Welcome everyone to the regular meeting of the Minneapolis Planning Commission for May 18th, 2026. Happy last day of the legislative session for those of you who celebrate. Uh I'm Chris Meyer, chair of the commission, and at this time I will ask the clerk to call the roll. Commissioner Baxley. Here. Chaudry is absent. Conley is absent. Garcia. Here. Gordon is absent. Jones. Here. Shefty is absent. Uh Shepherd. Here. Vice President Wagner. Here. And President Meyer. Here. There are six members present. We have a quorum. Uh first we're going to turn to the minutes of May 4th and May 7th. Is there a motion to adopt those minutes? Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. Opposed? Abstentions? The minutes are adopted. Uh next we're going to organize the agenda. We have one non-hearing item, item number four. And then staff is recommending that the rest of our items beyond the consent hearing. I'm going to read through each item. If you were here to speak against the staff recommendation, um then raise your hand when I read on that item. If you wanted to speak in support or make neutral comments, you'll have a chance to do that in just a bit when we have the consent hearing. But for now we're just looking to find if anyone is against the staff recommendation uh for any of these items. So first we have item number five, 2001 to 2007 Stevens Avenue. Was anyone here to speak against? Okay. So we will discuss item number five. Next is item number six, uh 3033 Blaisdell Avenue. Was anyone here to speak against the staff recommendation on item number six? You're just wiping your head, and raising your hand. Okay. Um so we will have that on consent. Item number seven is 3000 Minnehaha Avenue and uh 3033 Snelling Avenue. Was anyone here to speak against the staff recommendation? Okay. So we will discuss item number seven. Item number eight, 529 and 535 Logan Avenue North. Was anyone here to speak against staff recommendation? Okay. So we will discuss that one. Uh so to review, item number four is not not a public hearing one. Um items five, seven, and eight we will discuss. And item six will be our only consent item. All right. So first um first we'll go to our non-hearing item. Um so this is the public land sale for the various properties. Staff is John Hedstrom. Did any commissioners have any any questions on this one? All right. Is there a motion to find the public land sale um to be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan? So moved. Is there a second? Second. All right. All in favor say I. I. Opposed? Abstentions? Item number four is adopted. I'll now open the hearing for our consent item, item number six. Did anyone want to make want to make any comments about 3033 Blaisdell Avenue? All right. Is there a motion to move the staff recommendation for item six? So moved. Second. All right. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. Opposed? Abstentions? That is adopted. If you were here for item number six, good luck with your project. All right. And for our first discussion item, item number five. Uh 2001 to 2007 Stevens Avenue. Staff is Alex Colehour. Thank you, Chairmire and Commissioners. Before you today are land use applications for proposed establishment of an accessory surface parking lot on the property at 2007 Stevens Avenue, which is currently a vacant lot. On the screen here is a Google Street View image from a few years ago. Um, and you can see towards the middle of the photo that uh, vacant lot, which is 2007 Stevens. This uh, this project also involves the neighboring property at 2001 Stevens Avenue, which is towards the left hand of your screen. The 2001 parcel has an existing cluster development with a total of four dwelling units and is under common ownership with this currently vacant lot and and proposed uh, parking lot. And the owner of these properties is the applicant for this proposal. This uh, proposal does require rezoning the vacant lot parcel from UN3 to RM1 to match the zoning of the cluster development parcel. And it also requires a new conditional use permit uh, for that existing cluster development to remain and I'll go into a little bit more detail on that later in my presentation. I will also note the applicants are proposing to formally combine these two parcels as part of their kind of larger underlying project here, but that uh, actual parcel combination itself does not require planning commission approval if these other land use applications are approved, but that is uh, something that would be happening later. So, this is the uh, survey showing the existing conditions and uh, these properties are at the corner of Stevens Avenue and Franklin Avenue. You can see the the currently vacant lot on the the southern portion there. Now this vacant lot it used to have another surface parking lot back in I couldn't get the exact date of establishment but I think around the 1950s until somewhere between 2007 and 2009 the old parking lot here was removed. And that was when the property was under separate ownership. It wasn't associated with the cluster development. It was actually parking for it was either a commercial building but it's since been converted into condominiums across the street to the west. So that old parking lot was removed but there is the existing curb cut at the front of the property along Stevens Avenue which was not removed. And does remain at this time and obviously the property was later acquired by the applicant since then. Also just call out towards the northeast corner of the property right at the intersection of Franklin and the public alley there which is on the far right hand of the screen. There is a small existing off-street parking area that is right in front of the the carriage house quote unquote where there one part of the cluster development and you can also see part of that existing parking area. There's maybe room for one or two cars is access from a curb cut to Franklin. Part of that parking area does cross over into the public right of way along Franklin Avenue and many of you may be familiar Franklin Avenue is set for reconstruction starting this year and into next year. And my understanding is that this parking area the portion that is in the public right of way would would be reallocated for other purposes as part of that reconstruction and so the the size of this small parking area would be reduced as part of that street reconstruction. So just some additional context there. Here's a proposed site plan and you can see that uh off-street parking area which would use the existing curb cut to Stevens as I mentioned. There would be six parking spaces uh for this new parking area. I will also note uh at the back of the property along the public alley there is an existing retaining wall and it's maybe 3 to 5 ft of grade change there. So, uh in addition to reusing the existing curb cut it there is some some difficulty due to existing circumstances in providing vehicle access from the alley uh just because of the grade change there. And here's a proposed landscape plan and you can see they're proposing to add uh some new shrubs along the west and south sides of the parking area. So, um to provide some screening along the street and to the south there is a neighboring residential property. Um to focus on the rezoning and in the context here being the existing zoning map um Sorry, one second. Um you can see the subject property is outlined in red and again the the uh the cluster development property it's 2001 Stevens Avenue it's the the northern side of this. The existing zoning is the RM1 which is a residential mixed-use district and the 2007 parcel which is currently vacant and where the parking lot would go that uh currently is in the UN3 urban neighborhood zoning district. Uh even though these two parcels are under common ownership the zoning code does not allow establishment of a an accessory parking lot on a UN3 parcel serving a principal use on an RM1 parcel. And then that's the specific circumstances for this case. The zoning code similarly prohibits where the location of accessory parking lots can go based on the zoning districts for uh the parking lot and the the use it would be serving. But that is uh ultimately the the motivation for this rezoning in addition to the the applicant's interest in combining the parcels. So again, to focus on the land use applications, I just talked about the rezoning. The conditional use permit is required just to allow that existing cluster development to remain. And the reason for that is this cluster development was ultimately legalized, I think, in 1978, and the buildings are much older than that. And so that existing cluster development can remain as it is, but the current zoning code does set a maximum lot area as determined by conditional use permit. So this proposal would effectively be increasing the lot area for that cluster development. So they need a new conditional use permit just to to allow that. And that is the reason why they're applying for that today. If any of the commissioners are interested, I can speak to staff analysis for the required findings, but in the interest of time, I'll just conclude [clears throat] by noting the staff recommendation is for approval for each of these applications, and we do have some conditions of approval that we recommend for the conditional use permit. There are no written public comments that I received before today's public hearing. I believe the applicant and their representative are in attendance during today's meeting, and that concludes my presentation, but I'll stand for questions. Thank you. Are there any questions for staff before we open the hearing? I don't see any, so thank you. Um Before I open the hearing, I just want to read our our disclaimer. Um So these broadcasts are being captioned, and so we're asking all the speakers to have a mindful be mindful of your rate of speech so that our captioners can fully capture and transcribe all the comments for the broadcast. And then we'll be giving each the applicant for each project 10 minutes, and each subsequent speaker will have 2 minutes to testify. Uh so do you have the applicant for this one? Join us, introduce yourself, and you have 10 minutes. Hello, thank you. Uh my name is Joan RBC Little and I am the property owner of the two adjacent parcels in Ward 10 located at 2001 and 2007 Stevens Avenue South. The fourplex at 2001 Stevens has been in my family since 1969 when my father purchased it for his home. My son, David Schuster, has lived there since 2005 and is the property manager for the other three units. We purchased, my husband and I, the empty lot at 2007 Stevens in 2015 to preserve the green space for the enjoyment of our tenants. The 2007 Stevens property previously served as an employee parking for the Ramar building across Stevens on Franklin. When the property was converted to green space, the curb cut was left in space in place as Alex mentioned. So our request is that we would like approval to combine our two lots so that we can create a driveway and off-street parking for us and our tenants. We want to preserve as much green space as possible by only creating enough parking for our tenants and by using the existing curb cut. First, we have sought approval from the neighborhood and the residents. Uh We went to the Whittier Alliance meeting and we went to the Stevens um Square Community. Um We've learned about the process and we hope that you will give us approval so that with the Franklin Avenue reconstruction where we are losing two off-street parking places, we can provide parking for our tenants and my son. Any questions? Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant before before we proceed with the rest of the hearing? No. That's it, Annie. Thank you. >> Thank you for your consideration. All right. Can anyone else who wanted to speak to this one raise your hand? How many do we have? This one? Okay. Welcome. Introduce yourself and you have 2 minutes. Uh good afternoon. Can you hear me? All right. All right. My name is Ben. I live at 111 East Franklin uh across the street to the west. Um since I have 2 minutes, I have to pick what I want to say here, but I guess I saw that there was um three different projects that were approved on this site from 2004 to 2007, all being a two and a half story multi uh family development with off-street parking off of the alley. So, I was hoping for more clarification as to why those projects weren't built as that seems like a much more applicable type of development for this project. And personally, that's what I would like to see. Um I'd like to be a good neighbor, but I just don't think a parking lot is a good use of space and rezoning for that specific is kind of inappropriate, but I would prefer that that they could maybe try to install things right off of um the alley since there is space and that's what was approved several times before. I'm also a registered civil engineer and I've had a chance to look through the plans and there's some statements in the staff report about climate resiliency and claiming that um storm water runoff is going to be retained on site, but I reviewed the grading plan and I don't believe that is true. Although this project does not, you know, meet the chapter 54 regulations for 0.5 acres, it's not required, but I still appreciate some clarity on how this is supposed to be a climate resilient project. Also, there's a lot of discussion regarding how off-street parking improves street congestion and that's just factually wrong given that there's plenty of on-street parking in this area in my experience and also the fact that it's inducing demand for more cars to enter the most popular populous dense neighborhood in the city. So, I just believe that the more parking stalls you provide regardless of it's on-street or off-street, you're asking more cars to be in a pedestrian environment. I'm and I'm looking forward to being in a city that's actually trying to meet the city's Vision Zero goals, so thanks for your time. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak to this item? Go ahead. Introduce yourself and you have 2 minutes. Hi there. My name's Damian Licks and I live directly across from this lot in one of the units of the old Remar building. My big concern about this is we are on a one-way street and we're already having problems with people going the wrong way down that street very, very fast. So, I'm worried with a parking lot being that close, people are going to be using that as a turnaround to get to where they need to be off of Franklin. Right now, I know that it because of the construction we're having a lot of that issue. We're also very concerned about um you [snorts] know, the use of that lot, what it's going to be you know, used for when people aren't parked there Um, terms of, you know, crime increasing, anything like that. Uh It's also just such a beautiful green space right now. I feel like if it was made into a green space, it should stay a green space. We see so many animals across there. Birds, bunnies, everything over there just, you know, it's a it's a nice place for people to go. And we see people walking their dogs there. Um, I would really love to, you know, see it be something, but not a parking lot. You know, housing is great. You know, housing is always better for a neighborhood, especially something that's this residential. And and you know, those are my biggest concerns. Thank you. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak to this item? Go ahead. Welcome, introduce yourself, and you have 2 minutes. Hey there. My name is Merlin. I live in the same building across the street from the lot where where the parking lot is proposed to be built. I simply don't think that more parking is a good idea. For a number of reasons. Number one, it's the densest neighborhood in the city, possibly in the state, residentially speaking. Number two, there's plenty of transit access. They're adding a bike lane with the Franklin Avenue reconstruction. Plenty of space still for cars. You know, there's plenty of parking. And uh more to the point or moreover, rather uh this just seems like like asking for a lot of like like it seems like asking for dangerous driving as the previous previous guy said. And also just shining high beams into into my living room windows. Everyone who lives there, you know, late at night. So. Yeah, I didn't have a statement prepared, clearly. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? All right, not seeing anyone else. Did anyone have any questions before I close the hearing? I have a question for staff, but we can close the hearing for that. All right, so I will close the hearing. Uh Mr. Coloss, can you respond to some of the questions that were raised um about Do we know why the previous projects didn't happen? And can you speak to the grading plan that one testified about up? Uh yeah, Chair Myrick, commissioners. I was not involved in reviewing any of the previous projects here, which I think as they mentioned were back in the mid-2000s, maybe 2005 to 2007, uh approximately. Um so I can only speculate. You know, I did review what I could from uh what we have in the files from those applications. Um this These properties are in a historic district, and so when we are dealing with new construction, that was also a factor that I think played into some of the previous proposals that were not received very warmly, I think. And then they came back with subsequent proposals, and then the property was sold in the middle there. Um So yeah, again, I can't speak definitively as to why those didn't happen. I I could only speculate, but um I I suspect it may have just had to do with sort of the development feasibility uh at that time based on the specifics of those proposals. In terms of uh stormwater, so this project this um the the applicant they have submitted an application for preliminary development review, which is commonly something that's required uh for using existing curb cuts, uh changes to curb cuts, establishing a new uh parking lot if there is, you know, something like a drain that's tying into the city's stormwater system. Um it's pretty common for these types of applications to be these types of projects to be reviewed under that preliminary development review process, and it includes a lot of other parts of the city, such as multiple reviewers from from public works and they are the ones that ultimately have the engineering expertise and would be reviewing for some of those stormwater requirements. Um, from a zoning standpoint, we are looking at um you know, maximum impervious surface coverage, which in this case this proposal would still comply with those requirements. I don't have the numbers off the top of my head, but that is something that we reviewed and and saw that they are below the maximum impervious surface coverage requirements. Okay. Um, several testifiers were concerned about the parking lot. Um, but the question before us is mainly about the the zoning. So, it um Do they need to have the RM1 zoning in order to be able to build a parking lot? They wouldn't be able to do it with you UN3. Can Can you explain them what the differences of are for what they're permitted to do for the parking between those two zoning classifications? Yeah, and again, the specific issue comes from uh language in the zoning code that dictates uh where accessory parking can be located, what districts it can be located in relative to the use that it's serving for an accessory parking lot. And sometimes it's adjacent parcels like this, sometimes it's a parcel across the street, you know, the circumstances may vary, but um typically we or the the zoning code does not allow off-street parking to be in I'll say a quote less intense zoning district than the use that it's serving. If you think of the range of zoning districts from UN1 being the the least dense, sort of least intense district to like PR2 or downtown is a more intense, higher density district. Um, the parking needs to be in the same district or more intense district than the use that it's serving. And UN3 urban neighborhood is generally considered less intense, again for lack of a better term, than uh the RM1 zoning district in that overall kind of continuum of of districts. So, to to say it more more succinctly, the zoning code does not allow parking in a UN3 district like this vacant lot to serve a use in the RM1 district. Like So, they need to rezone the property just to to to mitigate that requirement. Hypothetically, another solution to this could have been rezoning the cluster development from RM1 to UN3, which would still have them be in the same zoning district these two parcels and so mitigate that requirement of the zoning code. When we were looking at this as staff, we thought that the rezoning that's in front of you to go from UN3 to RM1 was ultimately a more suitable proposal we found given that this is along a a goods and services corridor along Franklin Avenue and more consistent with the the policy language that we have in in that case. Okay, and then I'll have two more procedural questions before I turn to the rest of the commissioners. Um So, is the conditional use permit dependent on the rezoning or would they still be able to get those Would it still be possible to to approve this CUP without the rezoning? Theoretically, the the planning commission could approve one of these applications without the other, but in order for this parking lot to be built, they need both approvals. Okay. And then lastly, So, this the motion before us is just to make the recommendation for the council. So, this will go to the council either way whether we recommend it for or against it. Is that correct? >> For the rezoning, yes. That is a recommendation to the city council. For the conditional use permit, that is a decision that the planning commission can make and that would only go to the city council if there is an appeal of that decision. Right. Okay. So, the rezoning is quasi-legislative and the CUP is quasi-judicial, correct? Yes. Okay. That's correct. All right. Any other questions or uh thoughts from commissioners? Commissioner Baxley? Just one question. I thought the last testifier mentioned that um storm water was going to be processed from the part new parking lot was going to be processed on site. Could you talk Is that true or how is that going to be handled? Uh Chair Meier, Commissioner Baxley. Um Yeah, frankly, I I don't recall. I can look at the plans again to see what exactly what uh provisions that they had for storm water runoff, whether it was just running off over the surface materials uh out to the street or if they had a a drain in the property uh or in the parking lot that would uh carry some of that underground. But generally, this property does slope down in terms of where the the parking lot is. It It primarily slopes down from the top of the yard there down to the street along street Stevens Avenue. Other parts of the property might slope to the north towards the towards the house and the um and the carriage house. Once you get further to the east, then it might start draining a little bit towards the the alley, but generally, where this parking lot is located it it it generally drains towards the street, whether that is across the surface or through something like a drain. And is there any requirement to pre-process any of that water before it hits the city's storm sewer for this zone eight currently? Uh yeah, again, the the technical requirements for storm water runoff are administered by public works and a lot of that is handled through um through the preliminary development review. So, uh that that application, which is a separate process, the applicants have already applied for that and um can continue uh pursuing that application if they receive approvals uh here from the planning commission today and from the city council ultimately on the rezoning. Thank you. Commissioner Wagner? Thank you, Chair Meier. Thank you, Alex, for the presentation. I had a question about the RM1 designation along Franklin Avenue. I'm looking at the map here and I see lots of like Lyndale and Nicollet and Hennepin are RM1. I struggle with this word sometimes contiguous like the whole street is RM1 compared to Franklin going across from 35 towards Hennepin. Going from like west from 35 towards Hennepin is kind of like almost like spot zoning which I know we don't really do. It's like parcel by parcel. So could you talk about I don't know if you have any context on that historical decision. As you go further west on Franklin towards Hiawatha it becomes contiguous and all RM1. So any any context you have there about that? Chair Myhr, Commissioner Wagner, I don't know that I can provide a parcel by parcel analysis of that but um if if I can say generally we have these goods and services corridors that largely follow our you know our larger streets and existing commercial nodes and in corridors in the city. And a street like Franklin is I'm sure everyone's familiar has some portions that have a lot of commercial activity some and not just commercial but it it does there are other portions of Franklin that are there are stretches of residential I guess some blocks including some near here um that have a decent concentration I guess of of residential uses and then where Franklin intersects other goods and services corridors like Nicollet or Lyndale or Hennepin um and there could be other policy guidance for those larger