that you have to consider in the city code. And just to kind of say, it's not whether this is the ideal project or the project you like is kind of not material. It's the project that was submitted that you're evaluating. So just to kind of set that out there. But those are the three decisions tonight and kind of the scope of review that you need to do. Yeah. If you have any other questions, let me know.

Thank you. Are there any other thoughts? If not, are there questions? Yeah, questions? If not, I would entertain a motion.

Yeah, go ahead.

Sorry, guys. Discussion. On to discussion now.

I actually did have one last question, if you don't mind, Chair. Go ahead. In the comp plan, it says that you can have 12 units per acre in low density, 15 units per acre in medium density. What is the maximum for detached townhomes in R1? Is it eight? Is that why there's a rezoning?

chair commissioner Coleman the primary reason that the developer was seeking the rezoning has to do with the Setbacks and so from a design perspective it was more desirable and I mean I don't want to speak for the applicant but just from being in conversations OF THE DIFFERENT PATHWAYS THEY COULD HAVE SOUGHT WITH THIS PROJECT. THEY PREFERRED R3 BASED ON THOSE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. AND THEIR REASONING FOR SUCH WAS AGAIN TIED TO THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL GUIDANCE OF THE PROPERTY. YOU CAN HAVE A DETACHED TOWNHOME PROJECT UP TO 12 UNITS PER ACRE IN R1. HOWEVER, THERE ARE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIREMENTS. that might make that difficult to achieve that level of density in R1. So yeah, and with the setback requirements being what they are in R1, detached townhomes have to meet the same setbacks as a single family home would be, which is 30 feet as opposed to 20.

So hypothetically... you could build nine units per acre detached townhomes in R1. It's just that like in this specific instance, the lot is a little too narrow. Maybe it's like a five or 10 feet issue. Cause like there was talk about the density, but you could build a nine unit per acre detached townhome in R1 right now, just not on this site specifically is what I'm understanding.

Chair, Commissioner Coleman, I believe that's correct.

Yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other discussion?

Okay, I'm happy to kick it off. So first off, I want to thank everyone from the community for coming out to make their voices heard tonight. I know this is an incredibly personal situation. I think what I continue to go back to is the fact that the neighborhood has been zoned or this this property has been zoned or not zone guided, medium density residential going back almost or more than 40 years at this point and that the city has been very clear in their Plan to hopefully get this to more dense housing down the road and so while I do Feel like there are some concert valid concerns about the specific project I do think that what is in front of us today. I am supportive of I would like to see the city FIND A WAY TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD ON THAT GUIDED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN QUICKER THAN WE HAVE BEEN. SO I THINK I AM INCLINED TO SUPPORT THE MOTION AT THIS POINT. OVER TO OTHERS.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? Go ahead, Commissioner Coleman.

I have a fairly similar perspective, Chair, that the city of Bloomington has created an expectation that there would be, even if it was 20 years at this point, where if we're going to try to push towards 20 years from now in 1982, and now we're in 2026, you could see that as being behind schedule, but I don't think so. The main thing is that the people who own these lots, they have the option, because the city has made this decision and reaffirmed it over and over, that this could be medium density in the future, that the developer owns the land and they have... they have the right to come and ask us whether it can be R3 now. And I think that even though, like, I'm very skeptical that it's going to be a perfect dance of contractors, it's a very tight site to have nine different ones maybe at the same time or in series. I... It... it feels a little weird to just say, Oh, the contractors will figure it out amongst themselves. If you're the owner of the whole, you know, acre, it seems like it might be your responsibility to make sure that at least you facilitate that it will go fine. If not, obviously we can't ask for perfect in life, but it seems like it, but that's not one of the things that's in front of us. It is in, Effectively, it is R1 versus R3, and the comprehensive plan says that R3 is a more appropriate use for a medium-density site than R1.

Thank you. Any other thoughts? Commissioner White?

