[0:13] . >> WELCOME, EVERYONE, TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING COMMISSION FOR MONDAY, MARCH 10, 2025. [0:21] MY NAME IS CHRIS MEYER, I'M CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AT THIS TIME I'LL ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL. [0:27] >> COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. >> HERE. >> CAMPBELL. >> HERE. >> CHOWDHURY IS ABSENT. CONLEY [0:34] IS ABSENT. GORDON. >> HERE. >> JONES. >> HERE. >> MEYER. >> HERE. [0:41] >> SKJEFTE IS ABSENT. THOMPSON IS ABSENT. WAGNER. >> HERE. [0:47] >> WE HAVE SIX MEMBERS PRESENT. >> LET THE RECORD SHOW WE HAVE A [0:52] QUORUM. FIRST UP, WE'LL TAKE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2025. [1:01] WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MOVE. >> I'LL MOVE. >>-THE MINUTES ARE ADOPTED. [1:06] NEXT, WE WILL ORGANIZE THE AGENDA. SO FIRST WE'LL HAVE AN [1:13] ITEM WITHOUT A HEARING. ITEM 4. AND THEN STAFF ARE [1:19] RECOMMENDING THAT WE DISCUSS ITEMS 5 AND 8. AND THAT 6 AND 7 [1:27] BE ON CONSENT. SO I'M GOING TO READ THE TWO ITEMS FOR 6 AND 7. IF YOU WERE HERE TO SPEAK [1:33] AGAINST THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, PLEASE LET US KNOW WHEN I READ THOSE OFF. THE [1:38] FIRST ONE IS ITEM 6. 3333 EAST [1:45] 41st STREET. WAS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK? NOT SEEING ANY. WE'LL KEEP THAT ON CONSENT. ITEM 7, [1:54] 3605 44th STREET EAST, AND 4440 SMELLING AVENUE. WAS ANYONE HERE [2:00] TO SPEAK ON ITEM 7? ALL RIGHT. NOT SEEING ANY FOR THAT ONE [2:05] EITHER. SO TO REVIEW, THERE WILL BE NO HEARING ON ITEM 4. WE'LL DO THAT FIRST. WE'LL DISCUSS 5, [2:14] HAVE 6 AND 7 ON CONSENT. AND DISCUSS 8. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MOVE THAT AGENDA? [2:22] >> I'LL MOVE. >> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED. THAT AGENDA IS ADOPTED. [2:30] FIRST WE'LL DO ITEM 4, 1400, [2:37] 1406, 1412, AND 1418 8TH AVENUE NORTH. ANY DISCUSSION, [2:42] QUESTIONS, OR PRESENTATION ON ITEM 4? WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MOVE THE MOTION ON THAT ONE? [2:48] >> I'LL MOVE FOR ADOPTION OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION. >> SECOND. >> ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. [2:54] ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED, ABSTENTIONS? ITEM 4 [3:00] IS ADOPTED. NEXT, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR OUR CONSENT ITEMS. IF YOU WERE HERE TO SPEAK [3:06] ABOUT 6 OR 7, JUST WANTED TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT, YOU'RE WELCOME TO DO THAT NOW. WAS [3:12] ANYONE HERE INTERESTED IN SPEAKING TO ITEMS 6 OR 7? [3:18] >> -- >> SURE. SO NUMBER 6 IS 3333 EAST 41st STREET. AND NUMBER 7 [3:27] IS 3605 44th STREET EAST, AND 4440 SMELLING AVENUE. IS ANYONE [3:32] HERE TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THOSE? [3:39] ALL RIGHT. AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE COPIES OF THE AGENDA. WHATEVER [3:46] YOU CAME TO SPEAK FOR, YOU'LL HAVE A CHANCE TO DO THAT. ALL RIGHT. SO NOT SEEING ANYBODY, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON [3:52] THE CONSENT AGENDA. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION ABOUT OUR CONSENT AGENDA? ALL RIGHT. WOULD [4:01] SOMEONE LIKE TO MOVE ITEMS 6 AND 7? >> SO MOVED. >> APPROVAL OF THOSE. OKAY. [4:08] >> SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [4:13] >> AYE. >> OPPOSED, ABSTENTIONS? ITEMS 6 [4:18] AND 7 ARE ADOPTED. IF YOU CAME HERE FOR THOSE TWO, GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECTS. FIRST [4:24] DISCUSSION ITEM, ITEM 5, 715 [4:29] SOUTH 9th STREET, ET CETERA. THIS IS THE HENNEPIN COUNTY [4:38] PARKING GARAGE. [4:47] >> GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS, I'M HILARY [4:54] DVORAK, THE PLANNING DIVISION OF CPED. I AM HERE TODAY TO SPEAK [4:59] ABOUT THE HENNEPIN COUNTY HEALTHCARE SOUTH REPLACEMENT RAMP. THE DEVELOPMENT SITE IS [5:07] LOCATED AT -- EXCUSE ME. SORRY. [5:14] THE DEVELOPMENT SITE IS LOCATED AT 715th SOUTH 9, 908 TO 920, [5:21] ALL OF THE PROPERTIES ARE CURRENTLY USED FOR SURFACE PARKING CENTENNIAL PLACE, WHICH [5:27] IS A PUBLIC STREET, SEPARATES THE PROPERTIES FROM ONE ANOTHER. AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO VACATE THIS RIGHT OF WAY. A [5:34] PUBLIC ALLEY RUNS ADJACENT TO THE WEST SIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT SITE. BUT THE APPLICANT IS NOT PROPOSING TO USE THAT FOR ACCESS [5:40] INTO OR OUT OF THE PARKING RAMP. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO [5:48] CONSTRUCT A NEW SIX-STORY 1,046 SPACE PARKING GARAGE WITH A [5:55] GROUND LEVEL COMMERCIAL ON THE SITE. THIS GARAGE WOULD SERVE [6:04] THE HENNEPIN HEALTH CARE HOSPICE. THE EXISTING PARKING GARAGE WOULD BE DEMOLISHED ONCE [6:10] THIS NEW PARKING GARAGE IS CONSTRUCTED. AND WHERE THE EXISTING PARKING GARAGE IS [6:18] LOCATED, LOOKING TO BUILD A HOSPITAL THERE IN THE FUTURE. [6:23] THIS IS A SITE PLAN SHOWING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THE [6:29] PRINCIPLE VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE SITE IS ALONG SOUTH 9th STREET. I'M JUST GOING TO ORIENT [6:35] EVERYONE IN THE ROOM. THIS IS SOUTH 9TH STREET. THIS IS THE ACCESS POINT TO THE PARKING [6:41] GARAGE IN THE SAME LOCATION AS WHERE CENTENNIAL PLACE IS TODAY. THERE WILL BE THREE ACCESS [6:47] POINTS INTO THE GARAGE FOR PEDESTRIANS. ONE HERE AT THE CORNER OF 9TH AND CHICAGO. ONE [6:53] OVER HERE IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE ALONG 9TH STREET. AND THEN ONE DOWN HERE STAIR ONLY ACCESS IN THE [7:00] SOUTHEAST CORNER ALONG CHICAGO AVENUE. THERE WILL BE A SECURE BIKE PARKING AREA FOR EMPLOYEES [7:08] IN THE BUILDING LOCATED HERE NEAR THE ELEVATOR AND STAIR ACCESS THAT GETS INTO THE SKYWAY [7:15] SYSTEM. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THAT 10,220 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE ALONG [7:20] CHICAGO. I'M JUST POINTING THAT OUT HERE IN THIS, ALONG THERE. [7:26] AND I GUESS JUST TO SHOW YOU THE COMMERCIAL AND A LITTLE BIT BETTER, THERE IT IS HIGHLIGHTED [7:32] IN PURPLE. AS I MENTIONED, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONNECT THE PARKING GARAGE TO [7:42] THE HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE. HERE IS A SECTION SHOWING WHAT THAT [7:48] SKYWAY DESIGN WOULD BE. THE SKYWAY DOES MEET OUR STANDARDS. HOWEVER, WE WERE NOT ABLE TO [7:53] CONFIRM THE FOOTING ON THE GLASS FOR BIRD SAFETY. SO WE DO HAVE A [7:59] CONDITION SITE PLANNER REVIEW PERTAINING TO THAT. THERE ARE [8:04] SEVERAL APPLICATIONS BEFORE YOU THIS AFTERNOON FOR THIS PROJECT. ONE OF WHICH IS BEING RETURNED. [8:11] I ERRONEOUSLY TOOK A VARIANCE FOR ELECTRICAL VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS, AND THAT IS NOT [8:16] NEEDED. SO THAT ONE IS BEING RETURNED. BUT THE OTHER APPLICATIONS ARE NEEDED, AND TO [8:22] BE ACTED ON TODAY. THE FIRST IS A REZONING. THE APPLICANTS ARE [8:27] PROPOSING TO REZONE THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE LOCATED ON [8:33] THE WEST SIDE OF CENTENNIAL FROM THE DT1 TO THE DT2. STAFF FINDS [8:39] THAT REZONING THE SITE TO THE DT2 WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE [8:44] GOALS AND POLICY OF THE PLAN. THIS REZONING IS INTENDED TO [8:52] ACCOMMODATE EXPANSION OF THE HOSPITAL CAMPUS WHICH SERVES THE [8:58] PUBLIC INTEREST. THE WEST SIDE OF THE SITE IS GUIDED FOR PUBLIC [9:03] OFFICE INSTITUTION, AND THE EAST SIDE IS MIXED USE, MINNEAPOLIS [9:09] 2040. THE WEST HALF IS ADJACENT TO CHICAGO AVENUE. THE PROPOSED REZONING IS APPROPRIATE GIVEN [9:16] THE SURROUNDING CONTEXT. CHICAGO AVENUE BEING A DESIGNATED GOODS CORRIDOR, REZONING THE SITE [9:22] WOULD BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE POLICY. THE PROJECT DOES NEED A [9:31] CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PARKING GARAGE WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL [9:38] TO OR ENDANGER THE HEALTH, SAFETY. THE PARKING GARAGE IS A [9:46] CATALYST. IT'S THE FIRST STEP TO BE TAKEN IN ORDER FOR THAT HOSPITAL VISION TO COME TO [9:52] REALITY. THE PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE HAS BEEN SITUATED ON THE SITE AS NOT TO IMPEDE ON THE [9:57] STRUCTURES. THERE ARE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH AND TO THE SOUTH OF THIS. THE APPLICANT HAS DESIGNED THE GARAGE WITH [10:04] INCREASED SETBACKS FROM ALL THOSE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AND [10:09] HAS DESIGNED THE EXTERIOR OF THE PARKING GARAGE TO BE ABLE TO REDUCE IMPACTS WITH THE SPACING [10:18] OF THE LOOUFRS. THOSE LOOUFRS WILL BE CLOSER TO SCREEN THE [10:24] LIGHTS. WHERE THEY AREN'T, THEY CAN BE FURTHER APART. [10:30] CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE NEXT APPLICATION THAT THEY NEED IS A VARIANCE OF THE MINIMUM FAR FROM [10:36] THE REQUIRED 2.0 WHICH IS MINIMUM IN THE REZONING DISTRICT 2.7. FLOOR AREA DEVOTED TO [10:46] PARKING AND LOADING DOES NOT COUNT TOWARDS THE MINIMUM. HOWEVER, IT DOES COUNT TOWARDS [10:52] THE MAXIMUM. I WENT THROUGH THE MATH IN THE REPORT FOR YOU. THE [10:58] PARKING GARAGE -- OR THE F.A.R. OF THE BUILDING WITH JUST THE COMMERCIAL IS .27. IF YOU TOOK [11:04] THE WHOLE STRUCTURE OF THE WHOLE, THE F.A.R. OF THE [11:10] STRUCTURE IS .40. CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY. AS I'VE MENTIONED, THE PROPOSED [11:16] REPLACEMENT GARAGE IS INTENDED TO FACILITATE FUTURE GROWTH OF [11:22] THE GREATER HENNEPIN HEALTH CARE CAMPUS. IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE CAMPUS GROWTH, THE PARKING [11:29] GARAGE IS THE FIRST STEP THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN. THE OVERALL CAMPUS AS A WHOLE WOULD GREATLY [11:36] EXCEED THE MINIMUM F.A.R. IF THE TRANSIT 20 BUILT OVERLAY DISTRICT AND REPLACED ONE [11:43] PARKING GARAGE -- WOULD HAVE A NEUTRAL IMPACT ON THE OVERALL AMOUNT ON THE CAMPUS. THE [11:49] PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE IS REPLACING A SIMILARLY SIZED PARKING GARAGE AND WOULD PROVIDE [11:57] GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACE TO ACTIVATE IT IN A MANNER THAT [12:06] KEEPING WITHIN. WE ARE RECOMMENDING A VARIANCE. FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW, THERE ARE FIVE [12:11] ITEMS THAT NEED ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE. THE FIRST IS REPLACEMENT OF THE PARKING [12:17] GARAGE. THE BUILDING HAS BEEN PULLED BACK FROM THAT FRONT LINE ALONG CHICAGO. THE HEAVY DARK LINE IS THE PROPERTY LINE. AND [12:24] THE BUILDING IS BETWEEN 15 AND 20 FEET BACK FROM THAT PROPERTY [12:30] LINE. THE SPACE BETWEEN THAT BUILDING AND THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE IS GOING TO BE USED FOR [12:36] THEIR ON SITE STORM WATER SYSTEM. WE ARE RECOMMENDING -- [12:43] BUILDING REPLACEMENT. THE NEXT TWO ITEMS THAT NEED ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE ARE WINDOWS. THEY DO [12:49] NOT MEET THE MINIMUM WINDOW REQUIREMENTS ON THE UPPER LEVELS OF THE PARKING GARAGE FACING [12:58] CHICAGO. AND THEN THERE IS NO ACTIVE LINER ALONG CHICAGO AVENUE ON THOSE UPPER FLOORS. WE [13:04] ARE RECOMMENDING THAT YOU GRANT ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE. THE [13:09] MINIMUM WINDOW REQUIREMENT IS BEING MET ON THE GROUND FLOOR. THEY EXCEED THE MINIMUM WINDOW REQUIREMENT. THEY HAVE 100% [13:15] WINDOWS ON THE GROUND FLOOR. AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING ALTERNATIVE [13:23] COMPLIANCE INCLUDING WINDOWS OR COMMERCIAL SPACES ON THOSE UPPER FLOORS WOULD BE IMPRACTICAL FOR [13:29] THE PROPOSED USED OF THIS BUILDING IS MEANT TO BE A PARKING GARAGE. IT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ANYTHING ELSE. [13:38] THE TOP LEVEL OF THE PARKING GARAGE IS NOT ENCLOSED OR SCREENED FROM VIEW. THIS IS A [13:46] FLOOR PLAN THAT SHOWS THE SIXth LEVEL. THIS AREA THAT'S [13:51] HIGHLIGHTED IN THE DARKER BLUE IN THE MIDDLE IS WHERE THE SOLAR RAY SYSTEM WILL BE, EFFECTIVELY [13:57] SCREENING THE TOP OF THE GARAGE. WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU GRANT ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE. THE LAST ITEM IS THAT THE OVERALL SIZE OF [14:05] THE GARAGE EXCEEDS THE OVERALL SIZE OF THE GARAGE. AND FOR THE REASONS THAT I'VE STATED BEFORE, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT YOU [14:14] GRANT ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE. THERE ARE TWO OTHER APPLICATIONS THAT ARE NEEDED FOR THIS PROJECT. ONE IS A PRELIMINARY [14:20] PLAT, WHICH MEETS ALL OF THE DESIGN STANDARDS AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE ZONING CODE. AND WE ARE [14:25] RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THAT. AND THE OTHER APPLICATION IS THE VACATION OF CENTENNIAL PLACE [14:32] FROM 9TH STREET TO 10TH STREET. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH PUBLIC WORKS. PUBLIC WORKS SUBMITTED A [14:38] LETTER OF SUPPORT OR RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE VACATION WITH EASEMENTS FOR [14:44] WATER, SEWER, AND TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING SERVICES DIVISION FOR SOME EQUIPMENT THAT'S OUT IN [14:49] THE RIGHT OF WAY. AND SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE VACATION, THAT AND THE REZONING [14:56] NEED TO GO THROUGH FULL CITY COUNCIL PROCESS AFTER THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTS. THIS [15:02] CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I WILL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU, HILARY. I HAVE ONE. SO YOU MENTIONED THE BIRD [15:10] SAFE GLASS. IS THAT UNDER SITE PLAN REVIEW? >> YES. EXCUSE ME? [15:15] >> WHICH NUMBER WOULD THAT FIT UNDER? >> NUMBER 4 UNDER SITE PLAN REVIEW. SO E4, THE SKYWAY SHALL [15:21] BE DESIGNED TO CONFIRM THE STANDARDS OF CHAPTER 550 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. SKYWAYS [15:27] OF THE ZONING CODE. >> GOT IT. >> ALL THE OTHER STANDARDS THAT WERE REQUIRED -- THIS IS LAID [15:32] OUT IN THE FIRST FEW PAGES OF THE STAFF REPORT WHERE I TALKED ABOUT THE SKYWAY, REQUIREMENTS [15:37] OF THE CODE AND WHETHER THEY DO OR DON'T. -- I AM SURE THAT IT WILL BE MET AND WILL NEED TO BE [15:45] MET WITH THIS CONDITIONAL OF APPROVAL. >> COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC HEARING? ALL [15:53] RIGHT. NOT SEEING ANY, SO I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE CAN HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FIRST. [15:58] IS THE APPLICANT HERE TO PRESENT? GREAT. YOU CAN [16:06] INTRODUCE YOURSELF. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS, YVONNE FORSYTHE [16:13] WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FACILITY SERVICES. WE ARE REALLY PLEASED TO BE HERE TODAY. WE ARE WITH [16:19] OUR PARTNER HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE. WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO MOVING THIS PIVOTAL AND CRITICAL PROJECT FORWARD. IT REALLY IS [16:27] THE FIRST PROJECT AS HILARY MENTIONED OF AN OVERALL REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGY FOR THE HOSPITAL. THE SOUTH PARKING RAMP [16:35] IS THE FIRST PROJECT OF A MULTI-PHASE AND MULTI-BILLION [16:41] DOLLAR REINVESTMENT THAT THE COUNTY PLANS TO MAKE IN THAT COMMUNITY AND THE HOSPITAL. THIS [16:47] SUMMER, BUILDING ON A LONG-TERM RELATIONSHIP THE HOSPITAL HAS WITH THE ELLIOT PARK [16:52] NEIGHBORHOOD, WE PRESENTED THE PROJECT. WE ARE REALLY GRATEFUL FOR THEIR SUPPORT. THEY'RE [16:58] EXCITED ABOUT THE FUTURE VISION AND UNDERSTAND THAT THE PARKING RAMP IS AGAIN, THAT FIRST STEP [17:03] TO TAKE IN THE OVERALL REDEVELOPMENT. SO WE, AGAIN, ARE PLEASED TO BE HERE. WE STAND FOR [17:09] ANY QUESTIONS, AND THAT'S OUR OPENING REMARKS. SO THANK YOU. [17:15] >> I DO HAVE A QUESTION. >> YES, PLEASE. >> I APPRECIATED THE EXTENSIVE STUDY THAT YOU HAD FOR TRAVEL [17:25] DEMAND MANAGEMENT. I'M WONDERING IF YOU CAN SUMMARIZE WHAT YOU TOOK AWAY FROM THAT STUDY. >> I THINK I WILL CALL -- [17:33] >> LIKE WHAT STRATEGIES ARE YOU USING GENERALLY. >> PART OF OUR, WITH THE TRAVEL [17:42] DEMAND, ANY CURRENT UPDATES ON THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED SINCE? [17:47] IS THAT YOUR QUESTION? >> THE STUDY MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE TAKING AWAY [17:53] FROM IT. >> YES. WELL PART OF IT WAS THE BIKE PARKING AND THE RAMP. I [17:59] KNOW WE ARE, THE HOSPITAL IS WORKING ON STRATEGIC ENGAGEMENT [18:05] WITH OUR EMPLOYEES ON, YOU KNOW, THERE HAS BEEN CONCERN THAT THIS PARKING RAMP IS ACTUALLY SMALLER [18:10] THAN THE RAMP THAT'S COMING DOWN. AND HOW IS THAT GOING TO BE MANAGED. AGAIN, I THINK THE [18:16] HOSPITAL WILL LEAN HEAVY ON THAT STRATEGIC PLAN WHILE THE PARKING RAMP IS BEING BUILT TO MAKE THAT [18:23] HAPPEN. I DON'T KNOW IF I'M ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION. >> TALKED ABOUT THIS IN THE [18:28] COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AS WELL. ARE YOU DOING ANYTHING ADDITION TO INCENTIVIZE PUBLIC TRANSIT? [18:34] >> WHATEVER WAS LISTED IN THE PLAN. I'M SORRY. I'M NOT AS FAMILIAR. DO YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM THE HOSPITAL? [18:40] >> IF YOU THINK THEY HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD. I DON'T KNOW. >> DO YOU HAVE -- SORRY. [18:47] >> HI, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS MA MARGOT, I'M THE FACILITIES [18:54] DIRECTOR FOR HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE. AS YVONNE SAID, [19:00] WE'RE DOING EXTENSIVE ENGAGEMENT WITH OUR RESIDENTS. SO THERE ARE NINE BUS ROUTES THAT GO PAST OUR [19:07] HOSPITAL. AND SO WE'RE WORKING TO ENGAGE OUR STAFF TO USE THOSE [19:12] MODES OF TRANSPORTATION. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, OTHER QUESTIONS [19:18] FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER [19:25] CONLEY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. ONE OF THE THINGS I APPRECIATED WAS READING ABOUT THE ENGAGEMENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD [19:31] ORGANIZATION. A LOT OF TIMES PROJECTS COME BEFORE US AND THERE'S A BUDDING OF HEADS [19:37] BETWEEN WHAT RESIDENTS HEARD VERSUS WHAT THE PROJECT IS ABOUT FROM DEVELOPERS. SO I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU TOOK THE EXTRA [19:43] EFFORT TO MAKE SURE THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD WAS INVOLVED, AND THE SETBACKS AND ALL THE DETAILS OF THE PLAN. SO [19:49] THANK YOU FOR THAT. THE QUESTION I WAS GOING TO ASK WAS RELATED TO BUS PASSES AS WELL. THERE ARE [19:55] A LOT OF TRANSIT ROUTES THAT ALL KIND OF INTERSECT AND CONVERGE WHERE THE HOSPITAL IS. AND SO [20:04] GLAD TO HEAR THERE'S WORK BEING DONE THERE. EVEN MORE INCENTIVIZING WOULD BE GREAT TO [20:10] GET MORE WORKERS TO TAKE MODES OF TRANSIT THERE. JUST ONE QUESTION I HAD ABOUT THE BIKE [20:15] PARKING. IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A MINIMUM OF THREE SPACES. BUT THAT COULD GO UP TO. [20:21] >> SO THERE WILL BE A BIKE [20:27] INSIDE THE GARAGE. LIKE A SECURED SITE THAT WILL HAVE MORE THAN THREE. BUT I THINK WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS HILARY [20:34] HAD ASKED THAT AS PART OF THE, [20:39] THAT THERE BE SOME EXTERNAL BIKE PARKING. THAT'S WHERE WE ARE BEING ASKED TO ADD THREE BIKE [20:45] PARKING SPOTS ON THE OUTSIDE. THAT CERTAINLY IS SOMETHING WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, WE LEFT A LOT OF [20:52] SPACE IN THAT FRONT AREA. AND SO WE WERE HAPPY TO WANT TO, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO COMPLY WITH [20:58] THAT REQUEST. >> COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. [21:04] >> THANK YOU, CHAIR. THANK YOU, YVONNE. THIS MAY BE A BIT OF [21:15] ESOTERIC QUESTION. SINCE THIS IS THE FIRST PROJECT OUT OF THIS RETHINKING, IT SETS THE TONE [21:25] ARCHITECTURALLY, FACADE. TALK ABOUT HOW YOU GUYS LANDED HERE WITH THIS AND ITS INSPIRATION AND WHY IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE [21:31] FIRST STEP. >> WHEN WE -- AND WE HAVE OUR DESIGN TEAM HERE TOO IF WE GET [21:36] IN TOO MANY OF THE DETAILS. BUT I THINK WHAT WE REALLY WANTED IT TO BLEND IT WITH THE [21:42] NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SO WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT TERRA COTTA WITH THE RED STONE, THE BROWN [21:48] STONE BUILDINGS THAT ARE EXISTING. TRIED TO MAKE IT BLEND IN AS WELL AS POSSIBLE. NOW WHEN [21:55] I -- WHEN WE GET TO THE DESIGN OF THE NEW IN-PATIENT BED TOWER, [22:00] WE MAY WANT TO PRESENT SOMETHING THAT IS MORE -- IT'S DIFFERENT. IT'S REALLY LIKE THIS IS YOU'RE [22:06] COMING TO A NEW IN-PATIENT BED TOWER, AND MAYBE IT WILL BE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF THINKING AT [22:12] THAT TIME. BUT WE'RE NOT THERE YET. BUT FOR THIS, IT'S A PARKING RAMP. WE WANTED IT TO BE [22:19] AS BEAUTIFUL AS FITTING WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FABRIC AS BEST AS POSSIBLE. [22:24] >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. THANK [22:29] YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> IF YOU WERE HERE TO TESTIFY [22:35] ON THIS, CAN YOU RAISE YOUR HAND SO I HAVE AN IDEA HOW MANY THERE ARE. JUST THREE. OKAY. GREAT. SO [22:41] YOU CAN COME UP. INTRODUCE YOURSELF. TELL US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD IF YOU'RE [22:47] COMFORTABLE. >> CHAIR MEYER, IF I MAY [22:53] INTERRUPT. ONCE YOU'VE SPOKEN, IF YOU HAVEN'T SIGNED UP ON THE [22:58] SHEET, SIGN UP. >> HELLO. MY NAME IS STEVEN SHORE. I AM A RESIDENT. I'M HERE [23:04] TO SPEAK TO YOU TODAY. AND WOULD JUST LIKE TO MENTION SINCE IT [23:09] WAS MENTIONED IN PREVIOUS COMMENT ABOUT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. AS A RESIDENT AND [23:15] SPEAKING WITH MY FELLOW RESIDENTS, NONE OF US HAVE BEEN CONTACTED ABOUT THIS. AND I ONLY FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS ON SATURDAY. AND GIVEN THAT TIME [23:25] FRAME I'M HAPPY WITH MY RESULTS OF WHAT I'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO. BECAUSE WHAT I HAVE BROUGHT HERE [23:31] TODAY IS A SIGNED LETTER WITH 41 SIGNATURES, THAT INCLUDES [23:37] NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS, MINNEAPOLIS CITY RESIDENTS AS WELL AS METRO RESIDENTS WHO ALSO WORK IN DOWNTOWN. THAT IS WHAT I [23:43] HAVE HERE TO READ FOR YOU TODAY. WE'VE SIGNATORIES OF THIS LETTER [23:50] OPPOSE IN WHOLE OR IN PART, THE REZONING DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND OF A PARKING GARAGE. WE BELIEVE [23:57] SUCH ACTION WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE NEIGHBORING RESIDENTS STRUCTURE AS WELL AS THE CITY AS A WHOLE. WE BELIEVE THAT OTHER [24:05] SUITABLE LOCATIONS DO EXIST FOR HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE CENTER TO REPLACE ITS PARKING ON CHICAGO [24:13] AVENUE. WE BELIEVE THE ADJACENT PARKING LOT ON PARK AVENUE WOULD [24:18] BE A MUCH MORE APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR HOSPITAL PARKING EXPANSION. THIS LOCATION ALREADY SHARES A BLOCK WITH A HOSPITAL [24:25] PARKING RAMP LIMITING THE DISRUPTION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS LOCATION ALSO APPEARS TO BE SIMILAR IN SIZE TO THE SUGGESTED [24:31] SITE BY THE PETITIONERS FOR THE ZONING CHANGE. THIS LOCATION IS ALSO ALREADY USED FOR SURFACE [24:37] PARKING. WE BELIEVE THAT SUCH A STRUCTURE ON THE PROPOSED SITE [24:43] WOULD DRASTICALLY CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND NEGATIVELY DISRUPT THE NEIGHBORHOODS THEREOF. THE CURRENT RAMP ON CHICAGO AVENUE [24:50] ROUTINELY HAS CAR ALARMS GO OFF POTENTIALLY DUE TO BREAK-INS. MOVING THE RAMP FURTHER INTO THE [24:58] RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD EXACERBATE THE NUISANCE. WHILE [25:04] IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING FROM DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE ZONING REQUEST, THE PETITIONERS DO NOT [25:10] INTEND TO DISPLACE THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING LOCATION INCLUDING 900 CENTENNIAL PLACE. WE THE SIGNATORIES DO BELIEVE [25:16] THIS NOT TO BE THE CASE IN WHOLE OR IN PART. ONE RESIDENT WAS OFFERED A 12-MONTH LEASE RENEWAL [25:23] IN AUGUST. BEFORE THEY WERE ABLE TO SIGN IT, THAT OFFER WAS [25:29] RETRACTED AND REPLACED WITH A SIX-MONTH LEASE IN FEBRUARY. IF THEY DIDN'T SIGN THE SIX-MONTH [25:35] LEASE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO SWITCH MONTH-TO-MONTH, NOT BEING ABLE TO LEAVE UNTIL JANUARY. HARDLY [25:41] EVEN BETTER GIVEN THE MINNESOTA CLIMATE. THIS RESIDENT WAS ONLY [25:46] ABLE TO SECURE AN 8-MONTH LEASE. OFFICE OF THE STATE SENATOR, [25:52] OFFICE OF THE HOUSING COMMITTEE, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. THIS PERSON IS NOW [25:57] HAVING TO MOVE IN WITH FAMILY. GIVEN THE TIMING AND THE [26:03] PETITIONERS BEING UNDER CONTRACT TO PURCHASE THE BUILDING, WE CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT IT'S CONNECTED. [26:10] THE PROPOSAL -- SORRY, THE PROPOSAL IS ALREADY DISPLACING RESIDENTS AND CONTRIBUTING TO [26:15] THE HOUSING CRISIS. WE BELIEVE THAT THE LAND SURROUNDING CENTENNIAL PLACE SHOULD INSTEAD [26:21] BE DEDICATED TO MIXED [26:26] RESIDENTIAL USE. WE ARE SHORT OVER 100,000 HOUSING UNITS. THE [26:32] LAND SURROUNDING CENTENNIAL PLACE IS A PRIME LOCATION FOR FURTHER HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN ONE OF THE [26:39] FEW DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS TO MOSTLY SURVIVE URBAN RENEWAL. THE DESTRUCTION [26:44] OF MINNEAPOLIS' DOWNTOWN WHERE WALKABLE HOUSING OCCUPIED BY BY [27:01] BIPOC, QUEER -- INFRASTRUCTURE WITH NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THIS SITE IN QUESTION IS LOCATED WITHIN [27:06] WALKING DISTANCE OF TRANSIT, ELLIOT PARK, OTHER RESIDENTIAL [27:12] BUILDINGS, MULTIPLE SPIRITUAL BUILDINGS, AS WELL AS MANY SERVICES DOWNTOWN. WE DO PLEAD [27:20] WITH THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPERS THAT IF THEY DO IGNORE OUR [27:25] REQUEST TO MOVE THE INTENDED RAMP TO A DIFFERENT LOCATION, THAT THE CURRENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT IS MODIFIED TO [27:31] INCLUDE INCREASED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. WE APPRECIATE THE GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS BEEN ADDED [27:37] TO THIS PROPOSAL. WE WOULD ALSO REQUEST THAT THE CITY GO [27:42] FURTHER. WE REQUEST THAT IF A PARKING RAMP IS TO BE BUILT ON THE SITE THAT IT IS TO BE [27:49] SURROUNDED BY AN APARTMENT BUILDING. -- SOUTH 2ND STREET AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT WE WOULD LIKE [27:55] THIS DEVELOPMENT TO REFLECTS IF IT IS TO GO FORWARD. WE BELIEVE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE [28:02] REASONABLE AND THE BEST INTEREST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CITY AS A WHOLE. WE THUS PETITION THE [28:10] CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS TO DENY THE ZONING REQUEST, AND ZONING VARIANCE, AND THAT THE CHANGES AND THAT THE DEVELOPERS CONSIDER [28:16] THE ALTERNATIVES WE HAVE RECOMMENDED. >> THANK YOU. STAFF, DO WE HAVE A COPY OF THIS LETTER ALREADY? [28:25] >> NO. >> IF WE CAN GET IT TO THEM, WE CAN GET IT SUBMITTED INTO THE [28:34] RECORD. NEXT TESTIFIER. TELL US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS IF YOU'RE [28:40] COMFORTABLE. AND YOU CAN PROCEED. >> GRANT CARLSON. I'M REALLY [28:47] JUST HERE BASICALLY ASKING YOU GUYS TO READ SOME THREE LETTERS THAT WERE SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF [28:56] THE ELLIOTT COMMUNITY. STAFF SHOULD HAVE SHARED A LETTER FROM MY LLC, CONDO ASSOCIATION, AND [29:02] PROPERTY MANAGER. I ASK YOU TO READ THAT AND PLEASE CONSIDER OUR THOUGHTS. THANK YOU. [29:08] >> THANK YOU. >> QUESTIONS. >> NO. >> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. NEXT TESTIFIER. [29:14] >> I'M JUST HERE FOR SUPPORT. >> OKAY. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? ALL [29:21] RIGHT. SO NOT SEEING ANY, I WOULD CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, ANY DISCUSSION OR [29:26] MOTIONS? COMMISSIONER CONLEY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. IF THE [29:33] APPLICANT COULD MAYBE TALK IN A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ABOUT HOW LONG YOU'VE ENGAGED WITH ELLIOT [29:39] PARK, SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS AND KIND OF THEMES THAT CAME OUT OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS. [29:49] >> YES. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. WE STARTED THOSE CONVERSATIONS LAST SUMMER. WE [29:57] PRESENTED THE OVERALL STRATEGY, CAMPUS VISION. AND THEN WE TALKED ABOUT SPECIFICALLY THE [30:02] PARKING RAMP. AND THEN THE HOSPITAL MEETS BI-MONTHLY WITH [30:07] THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP. THERE HAVE BEEN PERIODIC UPDATES ABOUT WHERE THIS PROJECT IS IN THE [30:12] PIPELINE AS FAR AS HOW SOON ARE WE GOING TO BE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND SO THOSE WERE -- [30:18] WE'VE ALSO HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH SEVERAL NEIGHBORS. OBVIOUSLY, WE DIDN'T HIT ALL OF [30:25] THE NEIGHBORS, AND FOR THAT, WE DO HAVE REGRETS, I GUESS. AS FAR [30:32] AS THE PROPERTIES, THE COUNTY [30:37] WILL REPLAT THE PROPERTY ONCE WE -- FOR THE PARKING RAMP. BUT [30:44] THERE'S NO INTENDED USE OF PUSHING PEOPLE OUT OF THE APARTMENT. AND SO WE WILL TAKE [30:50] THOSE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE EARLIER AND SPEAK TO WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE PROPERTY [30:55] MANAGERS. WE WERE NOT AWARE OF THAT. [31:01] >> ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? >> YEAH. SORRY. THANKS, MR. [31:08] CHAIR. YVONNE, ONE MORE QUESTION. I KNOW WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS AT [31:14] COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. COULD YOU EXPLAIN AGAIN. I MEAN, WE'VE GOT THE POTENTIAL BED TOWER IN [31:21] THE FUTURE. NICE SQUARE SITE. EASY TO PARK. PROBABLY GET [31:26] MULTI-LEVELS UNDERNEATH THAT RAMP. WHY IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THIS RAMP HAPPEN NOW AS OPPOSED [31:31] TO WITH OTHER FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AS PART OF THE MASTER PLAN? >> SO THE EXISTING SITE OF THE [31:38] NEW IN-PATIENT BED TOWER HAS A PARK SIDE BUILDING, AND ALSO THE EXISTING PARKING RAMP. AND SO IN [31:47] ORDER TO TEAR DOWN THE EXISTING RAMP AND PARK SIDE BUILDING, WE NEED A PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO PARK. [31:53] NOW AGAIN, I THINK THE PARKING RAMP, THE NEW RAMP IS TECHNICALLY 20% SMALLER THAN THE [32:00] EXISTING RAMP. BUT THERE HAS TO BE A PLACE. THIS IS A 24/7 FACILITY. THERE HAS TO BE A [32:07] PLACE FOR PARKING FOR STAFF AND FOR PATIENTS AND FAMILY VISITORS. THAT REALLY IS WHY [32:12] THIS HAS TO BE THE FIRST STEP IN A MULTI-PHASED APPROACH. AND [32:19] REALLY, MULTIPLE BILLION DOLLAR PROJECTS THAT WILL BE MOVING FORWARD. WE'RE LOOKING AT A NEW [32:24] IN-PATIENT BED TOWER, AND POTENTIALLY A NEW BEHAVIORAL HEALTH BUILDING. AND REDEVELOPING THE RED AND PURPLE [32:30] BUILDINGS IN ORDER TO KIND OF BRING THEM UP TO THAT SAME STANDARD. AND THEN LOOK TO [32:38] FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES OF THE BUILDINGS THAT WOULD BE DECOMMISSIONED ONCE THE NEW [32:44] TOWER WAS OPENED. >> THANK YOU. SO FOR THIS PROPOSAL, IS IT -- WILL IT [32:50] ALWAYS BE THAT HEIGHT? IS IT DESIGNED FOR FUTURE EXPANSION OR ANYTHING BEYOND ITS CURRENT [32:57] FOOTPRINT. >> I DIDN'T -- NO. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> NO EXPANSION OPPORTUNITY. [33:03] >> THANK YOU. >> THANKS. >> COMMISSIONERS, WOULD ANYONE [33:08] LIKE TO MAKE ANY MOTION OR SUGGEST WHERE YOU'RE AT ON THIS? [33:14] >> I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL. >> IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? >> SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT. THERE'S A MOTION [33:20] ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. ANY DISCUSSION ON IT? I DON'T LOVE [33:28] GIANT PARKING GARAGES, BUT IT IS 20% SMALLER. I DO APPRECIATE THE EFFORT THAT WAS MADE IN THE TDM [33:36] STUDY. I WOULD STILL URGE, AS I ALWAYS DO, TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF [33:42] THE PROGRAM THAT COUNCIL PROVIDES WITH LARGE EMPLOYERS. [33:47] FULLY FREE PASSES AND PASSES TO YOUR PATIENTS AS WELL. BUT I DO [33:53] SEE THIS AS A NET IMPROVEMENT. I'LL NOTE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO CAME TO SPEAK AGAINST THIS [33:58] TODAY, THIS IS NOT THE LAST STOP FOR PART OF THIS. AS STAFF MENTIONED, THE REZONING DOES [34:04] HAVE TO GO TO THE COUNCIL. SO YOU CAN REACH OUT TO YOUR [34:09] COUNCIL MEMBERS IF YOU HAVE MORE FEEDBACK ON THAT. WITH THAT, ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE GO TO A VOTE? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, [34:19] CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. [34:25] >> COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. >> AYE. >> CAMPBELL. >> ABSTAIN. [34:32] >> CHOWDHURY IS ABSENT. CONLEY. >> AYE. >> GORDON. [34:37] >> AYE. >> JONES. >> AYE. >> SKJEFTE IS ABSENT. THOMPSON [34:46] IS ABSENT. MEYER. >> AYE. >> WAGNER. >> AYE. >> THAT CARRIES AND ADOPTED. [34:52] NEXT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 8. [34:58] 2815, 2817, AND 2821 44th STREET [35:10] WEST. STAFF IS AARON HANAUER. [35:24] >> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. YOU READ THE ADDRESS. WE HAVE A PROPOSED [35:30] 15-UNIT CONDO BUILDING, FOUR STORIES ALONG 2815 TO 2821 44th [35:37] STREET WEST ALONG GOODS AND SERVICES CORRIDOR. IT'S RM1 [35:42] ZONING WITH CORRIDOR 3 BUILT FORM DESIGNATION IN LINDEN HILLS. THREE APPLICATIONS IN [35:48] FRONT OF YOU. FIRST, CORNER SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE ALONG 44th [35:54] STREET. AND I HOPE THESE ARROWS, [36:00] THE COLORS HELP WITH THE PRESENTATION. REDUCE THE SETBACK OF THE BUILDING FROM 10 FEET TO [36:06] 9 FEET. THE LIGHT YELLOW LINE IS THE SETBACK AT 9 FEET. TO REDUCE [36:13] THE SETBACK FOR BALCONIES THAT ARE GREATER THAN 50 SQUARE FEET FROM 10 FEET TO 7 FEET. AND SO [36:21] ON THE RIGHT-SIDE FLOOR PLAN SHOW HIGHLIGHT IN RED THE PORTION OF THE BALCONY THAT THE [36:28] VARIANCE IS REQUESTED. 10 FEET TO 1 FOOT FOR THE TRANSFORMER. THE GREEN RECTANGLE ON THE RIGHT [36:35] SIDE IN THE SITE PLAN. AND THEN ALSO THIS CORNER SIDE YARD [36:43] SETBACK VARIANCE ENCOMPASSES THE PROPOSAL TO INCREASE THE WIDTH OF THE WALKWAY FROM 6 FEET TO 10 [36:49] FEET. THAT BEING THAT PORTION RIGHT HERE THAT'S BEYOND THAT LIGHT BLUE LINE. AND RETAINING [36:56] WALLS THAT DON'T COMPLETELY RETAIN NATURAL GRADE, THE ORANGE [37:02] ARROWS. SO FOR THIS SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, CPED DID SEE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE [37:08] SITE. NO PUBLIC ALLEY. THERE'S A PORTION OF THE SITE THAT IS IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY. THAT [37:16] BEING ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER. THERE'S A NUMBER OF LOCATIONS [37:22] WITHIN THE SITE THAT HAVE 10% GRADE DIFFERENCE. AND A DEEP [37:28] 8 1/2 FOOT SETBACK OR A BOULEVARD ALONG 45th STREET. THE [37:35] BUILDINGS ARE SETBACK EVEN FURTHER FROM THE SIDEWALK. AND SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO SEE [37:40] BUILDINGS ENGAGE, NEW BUILDINGS ENGAGE WITH THE PUBLIC REALM. [37:45] IT'S SOMETIMES BETTER TO BE CLOSER TO THE STREET. ALWAYS, [37:50] FOR THIS VARIANCE REQUEST, JUST I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE PROPOSED BUILDING IS [37:59] SET BACK 7 FEET FURTHER THAN THE NEIGHBORING CONDO BUILDING EAST. [38:05] THAT IS LESS THAN 2 FEET FROM THE 44th STREET PROPERTY LINE. THOSE PROPOSED BALCONIES WILL [38:11] ADD EYES ON THE STREET WHEN THERE'S A LARGE SURFACE PARKING LOT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 44th STREET. AS YOU'LL SEE IN THE [38:19] RECOMMENDATION, CPED IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE 10-FOOT WALKWAY. I KINDA [38:25] HIGHLIGHTED THAT ON THESE RENDERINGS IN ELEVATION. AND [38:31] WANTING TO SEE THE WALKWAY MEET THE SIX-FOOT REQUIREMENT THAT IS BEYOND THE SETBACK. HOWEVER, [38:37] CPED DOES RECOGNIZE THAT THIS SITE IS ALONG THE GOODS AND [38:43] SERVICES CORRIDOR. THERE ARE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, ESPECIALLY AS YOU GET CLOSER INTO THE DOWNTOWN PORTION OF [38:49] LINDEN HILLS, THAT YOU HAVE WALKWAYS JUST LEAD OUT TO THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK THAT ARE LARGER [38:55] THAN 10-FEET IN WIDTH. WE DO SEE HOW THIS WALKWAY DESIGN IS A REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY, [39:00] AND GIVEN THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING. MOVING TO VINCENT [39:08] AVENUE, THERE'S THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A