you know commercial and mixed-use corridors to have a larger contiguous area of you know commercial mixed-use zoning along those those nodes and then as you get further away from the nodes of two different goods and services corridors then it starts to get again less intense for lack of a better term in terms of zoning designations and ultimately this all stems from the future land use map and policy in the Minneapolis 2040 plan, which was you know, as everyone's familiar with, um, developed and adopted and were, you know, last in the last decade and we're coming up on early work for the 2050 plan now. Um, but in the 2040 plan, that future land use map was adopted and had, uh, these different designations for for every individual parcel. And then that map was, um, was used to develop the the the zoning map for the entire city, which then was adopted just a a few years later. Um, and there is specific guidance that goes in that. We're looking at specific guidance for say the urban neighborhood future land use designation as opposed to the corridor mixed use future land use designation, uh, along Lyndale. So, again, that's a very general answer, but that's ultimately where this comes from is looking at that, um, future land use guidance in the comprehensive plan and applying that to the zoning for each property when the city ultimately did the rezonings in 2023. Thank you for that answer. Uh, and contiguous is definitely the word I was looking for, not contiguous. Um, as just a quick follow-up, it seems like, and just for my understanding of like spot zoning versus like, and and I I don't even know the technical definition of that term, but like this doesn't fall into spot zoning because of the character and kind of related parcels along Franklin that it's like falling along this goods and services corridor and there already are a lot of RM1 parcels along Franklin. Is that a fair assessment? Yeah, and in this case, we're talking about these two parcels, one of which is already RM1, so we are matching that existing RM1 on the 2001 parcel with what is proposed for 2007, and that might not be directly adjacent to another RM1 parcel, but we wouldn't consider that spot zoning in in case. And again, ultimately we're we're relying on the future land use policy from the comprehensive plan to to guide these decisions. That also would have taken into account where there are maybe smaller clusters of individual individual zoning designations for properties. Got it. Thank you very much. Commissioner Shepherd? Just one question Alex, which which may be a little bit out of scope, but but does does this go through site plan review? Uh Chair Meier, Commissioner Shepherd, no, this does not. Uh site plan review is required for a number of different types of projects, primarily new construction. Um and depending on the scale, that can change whether it's administrative or requires a public hearing of the planning commission. If uh someone were proposing a principal use of a surface parking lot or another transportation oriented use, that may require site plan review on its own. But in this case, we're talking about an accessory parking lot for an existing use, and that does not require a formal site plan review application. That said, it is subject to some of the same site plan review standards like landscaping and screening um that you would otherwise see during a site plan review application. >> lot screening, and that was my my one thought as I was looking at at the applicant's site plan. One could flip this parking to face the building. You have the room to do it. And it would mitigate a lot of the harms which some of the testifiers have mentioned, and I I can only mention that. I can't really make it a condition. Uh as staff, we're not designers. You know, we might be able to to make, you know, very high level suggestions, but uh ultimately it's up to the applicants. And and we as staff, we provide guidance if there are aspects that would not comply with zoning requirements, and that's a conversation that I had with the applicant's representatives, you know, and that we have with every project. We're we're providing guidance about what changes they need for zoning compliance. We might be able to suggest maybe they reorient the parking lot, but we we can't compel them to. And I I don't think that's something that came up in this case. Yeah, exactly. And that's all it's meant to be is just sort of a sort of a thought. Thank you. Other commissioners? I guess I'll share my thoughts. I sympathize with the the testifiers. Um you know people who know me know that I don't like surface parking lots at all. I always try to to encourage applicants to build as little parking as possible. Um and I I think the the parking lot will have the negative effects that the testifiers brought up. Um but the parking lot itself is not directly um uh before us. It's the rezoning that's before us. And um like Commissioner Wagner was saying, when I look at the map of um the existing zoning and and compare Franklin Avenue to um Lyndale, Nicollet, and Hennepin, uh it does seem inconsistent and this seems to me clearly should be designated um as as RM1 for goods and services. Uh so I don't love that that enables a new surface parking lot, but it also enables other things um that we want to see more of in the city. Uh so I'm inclined to um approve the recommendation uh to the council. But I would be receptive to any conditions um that commissioners or our staff might suggest that might improve the project. With that, I'll ask other commissioners for thoughts on where you're at. Anyone else? Commissioner Shepherd? We can't design the building for them, or the project for them. So I'm I'm I'm inclined to agree with you, Chair Meyer, but I but I can't place design conditions upon it. >> Yeah. How do you feel about the rezoning? In favor. Okay. Mr. Wagner. Uh thank you, Chair Meyer. I I generally agree with everything that's been said. I think that Franklin seems like it should be RM1. We also have seen in the past and had conversations with staff about how two contiguous parcels right next to each other we we want to have like very often have the same zoning for a project and I might be a little bit hand-wavy and those descriptions or the description of that concept could be better articulated by staff, but I think RM1 makes sense here. I'm not sure if there are other comments from commissioners, but I'm happy to make a motion to adopt staff findings. Yeah, I think go ahead and make that motion and put that on the table. >> make that motion to adopt staff findings. There's a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? All right. I'm not seeing any. So, um clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Baxley. Aye. Conley. Aye. Garcia. Aye. Jones. Aye. Shepard. Aye. Vice President Wagner. Aye. And President Meyer. Aye. There are seven ayes. That is adopted. All right. Next we're going to item number seven, 3000 Minnehaha Avenue and 3033 Snelling Avenue. Staff is Andrew Frenz. >> Good afternoon Chair Meyer and Commissioners. Before you today are several applications to allow the construction of a two-story, approximately 16,800 square foot, excuse me. Sorry about that. Um addition, uh the relocation of a public alley and site improvements at 3000 Minnehaha Avenue and 3033 Snelling Avenue. The subject property consists of two parcels located to the south of Lake Street between Snelling Avenue and Minnehaha Avenue. This includes the building that was formerly occupied um by MPD's Third Precinct. Um the existing three-story building is located on the eastern half of the 3000 Minnehaha parcel there. Um that building has been vacant uh since it was damaged by fire in the unrest that followed the murder of George Floyd in May of 2020. The western half of that parcel is accessory parking and then the 3033 Snelling Avenue parcel, which is located to the south and separated uh by a public alley um from that northern parcel, is developed with a surface parking lot that is established as a principal parking facility today. The applicant, um here's a survey that shows that. Um the applicant is proposing an addition and remodel to the existing building, primarily to accommodate Minneapolis Elections and Voter Services. Uh the proposed building would um house EVS's regular year-round functions as well as the city's early vote center. Uh EVS is currently located in two separate leased buildings in northeast Minneapolis. The proposed project would consolidate all of EVS's functions into a single building, provide more modern and functional space, um and improve the accessibility of the early vote center, um especially to those uh who use transit. The project will also include about 6,000 square feet of leased space located at the corner of Lake and Minnehaha that would be leased to a business or non-profit and that has not yet been identified. The use of that space has been evaluated as a general retail sales and services use for the purpose of this application, but it may ultimately end up being another use like a restaurant or a community services use. Um in order to I'll go back to back to this here. This shows the proposed uh reconfiguration of the site. Um in order to accommodate the proposed addition, the applicant is proposing to reconfigure the site. Um the applicant is proposing to vacate the existing east-west alley segment that runs through the site so that uh segment is shown here. Um and then you can see that it it moves to the south in in this plan. So they're proposing to vacate that existing east-west alley um that separates the parcels and then to replat the site to create two new parcels um as well as a new east-west alley. The net effect of that vacation and replat is to move that existing alley approximately 75 feet to the south um in order to enlarge the northern uh portion of the property and and shrink thus the southern portion of the property. Um I can walk through the plans here quickly. Um this is a rendering showing uh the intersection at Lake and Snelling. Um so that's the early vote center located there on the corner. Um then this is from the south. So this would be on the 3033 Snelling parcel um looking north at the at the building addition. This is an aerial view um kind of from the from the southeast uh sort of over Minnehaha showing um the proposed configuration of the site. And this is the same um from the southwest. We have a couple other angles here and then we have a couple of the interior um of the early vote center here. Um so this is looking out at uh the Lake and Snelling intersection. Um so, in order uh in order to advance this project, there are several land use applications that are required. Um first, because these properties are currently located in different zoning districts, there are two requests uh for rezonings that are required as part of the project. Um the first is for the existing 3000 Minnehaha parcel, and it's to add the split zoning overlay district there. Um and then for the 3033 Snelling parcel, um there's a uh requested rezoning um from the CM3 district to the CM4 district, and to add the split zoning overlay um just to the northern portion of that parcel, the portion of the parcel that would become uh part of the the resultant northern parcel. Um and then the the southern portion of that 3033 Snelling parcel um does not have a rezoning proposed. Um the net result of this um is to slightly expand the the size of the of the CM4 uh zoning district in this area, and slightly expanding the intensity of the the uses that are are permitted on that what is currently the northern portion of the 3033 Snelling parcel. Um and we would end up with the resultant north parcel uh being zoned CM4 with a split zoning overlay, and then split zoned between corridor six and transit 10. And then the uh the southern parcel um would be CM3 and transit 10 uh just as it is today. Um the proposed use here uh EVS's use has been determined um to be a public safety and welfare use, which requires a conditional use permit in this zoning district. So, the applicant is seeking a CUP to allow this use. Um the proposed addition requires site plan review. Um and as I mentioned, the applicant is proposing to reconfigure the site, uh which requires a vacation of that existing um alley segment, as well as the proposed plat. Um the applicant has also submitted an application for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development. Um, that was due to incorrect uh guidance from staff. That was that was my error um about the the lot area area requirement here. Um, and the project does not need to be established as a planned unit development, so we can return that application. Um, I think I can walk through We can go through the floor plans if we need to or we can just move to the end. We can come back if you have any questions on these. Um, there were two public comments uh that were received on this project. Uh both of those were after the publication of the staff report, so you received uh those printed copies today. Um, and I'm happy to go into any of the specific findings or any of the alternative compliance responses on site plan review if there are any questions, but staff is recommending that the commission approve the conditional use permit, the site plan review, and preliminary plat subject to the conditions that are listed in the staff report and agenda. Um, recommend approval of the rezonings and vacation to the city council and return the conditional use permit uh for the planned unit development to the applicant. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Are there questions for staff before we open the hearing? Commissioner Conley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A couple of questions about the alley. So, um So, you mentioned the the public comments that we received, but I've also like driven down that alley. I've been in the Hook and Ladder. We've got two established businesses that have been there, survived the uprising, and um are still active today. Um, when you go through that alley, it's very narrow. Um, you come across this a curve that um is outlined in one of the um one of the responses that we received, and there's a significant concern by these businesses about turns for deliveries, turns for um whatever they need to run their businesses. So, my concern is just that. What sort of you mentioned alternative compliance. What sort of thought went into moving that that alley and how it might impact how those businesses receive deliveries. Has there been communication about this design with those businesses in the several years that this has been in the making? Talk to me more about the alley relocation cuz that's where I have a significant concern. >> Sure. Yeah, thank you Chair Chair Meyer and Commissioner Conley. The the alley design has been reviewed both as part of the vacation review process as well as the PDR process. And so, a quite a few different reviewers from public works review the alley design for compliance with with their standards. And public works has a specific set of design vehicles that they review turning movements in in alleys for. And those vehicles include 30-ft box truck, they include a standard garbage truck, they include a recycling truck with a standard trailers that you don't see as much anymore, but they you know, they used to always have as well as the the different snow removal equipment that the city uses. Those design vehicles do not include buses and they do not include semi trucks. So, not all commercial public alleys are not designed to accommodate all commercial vehicles. This alley design was reviewed by public works and does accommodate the turning movements for all of those all of those design vehicles that public works designs alleys to accommodate. Typically, public works also does not review turning movements between private properties and alleys. So, they would typically review turning movements between alley segments or between the public right public streets and alleys and not between private properties and alleys. In this case, because of the use of this site and the and the history of this block, they did review the turning movements between the private driveway that runs on the north side of the Hook and Ladder building and and this alley segment. And they did design this this the the the pavement here. So, the alley as well as some additional pavement that is provided on the on the subject property is designed to accommodate all of those design vehicles. This alley is not designed to accommodate vehicles that are larger than than those design vehicles. So, there you know, there are locations in the city where public where there are buses and semis that use public alleys, but that is not how public alleys are designed to be used. And so, that's that's what public works has has proposed here and has recommended approval of. As far as the communication between between the applicant team, the property services team, and the nearby property owners, I can't speak to that. I I know that the applicant is here and they can speak to the community engagement around the project. Commissioner Conley. Thank you. So, just to follow up, thank you for that. I appreciate the breakdown of how this was reviewed. I'm also looking at sort sort delivery vehicles coming in off of Snelling, right? It seems to me like there would be backing out happening. And so, talk me through that cuz we've got a bike lane, we've got a a blind spot, we've got kind of a precarious situation if a delivery truck or delivery driver comes in, drops off, and has to sort of maneuver back out. And it it looks like you're it looks like from what I'm hearing, they're able to keep straight and maneuver back out through the new alley, but that it seems like it's tight around there. So, you're saying that it's tight, but they can fit. And I'm I'm hearing that there's possibilities that these trucks would have to just back out into a bike lane, blind spot, etc. So, can you talk me through a little bit of those mechanics? >> Yeah. Yeah, Chair Myer, Commissioner Conley, great great question. So, the the the alley intersection here, right between the main north-south alley and this segment, as well as the the turn between the hook and ladder driveway and this alley, those those turns can accommodate a 30-ft box truck. If there were a a larger truck that that was intending to to to give delivery to to one of those properties on Minnehaha, the expectation from Public Works would be that that delivery occur in the street, not that it not that it pull into the alley or driveway and then back out. The the loading docks on this property this property has been designed to accommodate the maneuvering for for up to a full-size semi truck on on this property, and the the applicant prepared turning diagrams demonstrating that and submitted it as part of their PDR application. Anyone else before we proceed to the hearing? All right. Thank you. Do we have someone from the city to testify? Somebody what? The applicant. Oh. I'm is that Welcome, introduce yourself, and you have 10 minutes. >> Commissioners, my name is Dr. Maya. I am a construction manager coordinator with Property Services and a project manager for this project. I don't have much to add with anything you just mentioned here regarding to the regarding the project, we're really excited that we're finally coming to a point where I'll be in front of you proposing the revitalization of 3000 Minnehaha in Electrical Utility Services and future uh uh tenant location two for a community partner. Uh and it's been uh long years in our since uh 2020 that we've been working on that with community engagement. Uh the last community engagement we had was with uh business owners around the location that happened on Moon Palace uh uh middle of last year. I don't recall the date exactly. >> [snorts] >> Where we had preliminary floor plans showing what would be the use for the location and the site plan and uh how would be you know developed. Uh the only item that I'd like to add regarding to the the private driveway that is north of Hook and Ladder to the public alley, we are actually could accommodate uh a coach bus of up to 45 ft. That's beyond of what public works require for a public alley. As Andrew mentioned, usually for public alley it's a uh garbage trucks or a snow plow that uh they they design the alley for. We went a little bit beyond that to try to accommodate more than maneuvering from the private uh driveway to the public alley. Which is usually something that you know is not part of the design uh mandates from uh public works. Uh that wrap up kind of like what I wanted to say. Again, like I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have and we're just excited to have this project moving forward. Thank you. Mr. Connor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. Um so two questions. When you say accommodate, you mentioned the bus. Is it accommodate in terms of the bus can come in and then go straight and make it out the other side of the western of the new alley? Um so talk me through that. You said you you're making an exception here where bigger buses could could turn into the existing alley and then is it when you say accommodate, does that mean they can keep going straight through to the new exit of where the new alley would be? Yeah. Uh through the chair uh commissioner, yes, correct. So, the bus let's say the bus is coming from Minnehaha would be able to enter the private driveway that's north of Hook and Ladder. So, I'll call that the private alley. And they would be able to go through and get to the public alley and then maneuver do the turning radius there and then be able to exit and go all the way to uh 30th and alley, per se. So, we'll be able to go through there. Thank you. And Mr. Chair, um the community input. So, you talked about community engagement, um and you know, community engagement that's been happening for years. Tell me a little bit about what you've been hearing from business owners in regard to the alley specifically. So, not necessarily the new construction or the or the new building that has been vacant for 6 years, but more so for the for the businesses that you have engagement have engaged with, what have you been hearing in regard to the alley restructuring or moving of the alley? We have not heard anything in particular regarding the alley uh uh relocation. So, what we are, you know, in country now like we're here right now, it's the first time that we're here regarding the alley relocation being an issue. And we are just, you know, trying to see how we can best address that. And again, like through the process, we've been looking uh through public works requirement for for the alley and for the vacationing process and to building a new alley, but also I'm trying to be good neighbors to them as well and try to accommodate, you know, the use of a bigger vehicle that they might need. But, we haven't had uh in-depth conversations regarding the alley uh relocation, if you will. Yep. Other commissioners? All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. Oh, excuse me. I just wanted to clarify Mr. Johnson. Sorry, to clarify that the expectation from public works in these situations is that our sort of alleys are not designed for large vehicles and that the expectation is that the loading offloading will happen on the street. Uh chair, commissioner, uh the expecta- it's not the expectation. The public works and I don't want to speak for public works. I I don't work I'm property services, but we follow public works guidelines and the guidelines for the alley it's for garbage trucks. Uh they use for maneuvering it's not for delivery of like we use in semi truck. So that usually an alley would have an easement of 16 ft to actually a driving path of 14 ft. Uh so you see that suddenly like getting a little bit tight if you start trying to accommodate larger vehicles there. So So again like that's a public works requirement for any alley in Minneapolis. Yeah, for example, I live very close to the Seward Co-op and you know there's a dead end alley and I think the trucks are smaller and they do sort of maneuvering um in a way that doesn't act doesn't need to access the alley. So thank you. Yeah, thank you. Anyone else? Commissioner Conley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh as you can see I'm pretty passionate about this issue. Uh right in the heart of my district. Um but uh this kind of um sparked uh another question for me. So um let's say there's a delivery happening on the street. In on many Hiawatha it's one lane right there and there's uh it's a very significant intersection um traffic-wise, transit-wise, etc. And so um if the current businesses that are there are getting deliveries and have to have trucks stop in the street that poses a significant traffic risk and so um maybe that's just a statement for right now. I think Mr. Chair this goes back to uh really needing to have um a coordination with public works here at planning commission so some of these questions can can be answered. That's not anything for you, but we've talked about having public works recommend representation at these meetings for a while, but it just would answer some of those questions. I can imagine a significant backup if a truck is making a big delivery and has to stop on on Minnehaha what that would do to traffic backup, bus backup, etc. The last comment [snorts] I'll just make and I know we have a public hearing to open up is just I think that there should be a little bit more engagement with the local businesses about that alley. Some of what you're describing to me and to the commission could be um very well described to the business owners who maybe haven't had robust discussions so far on the alley specifically. I think a lot of the engagement, some of which I've attended, have been around what will be at the building, what's in the building, and and that's all well and good. It needs to be redeveloped and there are existing businesses there that could pose that could see a hardship should there be significant changes to that alley. So I think that there needs to be a discussion with local businesses after this um about this alley specifically and and what the city's plans are here. So that's just a statement I think. Thank you. So this this discussion has prompted a question for me. So um and it's a a question for subsequent testifiers who are concerned about um about dropping off things. Can they not use the parking lot that you're proposing to build here? Like what would would would businesses be able to use that? Chair, in which way you would they be using the parking lot? >> [clears throat and snorts] >> Um to drop off things like for deliveries. Is that Is it I mean it might be too far away from where the deliveries are being are heading, but would they have permission to use that? Would they be able to? Uh chair, uh I just trying to understand. You saying like for them to park a car there and then do the deliveries to this space? Is there an obstruction or or permissions or anything else that's stopping them from using the parking lot that's going to be built? So, chair, the the parking lot is a private it's city-owned property. >> Yes. And it would be utilized the primary use is for the Democracy Center. So, regarding that in particular, we'd have to have more conversations of like the needs of the the the the local business and how that would then work with the the currently site plan. So, is the default assumption that they would not be able to use it for deliveries? Is that what you're saying? Correct. Okay. All right. Any other questions? Thank you. Yep. All right. If you wanted to testify to this, can you raise your hand so I have an idea of how many? So, three of you? Four? Okay. Come on up. Introduce yourself and each of you can have 2 minutes. My name is Christine Smith. I am the owner of record. I hold the building under an organization and an entity called FG&C LLC. And let me say at the beginning here, I have received no phone call, no letter, no notice. It doesn't mean that I'm not aware of what's going on. I'm saying the city did not contact me to talk to me about this. Whatever they say, they did not talk to the owner of the building. So, let me take you back through my 27 years of history at that corner. Because I think it's important to talk about the evolution and devolution of that corner. 27 years ago, I bought that building in partnership with Patrick Scully to have established a organization, a venue that would host GLBTQ. The building was a bookie joint. Across the street was a sauna. Most people said, "You're nuts. That place is deserted. The only thing going there is a liquor store." We moved in. We did not get open arms from the police. They weren't happy, but we worked it out. A few years later, in the early 2000s, I received a notice for something similar to this for the addition that was put on the building. >> [gasps] >> Imagine my astounded amazement when I showed up at the meeting and they had put their front door in my parking lot. I lost 2 ft and some property to the police needing a sidewalk and an interior hallway. But I I went along with it. I said, "Okay. We can We can move forward." The next thing that happened is they closed off parking on Minnehaha. All my patrons had to park on Snelling. So, we moved the front door to our north entrance, our north parking lot. It allows us to have large vehicles pass through. It allows four or five or six Metro Mobility things when we are having events that have a lot of handicap to come in and line up to accept customers. It allows the beer truck drivers to drive in and drop off their goods. It [snorts] allows the neighborhood It allowed the police to use it as their pass-through. I could have portioned off my parking lot and said, "Nobody goes through here." But I thought it was gracious and kind to do that to my neighbors, the police. Then, we get to We just got ready. We're a nonprofit, by the way. I'm I'm a for-profit and I'm doing this out of the goodness of my heart cuz I carry a lot of the cost of the building so that the nonprofit can operate because the margins are really thin. Really thin. So, we get to George Floyd and we go, "They're using my building as a fourth defensive wall." We go out to board up and we were ordered to beat back in or we would be shot. So, when the police left, we were sitting ducks to the tune of $400,000 worth of damage. We didn't ask the city for a dime. We carried forward. We made our space available for people in the neighborhood who had no business. Their business was down to a laptop. They were filing claims. We opened our doors even though we were in tough shape, but we had a building. And we moved forward. And we figured out how to survive. Thank you. Please wrap up your comments. I'm not done. For 27 years, I've been a proud part of this organization that stands for diversity and freedom of expression. We host South of the Southside. We host Calaveras. We host Roots, Rock, and Deep Blues. We are the place where South High and Roosevelt comes to do their performances. We are the home of the of the Lake Street Council annual meeting. And if you carry through and cut this off and do this plan and vacate this alley, that will be the last of the death of a thousand cuts. We will be our death now. Without access in this climate, with Metro surge and civil section, we will not survive. And I will not be able to sell a building that has no access. I will fight to keep my building and my cause alive. Thank you. Next testify. Thank you. My name's Chris. I work at the Hook and Ladder. I want to given my short amount of time, I want to address the notion of vacating this alley. It seems the exorbitant amount of expense in this rebuild, um, the litany of issues that we're addressing as concerned neighbors all stem from the loading dock and the vacating of the alley. Yes, of course, we're not Nobody's asking the city to design an alley that meets our needs. We have one. The city's asking to change it and encumber us in the process. Um, the standard of a 30-ft box truck is not based in practical reality. Today, I receive deliveries personally at the Hook and Ladder. I inquired with management of two different delivery distributors what the smallest vehicle they run in their fleet. The answer is 42 ft, not 30. So, the premise that all of this stuff works with a 30-ft box truck is not based in reality. The idea that uh a this truck could make the turn from the proposed new alley is not true. It cannot. Um, and I think there's a better solution. I think there's a potential easement that could save the city a ton of money in this development, and we haven't been talked to. Nobody's asked us about it. Um, I encourage a conversation. I encourage potential collaboration to find a solution that serves all of us and doesn't encumber this iconic cultural hub to the degree this proposed plan does. I'll just want to click quickly go through my list that I shared in writing for the record. The north entrance of this building is our primary entrance. It's also the location of our handicap parking. The drawings that you've seen show a radius for turning without handicap parking there. A vehicle's going to be another 4 or 5 ft width. It's not going to work. >> [clears throat] >> The drawing also shows a little extra space behind the building that doesn't currently exist. Um The you know, I I just feel like the removal of this thoroughfare from snowing, the forcing of people to walk around this building, the redevelopment and rezoning of all this stuff can be avoided with a better solution. And thank you for your time. Thank you. Next testify. Welcome. Introduce yourself and you have 2 minutes. Thank you, Chairman and members. Uh my name is Tim Koehler, k o e h l e r. >> [clears throat] >> I am the chairperson of the nonprofit that was referenced, the Firehouse Firehouse Performing Arts Center. We've been running the facility for about 10 year old little over 10 years now. Um and I just wanted to put into perspective what what many of you know already. Um um and and I agree with everything that's already been said, but I wanted to put into perspective what the facility has meant. Um uh we in the last 10 years have hosted thousands of artists of any kind. Anything that you can imagine has happened at the Hook. We've we've had over 10,000s of tens of thousands of people come to the Hook and Ladder for all these type of events. So, trying to put some perspective into it for you. Um we have uh roughly about 12,000 ticket buyers who always support the Hook and Ladder. And if that's not there, think about the financial challenges that will occur with that. Last fall when we were struggling trying to figure out what was next, we could we put a call out. We had 800 people donate $75,000 to do some improvements and to keep the Hook and Ladder open because it was such a vibrant community space. And so I just want you to to please consider the the previous speakers. We we [snorts] we've been we've been through so much. We didn't mention COVID either by the way, which is a little little blip in the in the time frame for us. But it's amazing that we've survived. We want to continue to survive. We want to continue to support the community and artists and the the attendees for events. So I want you to just put that in perspective and the thousands and thousands of dollars that are generated on a weekly basis. And a lot most of that money actually goes to artists. That's the other important part. So thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Next speaker. >> [clears throat] >> Welcome. Introduce yourself and you have 2 minutes. Hi, I'm Anna Santier. I'm the owner of Two Bettys Green Cleaning Company, which is right across the street from the Hook and Ladder. And also I am the president of the Longfellow Business Association. We have 60 members. Hook and Ladder has hosted so many of our events. We're super grateful to them. And we're here just to remind um businesses have been through a lot. You know, we've got COVID as everybody was recovering financially from that coming back. Many businesses didn't tear up Lake Street. All of us just recovering from the PPP. I had to move my business cuz it didn't work anymore. Then you know, you're moving ahead and we've got the surge. we've got economic issues, we've got encampments, we've got people coming outside to have to clean up themselves cuz we're not getting the support that some of the businesses get downtown for the same type of services. And I just think this is another example of what I've heard from so many businesses. The taxes are going up, the services are going down, and the lack of collaboration and just thought to work with these businesses that have been through so much. If they have made it, many of us in the last week, because we just had our annual meeting, talked to five businesses that are thinking I mean, I would like you to just check the statistics of how many businesses are leaving Minneapolis, leaving Lake Street. It's much higher than the ones that are coming in. We're on the verge of a pretty big issue here. I mean, it's already happening, but I think it's going to get really bad. I just urge that you just work with these businesses. They've been through so much in that location, especially. Just talk to them. I mean, >> [clears throat] >> we just we just there's so many organizations that you can talk to to come and collaborate. This just seems like a you know, a solve that we can do together. There's no reason to make this so difficult for these businesses that have already been through so much. And I totally agree that's going to be super disruptive. If you spend any time on that corner, having it's going to be so dangerous to have anybody backing out into that intersection. There's a lot of us that are there. And if y'all will get some help having us invest and develop some more buildings that have been vacant or empty for so long, then we're going to have even more people on that corner, eventually we hope, right? So, it's just like this seems like a recipe for disaster if we're talking about people backing out, big trucks backing out straight. All right, thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. >> Hi, I'm Katie. Um >> [clears throat] >> I would just like to point out some of the design flaws with this. Um from my understanding that delivering voting equipment to this like a specific small drop-off site has to be done with the utmost security. There's some high you know, like you really have to dot your T's and cross your Oh my gosh, right? You you just really have to make sure the security of of this is good in with backing up and turns. I worry about also the hazard to the historical firehouse building built in 1894. Um how will they protect our building? And uh like this is a huge hindrance on our arts. And I would also like to call out there's um in the parking lot there's one There's only one handicap parking spot um [gasps] available [snorts] for the people at the voting democracy center. And I that just I don't know, just a couple design flaws. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Next speaker. Welcome, introduce yourself and you have 2 minutes. Thank you. My name is Lisa Boyd and I staff a nonprofit organization called Longfellow Rising, which supports equitable community-centered rebuilding of the commercial area around 3000 Minnehaha that suffered so much damage in 2020. On behalf of the board leadership of Longfellow Rising, we are disappointed that once again the city is moving forward with a sensitive project without ever consulting directly with the parties most affected by its plan. In this case, the Hook and Ladder Theater and other businesses located on the same block of Minnehaha, and by the way, there is a theater coming to that block as well that will just increase the demands on the area. We believe that the currently proposed site plans will negatively impact the surrounding businesses in multiple ways. We respectfully ask that finalizing the site plans be paused until alternative options can be explored in direct dialogue with the neighbors most impacted in ways that meet the both the needs of the community and those of the city. So, we're not asking you to deny the site plans, we're just asking for them to be revisited and amended to include the direct impact from all of these people who've been talking to you tonight. Um and by the way, I think I just heard this may not be germane to tonight, but it sounded like the intention is for the parking lot to move into exclusive use of the city. Mr. Mozina included the attachment of a parking study we commissioned last year um for the area um which determined that there is plenty of surface parking in this downtown Longfellow district. However, it is not accessible for most of the small businesses in the area we're talking about. And so we encourage uh exploring their recommendation of more shared parking, not less access. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Jennifer. Is there anyone else? All right. Not seeing any. Are there any questions from commissioners before I close the hearing? All right. So, I'll close the hearing and ask Andrew Frence to come up. Um Just a couple procedural questions. So, um like the first item that we had today, we have combination of um some quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative ones. So, um can you just explain the interaction between them? For example, um like if the commission were to reject or to recommend against the vacation, how would that work with the site plan review and and the other applications? Uh Chair Myhre and Commissioners, yeah, that's that's right. So, the the rezoning and the um and the vacation are uh are are legislative items that we know will be acted on by the City Council. Um and the other applications are quasi-judicial. Um in this case, uh you know, the the rezoning would be required in in order for the other applications to to advance. Um the the vacation, I I I don't believe yeah, I I believe that you could potentially be in a situation where um where you recommended denial of the vacation or um or had, you know, no recommendation on the vacation and still recommend approval of the other applications. I I think it would be um uh complicated to see how um that would be a a major change versus a minor change, but um I I think there probably is a universe where where it could be a minor change. Okay, and then I also have a question about what motions are available to us today. Um so, we can deny or approve. Is there any middle ground? Can we since this is something that has to go to the council anyway, can we refer it to them without recommendation? Um I don't know if the if the clerks know the answer on that. I um I know that I know this the the committees of the City Council will um will off relatively often forward things to the to the full council without recommendation. I don't know that we have done that at the planning commission. I've I've not seen that done. So, I would maybe Yeah, I would probably caution against that unless we have someone here who says for sure that it's possible. Um But Commissioner Jones. Yes, but we could uh approve uh the parts of the the recommendations that sort of move the building forward and not approve the alley vacation, which would then again create an opportunity for public works and others to have that conversation. Um I I believe that is accurate, yes. Um I guess my thoughts are you know, I'm I'm pleased that something is going to happen with this project. Um I think the election services it's a great location to have that. I think there are some valid concerns that have been brought up. Seems like there should be more more conversation with that, and the council is going to have to review substantial parts of this anyway. Um since like for the vacation in particular, they would have to consider that one way or the other. Um I don't see any harm in in just making a motion to um refer without recommendation. So, that that like I I mean um that is a motion that the the council makes. If the council makes it, I feel like it's it's suitable for us. So, um where I'm at is I I think we should move the application forward, um um approve the staff recommendations for item A through F, but I think the the vacation is something that the council should take a closer look at. And I would say refer it without recommendation. Any commissioners? Commissioner Garcia? Uh thank you, Chair Meyer. Um I guess it um doesn't sit right with me to sort of punt this to a different [clears throat] deliberative body and say, "We're not going to touch it. You do it." Um given the considerations that we've heard before us tonight, I think that the prudent motion is to um deny staff recommendations, send it back, have worked. Um we've done that this sort of action already this year on this commission. Um when we saw a park board building that we didn't think was up to snuff, we sent it back. When there was a public application for a bathhouse, we sent it back. I think that that is our wisest course of action, and I won't support moving this forward. And that's to all seven parts of it, correct? That's correct. >> Okay. Commissioner Conley? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I support that as well. I'll tell you why. I'm really disheartened to hear that the engagement that happened with residents did not include engagement around that alley specifically. It sounds like I heard tonight that there's a potential solution that involves an easement that staff could probably hear from residents. Um especially um when we're talking about exploring alternatives. This isn't going to be a significant impact to the businesses along this corridor and in this part of downtown Longfellow. And I think that it's for me 7G, which is the vacation, is the biggest sticking point for me, and I I can't support that right now. Um but I do think that if it were to go back, there could be additional conversations that are had. There could be um additional alternatives maybe identified to make this um alley work for both the New Democracy Center and the existing businesses who who have already been through a lot. So, I would really like to see that as something that happens. Um the rest of the applications I'm fine with. It's the It's the alley that that I'm really stuck on and and don't feel like I'm in a place right now to support it. Thank you. Okay, so the quasi-legislative ones [snorts] are are straightforward. The commission can just recommend against those. Uh, for the site plan review and the conditional use permit you would need to have um, have alternative findings. Um, to the staff. And uh, Mr. Friends, would the preliminary plat also need alternative findings? Uh, Chair Mayor and Commissioners, I I think that for um, for for all of these items you're going to have to have findings to to recommend denial, right? Even even like for the for the vacation, I think we've we've had we've you've you've already articulated kind of what those findings are going to be, but I think you do need to you do need to make alternative findings rather than rather than just recommend denial. Um, if you do end up in a position where you've made alternative uh, findings and are recommending denial of everything else, I think you can recommend denial of site plan review um, because everything else is being denied and it would have to be a new project. Okay. Okay, so Commissioners Garcia and Gonley um, have to come up with some findings. Commissioner Shepherd. Just a thought. It I think it it appears to be not necessarily the alley vacation itself, which is a yes or no thing, but the design of this gen- generator set and transformer court that inhibits the the the operation of your vehicles on the north alley. So, the trouble is not the vacation of the alley, it's that you are taking a private alley and you are changing its possible use by uh, inhibiting vehicular motion through the site. If that could be redesigned in a way that allows the semis to pull through, it's not that the public is is obliged to design alleys to to allow semi movement. It's a word we we can't take that use away from a private alley. If we can come back and redesign that one little portion of the alley, even as currently proposed, it would be acceptable. So, it really is only 7G that is that is giving us pause today. Okay. And and that to me is the finding is that we're we're removing a use from a property that exists, from a private property that exists. All right, so I'd like to hear from more commissioners to find out where the votes are at. Uh thank you, Chair Myhre. I have some comments and questions. I'll start with some questions. I think obviously there are a lot of eyes on this project. I want to just make sure the public here, and myself included in that, are like aware of what happens next. So, if we were to reject this application, they would have to rework it and come back to this body. Is that correct? Uh Chair Myhre, Commissioner Wagner, um regardless of the action that the Planning Commission takes tonight, the next step is for the the recommendation on the rezonings and the vacation to move forward to the City Council. So, that that would happen in in June and July, um regardless of the action you take here. Um if you were to um for example, recommend denial on those items and and deny one or more of the other applications, um the it would kind of be up, you know, that that could be the final action on those other items, or the applicant or or someone else, you know, could choose to file an appeal, and then those appeals would go um to City Council at the same time as the the vacation and the rezonings. And regarding the appeal, is it fair to say that anyone affected by this project in any way can appeal any decision we make, and it would end up in City Council's? Is that correct? >> Correct. Anyone can file an appeal. There's no standing. So, to Commissioner Garcia's comment, I think it almost seems inevitable to me that that is what happened. Obviously, we can't predict the future. I shouldn't try to do that now, but I I think that clarification is useful for everyone involved in this project. Um I I have questions about the findings for the vacation. Um I am reading the staff report and I see it written here. Uh the area proposed for vacation is not needed for any public purpose, is not part of a public transportation corridor, and that it can be vacated. It When the city assesses a vacation, does does it really come down to those couple statements? Is there anything else that you assess when you assess a vacation? Yes, that's those that that's it. Um you know, the the review of a vacation is primarily done by public works, and it's primarily a technical review of the the transportation