Thank you, Chair. I would echo Commissioner Linnaeus' thanks to everybody for coming out tonight. I know how difficult it can be to get up in front of a crowd and speak your mind, even when it's a crowd of your neighbors. And I don't know about others, but I'm a little envious of how friendly and supportive you are of each other in your neighborhood. And I think that is a wonderful gift. I also... have gone back and forth about this a lot as i've been listening to the various testimony and looking at the requirements and and. While I do support the rezoning i'm not sure that i'm as supportive about the final site and building plans. PIECE OF IT BECAUSE I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THIS CONSTRUCTION DANCE THAT WILL NEED TO HAPPEN ABOUT THE, YOU KNOW, ABOUT THE, YOU KNOW, MISCHMASH OF OWNERSHIP AND FENCING AND STYLES AND THINGS LIKE THAT WHICH While I love a little architectural difference and appreciate it when it's not cookie cutter, I do think there are some strong advantages to things being somewhat cohesive, especially when you're building them from scratch. So... I think that's where I'm struggling is that while I understand that we are not here to legislate the specifics of a particular proposal, but judge it based on what's in front of us, that's the thing I'm wrestling with right now as we start to move into voting. I don't know, perhaps if Attorney Tosky, City Attorney Tosky, could just review one more time the legislative-judicial authority split for me, I would appreciate that if we have time for just a moment to have him revisit that.

Yeah, Chair. Commissioners, so like I said, you have a rezoning, that's a legislative act, so your discretion is pretty high in the legislative decision making, so I think Ms. O'Day covered it pretty well. You consider the comp plan guidance, because every decision, or every land use rezoning decision has to be in step with the comprehensive plan. She mentioned that typically we look at whether there's a public benefit or not. Pretty wide discretion, I guess, in legislative decisions, but there's not any specific findings or anything you have to compare it to, either in state law or city code. Wise-eye judicial decisions are different. So the second decision is a final site and building plan approval. There's four findings, I believe. I'm just looking at it right here. Four findings have to be made, all of them, in order to approve a final site and building plan. And then with a preliminary plat, you have a type three preliminary and final plat. That's the other entitlement. There's findings that have to be made for that as well. I believe there's eight for a preliminary plat and then one additional one for a final plat. So those are kind of what you have to compare the facts and the whole record of what you have against and then make a decision. So hopefully that explains it.

Thank you.

THANK YOU, CHAIR EASAY AND COMMISSIONER WHITE AND FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND PLANNING STAFF HAS BEEN DISCUSSING AND THINKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOME OF THE TESTIMONY AS WELL AND SOME OF YOUR DISCUSSION AROUND CONCERNS AROUND THE SEQUENCING AROUND CONSTRUCTION. The city typically reserves a condition of approval for a construction management plan to much larger scale development than kind of what is before you this evening might have complex access issues or be on county roads that need to be sequenced and just have or driving piles or might just have complex elements of construction. So while the scale of this project is smaller than a lot of the projects we typically would attach that or recommend that condition to, if this is an issue that's a particular point of emphasis or concern on the part of the Planning Commission, you certainly would be within your right TO RECOMMEND A CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN AS AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION OF APPROVAL. IT CERTAINLY WOULD BE WITHIN THE ESSENTIAL NEXUS. IT WOULD MEET THE ESSENTIAL NEXUS TEST. AND SO, YOU KNOW, WHAT WOULD THAT MEAN? THAT COULD MEAN HOURS OF CONSTRUCTION. IT COULD MEAN HALL ROUTE. IT COULD MEAN STAGING OF EQUIPMENT. IT COULD BE IDENTIFYING HOW THE SEQUENCE OF LOTS CAN BE UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN TERMS OF AT THE SAME SIMULTANEOUS TIME. Like anything you can put in the record if this is something that is of interest to you anything Details that you want to explored in such a condition that's helpful for us to receive that because it also puts the developer on notice in terms of the types of elements the city would like to see in such a Condition and a document and then if it's a condition of approval attached to the land Entitlements that gives us the right to enforce that above and beyond the elements of the state building code if that makes sense

Thank you. Just to add my two cents, I kind of agree with Commissioner White. I'm also kind of on the fence, especially, no pun intended, especially on that last item. And so, yeah, I just wanted to throw that out there. I think. COMMISSIONER COLEMAN.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN IF WE WERE TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL REQUIRE ONE, WHAT WOULD BE THE TIMELINE OF WHEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO IRON THAT OUT WITH THE PERMITTING PEOPLE BEFORE CONSTRUCTION STARTS?