GROUND LEVEL PATIO GOING FROM 15-FOOT SETBACK TO [39:16] 10 1/2 FEET THAT THE GROUND LEVEL PATIO WOULD AT ITS CLOSEST [39:23] POINT TO VINCENT AVENUE BE 10 1/2 FEET FROM PROPERTY LINE. [39:29] GROUND LEVEL 100 SQUARE FEET NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. AND THIS PROPOSAL [39:35] IS A 233-SQUARE FOOT PATIO. SO I'VE HIGHLIGHTED ON THE RIGHT [39:40] SIDE THE FLOOR PLAN. THAT PORTION OF THE PATIO THAT IS BEYOND THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. [39:45] THAT'S ABOUT 68 SQUARE FEET. SO FOR THIS VARIANCE REQUEST, STAFF [39:52] DID NOT SEE A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE LIKE ALONG VINCENT AVENUE. THE PROPERTIES, [40:00] ESPECIALLY THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH, PRETTY UNIFORM IN [40:06] MAINTAINING A FRONT YARD SETBACK. ABOUT 15, 16 FEET FROM [40:12] VINCENT AVENUE. SO EVEN WITH THIS, STAFF DOES SEE THAT THE PATIO DESIGN IS DESIGNED IN A [40:19] REASONABLE MANNER, IT WILL BE KEEPING THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE [40:24] PLAN. APPRECIATE THE DECORATIVE PAVERS THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING. 73% OF THE PATIO IS [40:32] IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. IT'S JUST THAT RED PORTION THAT IS NOT. WE ALSO [40:40] APPRECIATE THAT AT ITS CLOSEST POINT, THE PATIO WOULD BE 70 FEET FROM THE NEAREST LOW [40:46] DENSITY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO THE SOUTH. NOT REALLY SEEING THAT THIS WOULD HAVE ADVERSE [40:52] IMPACT ON THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. TO SUMMARIZE, CPED IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE [40:58] 44th STREET SETBACK VARIANCE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THAT WALKWAY WIDTH. DENIAL OF VINCENT [41:04] AVENUE SETBACK REQUEST, AND APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION. [41:10] THERE'S TWO LETTERS OF SUPPORT IN THE STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENTS. [41:16] HAPPY TO TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> THANK YOU. SO THE REASON THAT [41:24] YOU RECOMMEND THE VARIANCE FOR THE ONE SIDE AND NOT THE OTHER IS BECAUSE THE OTHER SIDE IS GOODS AND CORRIDOR. [41:30] >> THAT'S PART OF THE REASONING, CHAIR. AND JUST WANTING THOSE [41:36] BUILDINGS TO REALLY ENGAGE WITH THE PUBLIC STREET. AND THEN FOR [41:41] VINCENT AVENUE, MORE OF A UNIFORM SETBACK WITH THOSE HOMES TO THE SOUTH. DIDN'T SEE THOSE [41:47] UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES APPLYING TO THAT SETBACK VARIANCE. >> ALL RIGHT. >> COMMISSIONER JONES. [41:52] >> THANK YOU. I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THE INTENDED USE OF THE [41:57] PATIO. IS IT FOR THE RESIDENTS? ARE THERE GOING TO BE CHAIRS AND FIREPLACES, ACTIVITIES? HOW DO [42:04] THEY INTEND TO USE THAT SPACE? >> SURE. WHEN THE APPLICANT COMES TO SPEAK, THEY WILL HAVE [42:09] THE FLOOR TO ANSWER THAT IN MORE DETAIL. >> AND WE'LL WAIT ON THAT FOR JUST A MINUTE. [42:16] >> BUT I COULD SEE JUST -- I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT PROGRAMMING OF THAT PORTION OF THE PATIO. [42:25] >> ONE MORE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION. SO IF THE PATIO WAS PROPOSED ON THE GOODS AND SERVICES SIDE, [42:32] FIRST, IS THERE SPACE TO EVEN DO THAT? AND IF THEY DID, WOULD YOU RECOMMEND A VARIANCE IN THAT [42:40] CIRCUMSTANCE? >> WE DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL, CHAIR, OF -- WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THOSE UPPER FLOOR [42:46] BALCONIES. THE PART ON THE RED. [42:52] AND THERE'S A CHANCE THAT WE COULD HAVE RECOMMENDED SUPPORT GIVEN THE DESIGN. DON'T HAVE [42:57] THAT DESIGN AND HOW IT IS PLAYED OUT. THAT'S NOT WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US, SO WE DIDN'T RECOMMEND. I [43:06] COULDN'T GIVE YOU A COMPLETE BLACK AND WHITE ANSWER ON THAT. BUT WE DO, LIKE I SAID, WITH THE [43:14] OTHER VARIANCE REQUEST LOOKING FOR ELEMENTS THAT HELP ENGAGE WITH THE PUBLIC STREET GIVEN [43:20] THAT IT IS A GOODS AND SERVICE CORRIDOR. I SHOULD MENTION WE REALLY APPRECIATE WORKING WITH [43:25] THE APPLICANT ON THIS. IT WAS MY [43:31] MISREADING OF -- AND I THINK WE WORKED TOGETHER ON SETBACKS. IT [43:38] WAS LATER IN THE REVIEW, JUST NOT MISREADING AN ELEMENT IN THE ZONING CODE FOR THE SETBACK [43:45] REQUIREMENT. SO PERHAPS A FEW ELEMENTS MORE THAN YOU'RE USED TO SEEING IN A VARIANCE REQUEST. [43:52] AND NOW, BUT STILL WITH ALL THAT SAID, STILL SAW THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR WHAT THEY [43:58] PROPOSED ALONG 44th STREET. >> COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. [44:09] >> IT'S A PATIO BECAUSE IT'S GOT A PAVED SURFACE. DESCRIBE FOR ME [44:15] JUST WHAT THE DEFINITION OF A PATIO IS. >> SURE. GROUND LEVEL PATIO THAT [44:22] THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALLOWING 100 SQUARE FEET. I'LL SHOW YOU [44:27] HERE. SEEING IT ON THAT FIRST [44:35] FLOOR NOT BEING THOSE -- AND THE BALCONIES ABOVE THAT ARE SET [44:40] BACK A LITTLE MORE THAN WHAT IS PROPOSED ON THE FIRST FLOOR. THE ALLOWANCE FOR THAT GROUND LEVEL [44:47] PATIO IS 100 SQUARE FEET. IF WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT PATIOS [44:52] THAT EXTEND BEYOND THAT FRONT YARD SETBACK. AND I HOPE IN [44:59] THIS -- IN THESE DRAWINGS HERE, SHOWING THAT IT IS JUST -- IT IS [45:05] 68 SQUARE FEET THAT IS PROPOSED TO EXTEND BEYOND THAT. BUT GIVEN THAT THE PATIO IS 233 SQUARE [45:11] FEET, THEY NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. >> UNDERSTOOD. I'M ASSUMING [45:21] GREEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS ARE MET HERE. BUT IF THERE WAS A SIDEWALK OF THAT WIDTH THAT WAS ALL ALONG THE EDGE OF THAT [45:28] BUILDING, HOW WOULD YOU -- EVEN THOUGH IT RAN IN FRONT OF THE PATIO, WOULD YOU STILL CONSIDER THAT A PATIO OR A WALKWAY? I'M [45:36] NOT TRYING TO BE CUTE HERE. >> CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER BAXLEY, THAT WOULD GET TO LIKE [45:42] THE WALKWAY OR THE SIDEWALK THAT'S PROPOSED ALONG 44th STREET. THAT REQUIREMENT FOR A [45:49] WALKWAY WHEN IT'S WITHIN THE SETBACK IS A MAXIMUM OF 6-FEET IN WIDTH. >> RIGHT. [45:54] >> SO I WOULD SAY THAT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, THE ANALYSIS WOULD BE THAT THAT WOULD NEED TO BE [46:01] SLIMMED DOWN IF IN THAT SCENARIO. >> THANK YOU. [46:07] >> COMMISSIONER JONES, DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION? >> NO. I'LL WAIT AND HEAR THE [46:14] APPLICANT'S CONVERSATION. THANKS. >> COMMISSIONER GORDON. >> THANK YOU. JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. PER THE [46:21] LANDSCAPING PLAN, WITHIN THE AREA THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING, IT [46:27] INDICATES AN OVERHEAD TRELLIS, STEEL STRUCTURE, PIPE OR OUTDOOR [46:33] KITCHEN. IS THAT STILL THE PLAN AS IT DID NOT COME UP IN YOUR [46:40] DESCRIPTION. THANK YOU. >> CHAIR, COMMISSIONER GORDON, IS THAT PATIO IN THIS AREA HERE [46:49] OR IN THE BACK. GIVEN THAT PATIO [46:54] IS SET BACK BEYOND THE FRONT YARD SETBACK ALONG VINCENT, THEY ARE, AND IT'S NOT WITHIN A [47:02] SETBACK, THEY'RE ABLE TO HAVE THE PROPOSAL AS IS. >> THANK YOU FOR THE [47:09] CLARIFICATION. THE NOTE THAT I'M REFERENCING IS WITHIN THE PATIO I'M DISCUSSING, I BELIEVE. BUT IT'S IN THE LANDSCAPING PLAN. SO [47:15] I WASN'T SURE IF THAT WAS STILL PART OF THE DESIGN OR NOT. >> I WILL -- I'M HAPPY TO LOOK [47:21] INTO THAT MORE IF YOU GIVE ME A COUPLE OF MINUTES. MAYBE PERHAPS LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO THAT, [47:27] AND THEN IF THERE'S ANYTHING TO CLARIFY FURTHER, I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT. >> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS [47:32] BEFORE WE GO ON TO THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. NOT SEEING [47:37] ANY, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THE APPLICANT CAN COME UP AND GIVE YOUR PRESENTATION. [47:47] >> GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. MY NAME IS PETE [47:53] HEELY, I ALSO HAVE THE OWNERS HERE. SO FIRST OF ALL, I WANT IT THANK STAFF FOR WORKING THROUGH [47:58] A NUMBER OF KIND OF SOME TRICKY ISSUES, AND GOING BACK AND FORTH ON THIS. YOU MAY HAVE SEEN THIS [48:06] PROJECT A FEW YEARS AGO. IT WAS A MARKET RATE APARTMENT PROJECT. [48:11] AFTER KIND OF GOING THROUGH MAYBE SOME OF THE HEADWINDS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT HAS CHANGED [48:17] TO A 14-UNIT CONDOMINIUM. AND AS SUCH, IT'S KIND OF I'D SAY MORE LUXURY HIGHER END WITHIN LINDEN [48:24] HILLS. SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS OR FOR WHAT THAT IS NEEDED TO BE SUCCESSFUL. ONE OF THE BIG ONES [48:30] IS OUTDOOR SPACES. THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE TEND TO LIKE. WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO WORK AND GETTING SOME [48:36] OF THESE OUTDOOR PATIOS. I'M GOING TO TALK MAYBE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT TWO ITEMS NOW. ONE IS THE [48:43] VINCENT SIDE, AND ONE IS THE 10-FOOT ON THE NORTH SIDE, THE SIDEWALK WHICH IS ONE OF THE [48:49] CONDITIONS ON THE NORTH SIDE. I'M HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT THE REST OF THE VARIANCES IF YOU WANT TO. BUT SINCE STAFF WAS KIND OF [48:55] RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, I'LL SAVE THAT FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. COMMISSIONER JONES, [49:01] AS FAR AS THE -- I THINK IT WAS YOU THAT RAISED THE QUESTION ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING OUT THERE. SO THESE ARE FOR THE [49:07] RESIDENTS. THE INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTS. THEY'RE INDIVIDUAL UNITS. SO PEOPLE WOULD KIND [49:12] OF -- THAT PERSON FOR THAT SPECIFIC UNIT COULD USE THAT SPACE. IT WOULD BE THINGS SUCH [49:17] AS OUTDOOR FURNITURE, SO ON AND SO FORTH. SO IT IS SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT ONE UNIT. I THINK WHEN [49:24] WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS SITE, WE WANT TO PROVIDE THE LARGER PATIOS. WE LOOK AT THE CONTEXT [49:30] OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND A LOT OF NEIGHBORS ALL THE WAY UP AND DOWN THE STREET HAVE LARGE [49:35] PORCHES. THAT'S KIND OF THE HISTORIC PATTERN IS TO HAVE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT OUTDOOR [49:41] SPACE. WE WANTED TO A, REPLICATE THAT. BUT REALLY IS TO HAVE [49:49] PEOPLE SIT OUTSIDE, BE OUTSIDE, ON THE FRONT, ON THE STREET, WHICH WE THINK IS MORE VITAL TO [49:54] THE STREETS IS TO HAVE PEOPLE OUT THERE. AN INTERESTING ASPECT OF THIS IS IF WE HAD A WALL OF A BUILDING [50:00] AT THE PROPERTY LINE, WE COULD BUILD A 100-SQUARE FOOT PATIO. [50:05] SO BECAUSE WE'RE PULLING IT BACK, AND CREATING MORE OUTDOOR SPACE AND MORE ABILITY TO [50:12] CONNECT WITH NEIGHBORS, THAT'S WHERE IT BECOMES A VARIANCE. NOT THE 100-SQUARE FEET WITHIN THE [50:18] SETBACK. SO 100-SQUARE FEET IS NOT A LOT. I THINK FOR THE [50:25] MARKET. AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT, I DO BELIEVE THAT HAVING [50:31] PATIOS EXTEND BEYOND THE FACE OF THE BUILDING IS ALSO MORE OF A PUBLIC FACE RATHER THAN BEING KIND OF SHELTERED BEHIND A WALL [50:38] OF A BUILDING. SO GETTING PEOPLE JUST A FEW FEET CLOSER SO THAT [50:44] YOU CAN SEE UP AND DOWN THE STREET AND NOT BE TUCKED BEHIND IS ACTUALLY A WAY TO MAYBE [50:50] ENGAGE THE STREET IN A WAY WE COULDN'T OTHERWISE. SO THAT'S WHY I THINK MAYBE WE'RE LOOKING FOR THAT AS A VARIANCE, AND THE [50:56] NEED FOR DOING IT IS TO PROVIDE THAT ADDITIONAL SPACE. ON THE CONDITIONS ON 44th, THE GOODS [51:03] AND SERVICES CORRIDOR, IF THAT WERE A COMMERCIAL BUILDING, NON [51:08] ISSUE. RIGHT? BECAUSE IT'S A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, IT HAS THAT SIX-FOOT. SO WE WILL HAVE, [51:14] AS WRITTEN OR AS SHOWN, AS A 10-FOOT SIDEWALK. IT'S FAIRLY WELL DETAILED [51:19] WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT AT 10 FEET ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK. SO IT'S CLEAN. [51:26] IT'S KIND OF IDENTIFIABLE AS THE FRONT DOOR. AND SO WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT, IN AN IDEAL WORLD, [51:32] LIKE TO SEE THAT CONDITION REMOVED. BECAUSE WE THINK IT'S A MORE GRACEFUL ENTRY TO GO FROM [51:39] THAT SIDEWALK TO A CONTINUOUS PATTERN IN FRONT OF THE STREET. IT HAS MAYBE MORE OF A COMMERCIAL FEEL TOWARDS IT. A [51:45] LITTLE BIT MORE SIDEWALK PATIO, AND WE THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE OF A GOODS AND SERVICES CORRIDOR TO [51:51] ACTUALLY HAVE THAT LARGER APRON RATHER THAN GOING FROM A 6.5 [52:00] SIDEWALK TO A 6-FOOT SIDEWALK. THAT'S WHY WE'RE GOING FOR THAT FRONT ENTRY. AND WHY THAT [52:06] EXPLAINS WE'RE UP HERE LOOKING FOR THE VARIANCE ON THE PATIO. WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO [52:13] ANSWER QUESTIONS ON THOSE TWO ITEMS, ANY OTHER VARIANCES AND WHAT NOT. [52:18] >> THANK YOU. CAN YOU CLARIFY WHICH ITEM THIS WAS. >> YEAH, THERE'S A CONDITION -- LET ME SEE IF I CAN --. [52:35] OKAY. SO RECOMMENDED MOTION VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE CORNER [52:44] FROM 10 FEET TO 9 FEET. IT GOES ON TO THE DIFFERENT VERSIONS WITH THE PROPOSED CONDITION. NUMBER ONE, THE PROPOSED WALKWAY [52:50] SHALL BE REDUCED TO 6 FEET IN WIDTH OR LESS. THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE BETWEEN THE [52:56] PUBLIC SIDEWALK AND THE PROPERTY LINE. >> OKAY. FOR BOTH OF THESE, DO [53:02] YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE IMAGES THAT SHOW THEM WITH OR WITHOUT? >> I DO NOT. >> OKAY. SO CAN YOU DO YOUR BEST [53:14] TO DESCRIBE THEM WITH THE IMAGES? BECAUSE I'M NOT TOTALLY [53:19] FOLLOWING WHERE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 6 AND 10 FEET IS GOING TO BE ON HERE THAT YOU'RE [53:25] REQUESTING. MAYBE COMMISSIONER BAXLEY CAN HELP. [53:40] >> ARE YOU ABLE TO SEE THIS OKAY? ARE WE -- WHAT DO I NEED TO DO? [53:45] >> I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. >> OH, I'VE GOT SOMETHING ON THE SCREEN HERE. [53:55] >> THIS IS ALWAYS FUN. >> RIGHT. NEW SPACE TOO. [54:03] >> YEAH, WE CAN SEE THAT. >> OKAY. IS THERE A WAY TO ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT? [54:11] >> IT'S PRETTY ZOOMED. >> YEAH, WE CAN SEE IT PRETTY WELL, I THINK. >> OH, THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT. IF YOU CAN SEE THAT PRETTY WELL. [54:18] SO RIGHT NOW THIS IS ESSENTIALLY THE PROPERTY LINE RIGHT HERE. RIGHT. WE CAN BUILD THIS [54:24] PORTION, WHICH IS THE FRONT DOOR. WE'RE REQUESTING TO BUILD [54:29] THIS PORTION SO THIS ALL LINES UP ALL THE WAY THROUGHOUT. THE VARIANCE OR THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN [54:35] MEANS THE SIDEWALK WOULD HAVE TO REDUCE TO THAT SIZE. THAT'S THE CONDITION. [54:41] >> OKAY. >> SO THIS DIMENSION RIGHT HERE IS REQUIRED TO BE 6 FEET. WE [54:48] WOULD RATHER SEE IT AT 10 SO THAT ALL OF THIS LINES UP. >> OKAY. [54:53] >> AND THAT'S ALL -- YEAH. >> SO THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK ISN'T [55:00] EFFECTIVE EITHER WAY. BUT THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK YOU HAVE, YOU'RE ASKING IT TO BE 10-FEET WIDE [55:06] INSTEAD OF 6-FEET WIDE? >> CORRECT. >> OKAY. AND THEN HELP US [55:11] UNDERSTAND THE OTHER ONE. THE RED AREA. >> ON THIS SIDE, ACTUALLY, IF WE BUILT A WALL RIGHT HERE, WE'RE [55:17] ALLOWED 100 SQUARE FEET. IF WE WANTED TO PUT A PATIO RIGHT [55:24] HERE, AND I'LL LOOK TO KIMBERLY TO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT [55:30] WE COULD BUILD 100 SQUARE FEET. BECAUSE WE'RE RECESSING THE PATIO BEYOND THE PATIO LINE AND [55:37] THE SETBACK LINE, NOT THE PROPERTY LINE, THEN THAT REQUIREMENT IS THAT THAT GETS [55:43] ADDED IN TOTAL. IT STARTS TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT WE CAN DO WITHIN THE OUTDOOR [55:49] SPACE. WHEN YOU LOOK UP AND DOWN VINCENT OR THE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOODS, IS THOSE PATIOS [55:55] TEND TO RUN THE FULL WIDTH. THEY CAN BE ANYWHERE FROM 6 TO 12-FEET DEEP. BUT THEY'RE QUITE [56:01] A BIT LARGER THAN JUST THE 100-SQUARE FEET. TO PROVIDE THAT KIND OF LIVING SPACE IN A [56:07] MULTI-FAMILY WHERE THAT IS WHERE THEIR OUTDOOR SPACE IS IS APPROPRIATE, AN APPROPRIATE USE [56:13] OF THAT PUBLIC STREET IS THAT THAT KIND OF ACTIVATES THE PEDESTRIAN REALM. [56:18] >> TO THE LEFT OF THE BALCONY IS A STAIR WELL. [56:24] >> YEAH, THIS IS AN ACCESS. IT'S ABOUT A 10-FOOT GRADE BREAK. [56:31] RIGHT NOW THERE'S A LARGE RETAINING WALL. BUT THERE'S ABOUT 10-FEET ACROSS HERE. THE STAIRWAY IS TO KIND OF ALIGN TO [56:37] GET UP TO THAT PATIO. >> GOT IT. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER GORDON, DID YOU [56:45] HAVE A QUESTION TO THIS ONE? COMMISSIONER JONES, DID YOU? >> I WAS JUST CONFERRING WITH MY [56:51] FELLOW COMMISSIONER THAT THIS ONLY IMPACTS ONE UNIT IN THE 14-UNIT BUILDING, THAT PATIO [56:57] SPACE. >>CORRECT. IT'S JUST THE GROUND FLOOR UNIT. >> OKAY. THANKS. [57:04] >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? ALL RIGHT. THANK [57:10] YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. DID ANYONE ELSE COME HERE TO TESTIFY ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT. NOT [57:20] SEEING ANY, SO I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND ASK AARON TO COME BACK UP. CAN YOU JUST [57:28] REPEAT WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS REGARDING THE SIDEWALK WIDTH [57:37] FOR THE VARIANCE THAT YOU ARE RECOMMENDING. THAT CONDITION TO MAKE IT 6-FEET INSTEAD OF 10-FEET. [57:46] >> YEAH. SO WE HAVE AS MR. KEELY [57:58] NOTED, FOR THE VARIANCE, A, THE PROPOSED WALKWAY SHALL BE REDUCED IN WIDTH FROM 10-FEET AS [58:07] PROPOSED, TO 6-FEET WITHIN THAT SETBACK ALONG 44th STREET. [58:13] >> COULD YOU SPEAK TO WHY YOU'RE RECOMMENDING THAT. >> WE DIDN'T SEE THE UNIQUE [58:19] CIRCUMSTANCES APPLYING TO THIS WALKWAY. THAT STANDARD APPLYING TO THIS PART. BUT FOR ALL THE [58:26] OTHER ELEMENTS THAT ARE IN THAT SETBACK, WE DID SEE UNIQUE [58:32] CIRCUMSTANCES TO THE SITE THAT WERE APPLICABLE. THAT'S WHY WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THOSE. >> OKAY. SO WE DON'T NECESSARILY [58:39] HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST THE BROADER SIDEWALK, IT'S JUST THERE WASN'T ANYTHING -- [58:45] >> CORRECT. CHAIR, COMMISSIONER [58:51] GORDON AND COMMISSIONER JONES, FOR THAT PATIO, TO NOTE TO