and and utility you know, purpose that that that right of way is is serving. And so, if you look in the um in the staff report packet, one of the first attachments is uh what we call a director's letter. It's a it's a letter from Don Elwood, um sort of making the official recommendation of the Department of Public Works. Thank you for that clarification. And then uh just a comment on that and I'll proceed with my last question. I I struggle to uh put in putting ourselves as a body in the quasi-judicial role, I struggle to find a finding related that vacation, even though that is the the subject here that is seems to be the most divisive and worthy of the most scrutiny. I fully agree it is worthy of scrutiny, but I struggle to find something there in terms of a finding to grab onto as this body. That said, I do potentially have uh a finding that I want to run by you, and it's related to the preliminary plat subdivision. Uh it says there's a claim in this in the as written in the staff report, the subdivision will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity nor be detrimental to the present and potential surrounding land uses nor add substantially to congestion in the public streets. I'm not necessarily saying I fully agree with every bit of that statement but could we as a body if we wanted to reject the preliminary plat and say that we find that finding not to be met. Um uh Chair Meyer and Commissioner Wagner I um I think there's some subjectivity there but I think it would be a like a rational response to that finding to say that the proposed alley configuration um you know does does not accommodate the transportation needs of this block and would have a negative impact on the operation of Minnehaha Avenue. Yeah, I I think that is a rational connection. Uh I appreciate that clarification. Those were uh my questions. Now just with a quick comment. Um I struggled to find findings for most of these items. Um I could be convinced to um reject the preliminary plat subdivision unless someone has a finding for me on the vacation. Um I we are a quasi-judicial body and I don't see a reason to reject the alley uh vacation as written in the code. The code allows alleys to be vacated and we are the kind of quasi-judicial body that assesses whether an alley vacation is in compliance with the code. Uh that said if there were a motion on the preliminary plat I I would consider it. I think it's something that we if we want I I can kind of sense the tides of this body if it's something we could choose to grab onto. Ultimately, I think that this is going to uh like I said to Commissioner Garcia's point it's it's headed to Council. So, um I'm pretty flexible on what we do and I'm open to that preliminary plat finding. Thank you. Thank you. Before I turn to the next commissioner, can we get an update on our captioning situation? How long do we have that available? We have captioning till 7:30. Great. Okay. All right. Commissioner Conley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I I think that that finding for F makes a lot of sense. Wouldn't it also apply to G? I'm I'm trying to figure this out because >> [snorts] >> um the the finding to deny F um you know, the preliminary plat is about creating two new parcels and a new public alley. So, if that finding, which makes sense to me, to deny that, um is about the new public alley, then doesn't it also sort of flow into G? Mr. Prince, do you have Mr. Prince. I uh I follow that logic. Um I you know, I think you know, public works has evaluated this to to meet all of their regular standards for a public alley. Um I don't know uh sort of what um you know, what the what the standing would would be to say that this block deserves or requires or has needs for a public alley that provides greater function and can accommodate larger vehicles than any other alley in the city. I I don't know um kind of uh you know, what what would justify that, but I I I do think that that would you know, connect to the findings here. Commissioner Shepherd. Oh, go ahead. Uh just last point of clarification. Um so, yeah, you see the logic. That's great, and I appreciate the breakdown of both. If F is denied, then G would still be would still move forward cuz F is saying not no new public alley at all. Uh Commissioner Conley, yeah, G goes to the city council either either way. Okay. Yep. Thank you. Commissioner Shepherd? Mr. Chair, thank you. I think this [clears throat] is a 95% a great program great project actually proposed except for this one little wrinkle that we've discussed and I think it is a design adjustment not a design rejection. And I would I would motion for a continuance of this for 1 month to allow the city and present parties to work together to adjust this alley design to meet your needs not necessarily to reject it outright but but to come together and form a plan which works for both of you. Mr. Frenz, can you remind us what where this is at on the 60-day clock? Yeah, thank you Commissioner Myers, Commissioner Shepherd. I would recommend a a one cycle continuance at this point and you know, if the applicant is willing to extend you know, to to voluntarily extend that 120 days then and and they they're willing to voluntarily do that to give more time to to work on a design change then we could do that. I would hesitate to to do a continuance of of more than one cycle to make sure that we don't end up in a situation where we don't have enough time to complete the council process. >> Agreed. All right, so So that would be my motion. Okay. Is to continue this for a cycle. I'm going to reopen the public hearing to ask the applicant to come back up. And to ask Um and and Andrew, can you restate what you just said like if would you accept the conditions that Mr. Frenz stated? Um so Arthur, we haven't talked about this before but so the city has up to 120 days to act on uh a land use application. Um uh the the commission here is talking about extending, so they they would continue the the application um in order to allow your team time to talk with the adjacent business owners and work out a potential design solution um to the uh maneuvering between the alley and the hook and ladder property um rather than acting to you know potentially deny uh part of the project. Um It in order to do a longer continuance, you would need to voluntarily agree to extend that 120-day period. Um but the commission could do a uh a one-cycle continuance without you having to agree to extend the period. Okay. So would a longer continuance work or should Yeah, I think that would work. We also have a no greater conversation about the alley and trying to figure out the best path forward. Okay. So one cycle? No, no, he's saying it would work to do longer. >> a longer? Yeah. So then What do if it Cherry, if you don't mind, uh well, we could go to the next cycle, is that what you're saying? Uh and how long would that give us? To June 8th. Well, sorry, next cycle is June 8th. June 8th? Yeah. Uh Commissioner Shepherd had originally said a month, which would be two cycles. So I was asking the question in in response to Commissioner Shepherd's original I idea. Um and if if we think to June 8th is sufficient time then we could just make that motion and that would be with it that would that would remain within the 60-day clock, right? Okay. Yeah, I'll say uh Chair, uh we can target June 8th and have the the conversation and revisit it. Okay. All right, thank you. I'll I'll close public hearing. Um we do have a motion. Is Is there a second on the on the continuing section? >> Okay. Discussion to that motion. Commissioner Garcia. Uh You're good. Okay. Commissioner Conley. Thank you. Um support the motion. I just would um I'm going to reiterate that I really do think that some robust engagement with the project team needs to happen bef- before this comes back before this comes back by June 8th. Really work with Hook and Ladder about this design. If there's you know, alternatives that are identified, if there are solutions met. I heard easement. I heard a bunch of things. I heard uh what's currently uh being um presented as as being built here that would kind of uh limit the access to the alley. I just really encourage staff to take that very seriously given um um the sensitive of these businesses and what they've gone through. It would be really imperative that the city engage in meaningful meaningful dialogue with the businesses with the goal of coming up with a plan to bring back to us that actually works for both the city and the businesses next door. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Magner or did you Did you want to make one for the commenter? I would like to make one more quick comment. Yes. You're good. Yeah, thank you, Chair Meyer. Um I agree uh we are not here to dictate what uh the applicant and surrounding businesses do. I agree with Commissioner Conley and I think it was someone in the audience who mentioned an easement could work. I would encourage you to take a look at that and try to find amicable ground. Um I also and we are not here to um dictate timelines, but 2 weeks goes fast, so we we probably should get those conversations going as quickly as possible in order to make sure that the next meeting when it comes before this body is as productive of conversation as possible. and I I'll support the motion as well. Okay. Do we need a second? No, I do need to Um you had originally said one month. So just to clarify the I'll ask you to remake the motion for to to one No, one cycle >> One cycle to two meetings. No. June 8th. Yeah, it's it's one cycle which happens to be three weeks in this case. It's three weeks away. Memorial Day. So but so to to to June 8th then I'm with you. Baxley, do you make that second again? Second again. Okay. All right. Further And so the clerk has that motion, right? Okay. Further discussion to the motion. All right, I'll just say that um I I'm I'm going to support this motion. Um I usually don't like to do continuances, but I do think it is justified in in this case. Um and I think that you know, most likely I I I like to see the the conversations happen. Um I'm in support at this time of of most of the project, but I do think that in you know, there's possibility that that it could be refined to address some of the concerns. Are there any other comments before we move to a vote? All right. All in favor of continuing this item one cycle to June 8th, say I. I. Opposed, abstentions. The item is continued. Thank you. All right. >> [gasps] >> With that, we're moving to our last item. Yep. Uh number eight, 529 and 535 Logan Avenue North. And staff is Andrew Farshtey again. You're playing a lot of hats today. >> [snorts] >> Right, uh Chair Meyer and Commissioners, uh before you today is an application for site plan review to construct a new five-story multi-family dwelling with 48 units at 529 and 535 Logan Avenue North. Um this subject property consists of two vacant uh lots adjacent to each other on the southwest corner of the intersection of Logan Avenue North and Olson Memorial Highway. This section of Olson Memorial Highway, as you can see here, is set up with a a you know, a divided highway uh in the middle and then two frontage roads, which are designed um somewhat similar to a a typical um neighborhood street with some some green space uh in between those there. The applicant is proposing to construct a new five-story building with 48 units at this property. The building would be oriented to face uh Logan Avenue North with a secondary frontage on Olson Memorial Highway. Um there would be a small first-floor garage uh provided in the building, um which would be accessed via the adjacent alley. Uh the project would be affordable senior housing with all units affordable at 60% AMI and some units affordable at 30% AMI. Um if we flip through to the elevations here, some shadow studies. Um in addition to the site plan review application that's before the Planning Commission, so the the only application before the Planning Commission today is site plan review. Um this project also requires a couple administrative applications. Um so this project is located in the Corridor 4 Built Form Overlay District, which allows uh for four stories or 56 ft by right, um and then participates in the the height premiums uh system, and um they're proposing one administrative height premium here to increase height um from four stories or 56 feet to five stories and 54.6 feet. This property is utilizing the affordable housing height premium. I can go over those findings in detail if there are any questions, but staff has found that the project is meeting the required findings for for the administrative height increase. It is also worth noting here that