CORRECT. CHAIR, COMMISSIONER COLEMAN, THEY WOULD NEED TO GET A PLAN APPROVED BY WHATEVER ENTITIES YOU LIST. TYPICALLY IT WOULD BE THE PLANNING MANAGER, BUILDING OFFICIAL, AND CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS OF THE SITE. SO THAT COULD INCLUDE GRADING, COULD INCLUDE UTILITIES, IT COULD INCLUDE THE PRIVATE DRIVE. SO THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED TYPICALLY PRIOR TO ANY PERMIT GOING OUT FOR SITE DISTURBING ACTIVITY ON A PROPERTY.

I'm thinking of there being a construction management plan that... One of the things I'm thinking of is the staging of materials and equipment during the construction, especially if the first unit that gets built is the one that's right on the street, and then all of a sudden you have... only, like, two-thirds of the site that you could actually move equipment into the other units to... It seems like it would be a very strenuous dance to try to figure that out. And, like, potentially you would have one contractor's vehicles moving over land that is owned by someone who bought a lot for their own home. And I don't know if sequencing... I'm not a professional on construction. So it feels like that would be the main worry of if there's a potential for these contractors to just have the urge to just put the equipment or their stuff on the street, right? Like, just making sure that there is some way to figure out that, like, whether it be you're building the further ones first and then you're building the newer ones, but also... The issue is that now you're doing two different things of some people want it to be quick and some people want it to be more organized. Not the professional. It's tough. Yeah.

Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner Summers.

Thank you, Chair. I think a question for me on the construction management plan is when I think about the finding made about how this impacts the neighborhood, there's with this final site and building plan, it is really complex for me to trust a plan that has not yet been made and put my name behind saying I approve that. But with a construction and management plan, if there were impacts to the neighborhood as construction is happening for these properties, would that mean that the city would play a part in conversations? It would be less neighbors going to neighbors. I guess I wonder if how it works if something is going awry.

Yeah. Chair, Commissioner Summers, if I may, Chair. Commissioner Summers, effectively what it does, so anything that is subject to a building permit is already the business of the city. The city's building official manages all construction in the city, so that's like things I mentioned, work hours or... uh... not having erosion go in the street or making sure that uh... equipment is being deployed in a safe way uh... making sure that what is being built actually matches the approved plan those are all the elements that the building inspection staff uh... provide us but what a construction management plan does is it helps the city and the contractors and the developer be very clear on the upfront side of things, what the expectations are, and can dive into details that are not in the building code. So, you know, Commissioner Coleman, you mentioned lot sequencing or in terms of maintaining open access. These are things that can be elevated in the plan. Now, I don't think you'd want to make it so prescriptive to kind of box it in in such a way that would potentially CAUSE THE PROJECT TO NOT MOVE FORWARD OR SUCCEED, BUT YOU CAN BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT THE ELEMENTS OF IT, AND I THINK THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, FRANKLY IS PART OF THE BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE CITY AND AN APPLICANT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. I DON'T KNOW IF I FULLY ADDRESS EVERY ELEMENT OF YOUR QUESTION, BUT HAVING A CONDITION OF APPROVAL ON THE LAND ENTITLEMENT GIVES US MORE TOOLS OF ENFORCEMENT AND CIVIL ENFORCEMENT, AND THAT'S THE AREA THAT, YOU KNOW, ATTORNEY TOSKE LIVES IN. IT'S JUST THAT WHEN WE HAVE CLEAR VIOLATIONS, NOT ONLY OF THE BUILDING CODE, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY A CONDITION OF APPROVAL ON THE ZONING ENTITLEMENTS, IT'S A VERY CLEAR AND MUCH EASIER PATH FORWARD FOR THE CITY TO DO ENFORCEMENT IN THOSE CASES BECAUSE IT BRINGS IN MORE ELEMENTS AND MORE AUTHORITY FROM DIFFERENT AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING CODE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER WHITE.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. absolutely think that a construction management plan would be recommended in this particular case I think in terms of the impacts of the construction I think the impacts of the you know coordinating amongst different builders connecting with different systems you know connecting with the road all of those things are of concern I think the the you know with the setbacks being a little bit different with town homes you know i think being aware of the um the impact of building placement on the lots in relation to the neighbors houses and yards and and whatever existing fencing is there those are all things that that are important to me um as we think about a construction management plan and it would be difficult for me to support the project without that and that's not not to say that I don't believe that the developer the owner I believe you're operating in good faith and I believe that you want to do the right thing for the neighborhood but I do think that it's just again nine homes in a small space with nine different potential builders at nine different times is a lot for any neighbor to put up with. I do also just want one side note. I'm not sure that, although I understand that this would be a lower lot price than a typical single family home lot, I'm not sure that a $600,000 one bedroom townhome should ever be considered affordable. OR HAVE THAT TERM APPLIED TO IT. SO I JUST HOPE THAT THERE WILL BE SOME CONSIDERATION IN HOW THESE ARE FRAMED.

