[0:25] >> WELCOME EVERYONE TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MINNEAPOLIS PLANNING COMMISSION. MY NAME IS CHRIS MEYER, I'M THE CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION. [0:31] AT THIS TIME I WILL ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL. >> COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. >> HERE. >> CAMPBELL. [0:37] >> HERE. >> CHOWDHURY IS ABSENT. [0:43] CONLEY IS ABSENT. GORDON. >> HERE. >> JONES IS ABSENT. [0:49] MEYER. >> HERE. >> SKJEFTE. >> HERE. >> THOMPSON. >> HERE. >> WAGNER. [0:54] >> HERE. >> CHOWDHURY. >> HERE. >> WE HAVE EIGHT MEMBERS PRESENT. >> LET THE RECORD SHOW WE HAVE A [1:01] QUORUM. FIRST WE'LL MOVE TO THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 10, 2025. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADOPT THOSE MINUTES? [1:08] >> SECOND. >> ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MINUTES? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [1:14] OPPOSED? ABSTENTIONS. THE MINUTES ARE ADOPTED. AND NEXT WE WILL ORGANIZE THE [1:20] AGENDA. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT ITEMS 5 AND 7 BE DISCUSSED AND THAT [1:27] ITEMS 4 AND 6 BE ON CONSENT OH [1:32] AND EIGHT AS WELL -- SORRY. [1:39] YEAH, THAT EIGHT BE ON CONSENT. SO I'M GOING TO READ THROUGH THE [1:46] ITEMS THAT WERE RECOMMENDED FOR CONSENT. IF YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, PLEASE [1:52] RAISE YOUR HAND WHEN I CALL FOR IT. SO FIRST, LOOKING AT ITEM NUMBER FOUR, THE ZONING CODE TEXT [1:59] AMENDMENT, WAS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR? NOT SEEING ANYONE. [2:05] SO THAT WILL BE ON THE CONSENT. ITEM FIVE WILL BE DISCUSSED. [2:19] ITEM 6, 2318 LOGAN AVENUE NORTH IN WARD 5, WAS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE STAFF [2:24] RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM NUMBER SIX? NOT SEEING ANY, SO THAT WILL BE ON CONSENT. [2:30] AND ITEM SEVEN WILL BE [2:37] DISCUSSED. AND ITEM EIGHT 819, 825 2nd [2:44] AVENUE SOUTH, WARD 7. WAS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM EIGHT? [2:49] JUST TO REVIEW, ITEM FOUR WILL BE ON CONSENT. FIVE DISCUSSED. SIX CONSENT. [2:55] SEVEN DISCUSSED. EIGHT CONSENT. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADOPT THAT AGENDA? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [3:00] >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? THAT AGENDA IS ADOPTED. WE'LL MOVE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA [3:07] ADOPTION. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA. IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO [3:13] IT THEY CAN NOW -- TO ANY OF THE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. ANYONE? [3:18] NOT SEEING ANYONE, SO I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. [3:24] COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION ABOUT ANY OF THE CONSENT ITEMS? [3:33] IS THERE A MOTION TO ADOPT CONSENT ITEMS? ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE? >> AYE. [3:39] >> OPPOSED? ABSTENTIONS? THOSE ARE ADOPTED. SO IF YOU WERE HERE FOR ITEMS 4, [3:46] 6, OR 8, YOUR PROJECTS WERE APPROVED, GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECTS. [3:52] NOW WE'LL TURN TO ITEM 5, 63 SAINT ANTHONY PARKWAY IN WARD 1. [4:30] >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A PROPOSAL FOR ESTABLISHING AN OUTDOOR [4:36] PARKING AND STORAGE AREA INTENDED FOR LARGE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES. IN THIS CASE SEMI TRAILERS, NO [4:43] CAPS. THIS IS FOR THE PROJECT AT 63 AIN'T ANTHONY PARKWAY. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF REQUIRED [4:49] LAND USE APPLICATIONS INCLUDING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A VEHICLE FLEET ORIENTED SERVICES USE, FOUR VARIANCES WHICH I'LL [4:55] GO THROUGH IN MORE DETAIL LATER IN MY PRESENTATION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW. [5:00] ZONING MAP FOR THE AREA SUBJECT PROPERTY IS AT THE CORNER OF MARSHALL STREET AND SAINT [5:06] ANTHONY PARKWAY. THIS PROPERTY AND MANY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE IN THE PROCESSING ZONING DISTRICT. YOU CAN SEE THAT GRAY AREA TO [5:13] THE EAST IS A TRANSPORTATION ZONING DISTRICT IN THIS AREA AS WELL. [5:19] THIS SHOWS BASICALLY THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY, THIS IS FROM HENNEPIN [5:25] COUNTY. THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE IS A WAREHOUSE BUILDING WITH THE ENTRANCE FACING THE PARKWAY TO THE SOUTH. THERE ARE EXISTING PARKING AND [5:31] LOADING AND CIRCULATION AREAS ON ALL SIDES OF THE BUILDING. ON THE WEST AND NORTH SIDES I'LL [5:37] CALL OUT AS YOU CAN SEE IN THIS VIEW, THE RECENT USE OF THE PROPERTY INCLUDES SEMI TRAILER [5:42] STORAGE BUT DTHIS APPEARS TO BE [5:51] RELATIVELY NORMAL. I'LL CALL OUT SAINT ANTHONY [5:56] PARKWAY, THERE IS A BIKE PATH, A STANDARD CITY SIDEWALK ON THE NORTH SIDE. [6:01] BUT THERE IS NO CITY SIDEWALK ON THIS SIDE OF MARSHALL STREET. [6:14] HERE'S PART OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN SHOWING THE PARKING AND STORAGE AREAS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY PLUS SOME OTHER [6:21] IMPROVEMENTS, A SMALL RETENTION POND THEY WOULD BE INSTALLING. THE APPLICANTS HAVE DESCRIBED THE INTENDED USE OF THESE AREAS [6:26] AS SPECIFICALLY FOR SCHOOL BUSES AND SEMI TRAILERS WITHOUT CAPS. [6:32] FOR ZONING PURPOSES THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THOSE TWO THINGS. FOR USE PURPOSES, PARKING SCHOOL [6:39] BUSES, THAT'S THE VEHICLE FLEET ORIENTED SERVICE USE I MENTIONED AND IT'S ALSO REGULATED THE SAME [6:45] AS ANY OTHER TYPE OF VEHICLE PARKING. FOR SEMI TRAILERS WHEN THEY'RE KEPT WITHOUT CAPS SPECIFICALLY, [6:51] IT'S NOT REGULATED AS PARKING, IT'S REGULATED AS STORAGE FOR [6:58] ZONING PURPOSES. IN TERMS OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE, THIS WOULD BE BASICALLY TWO AREAS ON THIS WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. [7:05] THE NORTHERN PORTION WOULD BE USED INTERCHANGEABLY FOR STORING SEMI TRAILERS WITHOUT CABS AND [7:13] SCHOOL BUSES U BECAUSE THERE'S NO FORMAL DISTINCTION IT'S BOTH PARKING AND STORAGE FOR ZONING PURPOSES WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT [7:20] SPECIFIC STANDARDS. IN THIS CASE, THIS NORTHERN PORTION IT WOULD BE STRIPED FOR [7:26] 48 SPACES INCLUDING STACKED SPACES. FOR THE SOUTHERN PORTION CLOSER TO THE PARKWAY, THE APPLICANT IS [7:32] PROPOSING TO DESIGNATE THIS AS EXCLUSIVELY FOR STORAGE OF SEMI TRAILERS WITHOUT CABS. [7:38] THEREFORE FOR ZONING PURPOSES THAT SOUTHERN AREA NOT REGULATED AS PARKING, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE [7:43] ON THE SITE PLAN, THEY ARE STILL PROPOSING TO ESSENTIALLY STRIKE [7:49] 34 SEMI TRAILER SPACES. JUST A QUICK LOOK AT THE [7:54] LANDSCAPING PLAN. THERE IS SOME EXISTING FENCING ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. IT'S A 6-FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE [8:00] WITH TWO FEET OF BARBED WIRE ON TOP OF THAT. THEY ARE PROPOSING TO EXTEND [8:05] THAT FENCE AROUND THE THREE SIDES OF THE SOUTHERN AREA WHERE A LOT OF THAT NEW PAVEMENT WOULD BE ADDED. [8:10] THEY ARE ALSO PROPOSING TO ADD SOME CANOPY TREES AND SHRUB SCREENING ALONG THE WEST, SOUTH, [8:16] AND EAST SIDES OF THIS NEW PAVED AREA TO PROVIDE THAT SCREENING [8:23] FROM PUBLIC STREETS. AGAIN, JUST TO RECAP THE REQUIRED LAND USE APPLICATIONS IN THIS CASE, THE CONDITIONAL [8:29] USE PERMIT FOR THE VEHICLE FLEET ORIENTED SERVICE USE, THE SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THAT SAME USE, [8:35] AND FOUR VARIANCES. FIRST THE ZONING CODE DOES NOT ALLOW LOCATION OF OFF STREET [8:41] PARKING IN THE FRONT OR CORNER SIDE LOT LINES. VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM [8:46] NUMBER OF SURFACE PARKING SPACES FROM 100 TO 124. [8:52] VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM DRIVE AISLE WIDTH FOR SOME OF THE PARKING SPACES. AND VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE [9:01] MINIMUM ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS FROM 2 TO 0. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF LEGAL [9:06] FINDINGS THAT MUST BE CONSIDERED FOR DIFFERENT TYPE OF LAND USE APPLICATIONS. THE PROPERTY IS ALSO IN THE [9:13] OVERLAY DISTRICT, SO THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL FINDINGS SPECIFIC TO THAT. I'M JUST GOING TO FOCUS ON THE [9:18] FINDINGS STAFF FINDS WOULD NOT BE MET IN THE INTEREST OF TIME [9:24] FOR MY PRESENTATION BUT I'M HAPPY TO GO INTO DETAILS FOR ANYTHING ELSE. I WILL NOTE FOR THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, STAFF FINDS ALL OF THOSE [9:32] FINDINGS WILL BE MET AND I'M RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR THAT APPLICATION. BUT I'LL SKIP OVER THAT AND GO TO THE VARIANCES AND I'LL TRY [9:37] AND BE BRIEF ON THAT. THIS IS JUST A TABLE SHOWING WHAT FINDINGS WOULD AND WOULD [9:45] NOT BE MET FOR EACH OF THESE SPECIFIC VARIANCES. IF YOU ARE CONSIDERING GRANTING ANY OF THESE, I CAN BRING THESE [9:51] UP SO I CAN COVER WHAT STAFF HAS FOUND. TO GO THROUGH THE ONES WE FOUND WOULD NOT BE MET AND KIND OF ALL [9:58] TOGETHER. THE SUBJECT IS PRETTY TYPICAL FOR A LARGE COMMERCIAL OR [10:05] INDUSTRIAL TRANSPORTATION PROPERTY SIMILAR TO A LOT OF OTHER ONES LIKE IT IN THIS AREA. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT FIRST [10:12] FINDING, THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY BEING AS LARGE AS IT IS, WE DON'T SEE THAT THAT IN ITSELF CREATES A PRACTICAL [10:18] DIFFICULTY IN COMPLYING WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE. AND SIMILARLY, WHEN IT COMES TO [10:25] THE NECESSARY SCALE OF THE USE OF THE PROPERTY, WE DON'T FIND THAT THAT SATISFIES THIS FIRST [10:32] FINDING REGARDING THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD CREATE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR CONTRIBUTE TO A PRACTICAL [10:38] DIFFICULTY IN COMPLYING WITH THE ORDINANCE. FOR THE SECOND FINDING, THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE [10:46] ORDINANCE IS TO ADVANCE THE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION POLICIES OF THE CITY AND THAT CAN BE MORE SPECIFIC WHEN YOU'RE TALKING [10:52] ABOUT THE SPECIFIC STANDARDS. IN THE CASE OF THE REQUIREMENTS [10:58] THAT A ZONING LOT HAVE NO MORE THAN 100 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES, THAT'S EXPLICITLY [11:05] RECOGNIZING THAT EXCESSIVE OFF STREET PARKING FOR AUTOMOBILES CONFLICTS WITH A LOT OF THE CITY'S POLICIES REGARDING [11:11] TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE AND SUSTAINABILITY AND DESIGN. FOR THE DRIVE AISLE WIDTH [11:17] REQUIREMENT, THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE IS TO ENSURE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR VEHICLE MANEUVERING ON [11:22] SITE AND TO PREVENT STACKING OR OVERFLOW OF VEHICLES INTO THE [11:27] PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ESPECIALLY FOR LARGE FLOW OF COMMENT. FOR THE EV CHARGING VARIANCE, [11:34] THE INTENT IS TO GRADUALLY EXPAND OUR EV CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING FOR COMMERCIAL AND FREIGHT VEHICLES. [11:41] FOR THE THIRD REQUIRED FINDING REGARDING THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY AND [11:48] POTENTIAL FOR INJURY OR DETRIMENT TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY, THIS IN STAFF'S [11:53] ANALYSIS, THIS LARGELY RELATES TO THE LOCATION OF THIS PROPERTY [11:58] WHICH IS AN ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION LOCALE IN OUR CITY. [12:03] RIGHT NOW ON THAT SOUTH SIDE IT'S SET BACK OVER 50 FEET TO THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS AND THIS PROPOSAL WOULD ENCROACH A [12:10] LOT CLOSER TO THAT WITHIN TEN FEET OF THAT SOUTH LOT LINE. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LARGE [12:16] COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN THIS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR. SO CONSIDERING HOW MUCH CLOSER [12:24] THIS WOULD GET TO THE PARKWAY, THAT IS WHAT IS FACTORING INTO [12:29] STAFF'S CONSIDERATION FOR THIS THIRD FINDING. JUST TO GO THROUGH SITE PLAN REVIEW BRIEFLY, THERE ARE FOUR [12:35] REQUIREMENTS OR FOUR STANDARDS WHICH WOULD REQUIRE ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE. WE DO FIND THAT THREE OF THOSE [12:44] SHOULD BE GRANTED IS OUR RECOMMENDATION. I CAN GO THROUGH THOSE IN MORE DETAIL IF ANYONE LIKE. TO FOCUS ON THAT FOURTH [12:51] ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE PIECE FOR THE PARKING AND LOADING LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS, THAT IS SPECIFIC TO THE NUMBER OF SPACES WHICH [12:56] ARE LOCATED MORE THAN 50 FEET [13:01] FROM A TREE. THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY TREE ISLANDS AND THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING TO LANDSCAPE THE [13:06] CORNERS OF THE PARKING AREA WHERE PARKING WOULD OTHERWISE BE UNAVAILABLE. THOUGH THEY ARE PROVIDING [13:12] LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING AROUND THE PERIMETER. [13:26] THESE STANDARDS DO RELATE TO SOME OF THE VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED AS WELL. EVEN THOUGH THIS IS INTENDED FOR [13:32] LARGE EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES LIKE SCHOOL BUSES, AS STAFF WE FIND THE IMPORTANCE AND [13:38] FEASIBILITY OF COMPLYING WITH THESE PARTICULAR STANDARDS OF THE ZONING CODE. AND WE RECOMMEND ONE REQUEST FOR [13:46] ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE FOR THIS SET OF STANDARDS. WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN WITH A COUPLE OF [13:53] CONDITIONS THAT WOULD EFFECTIVELY ADDRESS THESE SPECIFIC SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS. SO JUST TO WRAP UP MY [14:03] PRESENTATION, I HAVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EACH. I ALSO HAVE A SLIDE THAT LISTS [14:09] THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. I'M NOT GOING TO READ THROUGH THESE, BUT IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE, I'M HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT THEM IN MORE [14:16] DETAIL. THE APPLICANT AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVE ARE IN ATTENDANCE DURING TODAY'S HEARING. [14:21] STAFF RECEIVED NO PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THIS ITEM. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION, BUT I'M HAPPY TO STAND FOR [14:26] QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU, ALEX. I HAVE A FEW TO START US OFF. SO FOR THE DRIVE AISLE, THAT'S [14:34] SOMETHING THAT IS APPLICABLE TO BOTH THE PARKING AND STORAGE [14:40] CLASSIFICATION; IS THAT RIGHT? >> CHAIR MEYER, THAT PARTICULAR REQUIREMENT TECHNICALLY DOES NOT APPLY TO THE AREA BEING [14:46] DESIGNATED AS STORAGE. IT IS STILL REQUIRED BECAUSE [14:52] LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN, THIS NORTHERN AREA WHICH IS REGULATED AS BOTH PARKING AND STORAGE GIVING I'M NOT MAKING A [14:58] DESIGNATION, I THINK IT'S 27 OF THESE SPACES WILL NOW HAVE ACCESS TO A DRIVE AISLE. THAT'S THE ENTIRETY OF THIS [15:04] VARIANCE REQUEST IS THOSE SPACES IN THE NORTHWEST AND NOT THE [15:12] SOUTHERN PORTION. >> OKAY SO OUR EXISTING REQUIREMENTS DO NOT APPLY TO [15:18] STORAGE; IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> AND THE NORTHERN PART IS STORAGE? >> AND PARKING BASED ON THEIR [15:24] PROPOSED USE OF THIS. THEY WOULD NOT BE MAKING A CLEAR [15:29] DELINEATION BETWEEN WHICH SPACES ARE USED FOR PARKING OR STORAGE ON THE NORTHERN PORTION. [15:34] >> IF THEY DID MAKE A CLEAR DELINEATION, THEN WOULD YOU RECOMMEND GRANTING THAT? >> IF THEY MADE A CLEAR [15:41] DELINEATION -- >> THEN THE DRIVE AISLE WOULDN'T APPLY IF IT WAS ONLY FOR [15:47] STORAGE? >> HYPOTHETICALLY IF THIS WAS ALL DESIGNATED AS ONLY FOR STORAGE INCLUDING FOR SEMI TRAILERS WITHOUT CABS, THEY [15:53] WOULD NOT NEED THIS VARIANCE TO THE DRIVE AISLE WIDTH. [15:59] >> OKAY. AND THEN I WANTED TO ASK FOR MORE ABOUT THE COMPLIANCE FOR TWO PARTS FOR THE PEDESTRIAN [16:06] ACCESS AND FOR THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. PARTICULARLY FOR THE LANDSCAPING [16:16] REQUIREMENT, SO THE 775 SHRUBS ARE REQUIRED AND THERE ARE 184 [16:22] EXISTING ONES. THEY'RE PROPOSING 162 FOR A TOTAL OF 346. [16:28] CAN YOU SAY MORE ABOUT WHY YOU'RE RECOMMENDING A SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED AMOUNT FOR THAT? [16:33] >> CHAIR MEYER, LARGELY BECAUSE WE ARE DEALING WITH A PROPERTY [16:38] THAT IS ESSENTIALLY NOT ENTIRELY DEVELOPED. THERE'S STILL A LOT OF OPEN SPACE. BUT IT'S NOT THE SAME AS A [16:45] PROPERTY THAT IS BEING -- IT'S NOT AN ENTIRELY NEW DEVELOPMENT ON A PROPERTY THAT HAS NO USE OR BUILDINGS ON IT. [16:50] THERE ARE A LOT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH. A LOT OF THE PROPERTY IS ALREADY [16:57] PAVED WITH PARKING, CIRCULATION, LOADING AREAS. THAT DOES CONTRIBUTE TO THAT [17:03] TOTAL NUMBER OF REQUIRED TREES AND SHRUBS, BUT IS NOT PRACTICAL [17:10] FOR ADDING AS MANY AS WOULD BE NEEDED TO SATISFY THOSE REQUIREMENTS. SO BASED ON THE IMPROVEMENTS [17:16] THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING SPECIFICALLY LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING -- SORRY IF I CAN [17:24] FIND -- AROUND THE AREA WHERE THEY ARE DOING WORK, THEY ARE COMPLYING WITH OTHER SITE PLAN [17:31] REVIEW STANDARDS REGARDING DENSITY OF VEGETATION TO PROVIDE [17:36] THAT SCREENING AND HAVING A CANOPY TREE FOR EVERY 25 FEET OF PARKING FRONTAGE, ET CETERA. [17:43] THEY ARE COMPLYING WITH THESE OTHER RELATED STANDARDS WE HAVE EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE STILL BELOW THE TOTAL REQUIREMENT. [17:49] >> OKAY. AND THEN THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ONE? >> SO THAT IS REQUIRED [17:56] SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THEY ARE EXPANDING THIS PARKING AREA IN BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE STREET. THE BUILDING IS WHAT IT IS, IT [18:03] HAS ITS PRINCIPAL ENTRANCE TO THE SOUTH. THERE IS NO DIRECT PEDESTRIAN ACCESS IN THAT AREA WITHOUT [18:10] WALKING OVER THE DRIVEWAY ESSENTIALLY OR OVER THE YARD. BUT THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THAT AREA. [18:19] WHERE THEY WOULD BE MAKING CHANGES AND ADDING ALL OF THIS PAVEMENT, THERE IS NOT A PUBLIC SIDEWALK ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE [18:25] PROPERTY WHICH IS MOSTLY WHERE THEY'RE DOING THE WORK. SO THERE ISN'T A LOGICAL PLACE FOR THEM TO ADD A SIDEWALK OR A [18:35] WALKWAY TO MARSHALL STREET BASED ON WHAT IS THERE AND WHAT [18:41] THEY'RE PROPOSING, IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS TECHNICALLY NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT [18:46] REQUIREMENT, BUT WE DID FIND THAT IT WAS A REASONABLE PROPOSAL BASED ON THOSE EXISTING [18:55] CONDITIONS. >> OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, ANY -- COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. [19:02] >> I KNOW THIS AREA VERY WELL. PROBABLY THE LARGEST STAKEHOLDER [19:07] IN THIS WOULD BE THE PARK BOARD. [19:13] YOU WERE SAYING THAT -- IT WAS A [19:18] LITTLE HARD FOR ME TO GET OUT OF THE WOODS ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT PROPOSAL. [19:24] THERE ALREADY ARE PAVED OR IT'S ALREADY BEING USED SORT OF FOR STORAGE BUT IT'S NOT REALLY [19:29] PAVED AND SO THEY'RE SEEKING TO ACTUALLY PAVE IT. IS THAT WHERE WE ARE? >> CHAIR MEYER, COMMISSIONER [19:36] THOMPSON, ESSENTIALLY CORRECT. WHAT I HAVE ON THE SCREEN HERE, THIS IS TAKEN FROM HENNEPIN [19:44] COUNTY'S AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY. I THINK THIS IS 2024, MAYBE 2023. YOU CAN SEE THERE IS SOME [19:52] PAVEMENT, LOOKS LIKE BLACKTOP ON THE NORTH AND WEST SIDES OF THE [19:58] BUILDING WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN PARKING OR STORING SEMI TRAILERS. I'M NOT SURE WHETHER OR NOT CABS [20:05] HAVE BEEN THERE AT ANY POINT. I DON'T KNOW THE FULL HISTORY OF THIS. I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHEN THE PAVEMENT WAS ADDED. [20:11] BUT WE WERE NOT ABLE TO FIND ANY RECORD OF THESE TYPES OF LAND [20:17] USE APPLICATIONS WHICH WOULD BE REQUIRED TO LAWFULLY ESTABLISH THIS FROM A ZONING STANDPOINT. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE [20:23] IS A LOT OF ENGINEERING BEING PROPOSED RIGHT NOW FOR THE STORM WATER RETENTION COMPONENT OF [20:28] THIS. SO THAT ALSO REQUIRES PUBLIC WORKS APPROVAL. I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY THEY ARE COMING [20:35] THROUGH THE PROCESS TODAY IN ADDITION TO THE ACTUAL DINE [20:41] CHANGES THEY WOULD BE MAKING TO SEEK LAWFUL ESTABLISHMENT OF THIS FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM. >> I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP. [20:47] A FEW MORE QUESTIONS, BUT TWO THINGS YOU JUST SAID. THEY'RE TECHNICALLY ADDING MORE [20:54] IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TO THE GROUND AND THEN ARE THEY LOOKING FOR STORM WATER CAPTURE AS WE'RE THIS CLOSE TO THE RIVER OR IS [21:01] THAT PART OF THE PLAN? THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I WASN'T QUITE SURE. [21:06] >> I WOULD DEFER TO THE APPLICANTS ON THE ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS, I GUESS. A LOT OF THAT IS SUBJECT TO [21:12] PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW AND APPROVAL. >> BUT IT IS GOING TO PUBLIC WORKS? >> YEAH, THEY SUBMITTED THAT. [21:19] IT CAN'T BE APPROVED WITHOUT LAND USE APPLICATION APPROVAL. AND THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK MORE [21:25] TO THE ENGINEERING DETAILS. BUT THEY ARE PROPOSING A STORM WATER RETENTION POND RIGHT ON [21:34] THAT WEST SIDE OF THE ALL THIS NEW PAVEMENT. IT'S KIND OF THE DARKER HASHED [21:39] AREA TO THE LEFT OF THE PARKING SPACES IS MY UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE A RETENTION POND. [21:45] >> THANK YOU. AND THEN I JUST HAVE TWO OTHER QUESTIONS. ONE WAS I WANT CLARITY AROUND [21:53] BUILDING, IT'S CURRENTLY 50 FEET THAT'S BASICALLY GREEN SPACE WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE REDUCED [21:59] TO TEN; IS THAT CORRECT? AND THAT'S BEING RECOMMENDED. AND ON THIS PICTURE, CAN YOU [22:05] HELP ME UNDERSTAND, IT'S BEING BUILT TO THE WEST; IS THAT CORRECT? >> YEAH, SO WHAT YOU SEE HERE, [22:12] THE KIND OF BLACKTOP PAVEMENT ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING, A LOT OF THAT WOULD BE, I BELIEVE ESSENTIALLY REPLACED AND [22:19] EXPANDED A BIT ALONG THE EDGES TO SORT OF MODERNIZE IT, I GUESS [22:25] FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM. BUT THEY WOULD ALSO BE ADDING A [22:31] SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF PAVEMENT SORT OF IN THAT SOUTHWEST CORNER, NOT ALL THE WAY OVER TO MARSHALL, BUT SORT OF FILLING IN THAT CORNER. [22:37] >> WHERE THE TREES ARE RIGHT NOW THAT WE CAN SEE? >> CORRECT. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. MY LAST QUESTION, THIS IS THE [22:46] PARKWAY AND NOW OBVIOUSLY THESE ARE GRANDFATHERED IN THOSE DRIVEWAYS, NOW YOU NEED SPECIAL VARIANCES THAT GO BEFORE THE [22:53] BOARD. HAS THERE BEEN ANY CONSIDERATION HOW THIS WOULD IMPACT THOSE KIND OF HEAVY TRUCK TRAFFIC ON THE [22:59] PARKWAY? IS THAT ANYWHERE IN THE ANALYSIS? >> THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE AS STAFF HAVE CONSIDERED, AGAIN [23:08] RECOGNING THAT THIS IS VERY SIGNIFICANT NOT JUST A TRANSPORTATION NETWORK, BUT THAT'S PART OF IT WHEN IT COMES TO LARGE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES [23:15] NEAR BICYCLISTS, PEDESTRIANS, ET CETERA. FOR ZONING PURPOSES, WE HAVEN'T [23:21] DONE A THOROUGH ANALYSIS IN TERMS OF HOW MANY VEHICLES WE EXPECT ON IT PER DAY OR AT [23:28] DIFFERENT TIMES OF THE DAY OR WHERE EXACTLY WE EXPECT THOSE VEHICLES TO BE COMING FROM OR GOING TO, ET CETERA. [23:37] AGAIN IT'S A PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW, THAT WOULD GO INTO SOME OF THAT FROM THE ENGINEERING STANDPOINT. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO OUR [23:44] ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THOSE VARIANCES, WE'RE SEEING THE PARKWAY AS PART OF THE GRAND [23:50] ROUNDS EVEN THOUGH THIS DOES GO THROUGH AN ESTABLISHED INDUSTRIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, WE'RE [23:56] STILL TRYING TO LIMIT SOME OF THOSE ENCROACHMENTS CLOSER TO [24:02] THE PARKWAY ITSELF. EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE NO FURTHER MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR [24:07] THIS PROPERTY, IT STILL GETS TO THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY AS THE PARKWAY AS A [24:14] TRANSPORTATION NETWORK. >> AS THE PARK BOARD COMMISSIONER SITTING ON THIS BODY, THAT'S MY LARGEST CONCERN. [24:19] BECAUSE THAT STRETCH, YOU CAN SEE THE LITTLE CORNER, I'M STARING AT MARSHALL ALL THE WAY [24:25] THROUGH INTO NORTHEAST IS THE WORST PAVED SECTION, ARGUABLY [24:30] THE WORST PAVED SECTION OF THE PARKWAY AS IT STANDS AND WE'RE LOOKING TO FIX THAT AND THEN I [24:36] AM JUST CONCERNED THAT THIS WOULD BRINGEN EVEN MORE HEAVY TRAFFIC TO THAT AREA. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE QUESTIONS. [24:43] THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >> COMMISSIONER BAXLEY, DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK? ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE PUBLIC [24:51] HEARING? NOT SEEING ANY, I'LL GIVE A QUICK REMINDER THAT WE DO HAVE A [24:57] CAPTIONER WHO RECORDS THE MEETINGS. SO AS YOU'RE SPEAKING, PLEASE SPEAK CLEARLY INTO THE [25:03] MICROPHONE FOR US. AND WE ALSO, I WANT TO NOTE WE'RE GOING TO LOSE THAT CAPTIONER AT 6:30 AND WE'VE GOT [25:09] ANOTHER ITEM TO GET TO AFTER THIS ONE SO WE'LL TRY TO MOVE SWIFTLY. WITH THAT, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC [25:16] HEARING. IS THE APPLICANT HERE TO SPEAK TO THIS? COME UP AND INTRODUCE [25:24] YOURSELVES. YOU CAN PROCEED. >> MY NAME IS ROB BINDER. [25:29] I'M A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. WE'RE THE CONSULTANTS THAT HAVE [25:36] PUT THE DOCUMENTS TOGETHER. >> RICK BARTON, CO-CHIEF MANAGER [25:43] OF THE INVESTMENT GROUP THAT [25:49] OWNS THE PROPERTY. >> I THINK OUR ASK TODAY IS TOUGH. WE HAVE A LOT OF STAFF [25:55] RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DENIAL ON A BUNCH OF THESE VARIANCES. WE'D LIKE TO CHANGE THAT AND NOT [26:01] HAVE THEM BE DENIED. I WANTED TO QUICKLY GO THROUGH EACH OF THEM BASED ON THE STAFF [26:07] REPORT AND THE FINDINGS AND SOME OF OUR THOUGHTS AND OUR OPINION, [26:13] I GUESS, OF WHAT SHOULD BE DONE [26:19] ON ALL OF THESE. IF THAT'S GOOD. FOR THE FIRST ONE, B, THE FINDINGS, THEY'RE CRITICAL OF [26:25] THE DISTANCE OF THE NEW PAVED AREA TO THE EXISTING WALK SINCE [26:30] THE GRAND ROUNDS TRAIL IS RIGHT THERE. A COUPLE OF THINGS HERE, IF YOU [26:36] LOOK WE SHOW A SECTION OF THAT, AND AS THE FINDINGS SAY, WE ARE 8.7 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. [26:42] BUT WE'RE MORE THAN TEN FEET FROM THE ACTUAL SIDEWALK WHICH IS A STANDARD 6-FOOT SIDEWALK. [26:48] THE TRAIL, THE BIKE TRAIL ACTUALLY IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD. SO WE DON'T FEEL LIKE WE'RE [26:54] AFFECTING THAT VERY MUCH. IN ADDITION TO THAT, ALL UP AND DOWN THAT AREA, YOU HAVE OTHER [27:01] PARKING LOTS, OTHER STORAGE AREAS THAT ARE AS CLOSE IF NOT CLOSER THAN WHAT WE'RE ASKING [27:08] FOR HERE. WE'RE ALSO, I THINK, SCREENING THE AREA PRETTY HEAVILY AND IT IS A STORAGE AREA AND NOT A [27:13] PARKING LOT, BUT WE ARE SCREENING IT. [27:19] THAT'S FOR THE FIRST ONE. >> WE ALSO OWN THE PROPERTY KITTY COOLER ON CALIFORNIA [27:25] AVENUE THAT'S ADJACENT TO THE [27:30] SUBJECT PROPERTY WHICH IS ON THE BIKE PATH ALONG THAT SIDE. [27:35] SO I KNOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD EXTREMELY WELL FROM THE AESTHETIC STANDPOINT AND THE LOOKS AND SETBACK, THE EXISTING [27:43] PROPERTIES THAT ARE THERE, THIS IS A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AREA. OUR CURRENT TENANTS THAT ARE UTILIZING THIS FROM A CURRENT [27:49] STABILITY LARGE RETAIL OPERATION, THEY'RE LOOKING FOR EXPANSION. [27:54] THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT NEED FOR THIS EXPANSION WITHIN THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS. [28:01] I GET CALLS CONSTANTLY FROM PEOPLE LOOKING FOR SPACE AVAILABLE TO PARK THEIR TRAILERS ON A REGULAR BASIS. [28:07] MOST OF THIS IS GOING TO BE TRAILER STORAGE UTILIZATION. WE DO HAVE A BUS COMPANY THAT CURRENTLY USES THE FACILITY ON [28:14] THE BACKSIDE. BUT THEY'RE LOOKING TO EXPAND ALSO FOR THEIR BUS SERVICES THROUGHOUT THE TWIN CITIES AND [28:21] PRIMARILY THE MINNEAPOLIS AREA. SO FROM THAT STANDPOINT, FROM A VISUAL STANDPOINT, IT'S GOING TO BE A SIGNIFICANT UPGRADE FROM [28:28] WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE TODAY AND ALSO REPRESENTING WHAT OTHER PROPERTIES HAVE, IT WILL BE A SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT OVER [28:37] WHAT'S THERE. >> SO FOR OUR C VARIANCE, THE FINDINGS ARE CRITICAL OF THE [28:42] NUMBER OF SPACES OF PARKING. WE FELT THAT THE HUNDRED SPACE [28:48] STANDARD IS NOT APPLICABLE TO LARGE INDUSTRIAL SITES. THERE'S ALL SORTS OF PARKING ARRANGEMENTS AND MODELS THAT ARE [28:55] BEING USED ON THESE DIFFERENT SITES. THIS DIDN'T SEEM VERY [29:02] APPROPRIATE TO US. DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE -- SO WE [29:12] FELT THE 100 WAS NOT ENOUGH. WE WHITTLED IT DOWN TO 124 PLUS THE STORAGE. [29:18] AND AGAIN WE'RE SCREENING THIS WHOLE AREA ON THE WEST SIDE AND THE SOUTH SIDE. [29:27] ON D, THE AISLES, THE FINDINGS [29:32] WERE CRITICAL OF THE LAYOUT OF THE STACKED PARKING WITH NO DRIVE BY ISLES PROVIDED ON THAT [29:39] WEST SIDE OR NORTHWEST SIDE. WE FEEL IT PROVIDES THE GREATEST FLEXIBILITY IN STORAGE AND [29:45] MOVEMENT IN THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY WHICH WE'RE ALWAYS TRYING TO BE EFFICIENT. AND ALSO THE LEAST PAVEMENT. [29:50] SO WHAT'S CRITICAL ABOUT THIS AREA IS THAT WE HAVE PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS THAT ARE MOVING THESE THINGS ABOUT. [29:57] THIS ISN'T SOMEONE OFF THE STREET WHO GETS TO PARK BACK THERE OR BE BACK THERE. ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE BEING [30:03] MOVED IN AND OUT BY PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS. AND THAT MODEL IS WHAT REALLY IS EFFICIENT ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING [30:09] HERE AND WE THINK IS THE BEST WAY TO GO. >> QUITE FRANKLY IT'S A HAZARD [30:14] IF YOU HAVE AN AISLE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF A TRUCK PARKING AREA. SO FROM OUR STANDPOINT, IT WOULD BE A HINDRANCE AS FAR AS THE [30:20] TRUCKS THEMSELVES MOVING THE [30:25] SEMIS BACK AND FORTH. >> SO VARIANCE E ALSO, THE FINDINGS WERE CRITICAL OF NOT [30:31] PROVIDING AN EV FACILITY AT ALL. AND REALLY, MY SUMMARY AND THE OWNER CAN GO ON ABOUT THIS, HE'S [30:38] NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF SELLING POWER TO CONSUMERS OR COMMERCIAL [30:43] VEHICLES. WE DON'T BELIEVE WE SHOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE THIS AMENITY TO THE EMPLOYEES THAT WOULD BE WORKING [30:51] THERE FOR INSTANCE. AND I THINK IN ADDITION, HE'LL GO ON A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS, BUT AS THESE FACILITIES ARE [31:00] NEEDED FOR COMMERCIAL TRUCKING, THEY'LL BE PROVIDED. THEY'LL BE PROVIDED WHEN THEY'RE [31:06] READY. >> QUITE FRANKLY, THEY'RE NOT EVEN CLOSE. THERE'S NO REQUEST OUT THERE TODAY FOR HAVING PLUG INS FOR [31:14] ANY STORAGE UNITS OR, WE HAVE PLUG INS FOR OUR BUSES ON THE BACKSIDE OF OUR FACILITY BECAUSE [31:20] THEY NEED IT. AND SO WE SUPPLIED THE ELECTRICITY THAT THEY CAN PLUG IN DURING THE WINTER MONTHS JUST [31:26] FROM A HEATING STANDPOINT. BUT FROM AN EV PERSPECTIVE, [31:33] THERE'S ZERO NEED IN THE TRUCKING COMPONENT RIGHT NOW TODAY THAT WE FORESEE NOR DO WE SEE ONE COMING ON IN THE NEXT [31:42] 5-7 YEARS. >> AND FINALLY, LOOKING AT THE CONDITIONS OF SITE PLAN [31:49] APPROVAL, MOST OF THOSE ARE FINE AND WE HAVE A PROBLEM TRYING TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES OR THOSE UPDATES. [31:54] THE ONES THAT ARE PROBLEMATIC ARE NUMBER THREE AND NUMBER FOUR. AGAIN IT'S THE CORNER LOTS, IT'S [31:59] THE ADDING EXTRA TREES THAT ALEX TALKED ABOUT. DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE STACKED [32:05] STORAGE AND PARKING MODEL, IT'S JUST NOT VIABLE TO KEEP TREES [32:12] OUT THERE, AT LEAST NOT IN THE MIDDLE. WE'RE REALLY PROPOSING TO [32:17] MAXIMIZE THE PERIMETER TREES AND THE SCREENING AND THINK THAT SHOULD COVER US FOR TREES. [32:23] >> AND QUITE FRANKLY, IT'S GOING TO BE A HUGE IMPROVEMENT WHAT'S EXISTING THERE, IF YOU GO UP AND [32:28] DOWN THE BLOCK, MOST OF IT IS JUST WEEDS THAT'S GROWING WILD IS THE BULK OF THE LANDSCAPING [32:33] THAT'S DONE ON THAT STREET. IT'S INDUSTRIAL SPACE. IT'S USED AS SUCH. WE THINK WE'RE GOING TO MAKE [32:39] SOME VERY POSITIVE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LANDSCAPING COMPONENT OF IT. WE DON'T MIND DOING THAT, WE [32:46] THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO BE A GOOD CITIZEN ON THAT FRONT. BUT TO GO EXTREME BEYOND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING JUST DOESN'T [32:52] MAKE ANY SENSE FOR THAT TYPE OF PROPERTY. >> THAT'S REALLY ALL WE HAD FOR [32:58] PREPARED REMARKS. BUT WE'LL CERTAINLY TAKE QUESTIONS OR ANY OTHER [33:04] DISCUSSION. WE CAN ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR THE [33:10] APPLICANT? GO AHEAD. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND [33:16] GIVING A LITTLE MORE EXPANSE ON SOME OF THOSE VARIANCES YOU'VE REQUESTED. [33:21] CAN I ASK YOU, WHAT IS, I GUESS I'LL PUT IT THIS WAY, WHAT IS A [33:27] PAIN POINT AROUND 100 PARKING SPACES VERSUS 124. YOU SAID YOU TRIED TO WHITTLE IT [33:32] DOWN? >> THIS IS THE LOWEST NUMBER THAT FROM AN ECONOMIC STANDPOINT WHEN WE GO IN AND PUT ALL OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN AND ALL OF THE [33:39] TREES AND EVERYTHING ELSE FROM THE REVENUE STANDPOINT THAT WE'RE ABLE TO GENERATE FROM THAT, THIS IS THE MINIMUM AMOUNT [33:45] THAT MAKES SENSE IN DOING THIS PROJECT. IF WE GET REDUCED DOWN TO THAT [33:51] 100 LEVEL, IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE AND WE WOULD PASS ON DOING THAT. AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE A BIG [33:57] LOSS FROM OUR CURRENT TENANTS, THEY HAVE A GREAT NEED FOR IT ALONG WITH IMPROVING THE [34:03] FACILITY FROM AN AESTHETIC STANDPOINT WHICH IS IMPORTANT FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE. [34:10] >> MAY I ASK, YOUR CURRENT TENANTS ARE THE ONES WITH THE STORAGE FACILITY THAT THEY WANT [34:16] THAT? >> YES. >> WHAT IS TO SAY THAT THEY WOULD VACATE THAT AND THEN YOU [34:21] WOULD NEED SOMETHING DIFFERENT FOR DIFFERENT TENANTS? IS THAT EVEN IN THE REALM OF -- [34:26] >> THEY'RE WILLING TO SIGN A LONG-TERM LEASE ONCE WE GET THIS BOOKED. AND THAT'S THE INTENT OF THIS. [34:33] THAT LOCATION, THE NUMBER OF CALLS WE GET IS FOR THAT TRUCK PARKING. THAT'S THE HUGE NEED IN THE CITY [34:39] OF MINNEAPOLIS RIGHT NOW. >> THAT MAKES SENSE. [34:45] CAN I ALSO ASK WHAT IS AGAIN LIKE THE PAIN POINT ABOUT THE DRIVE AISLE? >> THE WHAT? [34:50] >> THE DRIVE AISLE WIDTH? >> YEAH, I MEAN THAT'S JUST THE WAY YOU PARK YOUR TRUCKS AND [34:57] SEMIS, YOU CAN'T HAVE AISLES WHERE YOU HAVE TREES AND THINGS IN THE MIDDLE OF THERE. [35:03] YOU'VE GOT TO BE ABLE TO STACK THEM VERY CLOSE TOGETHER AS YOU KIND OF MOVE IN AND OUT. [35:09] SO FROM THAT STANDPOINT, THIS IS HOW YOU DO IT FROM A TRUCKING PERSPECTIVE. IT'S NOT LIKE YOU HAVE A RETAIL [35:15] COMPONENT TO THIS. IT'S MUCH, MUCH DIFFERENT. THIS IS HOW YOU OPERATE AN INDUSTRIAL PARK. [35:20] >> FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOU, YOU'RE BUILDING THIS [35:27] ESSENTIALLY FOR THIS TENANT -- >> NO, THEY'RE SEPARATE. OUR CURRENT TENANT THAT MAINTAINS THE BUILDING IS [35:32] SEPARATE THAN OUR TENANTS THAT ARE UTILIZING THE STORAGE. >> AND WOULD THEY -- I'M [35:39] THINKING OF LIKE OLD NEW YORK CITY PARKING LOTS WHERE THEY JUST STACK IT UP REAL TIGHT. WOULD THEY BE DOING THAT KIND OF [35:46] THING WITH THE BUSES OR THE CABS OR SORRY NOT THE CABS, THE SEMI TRAILERS WHERE IF YOU NEEDED ONE [35:52] WAY IN THE BACK, YOU WOULD BE MOVING EVERYTHING AROUND TO GET TO IT? >> IF IT'S THREE DEEP AND THEY NEED THAT