the height increase is only in stories. The height in feet complies with the base maximum height that is allowed without premiums. The project is also seeking two floor area ratio premiums to increase the FAR here from two to 2.85 and the project is utilizing the enclosed parking and affordable housing FAR premiums. This project is is eligible to earn the double FAR premium for providing at least 8% of units affordable at 30% AMI. If the planning commission acts to approve site plan review, staff would would approve the administrative applications aligning with the timeline of that site plan review application. There were four sets of public comments received regarding this application. One of those was received before publication and is attached to the agenda and staff report and then three of those you received paper copies of today. I'm happy to go over any of the alternative compliance or answer any other questions that the commission might have, but staff is recommending approval of the site plan review application subject to the 11 conditions listed here and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions for staff before we open the public hearing? All right, that's it. Again, thank you. I will open the hearing. Do we have the applicant with us? Welcome. [clears throat] Introduce yourself and you have 10 minutes. Good evening, members of the planning commission. My name is Pete Keely with Collage Architects. I'm the representative for the owner, JCA Realty, James Archer. Um I don't know that I have a whole lot to say. I'm here to answer some questions, but we are very happy to be able to bring 48 affordable senior housing units. Uh James has met with uh two of the neighborhood groups. Uh there is one letter attached uh I believe in the application for support for the project. So, we have um we are working through Minnesota Housing Finance. Uh that's who's giving us kind of our affordability component through that. We're Enterprise Green Communities certified we will be and Department of Energy Zero Ready Homes. Um So, and with that I think um the plans probably say a lot for themselves and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Are there questions for the applicant? Thank you. I'll see you. Thank you. And next testify? Welcome. Introduce yourself and you have 2 minutes. Commissioners, my name is Dewey Cornwell. I'm a resident Logan Avenue North. I also speak for two of my neighbors. Uh very very adjacent to the construction site. Uh we have the typical issue probably with change in our neighborhood. The The neighborhood is uh something I've lived on for lived at for 22 years as well of my neighbors have been there a very long time. Uh it's characterized by small single-family homes built mostly in the '40s, '50s, and '60s. Uh we do would really appreciate the service road that allows us safe access to our neighborhoods from Highway 55. I would like to paint a picture of you of if you were to drive down west on 55 and make the turn at Humboldt Avenue, the first thing you would see was a vast array of high-rise single-family homes. And if you provide for the service road proceed on the service road west, you come across beautiful open space of Harrison Park, and then you see our little small houses in our little old neighborhood. And we feel very under the radar. We are very very close to downtown, but we have in many ways a small town feel. We we have old homes that have been lived in for a long time mostly by uh people that have lived in those homes since they were young. There is a a little bit of rental property available in the neighborhood. For the most part, no, it's mostly single-family homes all the way over to Glenwood Avenue, the six blocks to Glenwood Avenue along. And that picture of the illustration of beautiful new building uh really doesn't look like my neighborhood. And we're we're concerned with traffic and the fact that most of the parking will be on the street, on the service road. And um we're concerned about change. We're concerned about the the construction process, the length of the construction process, and how it changes our neighborhood. And thank you. Thank you. Next testify. Welcome. Introduce yourself and you have 2 minutes. Uh sorry, this is my first time testifying. I'm Elijah Roberts. I am SD 59 director as well as the current precinct chair of Ward 5 Precinct 8. And I would like to state I oppose this. I view pardon my French, but I view you as a carpetbagger. I I your I view these apartments as trying to ruin what made Harrison such a great neighborhood. Pardon my French, but I feel like you guys ignore Harrison. You ignore everything beside everything except downtown and you just People, we live here. I'm a renter. I rent under Robert Zimmerman Zimmerman. Not a good guy, but still perfectly valid landlord. I am concerned that we are ignoring the community feedback. Cuz I didn't get any notification about this until the sign came out when they put that that stick in the wood that stick in the ground. I didn't even know that there was going to be an apartment complex. I'm sorry. I feel like you guys may have talked to like the I'm assuming Harrison neighbor >> the commission instead of the applicant. I'm sorry. I feel like you guys have these guys have talked to Harrison neighbor association, but I don't feel like they've talked to enough people on Logan. I live on 526 Logan. So, I will see that. I My neighbor um Margaret Zadra, she'll be right next door. I'm concerned for her kids' safety. I'm concerned just the lack of integrity that I'm seeing. And this is not just about this apartment. This I'm talking about everything I've heard today. From every applicant. I feel like this is just ignoring the neighborhood, the communities. And he's The guy who testified before me was correct. Harrison has a small-town vibe. And that's something we are proud of. But I fear you guys are willing to ruin that that made our neighborhood so good, one of the best neighborhoods in this city just for a corporate landlord. And that disgusts me. Thank you for your time, and I'm sorry if I rambled, but I'm passionate about my community even though I'm a renter. Have a lovely night. Thank you. Next testify. Hello, my name is Joshua Etchlee. I live in the Harrison neighborhood half a block from where this is going to go up. Right behind the gentleman there that spoke before me. His house is going to be completely shaded by this uh construction project. His house probably won't see any sunlight for half the day. Uh board five where this is going to go in is 60% rentals. It's higher than the city average. Um this is supposed to be a 60 plus uh rental area. That was tried at Mildas which is a couple blocks down. Um that didn't work so well. I can't even walk past that block or that building because there's so much broken glass outside of it. I like to walk my dog in the neighborhood. Um this uh owner James Archer has owned this property since '22. Uh he's neglected the property since '22. I myself and one of the other gentlemen who wrote you a letter has had to pick up trash uh has slipped and fallen on the snow and ice that they have uh not cleared away for 5 years 4 5 years now. Uh Matrix property also has a development on Plymouth Avenue. The uh local residents complained of noise, people crossing through their yards, drug deals in the alley, parking problems. Uh Matrix property also has a new development uh proposed at Glenwood and Penn Avenue. That one's 86 units low income as well. Uh The Olson Park apartment building was blo- built uh less than a mile away. That has 92 units in it. It is low income as well. Uh the Park Plaza is less than a mile away. That has 134 low income units. Uh That's just small ones. Those are 289 units within a mile of high-rises. Uh >> [snorts] >> It just doesn't seem like we need that much more high-rises and low income housing in our neighborhood unless you're trying to create a ghetto. Um I guess that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Any other testifiers? Not seeing any, so I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, comments, questions, or motions? Commissioner Shepherd? Thank you, Chair Myhre. >> [clears throat] >> The staff report, let me let me read a a little bit from it. The proposed height increase in stories, not height, would have no increased shadowing impacts compared to a building which could be built without a without a height increase. In other words, what can be built by right. And our job is to is to to decide whether this fits along with the future use guidance provided by the Minneapolis 2040 plan and whether zoning permits it. And it seems that it does. Um applicant shadow studies indicate that the building would have limited shadowing impacts on the property located across the public alley to the west in the morning and the property located across Logan Avenue north um northeast in the evening. These shadowing impacts are not unreasonable and are slightly less than those of the taller building which would be built by right um with with no um special provisions involved. So, I'm I'm not seeing seeing a the difficulty here. And then we we it's not as though we can disallow this for for that reason. As far as density and other units, we we really can't participate in that because that's a that's a development question. If if somebody thinks it makes sense for them financially to build it, okay, then that's a certainly valid reason. So, I'm still not finding an an objection to to this that would prevent us from going forward. Before I make a motion, I'd entertain any other thoughts from from commissioners. Sure. Yeah, I'll I'll I'll share mine. Um So, the application before us is just for a site plan review. Um the 2040 plan, you know, allowed for more housing to be built along transit corridors. That was one of the main things that it did. And this is along a transit corridor um with the C line um and some other transit lines adjacent to it. So, that's why it was zoned uh to allow higher density. Uh and that decision was was made in in 2019. Uh the decision before us today is just to to consider the site plan review. So, most of what the applicant is asking for, they are able to do by right. Uh the planning commission does not have um the authority to to fully uh reject any of of those things for a site plan review. Um the type of things that we could do would be to apply conditions to it or, you know, review alternative compliance or or or things like that. Um but they have um the the the rights that um were given to them with the with the zoning from the 2040 plan. And I find uh the site plan review to be consistent with that, and I do think it's a good thing uh to allow more more homes in transit-adjacent areas. The the some of the testifiers described it. It seems like a a great neighborhood close to downtown um that we want to enable more people to enjoy. Um so, I understand the concerns. Um you know, I understand that people don't want to see change, but we need to be able to to build more housing and especially affordable housing. Uh so, I will be uh supporting this project. Commissioner Jones. Um this is something I say. I also am um going to be supporting the project, um but I don't like to hear comments about the property not being maintained. So, I just like to take this opportunity to make sure people you know, I know we can't make that as part of a condition, but um it it doesn't doesn't necessarily bode well um if it's not being maintained now. So, I just want to put that out there that that Thank you. All right. Thank you. The The hearing is closed. Any other comments questions or motions? I'll make a motion to adopt staff findings. All right. Is there a second? >> Seconded. All right. There's a motion and a second to adopt staff findings. Is there any discussion to that motion? All right. Uh Clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Baxley. Aye. Conley. Aye. Garcia. Aye. Jones. Aye. Shepard. Aye. Vice President Wagner. Aye. And President Meyer. Aye. There are seven ayes. That is adopted. Good luck with your project. And that concludes our business for the day. Our next Planning Commission is 3 weeks from now, June 8th, and we do have Committee of the Whole on Thursday. Are there any other updates from staff or from commissioners? Updates from staff other than just a reminder that we do have Cal this week and on the agenda is a text amendment regarding fence height as well as a click discussion. And the click discussion, does that mean that we need five or is it just three this time? I believe it's just a discussion. I don't believe it's it's actually an action item. Okay. All right. Anything else? All right. We are adjourned. Thank you everyone.