YEAH, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENTS, COMMISSIONER WHITE. AND IT'S KIND OF WHAT I WAS ASKING EARLIER, THE APPLICANT. SO IF THE CITY HAS THAT, A CONSTRUCTION PLAN TO HOLD THE DEVELOPER ACCOUNTABLE, THAT WOULD BE NICE. I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION IN REGARD TO THE MOTIONS. ON THE HYPOTHETICALLY, IF THE FIRST TWO PASS BUT THE LAST MOTION DOESN'T, WOULD THAT MAKE THE PROJECT NOT MOVE FORWARD? OR HOW WOULD THAT WORK?

YEAH, CHAIR AND KEVIN, IF YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN AS WELL, THAT'S OKAY. BUT YOU'RE CORRECT THAT IT'S AN APPROPRIATE SEQUENCE OF THE REZONING DECISION IS THE MOST IMPORTANT DECISION IN TERMS OF THE ORDER. Because that's what establishes the rules on the ground that the final site and building plans and the plat are being approved against. So if you were to approve the first motion, the second two motion are subject to those findings of fact, as Attorney Tosky outlined. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PLANS. WE DO BELIEVE THEM TO BE CODE COMPLYING. SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A FINDING AND WE CAN BRING THE FINDINGS UP IF NEED BE. WE DO HAVE THAT AS EXTRA SLIDES. BUT YOU WOULD NEED TO EFFECTIVELY MAKE A FINDING THAT OR DETERMINE THAT ONE OF THE FINDINGS WAS NOT BEING MET AND JUST KIND OF ARTICULATE THAT FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD. AND THEN WE CAN TRANSMIT THAT ONTO THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. DOES THAT ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION ADEQUATELY?

Yes, it does. If we could pull up the findings, yeah, just so.

And specific to the plat is the one that you're?

Yeah, the final one, the plat. The final one on the list, which was the plat, I believe. Final motion, yeah.

So here are the eight findings for the preliminary plat, and then here's the single finding for the final plat. Let me know which one you.

Previous, yeah. Thank you.

If I may, Chair?

Yeah, go ahead.

Looking at these findings, as long as we have the construction management plan as attached to the final site and building plans, I don't see any reason why, I mean, number seven is always very wishy-washy, but in general that these findings for the preliminary plot, I think that I agree with staff's recommendation on all of them, so.

THANK YOU. ANY THOUGHTS? COMMISSIONER SUMMERS.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. I THINK THANK YOU, MR. TASKEY FOR THE CLARIFICATIONS ON THE ROLE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE I THINK THAT THAT WAS REALLY HELPFUL CLARIFICATION. and staff's additional notes on the construction management plan. I think with the land use zoning codes and the findings included in the packet and the addition of a construction management plan that I could be supportive of the motions in front of the Planning Commission.

Commissioner White.

Thank you, Chair. Could staff just advise us on how we ensure that the construction management plan recommendation goes forward?