BACK ONE, TYPICALLY [35:59] THEY DON'T DO IT THAT WAY, THEY JUST DO LAST-IN, FIRST-OUT. [36:05] >> THAT'S THE IDEA, YOU'RE SHOVING AS MANY AS YOU CAN. >> THEY ROTATE ON A REGULAR [36:12] BASIS. SO ON A TYPICAL WEEK THEY'LL BE FULL. AND MIDWEEK IT WILL BE SOMEWHAT [36:17] EMPTY AND THEN BY THE END OF THE WEEK IT'S MORE FULL. SO THEY COME AND GRAB THEM DURING THE WEEK AND THEN REPLACE THEM DURING THE WEEKENDS. [36:24] IT'S TYPICAL. >> THAT MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS. I WILL ACKNOWLEDGE FROM A PARK [36:32] STANDPOINT, THERE'S A FIELD RIGHT ACROSS FROM YOUR PROPERTY THAT WE AS THE PARK BOARD ARE [36:37] THINKING OF PLANS FOR THAT WOULD ACTIVATE THAT SPACE IN A MUCH LARGER WAY. [36:42] AND AT THE SAME TIME I KNOW IF YOU JUST DRIVE ABOUT 60 FEET DOWN THE ROAD, YOU HAVE LIKE 100 [36:50] ROWS OF RAILROAD TRACK AND IT'S JUST RIGHT THERE. >> TRIANGLE TRUCKING RIGHT [36:56] BEHIND US. YOU HAVE GOT TRIANGLE NEXT DOOR. THERE'S TRUCKS GOING IN AND OUT [37:02] OF THERE ON A REGULAR BASIS. IT'S A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE [37:07] AREA. >> YES, THANK YOU. THOSE ARE ALL OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE FOR NOW. I DON'T KNOW IF OTHER PEOPLE DO. >> COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL. [37:15] >> PRESIDENT MEYER, THANK YOU SO MUCH. I APOLOGIZE TO MY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HERE TODAY, I HAVE [37:22] TO LEAVE UNEXPECTEDLY AFTER MY COMMENTS SO I'M GOING A LITTLE OUT OF TURN. FIRST, I WANT TO SAY THANKS TO [37:28] ALEX. IT HELPED BREAK DOWN REALLY NICELY FOR US. AND I THINK I CAME IN HERE NOT KNOWING A LOT ABOUT IT AFTER [37:33] READING THE REPORT AND YOUR PRESENTATION HELPED THAT SO THANKS FOR A GREAT JOB THERE. [37:39] AND THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING HERE TODAY. I REALLY APPRECIATE PEOPLE WHO ARE INVESTING IN THE CITY AND WHO WANT TO INVEST IN THE CITY [37:45] AND I THINK EVERYONE HERE ON THE BOARD IS HERE FOR THAT SAME PURPOSE. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO [37:50] MAKE CLEAR THAT WE ARE MAKING QUASI JUDICIAL DECISIONS HERE AND WE'RE GUIDED BY THE [37:56] COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CITY ORDINANCES AND LAWS. AND IN ORDER FOR US TO AGREE TO [38:01] VARIANCES, THERE NEEDS TO BE CLEAR LEGAL REASONING BEHIND THAT AND I DID NOT HEAR THAT IN YOUR COMMENTS TODAY. I THINK YOU WENT THROUGH YOUR [38:09] VARIANCES SAYING I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD WORK LIKE THAT OR THAT'S NOT HOW THIS WORKS IN OUR INDUSTRY, AND UNFORTUNATELY WE [38:16] HAVE TO HAVE FINDINGS TO SUPPORT VARIANCE REQUESTS THAT GO AGAINST CODE AND BASED ON THE [38:21] COMMENTS I'VE HEARD FROM YOU TODAY, I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT THOSE EXIST. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT [38:26] BEFORE I LEFT. I'LL ALLOW MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO MAKE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS AFTER I LEAVE. [38:32] I APOLOGIZE. THANK YOU ALL. >> FROM MY UNDERSTANDING THE [38:37] VARIANCES ARE ASKED ARE PRIMARILY BASED ON RETAIL OPERATIONS AND THEY DON'T ALWAYS APPLY AS WE WERE TOLD TO THE [38:44] INDUSTRIAL MARKET. SO FOR WHAT THAT'S WORTH. >> ARE THERE FURTHER QUESTIONS? [38:54] COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. >> COULD BE A QUESTION FOR ALEX ACTUALLY. >> WE COULD GO TO THAT AFTER THE [39:02] PUBLIC HEARING. >> MAYBE I'LL TAKE ADVANTAGE AND DO -- SO IS THIS IT SEEMS WE'RE [39:09] TRYING TO PARSE BETWEEN STORAGE VERSUS PARKING AND PARKING BRINGS IN A WHOLE LEVEL OF SCRUTINY AND CRITERIA THAT [39:16] STORAGE DOES NOT. SO HOW DO YOU GUYS THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS IS? IS THIS A PARKING FACILITY OR A [39:22] STORAGE FACILITY? >> STORAGE FOR SEMI TRAILERS. [39:29] IT'S A STAND ALONE STORAGE STRUCTURE, BUT YOU COME IN WITH A SEMI TO MOVE IT AROUND. [39:36] THEY'RE JUST STORING THOSE ITEMS. >> AND I THINK PART OF THE BUSINESS IS THE BUSES AND THAT'S THE CONFUSING PART IS THAT WE [39:44] HAVE TO -- THAT'S A NICE EXTRA PART OF THE BUSINESS OF STORAGE IS THAT WE CAN PUT THESE BUSES [39:51] ON HERE ON A TEMPORARY DAILY BASIS. AND I THINK THAT'S THE CONFUSING PART. [39:56] THAT'S THE PART THAT OTHERWISE WE COULD SAY THE WHOLE THING IS STORAGE. BUT WE WOULDN'T BE TRUTHFUL BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME BUSES IN [40:01] THE BACK THERE. >> AND THERE IS A HUGE NEED FROM THE BUSING COMPANY SAYING THEY [40:07] HAVE NOWHERE TO PARK THEIR SCHOOL BUSES. THESE ARE ALL SCHOOL BUSES THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH. [40:12] >> BUT THERE'S NO PARKING LOTS OR ANYTHING ELSE BACK THERE AT [40:21] ALL? JUST THE BUSES. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER WAGNER. WE'VE GOT ONE MORE FOR YOU. [40:26] >> THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. ONE MORE QUESTION FOR YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JUST A QUESTION IN REGARDS TO [40:32] WHO PARKS IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. I SEE IN THE SATELLITE IMAGE THAT WAS PROVIDED A ROW OF CARS [40:39] AND WHY YOU DON'T FEEL -- >> THE EMPLOYEES OF THE CURRENT TENANT WITHIN THERE WHICH IS [40:44] EVENT SALES. >> IN REGARDS TO THE VARIANCE [40:50] REQUEST FOR THE NO ELECTRIC -- >> IT'S NEVER BEEN, WE'VE ASKED. THEY'VE NEVER REQUESTED ONE, [40:57] THEY SAID THEY WOULDN'T NEED IT ACCORDING TO THEM. WE'VE GOT IT IN OTHER BUILDINGS THAT WE HAVE WHERE IT'S BEEN REQUESTED, WE'VE PUT THEM IN. [41:04] >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHAIR MEYER. [41:10] >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? [41:16] >> CAN I UNDERSTAND THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS, WHAT IS THE INFRASTRUCTURE? AS A BIG PARKING LOT, IS THERE A [41:22] LOT OF INFRASTRUCTURE THAT YOU'D HAVE TO PUT IN TO BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH THOSE OR WOULD IT BE [41:28] LIKE RUNNING AN OUTLET? >> YOU'D HAVE TO RUN ELECTRICAL LINES OUT TO THAT AREA AND THEN BUILD THE BOXES THAT GO INTO IT. [41:34] >> SO YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE SIGNIFICANT ELECTRICAL WORK DONE? >> YEAH. >> THANK YOU. [41:40] THAT WAS MY QUESTION. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO [41:46] TESTIFY ON THIS ITEM? ANYONE ELSE? NOT SEEING ANY, I WILL CLOSE THE [41:53] PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS, OTHER COMMENTS OR ANY MOTION ON THE TABLE? [41:59] I GUESS I'LL START US OFF THEN WHERE I'M AT ON THIS. [42:10] I PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED THIS AREA ON THE PARK BOARD AND I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, THE PARK BOARD HAS THE MOST AT STAKE [42:19] ON THIS AND THEIR EFFORTS TO ACTIVATE THIS AREA MORE. I DEFINITELY STRONGLY AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS THAT STAFF WROTE, [42:27] IN PARTICULAR ON THEIR REDUCTION OF VARIANCE B ABOUT THE NEGATIVE [42:34] EFFECT IT WOULD HAVE IN PARTICULAR ON GRANTING THAT ONE [42:41] TO THE PLEASANTNESS OF THE PARKWAY. SO I'M DEFINITELY GOING TO SUPPORT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION [42:48] ON ITEM B AS WELL AS ITEM C. FOR ITEM D AS FAR AS THE MINIMUM [42:56] DRIVE AISLE WIDTH, THAT ONE I'D BE OPEN TO AN ARGUMENT ON IT, [43:02] BUT I DON'T FEEL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO GO AGAINST THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON IT. FOR ITEM E REGARDING THE [43:08] ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING, I THINK YOU SHOULD DO THAT, IT'S JUST TWO SPOTS. I DON'T THINK THAT'S VERY [43:17] BURDENSOME. I SUPPORT THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE REQUIRED IN THE SITE PLAN [43:23] REVIEW. I AM A LITTLE SKEPTICAL OF THE [43:28] ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE, IT SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF [43:33] SHRUBS THAT ARE NEEDED. IT IS MAYBE SOMEWHAT OF AN [43:39] IMPROVEMENT OVER WHAT'S THERE IN THE STATUS QUO, BUT IT SEEMS [43:44] LIKE OUR DEFAULT REQUIREMENT WOULD BE QUITE A LOT HIGHER. BUT I THINK WHERE I'M AT IS I [43:51] WOULD PROBABLY JUST GO WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND NOT GET [43:56] TOO FAR INTO THE ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE UNLESS ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WOULD WANT TO GO [44:04] THERE. SO THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? [44:09] COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. >> I HAVE A LOT OF THOUGHTS ON THIS ONE BECAUSE IT'S ACTUALLY RIGHT BY MY HOUSE. [44:15] I LIVE JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RIVER. [44:20] I APPRECIATE CHAIR MEYER TALKING ABOUT UNDERSTANDING THE PARKWAY SITUATION AND I KNOW HE KNOWS [44:26] THAT PROBABLY AS INTIMATELY AS I DO. I ALSO FEEL FOR THE APPLICANT [44:31] BECAUSE THIS IS A REALLY CHALLENGING SPACE IN OUR CITY THAT'S LIKE I DON'T WANT TO SAY [44:37] IT'S CHANGING OVER. IT'S STILL VERY MUCH INDUSTRIAL AND YET WE'RE TRYING TO INTEGRATE DIFFERENT THINGS AND [44:42] OF COURSE YOU PROBABLY KNOW ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RAILROAD [44:49] TRACKS IS OF COURSE COLUMBIA. [44:54] I WOULD BE OPEN TO WHAT AM I TRYING TO SAY, AGREEING WITH [45:00] CHAIR MEYER ON THE DRIVE AISLE WIDTH IF THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD SORT OF GIVE BACK [45:07] TO THE APPLICANT THAT WOULD MAKE IT LESS CHALLENGING TO CREATE [45:15] THIS, I WOULD BE OPEN TO THAT. I'M NOT THE WORLD'S BEST EXPERT ON THESE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS [45:20] AND HOW WE MAKE THE MOTIONS AGAINST OR WITH THAT. BUT I WOULD SIGN ON TO THAT [45:31] IDEA. THANKS. >> OTHER COMMISSIONERS? >> COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. [45:37] >> YEAH. THANK YOU, CHAIR. I'M KIND OF ON THE SAME PAGE. I GUESS I AM, THE DRIVE AISLE IS [45:45] RELATED TO WHETHER IT'S STORAGE OR PARKING. THE DRIVE AISLE SEEMS SILLY IF I'M GOING TO STORE THE WAY I [45:51] NEED TO STORE. SO I WONDER FROM ALEX IS THERE [45:58] ANY BECAUSE I CAN'T FIND SOME ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE UNLESS I CALL THAT STORAGE AREA. [46:05] ARE WE CALLING SPECIFIC PARTS OF THE SITE STORAGE, SOME SPECIFIC PARTS OF THE SITE PARKING OR IS [46:10] IT ALL ONE WAY OR IS THERE SOME LANGUAGE HERE THAT WE CAN JUSTIFY SOMETHING LIKE THAT? [46:16] >> CHAIR MEYER, COMMISSIONER [46:21] BAXLEY, IF I CAN BRING UP THE SITE PLAN AGAIN, THIS PARTICULAR [46:26] DISTINCTION BETWEEN PARKING AND STORAGE, THIS COMES FROM THE ZONING CODE. [46:33] I'VE BEEN IN CONVERSATION WITH THE APPLICANT AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES OVER A FEW MONTHS AS WE'VE APPROACHED THIS [46:38] POINT AND THEY'VE DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB TRYING TO WORK WITH THE DETERMINATIONS THAT WE'RE GIVING THEM. [46:43] AND THIS IS BASED ON THE LANGUAGE IN THE ZONING CODE THAT [46:49] MAKES THE SOMEWHAT CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN PARKING FOR MOTOR VEHICLES AND STORAGE OF [46:55] OTHER EQUIPMENT. AND IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING LIKE A SEMI TRAILER WITH A CAB THAT'S A MOTOR VEHICLE WITH EQUIPMENT, [47:00] YOU CAN CALL THAT STORAGE PRETTY EASILY. THE APPLICANTS HAVE BEEN CLEAR [47:05] THAT THE INTENT IS FOR THESE TO NOT HAVE CABS AS PART OF THIS COMPONENT OTHER THAN [47:11] MANEUVERING, SO IT'S NOT A MONTH TO VEHICLE, SO WE NEED TO CLASSIFY IT AS STORAGE. THERE'S A LOT OF NITPICKY ZONING [47:19] CODE REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF WHAT IS THE HEIGHT REQUIRED FOR [47:25] PARKING AS OPPOSED TO STORAGE. WE HAVE AGAIN FOR THE MOST PART IN THE NORTHERN AREA WHERE THEY [47:31] ARE PROPOSING TO MORE OR LESS USE IT INTERCHANGEABLY WHICH I UNDERSTAND FROM AN OPERATIONAL [47:37] STANDPOINT, WE ARE HOLDING THEM TO THE MOST EXTREME OF THE REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN PARKING VERSUS STORAGE AND IN THE [47:43] SOUTHERN PORTION, THEY HAVE SAID THEY ARE WILLING TO DESIGNATE THAT AS EXCLUSIVELY FOR STORAGE. THEY WOULD DO SO WITH SIGNAGE IN [47:52] THE AREA TO MAKE THAT CLEAR, THAT IS FOR SEMI TRAILERS ONLY. [48:02] BUT REASONABLE PEOPLE CAN DISAGREE ABOUT THIS, BUT THIS IS THE APPROACH THAT WE'VE TAKEN AS [48:07] STAFF IN TRYING TO INTERPRET AND APPLY THE ZONING CODE LANGUAGE FOR A COMPLICATED PROPOSAL LIKE [48:17] THIS. >> I APPRECIATE BOTH PARTIES BEING HONEST ABOUT THE USE. SO IS THERE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE [48:25] OR WHERE IS THE LINE BETWEEN STORAGE AND PARKING? LIKE IF IT'S 30%, THEY DESCRIBED [48:31] HOW THE USE PATTERN GOES SO I'VE GOT A LITTLE PICTURE OF WHAT'S [48:36] THERE. >> YEAH, WE HAVE NOT MADE ANYTHING LIKE A TIME-BASED [48:41] DISTINCTION. IT'S PURELY, I THINK THE WAY I'VE SORT OF PRESENTED IT TO [48:46] THEM IS IF YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO USE IT INTERCHANGEABLY THEN WE'RE GOING TO REGULATE IT AS [48:52] BOTH. IF YOU WANT TO CLEARLY DESIGNATE IT AS ONE OR THE OTHER THEN WE CAN WORK WITH YOU ON THAT. THAT HAS IMPLICATIONS LIKE THE [48:58] NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THAT THEY ARE REQUESTING IF THEY'RE PROPOSING TO USE ALL OF THIS [49:05] INTERCHANGEABLY AND MAKE NO DISTINCTIONS THAT THE SOUTHERN AREA WOULD BE FOR STORAGE, THEN IT WOULDN'T BE A ZONING REQUEST [49:10] UP TO 124, IT WOULD BE 160 SOMETHING, I DON'T REMEMBER THE NUMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. [49:16] BUT THAT IS THE TYPE OF THING THAT CAN BE IMPACTED BY THIS [49:22] DISTINCTION. SO AGAIN WHERE WE'VE LANDED AND WHERE THE APPLICANT HAS LANDED AND THE PROPOSAL THAT THEY [49:27] WANTED TO BRING FORWARD IS TO DESIGNATE THAT SOUTHERN AREA AS ONLY FOR STORAGE OF SEMI [49:33] TRAILERS WITHOUT CABS AND TO USE THE NORTHERN PORTION [49:39] INTERCHANGEABLY. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AGAIN I THINK GIVEN AS PRESENTED [49:44] AND THE REPORT AS WRITTEN, ALEX IS VERY CLEAR. SO I THINK UNLESS THAT CHANGES, I'LL BE SUPPORTING STAFF [49:51] RECOMMENDATION. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT? >> SURE. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO SUPPORT STAFF FINDINGS. [49:56] >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> I'VE GOT THAT MOTION ON THE [50:02] TABLE TO ADOPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION [50:10] ABOUT THE MOTION? SEEING NONE, CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> BEFORE WE DO THE ROLL, I JUST [50:16] WANTED TO CHECK, COMMISSIONER SKJEFTE, I THOUGHT I SAW YOUR -- >> I MISSED THAT. I APOLOGIZE. [50:27] CAN YOU TURN YOUR MIC ON, PLEASE. >> I ONLY HAD ONE QUESTION WITH REGARD TO THE DRIVE AISLE WIDTH. [50:35] IF IT'S STORING THE TRAILER, HOW ARE THEY MANEUVERING IT INTO [50:41] THAT SPACE AND DOES THAT DRIVE AISLE WIDTH NEED TO ASSUME THE [50:46] CAB IS ABLE TO DO ALL OF THAT? >> CHAIR MEYER, COMMISSIONER, [50:53] THEY HAVE PROVIDED THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF I INCLUDED IT IN MY PRESENTATION, BUT THEY HAVE OTHER PLANNED SHEETS THAT DO [50:59] SHOW THE MANEUVERING DIAGRAMS THAT SHOWS HOW THEY PROPOSE SOMETHING LIKE A SCHOOL BUS OR A [51:08] SEMI TRUCK WOULD MANEUVER INTO AND OUT OF ALL OF THE SPACES OR SORT OF THE MOST DIFFICULT [51:14] SPACES, I GUESS. AGAIN THE ZONING CODE DOESN'T MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN A PARKING SPACE FOR A PASSENGER VEHICLE AS OPPOSED TO A PARKING [51:22] SPACE FOR A SEMI TRUCK AND TRAILER OR A SCHOOL BUS. SO THAT MINIMUM DRIVE AISLE [51:29] WIDTH IS THE SAME REGARDLESS OF WHAT TYPE OF MOTOR VEHICLE THEY'RE PROPOSING TO USE THAT [51:35] SPACE FOR AND IT IS A REQUIREMENT REGARDLESS OF WHAT TYPE OF VEHICLE THAT THEY [51:43] PROVIDE THE DRIVE AISLE. SO THAT DOES RELATE TO THEIR OTHER VARIANCES LIKE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, [51:49] BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T PROVIDE THE DRIVE AISLES, YOU COULD PUT MORE SPACES. THAT'S WHERE THE STAFF ANALYSIS [51:56] AND RECOMMENDATION COMES FROM AS TIED TO THE VARIANCES. [52:14] >> CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION OR COMMENT BEFORE WE VOTE. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING BECAUSE I THINK YOU'VE SAID IT [52:21] TWICE, THAT THERE'S NO DISTINCTION IN THE ZONING CODE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN INDIVIDUAL MOTORIZED VEHICLE AND [52:28] A SEMI TRUCK. IS THAT TRUE? >> CHAIR MEYER, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, FOR MANY OF THE ZONING [52:36] REQUIREMENTS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT IS CORRECT. MINIMUM DIMENSIONS OF A PARKING [52:42] SPACE FOR EXAMPLE OR DRIVE [52:47] AISLE, THERE'S NO SEPARATE SPACE [52:54] FOR A SEMI TRUCK. THE EXCEPTION IS LIKE A LOADING SPACE OR A LOADING DOCK TO A [53:01] BUILDING THAT IS INTENDED FOR SOMETHING LIKE A SEMI TRUCK OR A SMALLER COMMERCIAL VEHICLE, WE [53:08] DO HAVE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT SAY A LOADING DOCK OR DIMENSIONS NEED TO BE DIFFERENT STANDARDS [53:14] THAN A PARKING SPACE FOR A VEHICLE. BUT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS IN PLAY FOR THIS APPLICATION, IT'S [53:19] THE SAME STANDARD THAT APPLIES FOR ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT VEHICLE TYPES. >> THAT IS VERY INTERESTING, [53:25] THANK YOU. AND THAT MIGHT NEED TO BE FIXED SOME DAY, THANK YOU. >> THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS TO [53:31] APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. IS THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENT? [53:38] PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. [53:44] >> APOLOGIES. MULTITASKING. COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. >> AYE. [53:50] >> CAMPBELL IS ABSENT, HAS LEFT. CHOWDHURY. >> AYE. [53:57] >> EMERICK, WOW WHERE DID THAT COME FROM. APOLOGIES, FOLKS. WOW. YES, SKJEFTE. [54:03] THANK YOU. >> AYE. [54:08] >> OLSON. WOW, OKAY. I'M HAVING A ROUGH NIGHT, FOLKS. [54:15] I'M SO SORRY. THIS WAS THE SAME ONE THAT I STARTED WITH, RIGHT. WE'VE GOT BAXLEY. WE'VE GOT CAMPBELL. [54:20] WE'VE GOT CHOWDHURY. GORDON. >> AYE. [54:27] >> MEYER. >> AYE. >> AND SKJEFTE YOU ALREADY REPLIED AYE. [54:33] THOMPSON. >> AYE. >> AND WAGNER. >> AYE. >> OKAY, LET ME DO SOME QUICK MATH. [54:45] WHERE DID THIS GO? SE SEVEN AYES AND ZERO NAYS. [54:51] >> THANK YOU, THE MOTION IS ADOPTED. WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM 7, [54:57] 1302 DOUGLAS AVENUE AND 1716 FREMONT AVENUE SOUTH. [55:02] STAFF IS ANDREW LISKA. [55:24] >> THANK YOU, CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS. AGAIN THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS [55:32] 1302 DOUGLAS AVENUE AND 1716 FREMONT AVENUE. THE PROPOSAL IS A 2.5 STORY [55:39] STRUCTURE, RESIDENTIAL, WITH EIGHT DWELLING UNITS. [55:45] THIS REQUEST REQUIRES FOUR APPLICATIONS. FIRST THERE'S THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INCREASE HEIGHT IN [55:55] THE SHORE LAND AREA. A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE [56:01] MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT. THIS PROPERTY IS UN2, URBAN [56:08] NEIGHBORHOOD AND BUILT FORM INTERIOR TWO. COMBINE THESE TWO PARCELS ARE [56:17] 13,500 SQUARE FEET. THEY ARE LOCATED ON THE INTERSECTION OF DOUGLAS AND [56:23] FREMONT, THE NORTHWESTERN SIDE THERE. THE EXISTING PLATTING OF 1716 HAS THAT AS A REVERSE CORNER, [56:29] THAT'S PLATTED OFF OF FREMONT WHEREAS THE SOUTHERN PARCEL PLATTED OFF OF DOUGLAS. [56:36] THAT REVERSE CORNER LOT WOULD GO AWAY AND THIS WOULD REVERT BACK TO JUST THE STANDARD PLATTING [56:42] OFF OF DOUGLAS AVENUE. [56:48] THE EXISTING SURVEY HERE, A FEW POINTS, THE RED BOX ON THE TOP IF YOU CAN SEE THAT, THAT IS AN [56:59] EXISTING PRIVATE ALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT PROVIDES ACCESS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. [57:04] THERE IS A CURB CUT OFF OF FREMONT ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. THE GREEN CIRCLE IN THE MIDDLE [57:10] OF THAT RED RECTANGLE THERE ALSO [57:15] DEMONSTRATES ROUGH GRADE HERE. WE'RE LOOKING AT A GRADE OF 926. [57:20] THE GRADE DOES INCREASE A LITTLE BIT MORE AS YOU GET FURTHER NORTH. BUT MORE OF A GENERAL ILLUSTRATION ON THE GRADE HERE. [57:26] IF WE LOOK ON THE SOUTHERN CORNER NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF FREMONT AND DOUGLAS, YOU SEE [57:32] ANOTHER GREEN CIRCLE 916. THE ORANGE RECTANGLE THERE SHOWS [57:38] THAT 917 GRADE. THAT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY WHERE WE ARE MEASURING THE GRADE [57:45] OF THE NEW STRUCTURE FROM BEING THAT AGAIN THE STRUCTURE IS PLATTED OFF OF DOUGLAS, THAT'S [57:51] TEN FEET IN FRONT OF THE STRUCTURE TOWARDS THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY. [57:57] LAST, THERE'S AN EXISTING CURB CUT OFF OF DOUGLAS THAT SERVES [58:02] AS TUCK UNDER GARAGE ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOUTHERN STRUCTURE. [58:08] THE APPLICANT AGAIN IS PROPOSING AN EIGHT UNIT STRUCTURE HERE. THE 15-FOOT EASEMENT ALLEY WILL [58:15] BE MAINTAINED ON THE NORTH SIDE THERE. THERE ARE SOME RETAINING WALLS THAT ARE RETAINING NATURAL GRADE [58:20] BOTH ALONG FREMONT AND DOUGLAS. A TUCK UNDER GARAGE IS PROPOSED [58:26] ACCESSED OFF OF DOUGLAS SIMILAR TO THAT EXISTING. AND AGAIN THAT RED X WOULD DEMONSTRATE AGAIN THE GRADE [58:32] POINT FROM WHERE WE'RE MEASURING HEIGHT FROM IN THIS APPLICATION. [58:38] HERE ARE ELEVATIONS OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE. AGAIN ON THE UPPER LEFT, THE [58:44] FREMONT AVENUE, AGAIN HIGHLIGHTING ON THE RIGHT SIDE [58:50] OF THE STRUCTURE HEIGHT FROM EXISTING GRADE TO THE POINT OF THE STRUCTURE IS LESS THAN 35 [58:57] FEET. HOWEVER, WE ARE MEASURING GRADE FROM THE GRADE POINT ON DOUGLAS, [59:03] THAT OVAL ON THE LEFT, AND IT'S GRADED AT 41.7 FEET. [59:10] THE OTHER DOUGLAS SIDE KIND OF DEMONSTRATES ACCESS TO THE LOWER LEVEL. WE SEE ON THE FREMONT SIDE SOME [59:18] RETAINING WALLS THAT PROVIDE ACCESS TO THAT ENTRY AS WELL. THE PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS, [59:24] THERE'S PARKING IN THE LOWER LEVEL BOTH AUTOMOBILE AND BICYCLE PARKING. THE FIRST FLOOR HAS SOME AMENITY [59:33] SPACE, SOME MULTISTORY UNITS HERE, RESIDENTIAL ON FIRST [59:39] FLOOR, SECOND FLOOR, AND THE HALF STORY AS WELL. AGAIN, THE APPLICATIONS AND [59:47] RECOMMENDATIONS. I'LL BREAK DOWN THE HEIGHT REQUEST BEING THAT THOSE TWO ARE PRETTY TIGHTLY BOUND TO ONE [59:54] ANOTHER. THERE'S THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INCREASE HEIGHT IN THE SHORELAND. THE SHORELAND LIMITS PRINCIPAL [1:00:01] HEIGHT TO 35 FEET AND THE HEIGHT PROPOSED IS AT 41.87 FEET. [1:00:12] THEY'RE PROPOSING 41.87. STAFF IS ABLE TO MAKE ALL OF THE NECESSARY FINDINGS ASSOCIATED [1:00:17] WITH THESE REQUESTS. THERE ARE DIFFERENT FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AS OPPOSED TO VARIANCES. [1:00:23] AND STAFF IS ABLE TO MAKE ALL OF THOSE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF BOTH OF THE HEIGHT [1:00:30] APPLICATIONS. REGARDING AREA RATIO REQUESTS, STAFF IS NOT ABLE TO FIND A [1:00:35] PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN COMPLYING WITH THE ORDINANCE. STAFF FINDS THAT THE SCOPE OF THIS REQUEST IS NOT A REASONABLE [1:00:42] USE OF THIS PROPERTY. AGAIN THE VARIANCE GOING FROM .8 [1:00:49] TO A PROPOSED 1.32. WITH THAT SITE PLAN REVIEW, DUE TO THE DENIAL REQUEST OF THAT [1:00:57] F.A.R., A STRUCTURE THAT WOULD COMPLY WITH THAT WOULD BE SEEN AS A MAJOR CHANGE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE [1:01:03] PLANNING COMMISSION ANYWAY. HERE ARE SOME RENDERINGS THE [1:01:09] APPLICANT DID PROVIDE AN ITERATION OF THE EXISTING AREA [1:01:14] ALONG WITH SOME FLOOR AREA [1:01:20] RATIOS. THIS WENT TO -- I BELIEVE LAST SUMMER. WORTH NOTING, I RAN SOME OF THE [1:01:26] ASSESSOR'S INFORMATION ABOUT LOT SIZE AND STRUCTURE COVERAGE, AND THESE F.A.R. NUMBERS DO SEEM [1:01:33] INFLATED TO ME. I DIDN'T RUN ALL OF THE PROPERTIES SHOWN HERE. I TOOK THE TWO LOWER ONES ON [1:01:40] FREMONT AS WELL AS THE MIDDLE ONE ON DOUGLAS. THE 1316 DOUGLAS HAS AN F.A.R. [1:01:50] OF .73 FROM WHAT I CAN TELL. AGAIN BASED ON ASSESSOR'S INFORMATION, THIS IS KIND OF ROUGH MATH HERE. [1:01:58] THE PROPERTY 1768 DOUGLAS HAD AN F.A.R. OF .65 AND THEN THE 1716 [1:02:05] DOUGLAS HAS AN F.A.R. OF .40. WORTH NOTING TOO, THIS [1:02:13] ASSESSOR'S INFORMATION MAY INCLUDE -- A LOT OF THESE EXISTING STRUCTURES IN THE AREA ARE 1 TO 3 UNIT STRUCTURES. [1:02:19] AND IF THIS WOULD BE A 1 TO 3, WE WOULD NOT INCLUDE ANY HALF STORY STRUCTURE IN THAT [1:02:25] CALCULATION. SO AGAIN, THESE NUMBERS, THE ONES THAT I PROVIDED MAY BE EVEN LOWER IN ACTUALITY. [1:02:33] AND AGAIN THIS DID GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION OVER THE [1:02:39] SUMMER. THE PROJECT THAT WENT HAD AN F.A.R. OF 1.37. THE APPLICANTS WERE TOLD THAT [1:02:45] THAT PROJECT WAS TOO HIGH BASED [1:02:51] ON THE NOTES, COMMISSIONERS SEEMED TO HAVE NOTED THAT KEEPING F.A.R. CLOSER TO ONE [1:02:58] SEEMED MORE REASONABLE. THE APPLICATION IS BASICALLY [1:03:04] THAT SAME THING. SO I WILL BE HERE FOR QUESTIONS. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PRESENT. [1:03:11] >> THANK YOU. SO THIS IS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, NOT YOU, CORRECT? >> YES, THESE NUMBERS ARE FROM [1:03:17] THE APPLICANT. >> AND YOU'RE SAYING THESE NUMBERS ARE WRONG AND YOU READ OFF SOME OF THEM, BUT I HAVE NO [1:03:23] IDEA WHICH ONES ARE WHICH. I'M PARTICULARLY INTERESTED TO KNOW THE ONES THAT ARE [1:03:32] IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT AND THE ONES ON THE UPPER END. [1:03:40] SO THE ONES TO THE EAST, FOR EXAMPLE 1.68, YOU'RE SAYING THAT [1:03:46] WAS ONE OF THEM YOU WERE SAYING [1:03:51] WAS NOT AS HIGH? >> I DIDN'T LOOK AT THE ONES EAST THERE. [1:03:57] THOSE PARCELS ARE VERY SMALL. THOSE ARE 3500 SQUARE FOOT [1:04:02] PARCELS. THEY PROBABLY DO HAVE AN F.A.R. THAT IS HIGH. I DIDN'T RUN ALL OF THESE [1:04:08] NUMBERS. >> FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WHOLE, WHAT IS THE GENERAL F.A.R.? DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON THAT? [1:04:15] >> NO AND HONESTLY STAFF DIDN'T REALLY GET IN THE WEEDS IN LOOKING AT A NEIGHBORHOOD F.A.R. [1:04:24] AVERAGE. BEING THAT THE READING OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST, PRACTICAL [1:04:30] DIFFICULTIES HAVE TO EXIST WITH THIS SITE IN COMPLYING WITH [1:04:39] CODE. IT'S NOT A BROAD NEIGHBORHOOD VIEW. YOU COULD ARGUE IT'S INCORRECTLY ZONED, THIS ISN'T THAT [1:04:44] APPLICATION. WE'RE LOOKING AT THE F.A.R. REQUEST FOR THIS PARCEL BASED ON [1:04:52] THIS EXISTING. >> QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. >> CAN I JUST CLARIFY -- BECAUSE [1:05:01] I REMEMBER THAT COMING UP AND IT GOT BUMPED AND I COULDN'T MAKE THE NEXT MEETING. [1:05:06] BUT THIS IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME F.A.R. THAT WAS PRESENTED THERE, [1:05:12] TOLD THAT IT LIKELY WOULDN'T CUT THE MUSTARD AND THEN WE HAVE IT HERE? >> THAT IS CORRECT. [1:05:18] ADMITTEDLY I WAS NOT AT THAT EITHER. I WAS KIND OF HANDED THIS PROJECT FROM A COLLEAGUE OF MINE. BUT THOSE NOTES FROM THAT [1:05:25] MEETING DO SAY THAT THAT 1.37 WAS TOO HIGH AND TO GET IT DOWN [1:05:31] CLOSER TO ONE. I THINK THAT THE PROJECT THAT WENT HAS REALLY CHANGED. [1:05:37] IT LOOKS A LOT BETTER IN MY ESTIMATION THAN THE PROJECT THAT [1:05:42] WENT. I STILL THINK WITH THAT SAID, STAFF CAN'T SUPPORT AN F.A.R. [1:05:48] FROM .8 TO 1.32. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. >> AND ONE OTHER QUESTION, SO IF [1:05:58] WE WERE TO GRANT THE F.A.R. VARIANCE, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY FURTHER ISSUE WITH THE SITE [1:06:04] PLAN; IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT WOULD BE CORRECT. >> I'LL MAKE A COMMENT THAT CAN [1:06:10] INFORM THE APPLICANT WHEN THEY DO THEIR PRESENTATION. I WAS AT THE COMMITTEE OF THE [1:06:18] WHOLE AND I BROUGHT UP THAT I WOULD BE OPEN TO THE VARIANCE IF [1:06:28] EVIDENCE COULD BE PROVIDED AROUND THE F.A.R.S AROUND THE SURROUNDING AREAS. MAYBE THE APPLICANT WILL SAY [1:06:34] MORE TO THAT. WE HAVE LOOKED AT ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO FIND PRACTICAL [1:06:39] DIFFICULTIES BEFORE ON DIFFERENT PROPERTIES IN NORTH MINNEAPOLIS. [1:06:45] I THINK WE LOOKED AT HOW THE SETBACK ON NEARBY PROPERTIES AND [1:06:51] FOUND THAT THAT CONSTITUTED A [1:06:57] DIFFICULTY. SO I THINK THAT IS RELEVANT. ANY OTHER -- NOT SEEING ANY. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. [1:07:03] I'M GOING TO LET THE APPLICANT GO AHEAD AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF. [1:07:12] >> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR MEYER, COMMISSIONERS. [1:07:17] MY NAME IS TIM BAYLOR. I'M HERE BEFORE YOU CHARACTERIZED AS A DEVELOPER BUT [1:07:22] IN THIS INSTANCE I'M A HOMEOWNER. MY WIFE AND I PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY 41 YEARS AGO. [1:07:28] WE RAISED OUR TWO CHILDREN HERE. MY GRANDCHILDREN LIVE IN THIS [1:07:34] BUILDING FOR A FEW YEARS. OUR OFFICE IS CURRENTLY IN THIS BUILDING AND IF APPROVED AND [1:07:40] THIS PROJECT GOES FORWARD, WE'LL BE MOVING BACK INTO THE COMMUNITY. [1:07:45] I WILL NOTE THAT THIS PROJECT [1:07:50] WAS PRESENTED TO THE LOWRY HILLS [1:07:56] ASSOCIATION AND THEY UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE PROJECT. I THINK YOU HAVE A LETTER TO THAT REGARD IN YOUR PACKET. IT SEEMS THAT THE QUESTION IS [1:08:03] F.A.R. AND I WILL REFER TO THE [1:08:08] CODE ITSELF. WITH THE CURRENT CODE, I COULD NOT BUILD THE PROPERTY THAT'S [1:08:13] THERE NOW. CURRENT CODES REQUEST FOR AN F.A.R. OF .8. RIGHT NOW ONE OF OUR BUILDINGS [1:08:20] THAT'S CURRENTLY THERE IS A .96. THE SOUTH BUILDING IS 1.0. [1:08:28] AS YOU MENTIONED, COMMISSIONER MEYER, DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE [1:08:34] EAST RIGHT TO THE EAST ON FREMONT AVENUE, THERE ARE THREE PROPERTIES, THEIR F.A.R. IS [1:08:44] 1.68, 1.56, AND 1.63. SO WE'RE PROPOSING WHILE IT'S [1:08:49] OUTSIDE OF THE CURRENT CODE THAT WON'T ALLOW ME TO BUILD THE CURRENT BUILDING IS STILL IN CONTEXT WITH THE CONTINUITY OF [1:08:56] THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE COMMUNITY. [1:09:02] WITH REGARD TO THAT, I THINK ANDREW MENTIONED THAT THERE'S A [1:09:07] ROAD TO AN ALLEYWAY TO THE NORTH. THAT'S TECHNICALLY MY PROPERTY, BUT IT'S AN EASEMENT THAT I CAN'T USE. [1:09:12] SO THE PROPERTY IS MITIGATED, THE LOT SIZE IS MITIGATED BY THAT. ON THE SOUTH SIDE, THE CURRENT [1:09:19] BUILDING HAS A 15-FOOT SETBACK. THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES A 20-FOOT [1:09:25] SETBACK. SO WE'RE ACTUALLY MOVING THE PROPERTY FIVE FEET BACK AWAY FROM DOUGLAS AVENUE. [1:09:31] IF YOU'RE TRAVELING DOWN THE AVENUE, YOU'D THINK THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SMALLER. [1:09:37] THE DIFFERENCE IS OF COURSE WHAT IS CURRENTLY NOW A COURTYARD BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS WILL BE CONNECTED. [1:09:42] AND IF YOU'RE TRAVELING DOWN FREMONT OR DOUGLAS AVENUE, YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TELL THE [1:09:48] DIFFERENCE, IN FACT YOU'D THINK IT WAS A SMALLER BUILDING. SO I'M GOING TO ASK THAT YOU [1:09:57] APPROVE THE APPLICATION AND APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION [1:10:02] WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW AT THIS POINT AND [1:10:07] COINSIDING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD LETTER WHICH UNANIMOUSLY APPROVES THE PROPERTY AND ALSO REITERATES THAT IT'S IN [1:10:18] COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONTEXT AND THE SIZE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. [1:10:25] NOBODY LIKES AND LOVES -- WE'VE BEEN THERE FOR 41 YEARS. SO WE'RE PROUD OF THE [1:10:31] NEIGHBORHOOD, WE'RE PROUD OF OUR TENURE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND WE WANT TO SEE NOTHING BUT THE PROPERTY VALUES INCREASE AND [1:10:43] THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTINUE. WITH THAT, I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR [1:10:51] THE APPLICANT? NOT SEEING ANY. [1:10:57] >> I WILL ASK IF I CAN MAYBE COME BACK FOR CLARIFYING QUESTIONS IF THERE'S OTHER [1:11:02] COMMENTS AS WELL. >> THANK YOU. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO TESTIFY TO THE ITEM? [1:11:08] OKAY. RAISE YOUR HAND ANYONE WHO WANTS TO? SO THREE OF YOU BACK THERE. OKAY, FOUR OF YOU. [1:11:14] JUST COME UP IN ORDER. TELL US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD IF YOU'RE [1:11:20] COMFORTABLE. YOU CAN EACH HAVE TWO MINUTES. [1:11:26] >> OKAY. GOOD EVENING. COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS CRAIG WILSON AND I'M A LICENSED [1:11:31] LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND URBAN PLANNER. MY PARTNER AND I HAVE LIVED IN A [1:11:37] DUPLEX AT 1768 FREMONT DIRECTLY [1:11:43] ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PAST 21 YEARS. [1:11:51] WILD LIFE CONSERVATIONS, ARTISTS, TEACHERS, AND SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS, MANY WANTED TO [1:11:59] SPEAK HERE BUT COULDN'T DUE TO TIME RESTRAINTS. MANY ARE RENTERS AND SOME HAVE [1:12:05] RESIDED HERE FOR YEARS, SOME DECADES. 60% OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ARE [1:12:10] RENTERS AND MANY ARE LOW INCOME INDIVIDUALS LIVING IN NATURALLY OCCURRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING [1:12:15] WITHIN HISTORIC BUILDINGS. IN FACT 20% LIVE BELOW THE POVERTY LINE. WE FEEL WE HAVE BEEN VERY [1:12:22] COLLABORATIVE AND REASONABLE ON THIS PROJECT. WE ARE ACUTELY AWARE OF THE NEED FOR MORE HOUSING IN OUR REGION [1:12:27] AND SUPPORT IT. THERE ARE ASPECTS OF THIS PROJECT THAT WE ALSO SUPPORT AND WE APPRECIATE THE DEVELOPER'S [1:12:33] EFFORTS TO REFINE THE DESIGN AS MENTIONED BY STAFF. IT'S A HUGE IMPROVEMENT FROM WHERE WE STARTED WITH THE [1:12:39] COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE LAST SUMMER. HOWEVER, THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE [1:12:47] REMAINS, THIS PROJECT IS SIMPLY TOO LARGE FOR THE SITE. A 70% VARIANCE IS EXCESSIVE AND [1:12:53] WOULD HARM THE FABRIC OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD INCREASING THE [1:13:02] FLOOR RATIO OF .8, I JUST LEARNED MINE IS .65 FROM STAFF, [1:13:07] TO 1.32. ESPECIALLY WHEN BUILT ABOVE A FIRST FLOOR PARKING GARAGE. [1:13:13] SO THAT'S THE SPACE ABOVE THE GARAGE. DOUGLAS AVENUE IS A PEDESTRIAN [1:13:19] CORRIDOR LINKING DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE CHAIN OF LAKES. A GARAGE ENTRANCE ON DOUGLAS [1:13:24] WOULD CONTRADICT THE CITY'S STATED GOALS FOR COMPLETE STREETS AND ADDITIONAL CURB CUTS FOR PARKING WOULD FURTHER DAMAGE [1:13:31] THE URBAN FABRIC. [1:13:38] WHEN THE PROJECT WAS LAST BEFORE YOU AT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, COMMISSIONER BAXLEY [1:13:45] SUGGESTED THAT THE DEVELOPER PROVIDE HISTORICAL AND SCALE CONTEXT. UP -- UNFORTUNATELY THE [1:13:55] DEVELOPERS HAVE YET TO PROVIDE ELEVATIONS RELATIVE TO ADJACENT [1:14:00] BUILDINGS ON DOUGLAS AND FREMONT. THAT WOULD HELP EXPLAIN A LOT ABOUT THE SCALE. [1:14:05] INSTEAD WE HAVE ONLY SEEN RENDERINGS THAT FAVOR THE DEVELOPER'S PERSPECTIVE. BASIC TRANSPARENCY SHOULD BE [1:14:11] REQUIRED BY THE COMMISSION YET IT HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED. WE APPRECIATE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE VARIANCES AND URGE THE PLANNING [1:14:17] COMMISSION TO UPHOLD THAT DECISION. WE ALSO REQUEST THAT YOU DENY THE VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT. [1:14:22] THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. >> THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER. [1:14:38] >> HELLO. MY NAME IS HOWARD RUBEN AND I LIVE WITH MY WIFE AT 1305 [1:14:45] MT. CURB IN A CONDOMINIUM. THIS WOULD BE JUST BEHIND THE PROPOSED PROJECT. [1:14:50] THE PROBLEM WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS THAT IT'S SIMPLY TOO LARGE FOR THE SITE. MY FAMILY CHOSE THIS AREA FOR A [1:14:58] HISTORIC HOME BUILT LARGELY BETWEEN 1900 AND 1920. EVEN OUR CONDO BUILT IN [1:15:04] THE 2000S WAS DESIGNED TO REFLECT THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY FITTING IN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD [1:15:10] SCALE, MATERIALS, AND CHARACTER. I APPRECIATE THE DILIGENCE OF CITY STAFF IN RECOMMENDING THE [1:15:17] DENIAL OF THE F.A.R. VARIANCE REQUEST. ALTHOUGH, I AM STILL CONCERNED [1:15:23] THAT THEY APPROVED THE HEIGHT VARIANCE. I'M ALSO TROUBLED BY SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS THROUGHOUT THE APPROVAL [1:15:36] PROCESS. CITY COUNCILMEMBER JD CASHMAN AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ISSUED LETTERS OF SUPPORT BEFORE [1:15:41] THE IMMEDIATELY MOST IMPACTED MEMBERS WERE EVEN INFORMED OF THIS TROUBLING PROJECT BY THE [1:15:46] CITY. BOTH HAVE SINCE CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAD ONLY HEARD FROM THE [1:15:52] DEVELOPER BEFORE ENDORSING THE PROJECT. [1:15:57] ADDITIONALLY, SINCE THE LOWRY HILL BOARD MEMBER IS THE WIFE OF THE DEVELOPER, QUESTIONS STILL [1:16:03] REMAIN ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS EVEN A QUORUM PRESENT AT THAT MEETING. THIS ISN'T HOW THE PROCESS [1:16:08] SHOULD WORK. A FAIR AND TRANSPARENT DISCUSSION REQUIRES INPUT FROM THE DEVELOPER, THE RESIDENTS, [1:16:13] AND PLANNING STAFF. AND THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN UNTIL MUCH LATER. [1:16:19] THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS, MORE THAN TWO DOZEN OF US STAND WITH [1:16:24] STAFF IN OPPOSING THE F.A.R. VARIANCE. [1:16:30] COUNCILMEMBER CASHMAN HAS SINCE APOLOGIZED AND AGREED TO RECUSE HERSELF FROM FURTHER INTERFERENCE IN THE PROCESS. [1:16:37] THIS IS AN UNFORTUNATE SITUATION AND I HOPE WE CAN TAKE LESSONS FROM IT. THANK YOU. [1:16:43] >> THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER. [1:16:51] >> GOOD AFTERNOON OR EVENING. MY NAME IS SARAH RICHTER AND I [1:16:57] LIVE AT 1303 MT. CURB AVENUE. [1:17:02] HOWARD IS A NEIGHBOR. MY HUSBAND AND I LIVE AT 1303 WITH OUR THREE ADULT CHILDREN AT [1:17:08] TIMES AND OUR LOVELY LAB. I'M HERE BECAUSE I'M CONCERNED ABOUT A NUMBER OF ISSUES, FOUR [1:17:15] TO BE EXACT. FIRST, THE EXTREME SCALE AND THE [1:17:20] REQUEST FOR THE 70% INCREASE IN VARIANCE IS BEYOND THE STANDARD [1:17:26] FLOOR AREA RATIAL TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. FACTS STATED. [1:17:32] TWO, THE ORIENTATION OF THE GARAGE FACING DOUGLAS. I WALK THE DOG DAILY ON DOUGLAS [1:17:39] AS DO MANY PEOPLE. IT'S A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE, AGAIN I'M SURE YOU'RE ALL AWARE OF [1:17:44] THAT TO THE PARKS AND TO THE LAKE. [1:17:50] THREE, THE HEIGHT WHICH IS MAYBE MOST CONCERNING, APPROXIMATELY SEVEN FEET HIGHER THAN THE PERMITTED ZONING ORDINANCE. [1:18:00] WE ARE TROUBLED BY THE LACK OF RESIDENT ENGAGEMENT IN THIS [1:18:08] WHOLE PROCESS AS HAS BEEN STATED BY HOWARD AND BY CRAIG. [1:18:13] NONE OF US KNEW ABOUT THESE MEETINGS AND WHAT WAS GOING ON. I LIVE RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THE [1:18:19] PROPERTY. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE MET THE BAYLORS WHEN I WALKED IN [1:18:25] AT 6:00 TONIGHT, 5:00, 4:00, WHATEVER TIME WE GOT HERE. [1:18:32] BUT ANYWAY, WE DIDN'T HEAR ABOUT ANY OF THESE MEETINGS GOING ON. [1:18:38] AND AS WAS STATED, WE HEARD ABOUT IT AFTER THE FACT FROM OUR [1:18:45] COU COUNCIL MEMBER. WHEN OUR HOME WAS CONSTRUCTED, THE NEW HOMES RIGHT BEHIND THE [1:18:52] BAYLOR PROPERTY -- IS THAT IT? I'M DONE? >> YOU CAN CONTINUE. [1:19:00] >> CUT OFF? OKAY. OUR HOME WAS CONSTRUCTED, OUR DEVELOPER FACED THE SAME STRICT [1:19:05] LIMITATIONS OF SIZE AND SCALE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY. SO THERE'S NO JUSTIFICATION IN [1:19:11] OUR MIND FOR EXCEPTION HERE. IN SHORT, WE'RE DISAPPOINTED, [1:19:21] RIGHT. AND I GUESS TODAY WHEN I WAS OUT WALKING I LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY AND I THOUGHT WHY IS THERE A [1:19:28] BRAND NEW SIGN FOR RENT, APARTMENTS THAT ARE FOR RENT ON THIS SITE AND WE'RE DEBATING ALL [1:19:34] OF THIS. I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT AT THAT BECAUSE MY TIME IS UP. BUT THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. [1:19:40] ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? [1:19:56] >> HELLO. MY NAME IS SUSAN LOWRY. I'VE LIVED IN MY DUPLEX AT 1308 [1:20:03] DOUGLAS AVENUE IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SINCE OCTOBER OF 1981. [1:20:13] AT THE TIME, MY HUSBAND AND I CHOSE THE LOWRY HILL NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE OF ITS [1:20:18] CHARMING ATMOSPHERE THANKS IN PART OF THE HISTORIC HOUSING ARCHITECTURE. WHILE MANY THINGS HAVE CHANGED [1:20:24] SINCE THEN, LOWRY HILLS STILL RETAINS A STRONG SENSE OF [1:20:30] COMMUNITY AND THE CHARACTER OF A HISTORIC DISTRICT. [1:20:37] FOR THE RECORD, I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE SCALE AND THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED KENWOOD [1:20:43] BOUTIQUE CONDOMINIUMS. AS NOTED IN THE DOCUMENTS, THE BAYLORS ARE LONGSTANDING MEMBERS [1:20:50] OF OUR COMMUNITY. SO AM I. AFTER RAISING THEIR FAMILY NEXT [1:20:56] DOOR, THE BAYLORS MOVED TO A NEW RESIDENCE ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO. I STAYED BECAUSE I LOVE MY [1:21:03] NEIGHBORHOOD. THE BAYLORS PURCHASED THE HOUSES NEXT DOOR IN 1984, RAISED THEIR [1:21:10] FAMILY THERE AND HAVE SINCE RENTED THE PROPERTY AS ABSENTEE [1:21:16] LANDLORDS. I HAVE WATCHED THE PROPERTY DECLINE OVER THE YEARS DUE TO [1:21:21] DEFERRED MAINTENANCE, YET I HAVE REMAINED TOLERANT AND STRIVE TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. [1:21:27] DESPITE THIS, I CHERISH THE CONNECTIONS I'VE MADE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH MAKES IT ALL [1:21:33] THE MORE PAINFUL THAT THE DEVELOPER NEVER APPROACHED ME DIRECTLY ABOUT A PROJECT THAT [1:21:40] WILL DRASTICALLY IMPACT MY QUALITY OF LIFE AFTER MORE THAN 40 YEARS IN MY HOME. [1:21:47] IN FACT, WHEN WE REQUESTED A MEETING, IT WAS DECLINED. [1:21:53] WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ME? [1:21:59] IT MEANS -- IT MEANS LOSING [1:22:04] ACCESS TO LIGHT AND AIR ON THE EAST SIDE OF MY HOUSE AS THIS [1:22:10] MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT, 70% OVER THE PERMITTED SIZE WILL [1:22:16] EFFECTIVELY CUT OFF EASTERN LIGHT EVEN THOUGH THE DUPLEX I SHARE WITH OTHERS COMPLIES WITH [1:22:22] THE FLOOR AREA RATIO LIMIT OF .8 FOR AN INTERIOR TWO DISTRICT. [1:22:30] MY HOUSE IS .6 F.A.R. [1:22:36] TO CLARIFY, WE ARE AGAINST THE HEIGHT VARIANCE. IF THIS PROJECT MOVES FORWARD AS [1:22:41] PROPOSED, MORNING SUNLIGHT I ENJOY BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS WILL BE ELIMINATED LEAVING ME IN [1:22:49] PERPETUAL SHADOW. THIS ISN'T JUST ABOUT COMFORT, IT AFFECTS MY HEALTH AND MY [1:22:55] HOME'S RESALE VALUE, APPARENTLY DRIVEN BY THE DEVELOPER'S PROFIT [1:23:00] MOTIVE. I APPRECIATE THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S EFFORTS TO DENY THESE VARIANCES AND URGE THE [1:23:07] DEVELOPER AND THE COMMUNITY TO ENGAGE IN A MORE TRANSPARENT AND [1:23:13] AUTHENTIC PROCESS MOVING FORWARD. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO [1:23:24] TESTIFY? GO AHEAD, TELL US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. [1:23:30] >> MY NAME IS CARLY. I LIVE AT 1778 EMERSON, JUST [1:23:38] DOWN THE BLOCK. A STREET AWAY. I LIKE A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE, JUST LEARNED ABOUT THIS [1:23:43] RECENTLY, I WAS NOT PRIVY TO THIS INFORMATION. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT [1:23:52] THE INCREASE FROM 0.8 TO 1.32 IS A 65% INCREASE. THAT'S A LOT. [1:23:57] THAT'S A BIG PORTION. IF YOU'RE CONSIDERING THE CONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, HOW THIS CHANGES PRECEDENT OF WHERE [1:24:03] TO BUILD THINGS, WHAT THINGS LOOK LIKE IN THE FUTURE, IT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE. 65% IS A HUGE INCREASE. [1:24:11] THE HEIGHT MAKES SENSE, HAVING STRUCTURES THAT ARE THAT TALL, NOT GREAT, BUT A 65% INCREASE IS [1:24:19] QUITE A LOT. JUST POINTING THAT OUT. I'M ALSO AGAINST THIS STRUCTURE [1:24:25] AS A CONCEPT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. ANYONE ELSE? [1:24:35] YOU ALREADY TESTIFIED. [1:24:41] I'M GOING TO DECLINE THAT UNLESS THERE'S A QUESTION FROM A COMMISSIONER. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO [1:24:46] TESTIFY? NOT SEEING ANY, SO I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. [1:24:55] COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY DISCUSSION, QUESTIONS? [1:25:00] COMMISSIONER CHOWDHURY. >> THANK YOU, PRESIDENT MEYER. I HAVE TO GO HERE IN JUST A [1:25:06] LITTLE BIT. I DID WANT TO SAY JUST IN LOOKING AT THE STAFF REPORT ON [1:25:11] THE F.A.R., I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONCLUSIONS THERE, THIS [1:25:19] 65% INCREASE JUST ABOUT SEEMS LIKE A MAJOR CHANGE FROM WHAT IS [1:25:25] PERMITTED. AND I WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT. AND ONE THING THAT I FIND A [1:25:33] LITTLE BIT CONCERNING HERE IS THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY AND CONNECTION TO THE NEIGHBORS IN [1:25:40] THE AREA IN EVEN KNOWING THAT THIS PUBLIC HEARING WAS HAPPENING UNTIL VERY RECENTLY. I KNOW THAT OUR STAFF PUTS OUT A [1:25:49] NOTICE OF DIFFERENT PUBLIC HEARING TO COMMUNITY MEMBERS. SO I JUST WONDER FOR THE BODY TO [1:25:55] DISCUSS BECAUSE I KNOW I HAVE TO HEAD OUT, IF THERE IS A CAUSE OR [1:26:00] A WILLINGNESS TO POTENTIALLY POSTPONE THE ITEM SO COMMUNITY MEMBERS CAN BE MORE ENGAGED, [1:26:09] POSTPONE THE HEARING SO MORE VOICES CAN BE INCLUDED IN THIS PROCESS. IT DOES FEEL LIKE A SIGNIFICANT [1:26:14] CHANGE WITHIN THE AREA. I ALSO JUST AM WONDERING IF THERE ARE ANY FINDINGS OF FACT [1:26:20] THAT COULD BE DISCUSSED IN TERMS OF THE HEIGHT ISSUE. I HAVEN'T PERSONALLY DECIDED ONE [1:26:30] WAY OR THE OTHER ON THAT IN JUST GETTING THE STAFF REPORT AND HEARING FROM THE APPLICANT TODAY. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THOSE COMMENTS BEFORE I HAVE TO HEAD [1:26:37] OUT. >> THANK YOU. AND THEN I SHOULD MENTION AT THE BEGINNING, COMMISSIONER GORDON ALSO MENTIONED HE WILL BE [1:26:45] ABSTAINING. SO NO ONE ELSE CAN LEAVE. [1:26:54] OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER SKJEFTE. >> I DID HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT [1:27:03] CLARIFYING THE F.A.R. THAT WAS ON THE INFOGRAPHIC THAT WAS [1:27:09] SPEAKING TO THE THREE HOUSES THAT WERE 1.6 OR MORE. [1:27:18] IF THAT WAS FACT THAT THOSE THREE ARE ALREADY AT THAT [1:27:24] F.A.R., IF THAT WAS CONFIRMED? [1:27:29] AND AGAIN I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR [1:27:35] FROM MR. BAYLOR AGAIN IN TERMS [1:27:40] OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ELEVATION FROM THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING TO THE BACK OF THE BUILDING AND HOW MUCH THAT [1:27:45] F.A.R. IS DIFFERENT, I GUESS. I GUESS I WOULD WANT TO ALSO [1:27:54] SECOND WHAT MS. CHOWDHURY WAS SAYING SO WE COULD HAVE MORE [1:27:59] COMMUNITY INPUT, IF WE'RE MAKING A DECISION, I WOULD STAND BY THAT. >> ANDREW, SO IS -- YOU HADN'T [1:28:13] REVIEWED THOSE THREE, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. WE HAVE LOOKED AT SOME ASSESSOR'S INFORMATION. BUT THE NUMBERS PROVIDED ON THE [1:28:19] SLIDE ARE CERTAINLY NOT CONFIRMED TO BE ACCURATE. IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO GO THROUGH THE ASSESSOR'S INFORMATION [1:28:27] AGAIN, I CAN UPDATE YOU WITH MORE NUMBERS. I GUESS TOO WITH THE GRADE ON SITE, WE MENTIONED THE F.A.R. ON [1:28:33] ONE SIDE TO THE OTHER, THE STRUCTURE IS A BASEMENT, SO THAT ENTIRE LOWER LEVEL IS NOT [1:28:39] INCLUDED IN ANY OF THESE CALCULATIONS AS FAR AS THAT [1:28:46] F.A.R. IS CONCERNED. >> MR. BAYLOR, DID YOU GET THAT [1:28:52] QUESTION FROM COMMISSIONER SKJEFTE EARLIER? CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION. >> I JUST WANTED YOU TO OFFER [1:28:59] ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THE F.A.R. VARIANCE THAT WE'RE [1:29:06] TALKING ABOUT? >> IN WHAT REGARD DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK? [1:29:12] THE ARCHITECTS THAT DID THE DESIGN IS HERE. [1:29:18] BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT THE ALLEGATIONS THAT WE HAVE DONE SOMETHING NEFARIOUS IN NOT [1:29:27] TALKING TO THE COMMUNITY, WE'VE SUBMITTED THIS PROJECT TO THE LOWRY HILL ASSOCIATION FOR THEM TO PUT ON THEIR AGENDA, FOR THEM [1:29:35] TO PRESENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE'VE TALKED TO CRAIG WILSON FOR SEVERAL YEARS. [1:29:42] WE'VE TALKED TO OUR NEIGHBOR FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS WHO WANTED US TO INCLUDE HER PROPERTY IN THIS [1:29:48] PROJECT. THE NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH [1:29:55] ACROSS THE ALLEY ARE PROBABLY 30 OR 40 FEET TALLER THAN OURS, THE [1:30:00] PROPOSED SITE. I WISH WE COULD HAVE THAT CONTEXT SO YOU COULD SEE THIS [1:30:08] FITS THE NEIGHBORHOOD. [1:30:16] >> WE USED GOOGLE EARTH AND THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX MAPS TO [1:30:22] DETERMINE SITE, LOT AREA, AND THEN USE THE CALCULATION ON HOW [1:30:27] YOU DETERMINE WHAT THE F.A.R. IS. ARE THEY ALL 100% ACCURATE? [1:30:33] PROBABLY NOT, BUT WITH THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAD, THEY SHOULD BE PRETTY CLOSE. [1:30:38] I'M CURIOUS AS TO WHY THERE'S SOMETHING THAT SEEMS TO BE OFF BY 50%. [1:30:44] I MEAN I WOULD JUST HAVE TO RERUN THE NUMBERS AND SEE WHERE THAT, WHY IT'S SO FAR OFF. [1:30:52] BUT I WOULDN'T THINK THAT THEY'RE THAT FAR OFF. [1:30:59] WE JUST USE THE SITE AND FIGURE THAT OUT. >> THANK YOU. [1:31:05] >> THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY IS CLOSED, RIGHT? >> YES, CORRECT. [1:31:10] >> COMMISSIONER SKJEFTE, DID YOU HAVE ANYMORE QUESTIONS? >> MAY I? >> DID YOU HAVE MORE TO ANSWER [1:31:15] THAT QUESTION. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY WE HAD PROFESSIONALS THAT CALCULATED THE F.A.R. AND WE [1:31:21] HAVE STAFF THAT DOESN'T KNOW. HE'S NOT SURE, BUT DOESN'T HAVE ANY CALCULATIONS TO REFER TO. [1:31:32] >> THANK YOU. I GUESS I'LL SHARE MY THOUGHTS ON THIS. >> CHAIR MEYER, IF I MAY SINCE [1:31:38] THIS SEEMS TO BE A TOPIC OF MUCH DISCUSSION, ANDREW GAVE YOU SOME F.A.R. CALCULATIONS WHEN HE GAVE [1:31:44] HIS PRESENTATION. I HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL ONES IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED IN THOSE [1:31:49] NUMBERS AGAIN FLOOR AREA RATIOS OF SURROUNDING BUILDINGS CANNOT BE USED AS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY FOR UNIQUE [1:31:55] CIRCUMSTANCES ON A SPECIFIC SITE. THEY MAY BE RELEVANT UNDER [1:32:00] FINDING NUMBER THREE ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA, BUT FOR FINDING NUMBER [1:32:06] ONE, THAT WOULD NOT BE A RELEVANT PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. SO WHEN WE CALCULATE FLOOR AREA [1:32:12] RATIO AS STAFF USING THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO US, WE HAVE A TOOL CALLED PROPERTY INFO [1:32:18] WHICH INCLUDES ASSESSOR'S DATA ON THE BUILDINGS PER FLOOR AND [1:32:24] TOTAL GFA. AND WE CAN ALSO GO OFF THE LOT AREA THAT WE HAVE IN OUR CITY [1:32:30] RECORDS. SO BASED ON THAT INFORMATION, I'VE BEEN RUNNING NUMBERS AS I'M SITTING HERE, ANDREW GAVE YOU [1:32:36] SOME. I HAVE 1308 DOUGLAS AVENUE WHICH [1:32:42] IS TO THE WEST AT .62. 1316 AT DOUGLAS AVENUE AGAIN TO THE WEST AT .73. [1:32:50] 1322 DOUGLAS AVENUE AT .41. 1315 MT. CURB WHICH IS TO THE [1:32:56] NORTH AT .37. 1325 MT. CURB TO THE NORTH AT [1:33:01] .52. I RAN 1218 DOUGLAS WHICH IS THE MIDDLE BUILDING TO THE EAST THAT'S SHOWN AS 1.56 ON THE MAP, [1:33:09] CITY RECORDS SHOW THAT AS 1.14. AGAIN THOSE ARE THREE NEARLY [1:33:15] IDEAL STRUCTURES ON VERY SMALL LOTS OF 3,443 SQUARE FEET. [1:33:22] SO NOT COMPARABLE IN TERMS OF LOT SIZE, BUT THOSE WOULD BE THE LARGEST IN THE AREA FROM WHAT I [1:33:29] CAN TELL AND THOSE ARE AGAIN 1.14. >> THANK YOU. [1:33:34] AND SORRY FOR MISSING YOU. COMMISSIONER SKJEFTE, DID YOU [1:33:40] HAVE MORE? OKAY. [1:33:49] COMMISSIONER THOMPSON, DID YOU HAVE YOUR HAND RAISED? >> I DID, MOST OF MY QUESTIONS WERE ANSWERED. BUT I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THE [1:33:56] POINT, IT WAS SAID AND I BELIEVE IT, BUT THAT IF STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS OF THE APPROVAL OF THE HEIGHT BUT [1:34:02] DENIAL OF THE F.A.R. WOULD ESSENTIALLY MEAN THAT THE PROJECT HAS TO START OVER. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, IT FEELS [1:34:10] LIKE WE MIGHT BE VOTING SOON. >> THAT'S CORRECT. WE HAVE SOME INFORMATION IN THE ZONING CODE UNDER SITE PLAN [1:34:16] REVIEW ABOUT WHAT CONSTITUTES A MAJOR CHANGE VERSUS A MINOR CHANGE. A SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN FLOOR [1:34:22] AREA RATIO OR FLOOR AREA IS CONSIDERED A MAJOR CHANGE. SO IF THE F.A.R. VARIANCE WERE [1:34:30] DENIED, IT WOULD REQUIRE A SUBSTANTIAL REDESIGN WHICH IN EFFECT WOULD REQUIRE A NEW SITE [1:34:35] PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION. >> THAT MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD MY TWO [1:34:41] CENTS TO SAY THAT I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO POSTPONE THIS AT ALL. I'VE HEARD FROM PEOPLE SINCE [1:34:47] THIS SUMMER WHEN IT CAME UP SINCE IT WAS PROPOSED. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE WAITING TO [1:34:53] GET THIS RIGHT. SO THAT'S MY TWO CENTS. THANKS. >> AND TO THAT I WOULD AGREE. [1:34:58] I THINK WE SHOULD DO OUR BEST TO REACH A DECISION IN A TIMELY MANNER. [1:35:03] COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR. JUST AGAIN, I THINK WE HAD A [1:35:09] REALLY GOOD DISCUSSION I THOUGHT IN THE SUMMER. [1:35:14] I WILL COMPLIMENT THE APPLICANT ON ADVANCING THE DESIGN, BUT THOSE GUIDELINES I THINK WERE [1:35:21] WHILE THEY WERE STILL ASKING FOR A VARIANCE WERE PRETTY REASONABLE AND I THINK WE'RE STILL AT A WIDE MARGIN FROM [1:35:27] WHERE WE ASKED THAT TO BE IN THE SUMMER. SO I'M GOING TO GO WITH THE [1:35:33] STAFF RECOMMENDATION. >> ONE OTHER THING THAT I BROUGHT UP IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AND I BELIEVE NOW IS [1:35:42] THAT THE ARGUMENT FOR PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY TO 1.0 IS ON A LOT [1:35:50] STURDIER GROUND BASED ON THE EXISTING BUILDINGS. SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF [1:35:56] ABOUT THAT, IF I WANTED TO PROPOSE APPROVING AN F.A.R. OF [1:36:03] 1.0, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO GET SITE PLAN REVIE [1:36:11] AGAIN, RIGHT? DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATION ABOUT THAT? [1:36:18] IN TERMS OF THE MOTION. KIMBERLY. >> SO CHAIR MEYER, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. [1:36:23] CHOOSING A DIFFERENT NUMBER OTHER THAN WHAT'S PROPOSED HERE IN TERMS OF FLOOR AREA RATIO IS ESSENTIALLY A HYPOTHETICAL [1:36:28] APPROVAL FOR A BUILDING THAT WE WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE AT THIS POINT [1:36:34] AND THE APPLICANT HASN'T CONSIDERED. SO I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND IN IN [1:36:39] LIEU THEREOF WHEN IT COMES TO FLOOR AREA RATIO BECAUSE IN EITHER CASE THEY WOULD NEED TO [1:36:45] COME BACK THROUGH FOR A NEW SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION. >> OKAY. [1:36:50] I'LL JUST MAKE THAT COMMENT FOR THE APPLICANT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE IF THEY DID WANT TO [1:36:56] COME BACK THAT I THINK THE ARGUMENT FOR A 1.0 IS VERY [1:37:05] STRONG. I DO THINK HYPOTHETICALLY I DO THINK IT WOULD WORK AS A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY AROUND THE [1:37:12] SURROUNDING BUILDINGS. BUT I HAVEN'T BEEN SOLD ON IT YET, SO I DO DISAGREE WITH STAFF ON THAT BASED ON A PREVIOUS [1:37:20] ACTIONS LOOKING AT NEARBY SITES IN CONGRUENCE WITH THAT AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TALKED [1:37:26] ABOUT CONGRUENCE. BUT I'M NOT SOLD ON IT AT THIS [1:37:32] TIME. SO I WOULD SUPPORT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AT THIS TIME, IF [1:37:37] THEY CAME BACK I WOULD SUPPORT THAT. COMMISSIONER CHOWDHURY. >> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THE [1:37:43] MOTION TO SUPPORT STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND MOVE US FORWARD. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. [1:37:49] >> ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER THOMPSON. >> MAY I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION SINCE WE'RE ALL HERE, AND I'M [1:37:56] GLAD TO THE MOTION BEFORE US. BUT FOR THE APPLICANT, I'M CURIOUS IF -- I'M TRYING TO SEE [1:38:02] FROM THE SIDE WHEN THINGS AREN'T GOING THEIR WAY, IS THERE A CHALLENGE TO HAVE BROUGHT IT DOWN OR TO BRING IT DOWN THAT [1:38:09] I'M JUST NOT SEEING? IF YOU'D WANT TO PUT THAT ON RECORD, I'D BE OPEN TO LISTENING [1:38:17] TO THAT POSITION. [1:38:22] I'M GOING TO GUESS NO? OKAY, THAT'S FINE. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION TO THE [1:38:30] MOTION? ALL RIGHT SEEING NONE, CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> COMMISSIONER BAXLEY. [1:38:36] >> AYE. >> CAMPBELL IS ABSENT. CHOWDHURY. >> AYE. >> GORDON. [1:38:41] >> ABSTAIN. >> SKJEFTE. >> NAY. [1:38:47] >> THOMPSON. >> AYE. >> WHITENER. [1:38:52] >> AYE. >> MEYER. [1:38:58] >> AYE. >> WE HAVE FIVE AYES, ONE NAY, AND ONE ABSTENTION. [1:39:03] >> THAT IS ADOPTED. NEXT WE HAVE NOMINATIONS FOR OUR EXECUTIVE POSITIONS. [1:39:10] AND COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL NOTIFIED ME AS HE WAS LEAVING THAT HE WOULD NOT LIKE TO BE IN [1:39:15] A LEADERSHIP POSITION SO SOMEONE ELSE SHOULD STEP UP TO ONE OF [1:39:20] THE ROLES. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE ANY [1:39:31] NOMINATIONS? COMMISSIONER WAGNER. >> CLARIFYING, SO I'M LOOKING AROUND THERE'S ONLY SO MANY OF [1:39:38] US HERE. >> WE HAVE TO FILL PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SECRETARY. >> AND I THINK WE ESTABLISHED AT [1:39:45] A PRIOR MEETING THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THESE ROLES. [1:39:51] >> THE ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE NOT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. AND IF WE NEED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN LOSING [1:39:56] PEOPLE, OBVIOUSLY I'LL DEFER TO YOU, CHAIR MEYER ON HOW YOU WANT TO HANDLE THAT PIECE. [1:40:01] ESSENTIALLY PEOPLE WOULD CONTINUE IN THEIR CURRENT ROLES UNTIL WE VOTE. [1:40:07] SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A PARTICULAR SENSE OF URGENCY OTHER THAN OUR BYLAWS TELL US TO [1:40:14] DO IT IN FEBRUARY. >> SO WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO TAKE NOMINATIONS, IS THAT [1:40:21] WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? >> I DON'T THINK BECAUSE WE'VE LOST SO MANY MEMBERS WE COULD POTENTIALLY CONTINUE THE [1:40:29] NOMINATIONS. >> I WOULD AGREE, CHAIR MEYER. WE LIKE TO DO IT TOWARDS THE BEGINNING OF THE CALENDAR YEAR [1:40:35] OF THE APPOINTMENTS, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S ANYTHING PARTICULARLY TIME SENSITIVE AND SINCE WE'RE QUICKLY LOSING QUORUM AND A LOT [1:40:42] OF PEOPLE AREN'T HERE, THAT WOULD TOTALLY BE ACCEPTABLE TO POSTPONE IT A CYCLE. [1:40:49] >> ALL RIGHT. SO WE CAN GO AHEAD AND POSTPONE THAT, REFLECT ON WHAT LEADERSHIP [1:40:54] POSITIONS YOU WANT TO STEP UP TO. OUR NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE MARCH 10, AND [1:41:01] THEN WE HAVE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE THIS THURSDAY. ARE THERE ANY UPDATES FROM STAFF OR COMMISSIONERS? >> YES, AT OUR LAST MEETING WE [1:41:10] HEARD AN APPLICATION FOR A SIGN I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THE WRONG [1:41:15] ADDRESS BECAUSE THERE ARE MULTIPLE ADDRESSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE, BUT IT WAS A CUP [1:41:22] TO INCREASE SIGN HEIGHT AND A SIGN ON A NONPRIMARY BUILDING WALL. IT WAS DENIED AND HAS BEEN [1:41:27] APPEALED. SO THAT WILL BE GOING TO THE BIZ COMMITTEE ON MARCH 4TH. >> THANK YOU. >> WE WILL SEE YOU ON THURSDAY [1:41:33] FOR COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. WE ARE MEETING TO DISCUSS THE ANNUAL REPORT. >> THAT WAS THE JP MORGAN SIGN, [1:41:43] RIGHT? >> YES, CORRECT. >> ALL RIGHT, ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT, WE ARE ADJOURNED.