KIMBERLY, THANK YOU FOR NOTICING [58:57] THE TRELLIS AND THE GRILL AREA WITHIN THAT. WITH THE TRELLIS ON [59:06] TOP OF THE PATIO ALONG VINCENT, IF THAT IS THE PROPOSAL, I GUESS [59:11] WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT AN ANALYSIS ON WHETHER THAT TRELLIS [59:17] WOULD ALSO COMPLY WITH ZONING CODE STANDARDS OR IF IT IS THOSE [59:23] TWO ELEMENTS, THAT PATIO AND THEN THAT TRELLIS. I COULD JUST SEE THAT BEING SOMETHING THAT WE [59:31] WOULD HAVE TO ANALYZE IN CLOSER [59:36] DETAIL OF COMPLYING WITH A TRELLIS ON TOP OF A PATIO. SO [59:43] I'M JUST WONDERING OF WHAT TO CONSIDER THAT ELEMENT ON THE [59:50] PATIO. IF IT IS TWO ELEMENTS. AND I DON'T KNOW. I KNOW I'M [59:55] PUTTING YOU ON THE SPOT, KIMBERLY, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF SOMETHING COMES TO MIND. [1:00:01] >> I'M LOOKING IT UP RIGHT NOW. >> WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING THAT UP, I'M GOING TO REVEAL SOME [1:00:07] IGNORANCE HERE, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT A TRELLIS IS. >> I CAN READ YOU THE ZONING [1:00:13] CODE DEFINITION. I PAGED AWAY FROM IT THOUGH. SO WE REFER TO [1:00:20] TRELLISES AND ARBORS AS ONE PERMITTED OBSTRUCTION. YOU CAN [1:00:25] SEE IT IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT-HAND CORNER OF THIS PICTURE. I THINK IS IT THAT WOOD ELEMENT STICKING [1:00:32] OUT? >> AND THAT IS -- AND I DO APOLOGIZE FOR THAT OVERSIGHT. IN [1:00:40] TALKING WITH THE APPLICANT, THAT TRELLIS ELEMENT IS SOMETHING THEY WOULD BE OKAY WITHOUT [1:00:45] HAVING. SO WE WOULD JUST BE LOOKING AT THAT PATIO AS PROPOSED. SO I DO APOLOGIZE [1:00:52] ABOUT BRINGING -- NOTING THAT WRINKLE AND CONFUSING THINGS WITH THAT PRESENTATION. [1:00:58] >> AND JUST TO CONFIRM, SO WE DO [1:01:03] ALLOW PERGLAS IN FRONT OR CORNER [1:01:09] NOT EXCEEDING 8 FEET IN HEIGHT. THERE'S A WHOLE PERGOLA TRELLIS [1:01:16] DISCUSSION TO BE HAD HERE. BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE OKAY. >> IF YOU DID OVERTURN STAFF [1:01:21] RECOMMENDATION FOR VARIANCE B AND ALLOWED THAT PATIO TO GO FORWARD, THEN THEY WOULD WORK [1:01:27] WITHIN THE ZONING CODE AND THE PROVISIONS THAT KIMBERLY NOTED [1:01:33] TO HAVE A PATIO THAT COMPLIED WITH EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE [1:01:40] SETBACK VARIANCE AS NOTED. >> MR. BAXLEY. [1:01:46] >> SO AS PETE WAS DESCRIBING, IF THERE WAS NOT AN INTENDED PATIO, THEY COULD BUILD THE PATIO, [1:01:52] RIGHT? SO AT 100 SQUARE FEET. >> HE DESCRIBED IT WELL OF [1:02:00] THERE'S -- CORRECT. IT IS THAT ADDITIONAL. >> SQUARE FOOTAGE IS WHAT CAUSES [1:02:07] THE -- BECAUSE IT'S IN BOARD. >> YES. YES. >> BUT WE'D BE ALLOWED TO BUILD [1:02:13] A PATIO OR 100-SQUARE FOOT PORCH IN THE SIDE YARD. [1:02:19] >> IN THE FRONT YARD. IF IT DIDN'T EXTEND TO A CERTAIN DISTANCE TO THE STREET. [1:02:25] >> TO THE STREET. YEAH. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. >> AND COMMISSIONER BAXLEY, JUST [1:02:30] ANOTHER WAY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. SO IF YOU HAVE A GROUND LEVEL PATIO THAT'S MORE [1:02:38] THAN 100 SQUARE FEET, IF IT'S NOT JUST 100 SQUARE FEET IN THE [1:02:43] REQUIRED YARD. IF IT'S MORE THAN [1:02:48] 100 SQUARE FEET AND ANY PORTION OF IT ENCROACHES INTO THE YARD, THEN IT'S NOT A PERMITTED [1:02:54] ENCROACHMENT. >> COMMISSIONER WAGNER. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE VARIANCE A1 [1:03:00] FOR THE 6-FEET VERSUS 10-FEET. COULD YOU SPEAK TO THE REASONING [1:03:06] BEHIND THAT SECTION IN THE CODE. WHEN I THINK OF ALL THE NICE BUILDINGS AROUND TOWN, YOU NEVER [1:03:12] APPROACH A MASSIVE NICE BUILDING ON A NARROW SIDEWALK IN MY EXPERIENCE. SO COULD YOU SPEAK TO THE REASONING BEHIND THAT [1:03:17] SECTION IN THE CODE. >> CHAIR MEYER, COMMISSIONER WAGNER, GOOD QUESTION. POINT TAKEN. ESPECIALLY YOU CAN SEE [1:03:23] SOME LARGER STRUCTURES THAT WOULD HAVE THAT WALKWAY MATCH THE WIDTH OF THE STAIRS. THIS [1:03:28] PROVISION HAS BEEN THERE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, AND IN LARGE PART, I THINK IT IS TO PERHAPS [1:03:35] REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE FOR A SITE. FOR ALL THE [1:03:41] REASONS WE ARE RECOMMENDING DENIAL, BUT WE TRIED TO NOTE THE [1:03:48] CONTEXT OF THE SITE BEING REALLY CLOSE TO THE COMMERCIAL [1:03:53] CORRIDOR, AND A NUMBER OF OTHER NEIGHBORING BUILDINGS TO THE EAST, AND ALONG UPTON THAT [1:03:58] LIKELY HAVE THOSE WIDER WALKWAYS OR JUST AN EXTENSION OF WHERE [1:04:03] THAT DOOR TO THE BUILDING EXTENDS TO THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK. SO IT'S JUST -- IT IS SEEN AS [1:04:09] WIDER THAN 10 FEET. BUT THAT WAS THE STANDARD AND WE JUST DID NOT SEE THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES [1:04:16] APPLYING. THAT WAS STAFF'S ANALYSIS. IT IS IN YOUR HANDS NOW FOR IF YOU DID SEE UNIQUE [1:04:23] CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE WALKWAY WIDTH. [1:04:28] >> ONE MORE QUESTION. THE PATIO TO THE SOUTH FROM THE LAST UNIT, [1:04:38] WHICH IS -- >> ARE YOU REFERRING TO -- >> YEAH. HOW BIG IS THAT ONE? [1:04:45] >> QUITE BIG. >> IT'S NOT A FRONT YARD. IT'S A CORNER. SO HOW DO YOU CHARACTERIZE THAT ONE? [1:04:51] >> CHAIR MEYER AND COMMISSIONER BAXLEY, WE CHARACTERIZE IT AS BEING SET BACK BEYOND THE [1:04:58] 15-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK. >> BECAUSE OF THE SETBACK. >> YEAH. GO TO TOWN. [1:05:03] >> GOT IT. INTERESTING. >> I'LL SHARE MY THOUGHTS ON [1:05:10] THIS AND SEE WHERE OTHER COMMISSIONERS ARE AT. FIRST, I WANT TO SAY IT'S GREAT SEEING [1:05:17] SOME CONDOS BEING PROPOSED. WE DON'T SEE THAT OFTEN. IT'S GREAT TO SEE SOME HOMEOWNERSHIP [1:05:23] OPPORTUNITIES COME UP ONLINE. I ALSO THINK BALCONIES AND PATIOS [1:05:29] ARE THINGS THAT WE SHOULD ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE. ESPECIALLY AFTER THE PANDEMIC. A LOT OF THESE REGULATIONS WERE MADE [1:05:36] BEFOREHAND. BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAN EVER TO PROVIDE SPACE FOREOPLE TO BE OUTSIDE. I THINK THE COMMUNAL BENEFITS OF [1:05:44] THE PATIO ARE IMPORTANT. AND I FEEL THAT THIS PATIO IS CLOSE TO [1:05:52] THE GOODS AND SERVICE CORRIDOR. IT'S NOT ON IT BUT IT'S VISIBLE FROM IT. AND I THINK THAT WOULD [1:06:02] HELP ACTIVATE THAT STREET. AND I THINK IT'S ALSO, UNFORTUNATE [1:06:09] WITH THE WAY THE REGULATIONS ARE WRITTEN THAT YOU'RE BEING PUNISHED FOR RECESSING THE [1:06:20] PATIO. I DON'T SEE ANY PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT POLICY. SO I THINK THAT WAS WELL TAKEN FROM [1:06:28] THE APPLICANT. SO I GUESS MY THOUGHTS ARE I FEEL THAT THE [1:06:37] PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT STAFF RECOMMENDED FOR ITEM A ARE ALSO APPLICABLE TO ITEM B [1:06:44] REGARDING THE SLOPE AND THE LACK OF AN ALLEYWAY. SO I THINK I [1:06:52] WOULD MOVE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE FOR ITEM B ON THAT BASIS. I'M [1:06:58] NOT PREPARED TO GO AGAINST THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON ITEM A. I DO THINK REDUCING IMPERVIOUS [1:07:06] SURFACE IS A RELEVANT THING FOR US TO BE DOING. BUT OPEN TO [1:07:15] ARGUMENTS IF OTHER COMMISSIONERS DISAGREE WITH THAT. SO COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY [1:07:21] THOUGHTS ABOUT IT? COMMISSIONER CONLEY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT THAT ONE, TOO. THE A1, THE WALKWAY WIDTH. [1:07:28] I COULD SEE LINING IT UP WITH THE ENTRANCE. AND I ALSO DON'T [1:07:35] RECALL WALKING PAST A LARGE APARTMENT OR CONDO AND NOT SEEING THE ENTRANCE LINE UP. BUT [1:07:41] I ALSO, THE FIRST THING THAT CAME TO MIND WAS PLANT SOME FLOWERS OR SOME BUSHES. SO I CAN [1:07:48] SEE WHERE A SMALLER WIDTH WALKWAY COULD BE WORKED WITH, [1:07:54] WITH SOME PERENNIALS. I DON'T KNOW. I WAS TRYING TO THINK OF A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY AND [1:07:59] COULDN'T OTHER THAN JUST KEEPING IT THE LENGTH, OR THE WIDTH OF THE WALKWAY. SO I GUESS I WOULD [1:08:04] AGREE WITH YOU THERE ON THAT. >> OKAY. >> YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK IT'S [1:08:10] CHALLENGING TO FIND A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY FOR THAT. ALTHOUGH I [1:08:17] DO ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT THOSE THINGS ARE SCALED TO BUILDINGS [1:08:23] AND THERE'S AN APPROPRIATENESS TO THAT. HOWEVER, IT CAN SLANT. [1:08:28] I THINK THERE'S A CREATIVE WAY TO GET BOTH. I JUST CAN'T FIND [1:08:34] THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. WOULD IT BE NICE? SURE. BUT I THINK I'M GOING TO SIDE WITH STAFF ON [1:08:40] THE FIRST ONE. AND SUPPORT THE [1:08:45] CHAIR'S DESCRIPTION AND NOT GO ALONG WITH DENIAL FOR THE PATIO ON VINCENT. [1:08:52] >> WHAT'S YOUR STANCE ON ITEM B? >> I'M ACCEPTING THE PROPOSAL [1:08:57] AND NOT AGREEING WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THAT. >> OKAY. [1:09:06] >> AARON, THIS MIGHT BE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU, I APOLOGIZE. I'M ASSUMING IF THE ANSWER TO [1:09:11] THIS QUESTION IS YES, YOU WOULD HAVE INCLUDED IT IN HERE. BUT IS THERE ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR [1:09:19] ALTERNATIVE WITH THAT VARIOUS REQUEST. IF THAT PURPOSE IS IMPERVIOUS, IS THERE A WAY TO -- [1:09:24] >> CHAIR MEYER AND COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL. THERE IS NOT. THIS IS [1:09:30] OUTSIDE OF THAT STANDARD. THE PROJECT DOES -- I'LL JUST NOTE IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT THAT [1:09:37] IT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REQUIREMENTS OF HAVING A MAXIMUM OF 75%. THE [1:09:46] PROPOSAL IS 74.1% IMPERVIOUS. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE'S NOT A WAY [1:09:52] TO DO ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE FOR THAT WIDTH, WALKWAY WIDTH. BUT I [1:09:57] JUST WANTED TO NOTE SINCE I'M BACK UP HERE THAT IT IS COMPLIANT. THE PROJECT OVERALL [1:10:04] IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ITS IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. >> GOT IT. ALL RIGHT. [1:10:10] COMMISSIONER WAGNER. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. I AGREE WITH BASICALLY EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID BY [1:10:16] COMMISSIONERS IN DISCUSSION SO FAR. I THINK THIS IS A GREAT PROJECT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK IT FITS THE NEIGHBORHOOD. [1:10:25] I THINK THAT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, LIKE OTHERS HAVE SAID, IS HARD TO FIND. I WOULD [1:10:30] HOPE THAT AS A CITY THAT WE CONTINUE TO LOOK AT OUR ZONING CODE ON A CONSISTENT BASIS [1:10:36] BECAUSE A SIX-FOOT SIDEWALK APPROACHING A BUILDING LIKE THIS DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT TO ME. IT'S [1:10:41] JUST LIKE SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN IN CITIES, LIKE, JUST BROADLY SPEAKING. AS WE CONTINUE TO [1:10:46] THINK ABOUT OUR ZONING CODE, LIKE WE SHOULD LOOK AT LITTLE SMALL CLEAN UPS WHEN POSSIBLE, IN MY OPINION. BUT I AGREE WITH [1:10:53] THE DISCUSSION FROM CHAIR MEYER AND BAXLEY. AND I'M HAPPY TO [1:11:00] MOVE THE DIRECTION THAT THE DISCUSSION IS GOING. >> SO YOU'RE MAKING A MOTION? >> I GUESS THAT WAS A COMMENT. [1:11:05] BUT I'M HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION IF NEEDED. I DON'T KNOW. IS THERE MORE DISCUSSION? [1:11:10] >> WE'LL TAKE MORE DISCUSSION IF THERE IS ANY. OH. COMMISSIONER JONES, DO YOU HAVE YOURS UP? [1:11:17] >> NO. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO MAKE A [1:11:23] MOTION IF COMMISSIONER WAGNER DIDN'T. THIS IS ALWAYS REALLY FUN. A MOTION TO ADOPT STAFF [1:11:32] RECOMMENDATION WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SECTION B. WITH THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY BEING [1:11:39] SIMILAR TO PREVIOUS VARIANCE REQUESTS RELATED TO THE GOODS AND SERVICES CORRIDOR THAT HAD [1:11:45] BEEN APPLIED TO OTHER THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE APPLICATION. DOES THAT SUFFICE? [1:11:50] >> YES. I THINK WE CAN WORK WITH THAT. I HAD, AND PER [1:11:55] COMMISSIONER MEYER'S COMMENTS, ESSENTIALLY A COPY AND PASTE FOR THE FINDINGS FOR A. [1:12:02] >> YUP. IF WOULD YOU TAKE A FRIENDLY -- PUT ON RECORD WHAT THOSE ARE. IT'S THE SLOPE AND [1:12:08] THE LACK OF THE PUBLIC ALLEY. >> SECOND. >> OKAY. THERE'S A MOTION AND A [1:12:13] SECOND. DOES STAFF NEED ANY OF THAT REPEATED? >> NOPE. >> OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? [1:12:19] ALL RIGHT. CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. [1:12:26] >> AYE. >> CAMPBELL. >> AYE. >> CONLEY. >> AYE. >> GORDON. [1:12:32] >> AYE. >> JONES. >> AYE. >> WAGNER. >> AYE. >> MEYER. [1:12:38] >> AYE. >> WE HAVE SEVEN YAYS AND ZERO [1:12:44] NAYS. >> THAT MOTION IS ADOPTED. GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT. YOU'VE HAD WEEKS TO REFLECT ON [1:12:50] NOMINATIONS FOR OFFICERS. DO PEOPLE FEEL READY TO MAKE NOMINATIONS? THE NOMINATIONS [1:12:55] WOULD HAPPEN NOW AND THE ELECTION WOULD HAPPEN NEXT CYCLE. OR WE COULD JUST WAIT LIKE WE DID LAST TIME UNTIL. [1:13:03] >> KEEP PUNTING. >> YUP. >> IS EVERYBODY WHO IS [1:13:09] CURRENTLY -- >> YOU'RE MIC IS OFF. >> IS EVERYBODY WHO IS CURRENTLY IN A LEADERSHIP POSITION WANT TO [1:13:14] CONTINUE? >> NO. >> NO. >> COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL DOES NOT. >> AND YOU'RE THE VICE CHAIR? [1:13:23] VICE PRESIDENT? YEAH. SO TO CONFIRM, WE HAVE PRESIDENT [1:13:33] MEYER, VICE PRESIDENT CAMPBELL, AND SECRETARY BAXLEY. THE SECRETARY IS PRIMARILY [1:13:38] RESPONSIBLE FOR SIGNING ALL OF OUR DOCUMENTS. BUT WE MAKE THAT EASY BY GETTING AN ELECTRONIC [1:13:44] COPY OF YOUR SIGNATURE, AND ONLY USING IT AS NEEDED FOR OFFICIAL CITY DOCUMENTS. THE PRESIDENT [1:13:53] CHAIRS THE REGULAR MEETINGS. THE VICE PRESIDENT CHAIRS COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. THE SECRETARY ALSO STEPS IN AS [1:13:59] NEEDED TO FILL THOSE IF WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE ABSENT. [1:14:05] >> COMMISSIONER BAXLEY, WOULD YOU TAKE A PROMOTION TO VICE PRESIDENT? >> I THINK I'VE ALREADY HELD [1:14:11] THAT POSITION. VICE PRESIDENT. >> YOU ARE ALLOWED TO HOLD A [1:14:22] POSITION MORE THAN ONCE. THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TAKE A POSITION ARE THOSE WHO ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS. [1:14:29] >> COMMISSIONER CONLEY AND COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, [1:14:35] COMMISSIONER CHOWDHURY. >> AND SKJEFTE. >> AND COMMISSIONER SKJEFTE ARE [1:14:41] NOT ELIGIBLE. AND NONE OF THEM ARE HERE SO THAT MAKES IT EASY. [1:14:46] CONLEY IS HERE. THE OTHER THREE ARE NOT HERE. [1:14:51] >> HERE CHAIR, COULD I PROPOSE A SLATE? >> YES. >> I WOULD PROPOSE TO HAVE [1:15:02] PRESIDENT CHRIS MEYER -- WITH [1:15:10] SECRETARY. >> SECRETARY WAGNER, WOULD YOU CONSIDER BEING SECRETARY? >> SURE. >> WE'LL TAKE THAT AS A [1:15:15] NOMINATION. ARE THERE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS? ALL RIGHT. SO I THINK WE WAIT A CYCLE NOW, [1:15:21] RIGHT? >> YES, IS COMMISSIONER BAXLEY ACCEPTING HIS NOMINATION? >> I ALSO ACCEPT. [1:15:27] >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CONLEY. SO WE'LL HAVE THOSE NOMINATIONS READY FOR THE NEXT MEETING. >> SURE. [1:15:33] >> YUP. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OUR NEXT REGULAR MEETING IS MONDAY, [1:15:40] MARCH 24TH. WE DO MAYBE HAVE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. IT'S GOING TO DEPEND ON WHO IS ABLE TO SHOW UP. COMMISSIONER [1:15:47] CAMPBELL WON'T BE ABLE TO BE THERE. I'M NOT SURE I'M GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE THERE. SO YOU HAVE FOUR WHO ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO [1:15:53] BE THERE? OKAY. I MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT BE. WE'LL SEE SOONER TO IT. [1:15:58] BUT THIS WILL BE A CHANCE FOR YOU TO CHAIR THE MEETING. >> IS IT FOR SURE? [1:16:04] >> YES. SO WE DID HAVE ITEMS WE WERE HOLDING OFF ON PUBLISHING THE AGENDA UNTIL WE MADE SURE WE [1:16:11] HAD A QUORUM. TO COMMISSIONER WAGNER'S EARLIER POINT QUITE [1:16:16] RECENTLY ABOUT CONSTANTLY MAKING MINOR UPDATES TO THE ZONING CODE. THAT'S WHAT'S BEING [1:16:23] BROUGHT TO YOU AT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. WE HAVE OUR HOUSEKEEPING AMENDMENT THINGS [1:16:28] THAT DETERMINE TO BE HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS. NOT MAJOR POLICY CHANGES, BUT HOUSEKEEPING [1:16:35] TO CLEAN UP. AND MAP AMENDMENT TO GO ALONG WITH THAT. THAT'S WHAT WILL BE IN FRONT OF [1:16:41] YOU AT COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON THURSDAY. AND ACTUALLY, THE AGENDA WAS IN THE PROCESS OF [1:16:46] BEING PUBLISHED SO YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE THAT. SO YES, I HAVE [1:16:52] FOUR CONFIRMED IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO MAKE IT, PLEASE LET US KNOW. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE [1:16:57] QUORUM IS ONLY THREE. BUT OBVIOUSLY FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT, THE MORE VOICES IN THE ROOM THE [1:17:05] BETTER. >> GREAT. ANY OTHER UPDATES FROM COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF? [1:17:10] >> YES. I THINK I TOLD YOU LAST TIME WE HAD RECEIVED AN APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF THE J.P. MORGAN [1:17:17] SIGN THAT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE BHZ COMMITTEE LAST WEEK AND [1:17:23] FORWARDED WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION. SO THAT WILL GO TO THE FULL CITY COUNCIL ON FRIDAY, THE 14th. AND THEN WE [1:17:28] DID RECEIVE AN APPEAL LAST WEEK OF THE DENIAL OF THE F.A.R. [1:17:36] VARIANCE AND SITE PLAN AT 1716 FREMONT AVENUE SOUTH. THAT WILL [1:17:44] BE GOING TO THE BHZ COMMITTEE AT A SPECIAL MEETING TIME NEXT WEEK. IT'S ACTUALLY BEING HELD ON THURSDAY, THE 20th AT [1:17:53] 10:30 A.M. >> WHICH DIRECTION WAS THAT? THE APPLICANT REQUESTING THE F.A.R. [1:18:00] >> THE APPLICANT HAD REQUESTED THE F.A.R. VARIANCE. STAFF RECOMMENDED DENIAL. THE PLANNING [1:18:06] COMMISSION DENIED. AND THE APPLICANT IS NOW APPEALING THAT DENIAL TO ALLOW THE PROJECT TO PROCEED AS PROPOSED. [1:18:11] >> OKAY. SO THE APPEAL IS ONLY GOING IN ONE DIRECTION. DID THE OPPONENTS ALSO APPEAL? [1:18:17] >> THE OPPONENTS DID NOT APPEAL. >> OKAY. OKAY. ANY OTHER UPDATES FROM ANYONE? SEEING NO FURTHER [1:18:23] BUSINESS, WE ARE ADJOURNED.