Yeah, Chair Commissioner White, so specifically it'd be the final site and building plans is the one that you would want to attach it to because that's effectively what this development approval, this site plan, the conditions are being attached to that. There are some specific conditions attached to platting, but it's specific to the second motion before you on the screen. IS THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO, IF YOU WERE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, YOU'D BE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH THE ADDITIONAL CONDITION AROUND REQUIREMENT OF A CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN PRIOR TO PERMIT. WE CAN UTILIZE SOME OF THE DISCUSSION. I HAD PLANNED TO ASK, BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO INTERVENE IN THE ORGANIC DISCUSSION THAT WAS HAPPENING THERE. BUT THE THINGS I'VE WROTEN DOWN SO FAR FOR WHAT THIS DOCUMENT COULD POTENTIALLY INCLUDE WOULD BE A SEQUENCE OR THE LOCATION OF HOMES UNDER CONSTRUCTION. It could be the number of homes under construction at one time, or conversely, it could be the number of builders operating at one time. I could envision a scenario where if the same builder was constructing three homes at the same time, that that's less detrimental than the scenario you outlined of nine different general contractors. So these are the things I wrote down, but just to answer your question more directly, the motion that you would attach it to would be the final site and building plans motion.

Okay, thank you. Any other thoughts? If not, I would entertain a motion.

In case PL2026126, I move to recommend the City Council adopt an ordinance rezoning 9025 and 9033 James Avenue from R1 single-family residential to R3 middle housing residential.

Is there a second? Second. There is a motion and a second recommending approval. All those in favor, say aye. Aye.

Aye.

That motion passes 5-0.

In case PL2026126, having been able to make the required findings, I move to recommend the City Council approve final site and building plans for a nine-unit detached townhome development located at 9025 and 9033 James Avenue South, subject to the conditions and code requirements attached to the staff report, AND A CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT REPORT THAT OUTLINES OR THAT ADDRESSES THE ISSUE OF SEQUENCING, TIMING, AND OTHER APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSED? THAT MOTION PASSES 5-0.

In case PL2026126, I move to recommend the City Council approve a Type 3 preliminary plat and adopt a resolution approving the final plat of James Avenue City Homes to subdivide 9025 and 9033 James Avenue South into nine detached townhome lots and one outlot subject to the conditions and code requirements attached to the staff report.

Is there a second?

Second.

There is a motion and a second recommending approval. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? That motion passes 5-0. The anticipated hearing for City Council consideration on this item is September 14th. Thank you. Moving on to item... No. MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 2.1, WE ARE CONSIDERING APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SYNOPSIS FOR THE AUGUST 6TH MEETING. WE HAD, I BELIEVE, SIX OUT OF SEVEN COMMISSIONERS PRESENT WITH COMMISSIONER LENAY ABSENT. AND, YEAH, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AS PRESENTED IN THE PACKET.

I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM AUGUST 6TH, 2026. Second.

All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstain?

Aye. Abstain.

That motion passes 4-0 with one abstination. We will now move on to item number 3.1 this evening, our final item of the evening, the Planning Commission Policy Issues and Update. Mr. Johnson.

Thank you, Chair Isay, and members of the commission. Just previewing a couple upcoming planning commission meetings. Your next regularly scheduled meeting is on September the 3rd. There's three public hearings planned for that meeting. There's a privately initiated city code amendment to allow sports training facilities in the FT2. ZONING DISTRICT AND THEN THE OTHER TWO APPLICATIONS THE CITY IS THE APPLICANT FIRST A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CLEANUP ITEMS ANNUAL MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES ORDINANCE AND THE THIRD PUBLIC HEARING BEING THE MINOR POLICY ITEM ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH ANNUAL MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES ORDINANCE PREVIEWING THE SEPTEMBER 17TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING There's a public hearing for a public street name change for a portion of Hopkins Road to Mission Road. And then there's a second public hearing for a city code amendment for an ordinance related to off-street parking requirements. This is an item on your work plan that's been before you in the city council and study session format earlier this year. THE ONLY OTHER UPDATE I HAVE TO SHARE IS AGAIN THE MINNESOTA CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION IS HOSTING THEIR CONFERENCE IN MANKATO, MINNESOTA THIS YEAR FROM OCTOBER THE 21ST TO 23RD. SO IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING JUST PLEASE REACH OUT TO SHAWN TAY BROWN OR I.

GREAT. THANK YOU MR. JOHNSON. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO DISCUSS ANYTHING THAT WAS NOT ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY ITEMS THEY WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS. SEEING NONE, THAT CONCLUDES THIS AUGUST 20th MEETING OF THE BLOOMINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION. THANK YOU.